>butthurt console warriors, fanboys and shazamgays vs literal paid shills who want every game to be about american politics and are also in cahoots with troonylators
I trust myself after playing a demo or a high seas "demo".
Neither, scores are moronic. I just stick with looking up gameplay videos done by random people to see how it looks, and maybe actually read the reviews to see if there are common themes to them.
neither
I know that every single critic and user that rates games on metacritic is individually worthless, and many haven't even played the game in the first place. Why does an aggregate of worthless opinions somehow become trustworthy?
Neither. There are so many times critics give a score that is too high (TLoU2) or a score that is too low (Armored Core 4), and the same is especially true for user scores who are even more likely to tank scores for peripheral things rather than the game experience itself. I am more likely to give it credence if both the critic and user scores both suggest the game is good or that it is bad, but even then, I don't trust it wholesale.
Neither really. Outlets can be bought and sometimes praise / dock points for the stupidest shit and sometimes a single autist can cause games to drop or rise entire points
Critics
Anyone that unironically takes the time to make a metacritic account and review shit is a massive homosexual. You know what frick critics too. Anyone that is over 16 and cares about review scores is an even bigger homosexual.
In this example, the user, however playing a demo, reading and deciphering Ganker posts about the game whether they are good at it or they suck at it, and watching some gameplay.
Depends if it was hyped or just some random ass game
Random ass game I trust user reviews, if it was hyped I trust only critics from after a week after release. Users suck ass if they game was hyped because a mediocre game becomes worse than hitler if it was hyped, and critics review a random game they likely have no idea what they're doing ao all their complaints stem from being moronic
First are made useless by reviewers fearing a ban from publishers events for scoring something low, second are made useless by raids of literal man children sea Black folk botting votes with 0-10 reviews to sink the game they hate and promote the game they love. Until they refine the user score system, the best way to see if you like a game or not is playing their demo if available or watch someone on twitch if you don't mind spoilers
Bad critics reviews + good user reviews : Niche game/Masterpiece
Bad critics reviews + bad users reviews : bad game
Good critics reviews +goods users reviews : generic mainstream game.
Good critics reviews + bad users reviews : walking simulator/artistic craps.
I don't blindly trust a score because I'm not brain dead. If I want to know if a game seems good, I'll look at gameplay and actually read people's impressions instead of just looking at an arbitrary number.
I have zero trust in either. I only read reviews to see if there are any technical issues.
I simply do not trust that people have true same tastes as me.
depends on the relative chinese-ness of both scores
The critics, user reviews are always full of butthurt console warriors, fanboys and shazamgays skewing the result.
>butthurt console warriors, fanboys and shazamgays vs literal paid shills who want every game to be about american politics and are also in cahoots with troonylators
I trust myself after playing a demo or a high seas "demo".
Neither.
I post a thread on Ganker asking about it but use a lust-provoking anime girl as the OP image instead
Neither. Scores are garbage. I watch like 10 min or less of gameplay and know exactly whether I will enjoy a game or not.
Neither, scores are moronic. I just stick with looking up gameplay videos done by random people to see how it looks, and maybe actually read the reviews to see if there are common themes to them.
neither
I know that every single critic and user that rates games on metacritic is individually worthless, and many haven't even played the game in the first place. Why does an aggregate of worthless opinions somehow become trustworthy?
Neither. There are so many times critics give a score that is too high (TLoU2) or a score that is too low (Armored Core 4), and the same is especially true for user scores who are even more likely to tank scores for peripheral things rather than the game experience itself. I am more likely to give it credence if both the critic and user scores both suggest the game is good or that it is bad, but even then, I don't trust it wholesale.
>Vidya """critics"""
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Neither really. Outlets can be bought and sometimes praise / dock points for the stupidest shit and sometimes a single autist can cause games to drop or rise entire points
I only trust what I read on Ganker. If subhuman brownoids hate something around here then it means it's good.
I hate starving and holding my breath, I am brown.
>trusting critics ever
Your sisters slick tight warm pussy
OH GOD PLEASE SPOONFEED ME REVIEW SCORES DADDY, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FIGURE THINGS OUT FOR MYSELF
I read the common complaints on both and decide what's more relevant to what I want to play the game for.
i search the game's name on Ganker archives for opinions
Critics
Anyone that unironically takes the time to make a metacritic account and review shit is a massive homosexual. You know what frick critics too. Anyone that is over 16 and cares about review scores is an even bigger homosexual.
In this example, the user, however playing a demo, reading and deciphering Ganker posts about the game whether they are good at it or they suck at it, and watching some gameplay.
Depends if it was hyped or just some random ass game
Random ass game I trust user reviews, if it was hyped I trust only critics from after a week after release. Users suck ass if they game was hyped because a mediocre game becomes worse than hitler if it was hyped, and critics review a random game they likely have no idea what they're doing ao all their complaints stem from being moronic
Trust psn score
First are made useless by reviewers fearing a ban from publishers events for scoring something low, second are made useless by raids of literal man children sea Black folk botting votes with 0-10 reviews to sink the game they hate and promote the game they love. Until they refine the user score system, the best way to see if you like a game or not is playing their demo if available or watch someone on twitch if you don't mind spoilers
Bad critics reviews + good user reviews : Niche game/Masterpiece
Bad critics reviews + bad users reviews : bad game
Good critics reviews +goods users reviews : generic mainstream game.
Good critics reviews + bad users reviews : walking simulator/artistic craps.
Don't read review sites
This is the only one score I trust.
Based Christian reviewer, who is actually a good reviewer. Outside of that I trust no one but myself
Neither. I can tell from gameplay footage whether or not I'll enjoy a game.
Nothing > Steam Reviews > Critic Reviews > MC User Reviews
I don't blindly trust a score because I'm not brain dead. If I want to know if a game seems good, I'll look at gameplay and actually read people's impressions instead of just looking at an arbitrary number.
Why not just pirate the game and try it yourself?
>Inb4 MPshit
Get better taste
If it's an exclusive critics, if it's a multiplat users.
I don't trust either absolutely, but critic score means something, user score means absolutely nothing at all.
You are a fricking moron anon
Kill yoursel before it gets worse
neither
"""critic"""" scores are always bought and user scores are full of slopeaters and jealous manbabies
I have zero trust in either. I only read reviews to see if there are any technical issues.
I simply do not trust that people have true same tastes as me.