The more hyped a game is, the more haters it attracts, why ?

#1 Edited by sabretooth2066 (402 posts) -

man i am sick and tired of those childish hater-fanboys, i hate those haters!

its always the same moronic dumb shit happening, the more hyped a game is, the more haters it attracts and the more idiotic, out of focus, dumbass reviews swarm the net.

WATCH DOGS is the currently best example for it, on metacritic its currently full of bad reviews made by obviously angry little kids

...on the other hand..if you look at WOLFENSTEIN - THE NEW ORDER, a title where most people didnt expect something above average....it was a surprise hit and also a surprise there wasnt much hatred towards the title

its exactly the same moronic bullshit happening on youtube...the more likes/thumbs up a video gets, the more thumbs down it counts.

it just looks like that these days people just hate the hype of something, no matter if they personly like a title or not, they dont even really hate the game or the video, they just hate the hype of it and punish the game because of its hype, which is really mindless and dumb.

dont get me wrong, i am a gamer at heart, since 20 years, but maybe metacritic user-reviews for example, show how mindless and dumb many gamers are ?

#2 Posted by alim298 (1934 posts) -

Because it makes one feel he was being manipulated by the developers of that game into buying it.

#3 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (18327 posts) -

Its best not to think about it... I try to filter it out.

#4 Posted by sabretooth2066 (402 posts) -

@alim298 said:

Because it makes one feel he was being manipulated by the developers of that game into buying it.

then those idiots are even dumber, if they are so mentally weak to be manipulated , they cant blame the game for it , but its obviously always the same with people who are easy to manipulate...in the end they always blame others....on other grounds its always the blacks, the jews, etc. etc., not willing to start a political discussion but probably 80% of those hateful fanboy reviews are those users who often use the words "niggers" or "jews" in a bad way, even if theyre not racists, they use those words just to let out their anger on the net

#5 Posted by Ballroompirate (23693 posts) -

The thing is people who do enjoy games aren't vocal about it as much as trolls and haters. If people do enjoy -said game- it seems people think they are ether devs who are just writing positive reviews on the game or they're just blind fanboys.

Welcome to the sad state of the internet

#6 Posted by Ish_basic (4104 posts) -

People want attention. In a room full of people shouting one thing, the easiest way to be heard is to shout something different.

#7 Posted by sabretooth2066 (402 posts) -

@Ish_basic said:

People want attention. In a room full of people shouting one thing, the easiest way to be heard is to shout something different.

it probably is that way, like people just want to swim against the flow, and the more people are swimming with the flow...the more people feel the need to swim against it

#8 Posted by Pedro (21381 posts) -

Hype = unrealistic expectations.

Hype = gameplay that doesn't exist but is either implied to exist or used to exist in the game.

Hype = great disappointment when game is unable to meet what was stated previously.

#9 Posted by sabretooth2066 (402 posts) -

@Pedro said:

Hype = unrealistic expectations.

Hype = gameplay that doesn't exist but is either implied to exist or used to exist in the game.

Hype = great disappointment when game is unable to meet what was stated previously.

and thats the reason or excuse to hate a game more than a game having the same qualities but not being that much hyped ?

actually i think there is absolutely no reason just to hate a game being hyped, you are not forced to buy the game and you are not forced to play it, so someone must have personal issues when he hates that game.

actually there isnt a reason at all to hate any game..........unless its a game like DARK SOULS or DEMON SOULS :-D

#10 Edited by Minishdriveby (10383 posts) -

I don't think it's hate. For me it's more of indifference. I was never excited for Watch_Dogs even when the announcement trailer was shown years ago. The Order 1886 is the same way for me. I just don't care much about it. Maybe indifference comes off has "hating on it".

If we're going by a purely numbers game, I tend to look at the aggregate user score on metacritic for a good feel of how the general public feels about it. It's usually pretty accurate, despite what forum goers think.

#11 Edited by Byshop (12615 posts) -

@Minishdriveby said:

I don't think it's hate. For me it's more of indifference. I was never excited for Watch_Dogs even when the announcement trailer was shown years ago. The Order 1886 is the same way for me. I just don't care much about it. Maybe indifference comes off has "hating on it".

The distinction would be, do you loudly proclaim that indifference in every thread about those games that you see pop up?

-Byshop

#12 Posted by Minishdriveby (10383 posts) -

@Byshop: I'll occasionally go in to threads and say I'm not interested in the game and sometimes the reasons as to why I'm not interested. Forums are about voicing opinions, similar and different, and as long as it's civil, I don't see what's wrong about saying you don't like something or are not interested in something.

#13 Posted by Byshop (12615 posts) -

@Minishdriveby said:

@Byshop: I'll occasionally go in to threads and say I'm not interested in the game and sometimes the reasons as to why I'm not interested. Forums are about voicing opinions, similar and different, and as long as it's civil, I don't see what's wrong about saying you don't like something or are not interested in something.

There isn't anything wrong with disagreeing, but some go out of their way to voice the same negative opinion over and over regardless of what the original thread was about. That's the behavior that I would describe as "hating".

-Byshop

#14 Edited by Minishdriveby (10383 posts) -

@Byshop: I suppose although if you have valid criticism then I think it's good to bring these opinions up. Whenever someone makes a thread about Ni No Kuni I voice my mostly negative opinions about the game. Whenever someone brings up Uncharted or Assassin's Creed @Pikminmaniac voices his negative opinions about the games.

Again it could have somewhat to do with the level of anticipation. I was really looking forward to Ni No Kuni and was let down by it. Opinions and experiences will change based off of expectations and past experiences as well.

#15 Posted by Demonjoe93 (9748 posts) -

They're just trolls; ignore them.

#16 Edited by Behardy24 (5324 posts) -

People just enjoy hating for some weird reason.

#17 Edited by Netret0120 (2870 posts) -

They wish to be different and some people just want to see the world burn.

#18 Edited by sabretooth2066 (402 posts) -

@Minishdriveby said:

I don't think it's hate. For me it's more of indifference. I was never excited for Watch_Dogs even when the announcement trailer was shown years ago. The Order 1886 is the same way for me. I just don't care much about it. Maybe indifference comes off has "hating on it".

If we're going by a purely numbers game, I tend to look at the aggregate user score on metacritic for a good feel of how the general public feels about it. It's usually pretty accurate, despite what forum goers think.

depending on the general public....WATCH DOGS with a metacritic user score of 4.9 and 5.9, would be one of the shittiest titles around this year, so i agree with people when they say.....metacritic is shitty when it comes to user-reviews, but as i said ts ok to find a summary of mag reviews, where the funny thing again is that sometimes user reviews are more positive than mag reviews, or with watch dogs for example....the mag reviews are the exact opposite of what the hateful user reviews claim.

#19 Edited by OhJayDubya (1172 posts) -

Mostly because people set their expectations so impossibly high. Almost everyone get on this unstoppable hype train and only set the developer up for failure but in a time when stretched truth and bullshots plague the game industry a lot of the hate caused is on the developers.

Also the other explanations is that someone just wants to shout something different to the rest to come across edgy and different.

#20 Edited by Cloud_imperium (5842 posts) -

Every famous thing have a lot of haters . Don't take them seriously , just ignore them . Most of them are just trolls .

#21 Posted by SovietsUnited (2380 posts) -

It's just the vocal minority; most people enjoy current games

#22 Edited by Minishdriveby (10383 posts) -

@sabretooth2066: @sabretooth2066: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/27/watch-dogs-pc-review/

Here's a good review highlighting multiple problems with the game yet praising other things. A 6.0 isn't necessarily terrible game. I think that's deserving of a promising game with a lot of issues. I would give Assassin's Creed a 6.0. If a game is extremely good that will reflect in the user score as well as the critic score. Look at The Last of Us for an extremely limited anecdotal example.

#23 Edited by Pedro (21381 posts) -

@sabretooth2066 said:

and thats the reason or excuse to hate a game more than a game having the same qualities but not being that much hyped ?

actually i think there is absolutely no reason just to hate a game being hyped, you are not forced to buy the game and you are not forced to play it, so someone must have personal issues when he hates that game.

actually there isnt a reason at all to hate any game..........unless its a game like DARK SOULS or DEMON SOULS :-D

You not liking something does not make invalid. People can hate anything they desire for any reason. It is your opinion that the reason is invalid but it doesn't change how that person feels towards the subject in this case a game. Also keep in mind that a game can have a negative effect on you independent of purchasing or playing the game.

#24 Posted by smitherton4 (67 posts) -

@sabretooth2066: The more something is liked the more likely it is for someone else to desire to pick holes in it and hate it. Many things become more hated simply the more popular they become.

#25 Posted by Jimmy_Russell (976 posts) -

Hype should only be generated from the fans, otherwise it is disingenuous.

#26 Edited by sabretooth2066 (402 posts) -

i just followed discussions in certain threads here regarding watch dogs and gta v, now looking at several user reviews on metacritic saying sommething like "i rate this game 10 because of all those idiots rating it with 0" or "i rate this game with 0 because of all those idiots who rate it with 10"....

....i already sense the begining of probably THE BIGGEST FANBOY WAR OF ALL TIMES

if it wouldnt be so sad it actually would be fu**in hilarious

#28 Posted by Minishdriveby (10383 posts) -

@sabretooth2066: I did a little bit more looking into it, and the 4.4 PC metacritic score seems justified based on a poorly optimized version. Apparently according to various outlets the PC version has some really bad hitching and stuttering. Giantbomb talks about this in there podcast. I usually use the user score as a general gauge that then requires looking into. If it's an extremely low aggregate then that piques my interest into finding out why it is so low, thus the aggregate user score serves its purpose, extremely well for me.

#29 Posted by sabretooth2066 (402 posts) -

@Minishdriveby said:

@sabretooth2066: I did a little bit more looking into it, and the 4.4 PC metacritic score seems justified based on a poorly optimized version. Apparently according to various outlets the PC version has some really bad hitching and stuttering. Giantbomb talks about this in there podcast. I usually use the user score as a general gauge that then requires looking into. If it's an extremely low aggregate then that piques my interest into finding out why it is so low, thus the aggregate user score serves its purpose, extremely well for me.

but that doesnt change the fact that theyre haters and not able to handle their dumb hateful mind, rating a game with 0 only because its bugged....ON THE FIRST DAY OF RELEASE GODDAMNIT....is still retarded, these days its...as sad as it is....totally normal that most games are bugged and need a few weeks til the worst bugs are solved, i already started to get my games after a few weeks and never on first day of release.

as a little sidenote, do you all remember when GTA 3 was finally released on pc and the shitstorm it was causing because of the stuttering ? i was one of the angry fans looking so forward to this title on the pc and then driving around with that goddamn stuttering, but id never came to the opinion to rate the game so bad only because of a bad programming, i hoped they will get it straight and if i remember right....i was able to play GTA 3 smooth a few years later with a rig being way over the system requierements the game had in its release year.

#30 Posted by The_Last_Ride (74274 posts) -

@sabretooth2066: People might not like it or it might not be what they thought it would be

#31 Posted by Minishdriveby (10383 posts) -

@sabretooth2066 said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@sabretooth2066: I did a little bit more looking into it, and the 4.4 PC metacritic score seems justified based on a poorly optimized version. Apparently according to various outlets the PC version has some really bad hitching and stuttering. Giantbomb talks about this in there podcast. I usually use the user score as a general gauge that then requires looking into. If it's an extremely low aggregate then that piques my interest into finding out why it is so low, thus the aggregate user score serves its purpose, extremely well for me.

but that doesnt change the fact that theyre haters and not able to handle their dumb hateful mind, rating a game with 0 only because its bugged....ON THE FIRST DAY OF RELEASE GODDAMNIT....is still retarded, these days its...as sad as it is....totally normal that most games are bugged and need a few weeks til the worst bugs are solved, i already started to get my games after a few weeks and never on first day of release.

as a little sidenote, do you all remember when GTA 3 was finally released on pc and the shitstorm it was causing because of the stuttering ? i was one of the angry fans looking so forward to this title on the pc and then driving around with that goddamn stuttering, but id never came to the opinion to rate the game so bad only because of a bad programming, i hoped they will get it straight and if i remember right....i was able to play GTA 3 smooth a few years later with a rig being way over the system requierements the game had in its release year.

And if they don't fix that version? If something is messed up and you paid for it I think you're allowed to voice that opinion. I'll have to state this again that I don't look at individual scores in the user section. I look at the aggregate to get a big picture of what people think. If a lot of users dislike something there's usually a cause behind that and that reflects in the aggregate. If you notice something like a 4.4 aggregate user rating on a game you're anticipating then it's up to you to do research and figure out why that game is being blasted. If you don't buy the game at launch and wait a couple years like with GTA 3 and look up the user score to see the game had the 4.0 then that's good information for you. It doesn't hurt to see that the game has a 4.0 metacritic score it helps you, the consumer, to do research. It got a 4.0 due to bugs right? Did they fix those bugs after all these years? Now you have a jumping off point.

Here's another anecdotal example of how the aggregate user score can be very helpful in deciding: Look up the Skyrim user score across all systems. You'll see that the PS3 version has a much lower score, 6.1, than the other versions - PC has an 8.3 and 360 has an 8.4. Why is that?

To leave this off with one last note. Numbers in scoring systems are extremely subjective and mean different things to different people. It's up to you to research what the numbers are implying.

#32 Edited by sabretooth2066 (402 posts) -

@Minishdriveby said:

@sabretooth2066 said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@sabretooth2066: I did a little bit more looking into it, and the 4.4 PC metacritic score seems justified based on a poorly optimized version. Apparently according to various outlets the PC version has some really bad hitching and stuttering. Giantbomb talks about this in there podcast. I usually use the user score as a general gauge that then requires looking into. If it's an extremely low aggregate then that piques my interest into finding out why it is so low, thus the aggregate user score serves its purpose, extremely well for me.

but that doesnt change the fact that theyre haters and not able to handle their dumb hateful mind, rating a game with 0 only because its bugged....ON THE FIRST DAY OF RELEASE GODDAMNIT....is still retarded, these days its...as sad as it is....totally normal that most games are bugged and need a few weeks til the worst bugs are solved, i already started to get my games after a few weeks and never on first day of release.

as a little sidenote, do you all remember when GTA 3 was finally released on pc and the shitstorm it was causing because of the stuttering ? i was one of the angry fans looking so forward to this title on the pc and then driving around with that goddamn stuttering, but id never came to the opinion to rate the game so bad only because of a bad programming, i hoped they will get it straight and if i remember right....i was able to play GTA 3 smooth a few years later with a rig being way over the system requierements the game had in its release year.

And if they don't fix that version? If something is messed up and you paid for it I think you're allowed to voice that opinion. I'll have to state this again that I don't look at individual scores in the user section. I look at the aggregate to get a big picture of what people think. If a lot of users dislike something there's usually a cause behind that and that reflects in the aggregate. If you notice something like a 4.4 aggregate user rating on a game you're anticipating then it's up to you to do research and figure out why that game is being blasted. If you don't buy the game at launch and wait a couple years like with GTA 3 and look up the user score to see the game had the 4.0 then that's good information for you. It doesn't hurt to see that the game has a 4.0 metacritic score it helps you, the consumer, to do research. It got a 4.0 due to bugs right? Did they fix those bugs after all these years? Now you have a jumping off point.

Here's another anecdotal example of how the aggregate user score can be very helpful in deciding: Look up the Skyrim user score across all systems. You'll see that the PS3 version has a much lower score, 6.1, than the other versions - PC has an 8.3 and 360 has an 8.4. Why is that?

To leave this off with one last note. Numbers in scoring systems are extremely subjective and mean different things to different people. It's up to you to research what the numbers are implying.

a 4.4 in the case of WATCH DOGS only comes out because of bullshit user scores giving a ZERO (0) , the bugs currently bugging gamers in watch dogs are really not justifying a ZERO (0)

its not about a fuckin 4.4 rating, its not about reading a 4.4 rating and doing research why that is and finding out that people are pissed that the game is stuttering, its plain simple about those idiots who rate the game with a ZERO (0) and again...thats way beyond a fair rating, even with all the current bugs, except youre a pimple faced bullied loser who writes hateful reviews as another way of making himself feel better

#33 Posted by SapSacPrime (8923 posts) -

@sabretooth2066 said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@sabretooth2066: I did a little bit more looking into it, and the 4.4 PC metacritic score seems justified based on a poorly optimized version. Apparently according to various outlets the PC version has some really bad hitching and stuttering. Giantbomb talks about this in there podcast. I usually use the user score as a general gauge that then requires looking into. If it's an extremely low aggregate then that piques my interest into finding out why it is so low, thus the aggregate user score serves its purpose, extremely well for me.

but that doesnt change the fact that theyre haters and not able to handle their dumb hateful mind, rating a game with 0 only because its bugged....ON THE FIRST DAY OF RELEASE GODDAMNIT....is still retarded, these days its...as sad as it is....totally normal that most games are bugged and need a few weeks til the worst bugs are solved, i already started to get my games after a few weeks and never on first day of release.

as a little sidenote, do you all remember when GTA 3 was finally released on pc and the shitstorm it was causing because of the stuttering ? i was one of the angry fans looking so forward to this title on the pc and then driving around with that goddamn stuttering, but id never came to the opinion to rate the game so bad only because of a bad programming, i hoped they will get it straight and if i remember right....i was able to play GTA 3 smooth a few years later with a rig being way over the system requierements the game had in its release year.

No your attitude is wrong there, games should be released in fully working order and not patched later to fix a botched release.

#34 Edited by Minishdriveby (10383 posts) -

@sabretooth2066 said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@sabretooth2066 said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@sabretooth2066: I did a little bit more looking into it, and the 4.4 PC metacritic score seems justified based on a poorly optimized version. Apparently according to various outlets the PC version has some really bad hitching and stuttering. Giantbomb talks about this in there podcast. I usually use the user score as a general gauge that then requires looking into. If it's an extremely low aggregate then that piques my interest into finding out why it is so low, thus the aggregate user score serves its purpose, extremely well for me.

but that doesnt change the fact that theyre haters and not able to handle their dumb hateful mind, rating a game with 0 only because its bugged....ON THE FIRST DAY OF RELEASE GODDAMNIT....is still retarded, these days its...as sad as it is....totally normal that most games are bugged and need a few weeks til the worst bugs are solved, i already started to get my games after a few weeks and never on first day of release.

as a little sidenote, do you all remember when GTA 3 was finally released on pc and the shitstorm it was causing because of the stuttering ? i was one of the angry fans looking so forward to this title on the pc and then driving around with that goddamn stuttering, but id never came to the opinion to rate the game so bad only because of a bad programming, i hoped they will get it straight and if i remember right....i was able to play GTA 3 smooth a few years later with a rig being way over the system requierements the game had in its release year.

And if they don't fix that version? If something is messed up and you paid for it I think you're allowed to voice that opinion. I'll have to state this again that I don't look at individual scores in the user section. I look at the aggregate to get a big picture of what people think. If a lot of users dislike something there's usually a cause behind that and that reflects in the aggregate. If you notice something like a 4.4 aggregate user rating on a game you're anticipating then it's up to you to do research and figure out why that game is being blasted. If you don't buy the game at launch and wait a couple years like with GTA 3 and look up the user score to see the game had the 4.0 then that's good information for you. It doesn't hurt to see that the game has a 4.0 metacritic score it helps you, the consumer, to do research. It got a 4.0 due to bugs right? Did they fix those bugs after all these years? Now you have a jumping off point.

Here's another anecdotal example of how the aggregate user score can be very helpful in deciding: Look up the Skyrim user score across all systems. You'll see that the PS3 version has a much lower score, 6.1, than the other versions - PC has an 8.3 and 360 has an 8.4. Why is that?

To leave this off with one last note. Numbers in scoring systems are extremely subjective and mean different things to different people. It's up to you to research what the numbers are implying.

a 4.4 in the case of WATCH DOGS only comes out because of bullshit user scores giving a ZERO (0) , the bugs currently bugging gamers in watch dogs are really not justifying a ZERO (0)

its not about a fuckin 4.4 rating, its not about reading a 4.4 rating and doing research why that is and finding out that people are pissed that the game is stuttering, its plain simple about those idiots who rate the game with a ZERO (0) and again...thats way beyond a fair rating, even with all the current bugs, except youre a pimple faced bullied loser who writes hateful reviews as another way of making himself feel better

I'm not really sure who the bolded is directed to... I don't think it was towards me?

Again I know you're main complaint is about big games attracting 'haters' and looking at individual scores on aggregating sites, but I'm not really interested in what one anonymous person thinks. The aggregate is a good way of finding out an overall 'vibe' of what the community thinks about it though. The system works fine for me. Every game has people who mindlessly hate on it and love it. If the game was good enough more people would come out and upvote it rather than down vote it. Enough people have come out of the wood works to voice there dissenting opinions on the game whether that be because the game is popular or because the game is bad is something you should decide for youself, I guess; however, it's worth noting the difference in community opinions between the different versions. I think obviously something is wrong with the PC version if that many people are upset about it.

Is a zero justified? Probably not unless the people writing those reviews use only 2 of the 10 points that metacritic offers.

Do zeroes effect the overall aggregate? Sure.

Was Watch_Dogs the only game to be bombarded with zeroes? No, GTA V has 458 ratings that were extremely low.

What's the difference between Watch_Dogs which has a 4.4 aggregate user score (PC) and GTA V which has a 8.0 (360)? Well there's time, there's the number of ratings, but the most important thing is the proportion of people who thought highly of it and the amount that upvoted (positive reviews) the game to offset the number of people who downvoted it. Something that clearly isn't happening with Watch_Dogs. This indicates to me that something must be wrong with Watch_Dogs, on the PC at least. I've already point to the testimonials that there is indeed something wrong with it.

The PS3 aggregate user metacritic score is slowly rising by the way.

Anyway, I find the userscores on metacritic useful and informative on a few things. I don't go into anaphylaxis shock, like many forums would suggest happens, using it. It's not a definitive buying guide, but no one thing ever is.

#35 Edited by speedfreak48t5p (9339 posts) -

It's fun to troll the internet. :P

And lol metacritic user scores.

#36 Edited by hrt_rulz01 (6988 posts) -

@Ish_basic said:

People want attention. In a room full of people shouting one thing, the easiest way to be heard is to shout something different.

Sums it up really.

Of course there will be people who genuinely don't like it however.

#37 Posted by sabretooth2066 (402 posts) -

@Minishdriveby said:

@sabretooth2066 said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@sabretooth2066 said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@sabretooth2066: I did a little bit more looking into it, and the 4.4 PC metacritic score seems justified based on a poorly optimized version. Apparently according to various outlets the PC version has some really bad hitching and stuttering. Giantbomb talks about this in there podcast. I usually use the user score as a general gauge that then requires looking into. If it's an extremely low aggregate then that piques my interest into finding out why it is so low, thus the aggregate user score serves its purpose, extremely well for me.

but that doesnt change the fact that theyre haters and not able to handle their dumb hateful mind, rating a game with 0 only because its bugged....ON THE FIRST DAY OF RELEASE GODDAMNIT....is still retarded, these days its...as sad as it is....totally normal that most games are bugged and need a few weeks til the worst bugs are solved, i already started to get my games after a few weeks and never on first day of release.

as a little sidenote, do you all remember when GTA 3 was finally released on pc and the shitstorm it was causing because of the stuttering ? i was one of the angry fans looking so forward to this title on the pc and then driving around with that goddamn stuttering, but id never came to the opinion to rate the game so bad only because of a bad programming, i hoped they will get it straight and if i remember right....i was able to play GTA 3 smooth a few years later with a rig being way over the system requierements the game had in its release year.

And if they don't fix that version? If something is messed up and you paid for it I think you're allowed to voice that opinion. I'll have to state this again that I don't look at individual scores in the user section. I look at the aggregate to get a big picture of what people think. If a lot of users dislike something there's usually a cause behind that and that reflects in the aggregate. If you notice something like a 4.4 aggregate user rating on a game you're anticipating then it's up to you to do research and figure out why that game is being blasted. If you don't buy the game at launch and wait a couple years like with GTA 3 and look up the user score to see the game had the 4.0 then that's good information for you. It doesn't hurt to see that the game has a 4.0 metacritic score it helps you, the consumer, to do research. It got a 4.0 due to bugs right? Did they fix those bugs after all these years? Now you have a jumping off point.

Here's another anecdotal example of how the aggregate user score can be very helpful in deciding: Look up the Skyrim user score across all systems. You'll see that the PS3 version has a much lower score, 6.1, than the other versions - PC has an 8.3 and 360 has an 8.4. Why is that?

To leave this off with one last note. Numbers in scoring systems are extremely subjective and mean different things to different people. It's up to you to research what the numbers are implying.

a 4.4 in the case of WATCH DOGS only comes out because of bullshit user scores giving a ZERO (0) , the bugs currently bugging gamers in watch dogs are really not justifying a ZERO (0)

its not about a fuckin 4.4 rating, its not about reading a 4.4 rating and doing research why that is and finding out that people are pissed that the game is stuttering, its plain simple about those idiots who rate the game with a ZERO (0) and again...thats way beyond a fair rating, even with all the current bugs, except youre a pimple faced bullied loser who writes hateful reviews as another way of making himself feel better

I'm not really sure who the bolded is directed to... I don't think it was towards me?

..did you hurry over to metarcitic to rate the game with 0 ?

that message in my post was directed to those kids who do that

#38 Edited by coasterguy65 (6252 posts) -

I get what you are saying TC. People who just hate on something to hate on it are childish and immature. That's why Metacritic user reviews, and other user reviews can't be taken too seriously. No game deserves a 0. I don't get why Metacritic even offers 0 as an option.

That being said, don't let those people bother you. If you like the game, that's really all that matters.

#39 Posted by Senor_Kami (8439 posts) -

People don't hate shit that they don't even know exists. It should be obvious why the most popular things get the most haters. More people are aware of it thus you'll get more lovers and haters by default.

#40 Posted by High-Res (273 posts) -

The Gaming consumer is the most educated, knowledgeable, informed customer in the world. He knows everything there is to know about the product he intends to purchase. Who makes it, what they have made in the past, Who is the developer, Who is Publishing it. He is a passionate consumer. He is not only invested monetarily, he is invested emotionally.

He not only spends his $60.00, he influences countless others to support his cause (chosen game). You could not ask for a more loyal, supportive customer!!!

That being said, they say hell hath no fury like a scorned woman? Well, they obviously never met a scorned gamer. All of that emotional, vested passion and interest and support, well it works both ways :)

#41 Edited by FatalScorpion (42 posts) -

Titanfall is atleast 3 times better than Watch_Dogs and had little to no hype.

#42 Posted by Minishdriveby (10383 posts) -
@sabretooth2066 said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@sabretooth2066 said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@sabretooth2066 said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@sabretooth2066: I did a little bit more looking into it, and the 4.4 PC metacritic score seems justified based on a poorly optimized version. Apparently according to various outlets the PC version has some really bad hitching and stuttering. Giantbomb talks about this in there podcast. I usually use the user score as a general gauge that then requires looking into. If it's an extremely low aggregate then that piques my interest into finding out why it is so low, thus the aggregate user score serves its purpose, extremely well for me.

but that doesnt change the fact that theyre haters and not able to handle their dumb hateful mind, rating a game with 0 only because its bugged....ON THE FIRST DAY OF RELEASE GODDAMNIT....is still retarded, these days its...as sad as it is....totally normal that most games are bugged and need a few weeks til the worst bugs are solved, i already started to get my games after a few weeks and never on first day of release.

as a little sidenote, do you all remember when GTA 3 was finally released on pc and the shitstorm it was causing because of the stuttering ? i was one of the angry fans looking so forward to this title on the pc and then driving around with that goddamn stuttering, but id never came to the opinion to rate the game so bad only because of a bad programming, i hoped they will get it straight and if i remember right....i was able to play GTA 3 smooth a few years later with a rig being way over the system requierements the game had in its release year.

And if they don't fix that version? If something is messed up and you paid for it I think you're allowed to voice that opinion. I'll have to state this again that I don't look at individual scores in the user section. I look at the aggregate to get a big picture of what people think. If a lot of users dislike something there's usually a cause behind that and that reflects in the aggregate. If you notice something like a 4.4 aggregate user rating on a game you're anticipating then it's up to you to do research and figure out why that game is being blasted. If you don't buy the game at launch and wait a couple years like with GTA 3 and look up the user score to see the game had the 4.0 then that's good information for you. It doesn't hurt to see that the game has a 4.0 metacritic score it helps you, the consumer, to do research. It got a 4.0 due to bugs right? Did they fix those bugs after all these years? Now you have a jumping off point.

Here's another anecdotal example of how the aggregate user score can be very helpful in deciding: Look up the Skyrim user score across all systems. You'll see that the PS3 version has a much lower score, 6.1, than the other versions - PC has an 8.3 and 360 has an 8.4. Why is that?

To leave this off with one last note. Numbers in scoring systems are extremely subjective and mean different things to different people. It's up to you to research what the numbers are implying.

a 4.4 in the case of WATCH DOGS only comes out because of bullshit user scores giving a ZERO (0) , the bugs currently bugging gamers in watch dogs are really not justifying a ZERO (0)

its not about a fuckin 4.4 rating, its not about reading a 4.4 rating and doing research why that is and finding out that people are pissed that the game is stuttering, its plain simple about those idiots who rate the game with a ZERO (0) and again...thats way beyond a fair rating, even with all the current bugs, except youre a pimple faced bullied loser who writes hateful reviews as another way of making himself feel better

I'm not really sure who the bolded is directed to... I don't think it was towards me?

..did you hurry over to metarcitic to rate the game with 0 ?

that message in my post was directed to those kids who do that

No, your use of the "you" was throwing me for a loop.

#43 Posted by sabretooth2066 (402 posts) -

@fatalscorpion said:

Titanfall is atleast 3 times better than Watch_Dogs and had little to no hype.

...youre comparing cars with apples here

first of all TITANFALL is a multiplayer online shooter with doing nothing but jumping around, dodging and shooting...shooting....did i already mention jumping ? ah well...oh yes i forgot...you can wallrun and jump off walls...ah yes...you can also climb into big fu**in robots....did i mention you can shoot ?

now WATCH DOGS is a story driven open world adventure similar to GTA, if you compared WATCH DOGS with GTA then i could jump into that comparison and telling pros and cons but you really cant compare cars with apples can you ?

#44 Edited by FatalScorpion (42 posts) -

@sabretooth2066: I know but this thread seemed like it needed a few laughs XP