Metacritic user votes?

I'm sorry Zep, but your 'review' is an absolutely perfect example of why sites like Metacritic and similarly publicly-sourced ratings are so delightfully inept at their intended purposes. They are not political staging grounds, they're supposed to be a place where games are reviewed.

As much as I find the gaming media in general to be quite wearisome at times, game reviews are something that is much better left to people who know what they're doing.

A review at the end of the day is just someone's opinion, ergo the site is just full of peoples opinions and should just be seen in that way. It's kinda useless to gauge how much one will like the game if your looking there first to buy the game. Anybody can make an review to a game, nobody has to share the reviewer's opinion.

No it isn't. There's plenty of of objective things to complain about in a game.

Imagine
Forward = L
Back = PgDwn
Strafe Right = Ctrl
Strafe Left = Insert
Jump = F7

That's objectively bad binding. Unless you're an octopus or live in Chernobyl.

posted.

I don't quite get what your on about. Maybe arguing for the sake of it? Anyway, sounds like your opinion still.

He's saying there's a difference between subjectively good/bad (opinion), and objectively good/bad, and that reviews should try and use the later more as it is more helpful. The former is can certainly be used in reviews (to a degree), but in most cases it's the objective analysis that is more important - Someone saying they don't like PA because they don't like RTSs is an opinion, but not at all useful to state in a review. Someone saying that the keybindings make it difficult to play (when there are commonly accepted keybindings that don't have this problem) is an objective review that has far greater usefulness to others, because it applies universally.

Its still subjective. What a reviewer sees as being bad or un-intuitive, could be the opposite for anyone else. And I don't think I was pointing to anything objective in my first post..

In many cases that is of course true. But some things are simply objectively bad or objectively good. The example keybindings @Geers gave for a First Person Shooter for example aren't subjectively bad, they're objectively bad. They are deliberately difficult and there's no reason for them to be that way when there are far easier and commonly use keys for those. Another example would be that lack of a quit button, forcing you to alt-F4 or use task manager to kill the game.
Anyone, regardless of personal opinion, is likely to hold those to be true, and thus it holds the most value as content in a review. It's not possible to be entirely objective in a review, since there's no "proper" definition of fun/interesting etc., but being purely subjective makes it impossible for a reader to know if what is being said matches what they would think.

Controls are subjective, bad example. Having no quit button is a good example, for idiots. Thanks. Theres common sense, and then there's being stupid. A review is highly subjective (which is what I originally tried to say, then someone wanted to argue that,) and should be taken as such.

Try playing an FPS with those bindings. Record it. Then imagine you can't change those bindings.

Right. But doesn't mean that's the same for everyone. Someone, somewhere, is using a keyboard to aim!

Besides, this is a very specific objective reason. I would say its highly unlikely, and I've never witnessed a game with default controls like that before..

Let's try again:

3 FPS in a shooter. Objectively bad.

On PC, subjective. The likely hood that you have the same system and the same setup as the reviewer is highly unlikely. Try again though if you like.

Reviewer has a top-tier system.

If its pretty hard for the user to have a better system than the reviewer then its objective. Then the user is pretty buggered, and it would likely be the worst performing game in history. And the company stands a chance of never making a game again. And then maybe the whole digital and physical gaming platforms would be better policed and the company could receive a fine (pretty stupid how some companies can release games the way they do) Any game you know of like this?

Anyway, lets keep it sensible, lets try and see if there's any real world issues that would be seen as an objective view. Objective would be BF4 on the consoles, (I never really experienced much problems on the PC version) Objective would be the poor service of not being able to access ones DLC because the code is bugged. Theres one.

The fact remains simple, reviews are highly subjective, and should be seen as someone's opinion. Disclaimers are mostly put into reviews as statements of fact, which are very objective. Near every review, personal or professional, reflects ones opinion though. The nature of reviews are changing rapidly, but so is the economy and the way games are being made, released and even played! Reviews are having to be done in part now, as games are being released in an unfinished but playable state, so too should reviews be.

It's called metacritics, not metareviews.

It's too soon to critic about the game itself (or it would be quite devastating too tbo), but you can critic what is going around the game currently.

Step 1: get a bunch of friends (or forum friends)
Step 2: write a review of your liking
Step 3: dominate the score
Step 4: Win
Step 5: profit?

But seriously, 39 scores? thats 1 in 1000 KS backers. How unrepresentative can a score be? and then those numbers. Bunch of 10's and 9's. two zeroes. no nuance in score whatsoever. Do people even bother with this site?

And to people who doesn't see the problem with early access, we are a one step away of having unfinished games, full price, as standard. Don't tell me it can be any good.

http://www.destructoid.com/dice-contemplating-early-access-approach-for-battlefield-276573.phtml

If you think they already release beta/alpha games, think that not only it can be worst, but also means the end of free beta, demo, and of course, lot DLC available before release (so you can buy your final game piece by piece).

Also the end of QA teams.

I could give it an honest 8 - 10 just because of the modding capabilities it has, and how many hours I've put into it. (Around 676 hours)

Do you get the game when it's finished too? (Via free update or new game, the former I imagine it'd be) because then it's fine and I don't mind.