The Video Game Critic

Note: I am bring up Rotten Tomatoes movie reviews, and even though it not 100% related with Video Games, but it does go hand and hand.

Is it me or is Metacritic/Rotten Tomatoes useless at this point because their is such a big difference between how critics/users view games/movies these days!

Street Fighter V on PS4/PC critics: http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstat ... ic-reviews and http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/stree ... ic-reviews, but users hate this game with a passion because of it being the infamous buggy broken incomplete mess/censorship problems, etc: http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstat ... er-reviews and http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/stree ... er-reviews and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsqV2OThd8w

Uncharted 4 critic: http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstat ... ic-reviews vs user: http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstat ... er-reviews

Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE where critics gave it 80 out of 100: http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii-u/to ... ic-reviews, but the users gave it a 5.8 out of 100: http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii-u/to ... er-reviews, could it be because they did not like the censorship changes, or could it be because they did not like the game itself, or the concept of the game, etc.

And for a big movie example is the infamous GHOSTBUSTERS 2016 where the critics gave it way to high 72%, but the users gave it 54% proving that you have more trust in user reviews then critic review!: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters_2016/

I would like to here peoples thoughts on this situation on Metacritic/Rotten Tomatoes being useless these days because of how critics/users view games/movies these days.

Completely disagree. I think it's better. Many times I've enjoyed a film 'tanked' by critics but has garnered a good user score.
Remember film critics usually hate the big summer blockbusters and I love them. If you find a film/game that is high on both your probably onto a winner. But if a game/film splits opinions from the critics and the users then I'll take a look.
Many critics (especially film critics) are out of touch with what the mass public actually enjoy. I remember back in the day Bladerunner getting average reviews, now it's viewed as a classic.

Video game reviews have always been payola with few exceptions; I never trust anything but word of mouth when it comes to games. But movie reviews have integrity, even if the critics themselves tend to share certain biases and tastes that invite pandering ("Oscar bait").

The example of the new Ghostbusters undermines the point that you're trying to make. Both the critics and users actually gave it very similar average ratings - around 6/10, a mediocre grade and the bare minimum to qualify as "fresh" on the site (scores of 5/10 and lower are "rotten"). The ratios of 72% and 54% are the percentages of ratings that were at least 6/10 (or 3/5 for the audiences). What those ratios show is that critics generally agreed on middling scores barely high enough to count as positive, while users were almost evenly split between completely negative or completely positive scores, canceling each other out. The critics rated the film as fairly as they could on its own qualities, weak but competently made. The users rated it based on whatever axes they had to grind, either for it or against it. If anything, this shows that Rotten Tomatoes is useful as a platform for level-headed, professional perspectives.

Sut wrote:Many critics (especially film critics) are out of touch with what the mass public actually enjoy. I remember back in the day Bladerunner getting average reviews, now it's viewed as a classic.

Blade Runner was originally released in a horrible cut that fully deserved its lukewarm reception. And even its re-edits have never had "mass public" appeal; it's a very slow and bleak movie.

As long as people/websites have an agenda, no place on the internet is safe from bias. Both professional and user reviews are fast becoming a joke. I'm not as familiar with Rotten Tomatoes but the weighting factor that Metacritic uses also seems very flawed. The combination of biased reviews and a weighting factor unfairly creates both high and low scores.

A rule of thumb for me, I NEVER EVER listen to what movie critics have to say about movies. Especially on RT. Good lord, they are so horrible on there.

Honestly, I think the last movie critics I listened to were Siskel & Ebert.

The best example of how garbage filled the critic reviews are on there is to look at the new Ghostbusters movies. They all blindly gave that movie a fresh rating, and any critic that descented got branded a sexist pig. Richard Roeper is a good example of that.

The only thing I use rotten tomatoes for is to make sure a movie doesn't have like a twenty percent rating or less... I also tend to look ash the viewers' scores and compare them. I think my favorite thing about the site is it links out other reviews do you can go to the original source. Metacritic does the same which ousted useful. I'm used to movies scoring low on the site since horror is my favorite genre and those movies tend to get poor reviews. Use it as a resource not an end all be all for whether you're going to watch something or not.