Should Steam replace Metascore with it's own ratings? - Games

Don't get me wrong, Metacritic is a great service, and I use it often for console games, but it seems half the stuff on Steam doesn't have a Metascore. Not just the small stuff, like Lost Coast, or old games like Quake, but several major modern titles are missing them, like Arkham Asylum or Battlefield 2. Out of the 91 games I own on Steam, 37 have no Metascore. I did a simple search of all games on Steam, and 522 out of 1062 are scoreless, although that includes all the bundles and DLC (which should still get scores, with bundles showing the average score). Valve could, given their resources, whip up a system that pulls in ratings for Steam games, maybe even mods. I realize they may not want to, as that wouldn't be an impartial judge, but out of all the game companies out their, they have some of the best rep as fair and reliable. Barring that, they could rely on user rankings (a bit problematic, but not insurmountably so), or just outsource it to another company. Heck, just get Metacritic to put up a page for every game on Steam. It wouldn't be too big a deal, seeing how they compile scores for dozens of games a month. I'm sure they get enough traffic from Steam that Valve could lean on them a bit to get the ball rolling. Thoughts?

They should have it where you rate the game, and it averages the people who also rated it.

I believe it is not needed. [editline]07:48PM[/editline] [QUOTE=elitehakor;19315836]They should have it where you rate the game, and it averages the people who also rated it.[/QUOTE] No

[QUOTE=elitehakor;19315836]They should have it where you rate the game, and it averages the people who also rated it.[/QUOTE] Absolutely not. I despise rating systems for games in general. I don't think valve should rate their own games. Keep in mind they are still a business, and businesses need to make money. Metacritic for every game would be a better option though

If they let you rate a game, first of all. You should of owned it. Then have more then 50 hours of game time of you playing it.

I agree. How a piece of shit like Rogue Warrior got a Metascore but the excellent Elder Scrolls IV didn't, I'll never know.

I say keep the Metascore, but update it more, and add user reviews, and then maybe a thumbs up thumbs down system for people's reviews so people won't listen to stupid reviews.

They need to augment it as the above user has said. On most games they hit it right on the spot but on others it seems a bit off. Maybe its just my personal opinion to the game.

I think they should average their own score with the Metascore, and let you click on it (or mouse over to open a tooltip) to see the Metascore and Steam score individually.

[QUOTE=OutOfExile;19316519]I say keep the Metascore, but update it more, and add user reviews, and then maybe a thumbs up thumbs down system for people's reviews so people won't listen to stupid reviews.[/QUOTE] Perfect system. Just the reviews would be fine with me, maybe if users get more thumbs up they come higher rated critics, and show up first or something, I don't know.

If they rated other games, the other companies would get angry that they were given a bad rating, and not put future games on there or something. Metacritic is a 3rd party, so it's more fair.

[QUOTE=Soren;19315879]If they let you rate a game, first of all. You should of owned it. Then have more then 50 hours of game time of you playing it.[/QUOTE] That's stupid. Then horrible games won't get downrated because nobody will have played them to give them bad ratings. I say more like 3 hours. Also, this is a bad idea if done by Valve itself. Valve could get paid off by the developers on STEAM to give higher ratings, or they could give a company bad ratings and stop the company from submitting games to STEAM.

If they rate their own games, they can give them a higher score than they deserve.

[QUOTE=Stynax;19318871]If they rate their own games, they can give them a higher score than they deserve.[/QUOTE] They could but they probably wouldn't.

[QUOTE=windwakr;19316169]??? [media]http://filesmelt.com/dl/whatchutalkingboutwillis.PNG[/media][/QUOTE] Metascore doesn't appear in the My Games list.

If they implemented user ratings, games like modern warfare 2 would get extremely low scores for stupid reasons

[QUOTE=imaguy;19318960]If they implemented user ratings, games like modern warfare 2 would get extremely low scores for stupid reasons[/QUOTE] But it deserves it.

[QUOTE=rapperkid04;19319000]But it deserves it.[/QUOTE] You're dumb. Along with anyone else who rated MW2 PC down, but not the console version. You take away one thing from PC gamers, and they get all butthurt. Really, both of them should be up there fine in score. Either both of them need to be low in score, or both high. srsly look at amazon reviews for console+pc version, its silly.

[QUOTE=Soren;19319199]You're dumb. Along with anyone else who rated MW2 PC down, but not the console version. You take away one thing from PC gamers, and they get all butthurt. Really, both of them should be up there fine in score. Either both of them need to be low in score, or both high. srsly look at amazon reviews for console+pc version, its silly.[/QUOTE] Ok, imagine this scenario: You have a PC, obviously. You bough it... Let's say... One year ago. Four years have passed and you need an upgrade. You go and buy a new one. Oops, what do you know? It has no sound card. It's something you were used to, needed and always had. The PC works, it's just... Not the same. We (PC gamers) don't like when stuff we are used to, stuff that is better, stuff that works, stuff that has NO reasonable explanation to be taken away, except LAZINESS. Console gamers have been floating on the same boat for three/four years and they just don't know the difference. Thread derail, ahoy.

[QUOTE=Soren;19315879]If they let you rate a game, first of all. You should of owned it. Then have more then 50 hours of game time of you playing it.[/QUOTE] Uh, so to rate Portal I would have to play it for 50 hours? Or if after buying a game I really just don't like it after a few hours I have to play it for 50 hours? Something like that would just skew the reviews in favor of the game. The people who like the game are going to play it the most, and the chances of you playing a game you don't like for more than 50 hours is not a very high one. I'm fine with an ownership requirement, I think it would keep the ratings mostly free of the taint of a bunch of dumbasses who don't own the game rating it down or up without having to impose a stupid minimum time for playing a game. [editline]03:12AM[/editline] [QUOTE=imaguy;19318960]If they implemented user ratings, games like modern warfare 2 would get extremely low scores for stupid reasons[/QUOTE] which is why you would require people to own the game to rate it, not that I'm against a low rating, but allowing people to rate a game they don't own is just silly.

[QUOTE=windwakr;19316169]??? [media]http://filesmelt.com/dl/whatchutalkingboutwillis.PNG[/media][/QUOTE] Morrowinds metascore is only 89? blasphemy!

[QUOTE=Soren;19315879]If they let you rate a game, first of all. You should of owned it. Then have more then 50 hours of game time of you playing it.[/QUOTE] This is imo the best option.

If steam starts rating games, they might offend some of the companies that publish their games on steam, thus no more games from them. That would be bad for steam.

Who cares about ratings