Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Game On: Metacritic change hinders consumer reviews

In late June, I penned the article “The Last of Us Part II highlights Metacritic issues,” and it seems Metacritic agrees. In an interview with fellow Viacom CBS-owned website GameSpot, a Metacritic official announced that the review aggregator will henceforth delay the ability to submit user reviews for newly released video games for the first 36 hours, “to ensure our gamers have time to play these games before writing their reviews.”

They said the decision wasn’t made in reaction to any particular game, but the timing is suspect – “The Last of Us Part II” was a recent and high-profile victim of “review bombing,” garnering more than 5,000 negative user reviews within hours of its release on June 19. This resulted in a 3/10 user score juxtaposed against a “Metascore” of 94/100 – at first glance, it appeared the critics loved it while the hobbyists did not.

But a cursory glance at these reviews made it readily apparent many of these people had not even touched the game. Incriminating details of the game’s plot were leaked months ahead of its release, and as a story-focused title with plenty of twists, the leak was disastrous. Many fans of the original were displeased with the change of direction and chose to use Metacritic as a platform for protest.

On one hand, it’s understandable for Metacritic to take action against large-scale abuses of the platform’s intended usage. On the other, I don’t believe shutting out all user voices for 36 hours is going to solve the problem – if anything, it will likely exacerbate the issue. All they’ve done is given the mob one more thing to be angry about here.

Agree with their methods or not, review bombers typically just want their voices to be heard. They protested the death of their favorite character in “The Last of Us Part II.” They protested the sheer laziness of “Pokémon Sword and Shield,” a game that looked and felt 15 years old at launch. They protested “Baldur’s Gate: Siege of Dragonspear” using the series’ most iconic character to make a modern-day political statement about the “Gamergate” controversy. On the movie side of things, they protested Brie Larson’s strongly worded feminist statements ahead of the release of “Captain Marvel.” That review bombing also took place on Rotten Tomatoes, prompting the website to eliminate prerelease comments.

That’s a sensible policy change, but Metacritic’s is not. It’s as if Metacritic doesn’t trust its own platform – when you peruse user reviews, by default they are sorted by “most helpful,” which is a voting system allowing Metacritic readers to decide which reviews best informed their purchase regardless of whether or not they ultimately agreed. The same tactic has been used by Steam, the Xbox Games Store and even Amazon and Yelp. It’s ubiquitous because more often than not, it works.

Marking user reviews as helpful or unhelpful isn’t troll proof, but it tends to reward the researcher more than the reactionary – this quickens the task for the next meticulous purchaser, creating a positive feedback loop until the most detailed, balanced reviews almost always find their way to the top of the page. I’ve watched this play out on many websites, Metacritic included.

Regardless, Metacritic sidestepped the review-bomb issue for years before finally taking action last week. Once again, the trolls have inadvertently hurt their own cause – their swathes of angry, incoherent ratings routinely drown out peoples’ legitimate qualms. Make no mistake, “The Last of Us Part II” is an impressive work of art that doesn’t deserve all of the “0/10” scores it received. Neither is it a title worthy of the Metacritic distinction of “universal acclaim” because it doesn’t have universal appeal.

Even fans and critics alike agree: The game is designed to make players feel miserable. Much like the TV show “The Walking Dead,” it depicts humans in apocalyptic scenarios who routinely maim and kill each other instead of cooperating. This is a game that forces you to kill a guard dog, then play fetch with that same dog in a flashback where you play as its owner.

In 2018, game director Neil Druckman told BuzzFeed that the development team for “The Last of Us Part II” avoided the word “fun” in favor of “engaging.” The devs knew they were creating a controversial, emotionally challenging product. Druckman has made several snide remarks toward jaded fans of the original game, but I would ask him – are you really shocked your misery simulator doesn’t appeal to everyone?

Most professional game journalists loved it because they want to experience something different from the products they regularly critique.

Meanwhile, most consumers play video games to unwind and have fun – not to have their emotions manipulated by such bleak entertainment.

With that in mind, the game’s current Metascore of 94/100 with a user score of 5.5/10 seems fair and ultimately represents a multitude of valid perspectives. Arguably, the issue resolved itself over time. I only hope Metacritic’s new policy doesn’t offset that balance because up to this point it’s been a reliable platform for choosing future game purchases.