Metro Exodus Is Now Being Review Bombed on Metacritic

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,003
On the off chance Deep Silver hasn’t regretted making Metro Exodus an Epic Games Store exclusive yet, gamers have now taken to popular review-aggregate Metacritic to voice their displeasure by review bombing the post-apocalyptic title. The exclusivity was certainly a hasty decision, as physical copies of the game still feature the Steam logo, just hidden under a sticker.

The Metacritic review-bombing is the latest episode in a long saga of animosity between Steam users and "Exodus" developer 4A Games. 4A Games did initially solicit pre-orders for the game on Steam, and abruptly stopped its sales late-January. Those who had pre-ordered would continue to receive the game and its updates. 4A muddied the waters further by responding to initial criticism from Steam users by threatening to desert the PC platform as a whole, inviting more bile from some really angry gamers.
 
bbf said:
Doesn't beat the fact that the retail copy of some PC games are just download codes in a DVD case. :-O
Click to expand...

True that, I've had a couple that were just download codes in the dvd shell. So dumb.
 
"Long saga"? Deep Silver pulled a fast one for piles of cash. The consumer side of things is filled with overblown internet rage, but DS did absolutely nothing to hide exactly what this was, and despite the trend towards "influencers" we still know a real sell-out when we see one. EActUbiTwo might be doing some scandalous money-grubbing, but at least they put some of that money towards their PR.
 
I read like the first couple of bad reviews, it just seems like a bad game. (poor shooting mechanics, voice-overs, story, and world) Too bad the last two games where pretty decent. I need another Singularity like game, hopefully Atomic Heart is good.
 
A quick look on MetaCritic shows the user score for PS4 and Xbox One to be equally as bad. I haven't played the game but if console peasants are also giving it a low score then maybe the game just sucks?
 
filip said:
Come on, remember TLJ, Andromeda and No man's sky (just to name a few). Reviewers can't be trusted.
Click to expand...

This, I trust my fellow gamers more than any review site.

Can someone remove that stupid copied review graphic, its messing up my phone big time and ultimately saying reviewers liked it is sufficient.
 
filip said:
I read like the first couple of bad reviews, it just seems like a bad game. (poor shooting mechanics, voice-overs, story, and world) Too bad the last two games where pretty decent. I need another Singularity like game, hopefully Atomic Heart is good.
Click to expand...

Metro is for a niche audience. Someone who likes obscure Russian stylized post-apocalyptic survival scenarios. Its closest relative would be something like STALKER rather than Fallout. I am sure I'll enjoy Exodus since I love the STALKER series but I am still not supporting Deep Silver's bullshit move.
 
filip said:
Come on, remember TLJ, Andromeda and No man's sky (just to name a few). Reviewers can't be trusted.
Click to expand...

You say you read reviews and came to the conclusion that it wasn't a good game and then you say reviews can't be trusted when most of them say something counter to your belief.

PS: (for your other post) Atomic Heart might not even be a real game, much less a good one.
 
NickJames said:
Metro is for a niche audience. Someone who likes obscure Russian stylized post-apocalyptic survival scenarios. Its closest relative would be something like STALKER rather than Fallout. I am sure I'll enjoy Exodus since I love the STALKER series but I am still not supporting Deep Silver's bullshit move.
Click to expand...

The closest game to it is Singularity imo. I remember it being really good, might have to play it again and see how well it has aged, but as far as I remember it was better than any metro game. I expect good creative things from titles but that seems to be far and few in between now a days.
 
Derangel said:
You say you read reviews and came to the conclusion that it wasn't a good game and then you say reviews can't be trusted when most of them say something counter to your belief.

PS: (for your other post) Atomic Heart might not even be a real game, much less a good one.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand, Reviewers (sites, personalities, etc..) cannot be trusted as they are bought, regular audience score can be a decent benchmark because there is a good chance that they have a similar opinion to me.

For atomic heart it does not even have to be a game, I love seeing imagination come to life and this looks like a very imaginative piece.
 
filip said:
You misunderstand, Reviewers (sites, personalities, etc..) cannot be trusted as they are bought, regular audience score can be a decent benchmark because there is a good chance that they have a similar opinion to me.

For atomic heart it does not even have to be a game, I love seeing imagination come to life and this looks like a very imaginative piece.
Click to expand...

The "all reviews are bought" narrative is such utter bullshit. Its a great conspiracy theory pushed by people that don't want you to trust reviewers and buy anything site unseen though. Also, I find "normal" reviews to be even more worthless. Outside of the fact that most people wouldn't know how to properly express their thoughts if their lives depended on it, I find normal users end up far more prone to giving into their various biases and using that as the entire basis of their review. Long-time reviewers have a problem with being too cynical, but they're consistent enough in it that I am able to get a feel for how their opinions on various games and features compare to my own. That is nearly impossible to do with user reviews as users aren't generally going to be posting a lot of varied reviews or spending time further discussing their thoughts and biases outside of their, usually, poorly written reviews.

Yeah, they have an amazing art team. I hope the rumors and leaks about just how piss poor the development process is end up either being false or something the studio can fix going forward, but even comments from the studio itself (like them not having anyone on staff that knew how to code C++ for their previous title) don't exactly inspire confidence.
 
Derangel said:
The "all reviews are bought" narrative is such utter bullshit. Its a great conspiracy theory pushed by people that don't want you to trust reviewers and buy anything site unseen though. Also, I find "normal" reviews to be even more worthless. Outside of the fact that most people wouldn't know how to properly express their thoughts if their lives depended on it, I find normal users end up far more prone to giving into their various biases and using that as the entire basis of their review. Long-time reviewers have a problem with being too cynical, but they're consistent enough in it that I am able to get a feel for how their opinions on various games and features compare to my own. That is nearly impossible to do with user reviews as users aren't generally going to be posting a lot of varied reviews or spending time further discussing their thoughts and biases outside of their, usually, poorly written reviews.

Yeah, they have an amazing art team. I hope the rumors and leaks about just how piss poor the development process is end up either being false or something the studio can fix going forward, but even comments from the studio itself (like them not having anyone on staff that knew how to code C++ for their previous title) don't exactly inspire confidence.
Click to expand...

You can defiantly have your opinion on the matter, from what I have seen reviewers (not all of them, Praise [H]ard OCP) are pressured into giving good reviews and not always for monetary gain. It is the exclusive interview, passes to go places, first looks at things, and of course free products to review.
The audience is not stupid, they know when they don't like something. The reason why does not have to be an immaculate 50 page paper that is peer reviewed, it just does not meet the standards of the audience. Since they are the consumers just like me, that has some more weight behind it at least for me.
 
filip said:
You can defiantly have your opinion on the matter, from what I have seen reviewers (not all of them, Praise [H]ard OCP) are pressured into giving good reviews and not always for monetary gain. It is the exclusive interview, passes to go places, first looks at things, and of course free products to review.
The audience is not stupid, they know when they don't like something. The reason why does not have to be an immaculate 50 page paper that is peer reviewed, it just does not meet the standards of the audience. Since they are the consumers just like me, that has some more weight behind it at least for me.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to say its never happened (the Gertsman situation is a clear example) but to say "all" is ridiculous. Do you honestly think traditional reviewers matter much to game companies and PR agents any more? Its all about the "influencers" these days. Sponsor a few popular game streamers to play your game, or just give them free copies and let them stream before launch, and you've got cheap promotion that has a hell of a lot more reach and effect than spending the time and money to bribe a traditional reviewer. Even with the "influencer" (I really hate that term) disclosing the sponsorship it doesn't matter as it will still get eyes on the game and get people to buy it. PUBG, Fortnite, even as far back as games like Goat Simulator, there are several examples of companies using that route other relying on traditional media to spread word. You see the same thing in the tech world. Its all about sponsoring product showcases or builds from people like Linus or Jay because that has a lot more impact then trying to bribe (with money or other things) people like Kyle. Not that there aren't still attempts at it (and strong-arm tactics attempted) but that stuff tends to blow up in the faces of both PR people and reviewers/personalities when it's found out.

The audience isn't stupid, they just can't express themselves well most of the time. When most user reviews I've read easily boil down to "this game sucks because I said so" or "this game is awesome for reasons" they're pretty useless. I like an actual discussion of features, controls, performance, etc that explains why the person came to their conclusion and something that fully supports the rating they gave the game.
 
filip said:
I read like the first couple of bad reviews, it just seems like a bad game. (poor shooting mechanics, voice-overs, story, and world) Too bad the last two games where pretty decent. I need another Singularity like game, hopefully Atomic Heart is good.
Click to expand...
It's neither here or there. It's not a bad game, but it has certain shortcomings. AI is dumb (extremely dumb to be precise) The gameplay is mostly linear. Shooting mechanics can be tricky, but let's just put it down to it trying to be more realistic. But the melee part is terrible, truly. The voicovers aren't the worst I've seen. It's certainly not the best either but it's acceptable. Graphics is decent even without RTX. Character rigging and bones seems to be pretty last gen. I'm not over it yet, but it's not nearly as good as it was hyped up to be.
 
Derangel said:
I'm not going to say its never happened (the Gertsman situation is a clear example) but to say "all" is ridiculous. Do you honestly think traditional reviewers matter much to game companies and PR agents any more? Its all about the "influencers" these days. Sponsor a few popular game streamers to play your game, or just give them free copies and let them stream before launch, and you've got cheap promotion that has a hell of a lot more reach and effect than spending the time and money to bribe a traditional reviewer. Even with the "influencer" (I really hate that term) disclosing the sponsorship it doesn't matter as it will still get eyes on the game and get people to buy it. PUBG, Fortnite, even as far back as games like Goat Simulator, there are several examples of companies using that route other relying on traditional media to spread word. You see the same thing in the tech world. Its all about sponsoring product showcases or builds from people like Linus or Jay because that has a lot more impact then trying to bribe (with money or other things) people like Kyle. Not that there aren't still attempts at it (and strong-arm tactics attempted) but that stuff tends to blow up in the faces of both PR people and reviewers/personalities when it's found out.

The audience isn't stupid, they just can't express themselves well most of the time. When most user reviews I've read easily boil down to "this game sucks because I said so" or "this game is awesome for reasons" they're pretty useless. I like an actual discussion of features, controls, performance, etc that explains why the person came to their conclusion and something that fully supports the rating they gave the game.
Click to expand...

Reading is key, I never said all. The ones most likely to be "bought" are the biggest reviewers or personalities.

I think you will find that people in the audience actually give reasons why they like or dislike something you can check the meta-critic audience review for examples.
 
The game is buggy and some of the bugs are randomly game breaking from reading the thread on this very forum, so I would say that it does deserve the reviews given by players who don't like having to reload chapters /saves because it randomly not working.
 
Downloading the game right now. Review bombing isn’t changing my mind one bit. If they want cut off pc fine I have this game and couldn’t care less.:p
 
2ce40fd1e7ffd5025d77efd22608d715ad04e31f08fd9e030f9be542003b1a0c.jpg
 
Jim Kim said:
The game is fine. Review bombers are a bunch of low life scum, Ignore the reddit incel troll brigade, sooner or later mom will kick them out of the basement.
On a side note, it's ranked Very Positive on Steam
ACG rates it a BUY. nuff said

Click to expand...


I have been a great fan of Karak at least for 6 years, have always put him in the pedestal of the best reviewer on the internet, well, this time karak was too kind with the game, it is a gourgeous atmospheric game, but story is ok, animation is ok, voice over is really bad for a AAA 2019 title, and if you compare it to the graphics seems to be a point out of the curve, clearly not on par with the rest of the game.
I would give it an 78-82.
The game is not a bad game, just not the overrated one that people are claiming to be.
 
Just took a look, looks like the majority of (current) complaints is about how the Metro atmosphere is gone due to the open-world stuff? Color me surprised...
 
schoolslave said:
Just took a look, looks like the majority of (current) complaints is about how the Metro atmosphere is gone due to the open-world stuff? Color me surprised...
Click to expand...

Well making the game a semi-open world was always going to change that atmosphere. I think it could have worked better if they didn't just transplant a lot of mechanics directly from the previous games without changing much. I think the game still looks really fun and I'm still interested in picking it up, but it is definitely going to feel different from the previous games. I wouldn't be surprised if Deep Silver pushed for the open-world change and 4A wasn't quite sure how to take what Metro was and translate it into that style of game.
 
filip said:
Come on, remember TLJ, Andromeda and No man's sky (just to name a few). Reviewers can't be trusted.
Click to expand...
No Man's Sky was panned if I recall correctly. Andromeda was scored pretty average, which I think is fair. It's not a great game but it's also not a terrible game. I'm not sure what TLJ is an acronym for.
filip said:
You misunderstand, Reviewers (sites, personalities, etc..) cannot be trusted as they are bought, regular audience score can be a decent benchmark because there is a good chance that they have a similar opinion to me.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree. Most gamers are the whiniest bunch of entitled shits now. People cry and complain about everything. It's hard to find a place where people actually give a qualified opinion instead of just the internet-standard circle jerk response. I'll grant you that some websites aren't any better, but you certainly can't dismiss every single review while saying that gamers are better. I mean this thread is about gamers review bombing Metro Exodus because of the store it's sold on which has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the game itself.
 
Rizen said:
No Man's Sky was panned if I recall correctly. Andromeda was scored pretty average, which I think is fair. It's not a great game but it's also not a terrible game. I'm not sure what TLJ is an acronym for.
I strongly disagree. Most gamers are the whiniest bunch of entitled shits now. People cry and complain about everything. It's hard to find a place where people actually give a qualified opinion instead of just the internet-standard circle jerk response. I'll grant you that some websites aren't any better, but you certainly can't dismiss every single review while saying that gamers are better. I mean this thread is about gamers review bombing Metro Exodus because of the store it's sold on which has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the game itself.
Click to expand...


I've never bought a game based on a review. I don't even usually read user reviews before hitting buy.

I know the series and styles of games that I like. There are must buy series for me like Deus Ex and Sid Meiers Civilization. Everything else I kind of hear about via word of mouth. I find reviewers as useless today as they have ever been.
 
HockeyJon said:
Do people really care that much about which online video game retailer they use to purchase a video game from? Like seriously, who cares? Get a real problem!
Click to expand...

You're not understanding the scope. This isn't merely a title being on a different store. It's the bribe shenanigans that pissed people off.

It was hyped up for a year and a half on Steam - free PR and advertising including frontpage and popup placement, then pulled at the last minute with Epic bribing the publisher to stop selling it on Steam right before launch.

It's anti-consumer since it removed choice rather than created competition.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I've never bought a game based on a review. I don't even usually read user reviews before hitting buy.

I know the series and styles of games that I like. There are must buy series for me like Deus Ex and Sid Meiers Civilization. Everything else I kind of hear about via word of mouth. I find reviewers as useless today as they have ever been.
Click to expand...
I agree. I usually talk to my friends about what games we are playing otherwise. The only reviews I like to read are the ones from Digital Foundry because they focus on the technical performance and general bugginess of a game, which is something I do care about.
 
to keep nit-picking about what launcher is used is IMO childish. Same folks said NOTHING when Mass Effect Andromeda was not sold on Steam
 
HAL_404 said:
to keep nit-picking about what launcher is used is IMO childish. Same folks said NOTHING when Mass Effect Andromeda was not sold on Steam
Click to expand...

False equivalence. ME: A was launched on Origin YEARS after EA's games had been made exclusive to Origin. And, yes, people do continue to talk about EA games not being on Steam and how they refuse to purchase from Origin.
 
Derangel said:
False equivalence. ME: A was launched on Origin YEARS after EA's games had been made exclusive to Origin. And, yes, people do continue to talk about EA games not being on Steam and how they refuse to purchase from Origin.
Click to expand...

IMO childish. Why give a hoot what launcher one needs to use? I wanted to play Tomb Raider so I had to use Steam launcher. Then I wanted to play Crysis 3 so I had top use Origin Client. Now I want top play Metro Exodus so I have to use Epic ... so what?

AND ... I was able to buy Exodus for $49 instead of the usual $69

I have nothing the whine about regarding what launcher I need to use or website I need to buy from.

Maybe the difference is, I'm not in the gaming industry ?
 
HAL_404 said:
IMO childish. Why give a hoot what launcher one needs to use? I wanted to play Tomb Raider so I had to use Steam launcher. Then I wanted to play Crysis 3 so I had top use Origin Client. Now I want top play Metro Exodus so I have to use Epic ... so what?

AND ... I was able to buy Exodus for $49 instead of the usual $69

I have nothing the whine about regarding what launcher I need to use or website I need to buy from
Click to expand...

If you want a real answer, try politely asking one of the people that have expressed a problem with it. It will get you a lot further than easily picked apart logical fallacies.
 
Damn I miss hardcopy game DVD's . . .when the game was done, into the trophy carry case they would go. Also made loading the game faster for me due to sucky internet.

I had no issues with the Epic purchase or download. I can play offline without a live connection.

No issues with the game either but I am only a short way in- playing nicely at 1080P in DX11 mode with just a 2700K/16GB and a GTX 1080.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top