Keep it clean
If you believe that a wish duplicates another one or is not meant for the category, use Options button above to report a duplicate or spam.
Add your wish
If there is an item you wish to have on GOG.com and it’s not yet on the wishlist, please add your wish
Rating from metacritic.com, not only from users, in description of game
Added by
SAS_Kiev_UA 
fridgeband Oh didn't know I already commented years ago haha wow
fridgeband NO thank you. I don't care what review website it is.
raggot Please look at the number of "+", and disregard the mountain of poorly motivated "No" below.
Metacritic is one of the few reliable sources. I see people angry at the fact that there, 4/5 stars means 80%. It's true. But where the present "Critics" come from ends up being worse, and tons of lesser known games completely without a critic score.
I'd say, let users select between sources. So, if I want, I'll use Metacritic, and for those who prefer the present source, they select that instead.
Meganeura I disagree strongly. If I want to use Metacritic it's easy for me to hop over to the site and check out whatever I want. More to the point, I find GOG's user reviews, on average, to be more helpful and better written than not just Metacritic, but just about every other site I've seen. Cramming input from another site, Metacritic or otherwise, is like adding your neighbor's meatloaf to your grandmother's stew.
fridgeband NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
##@@##@@ I could give you multiple reasons why the scores on metacritic doesn't have any meaning, but I don't have all day. So here's just one: Metacritic tries to find an average number for vastly different rating systems. Not only do "4 out of 5 Stars" equal "80%" for them (vastly falsifying ratings) but also do they not account for how different outlets review. If I rate a game "50%", it's a perfectly average game. However, many reviewers are scared that they'll land on some kind of blacklist, so they rate average games "70%". You might think this wouldn't matter, since they all even out in the end. Wrong. If only one reviewer doesn't review a certain game, that game can suddenly receive scores that strongly differ from the 'usual' scoring system. Score aggregation 'can' work, but only if every single person uses the same system, guidelines and version of a game and if the amount of critics is big enough. There are only a handful of critics represented on metacritic and you would need at least a couple of hundreds to get a good representation.
Here's a better method of determining whether a game is for you or not: READ actual reviews! Review scores are only a weak attempt to summarize the reviewer's feelings about a game. A written review is a way better way of communicating a game's pros and cons. You might feel very different about what's a problem 'for you' when playing a game in comparison with the person writing a review. If you only look at those "69%" you will never know.
MaximeMartyr Why do you want metactitic's opinion? Is it more relevant than gamers' opinion?
Moreover I don't like ratings because they influence and prevent to make opinion on our own.
Don't rely on what others think about things, make your opinion on your own. ;-)
LiefLayer No. Metacritic is an american site and it does not reflect the game quality.
Faenrir Metacritic SUCKS ! Please never implement this.
Skywalkerpl No, please.
StorkV88 NO!NO!NO!
TADLO137 Wow. No. The Metacritic score for games is BS for a multitude of reasons. Keep it away, it might give us diseases.
Staredown Absolutely not.
Game ratings are less than useless, and Metacritic is literally nothing more than an aggregate of uselessness. Reviews are useful, but since everybody has a different definition of what an '8' or a 'four out of five' means and there's no standard, ratings are utterly pointless.
Wow, I haven't wanted a 'vote down' button this badly in a long time.
delax000 My current opinion is that number ratings for games vary widely in usefulness, and averaging all of them evenly doesn't really help.
If this site is closely curated (as it appears to be), then then Metacritic's rating of general quality should be unneeded; getting onto GOG means the objective bits are Good (stable, stood test of time, etc) and that leaves any further rating to subjectivity.
In any case, whatever one's opinion, Metacritic ratings can be easily found using a search engine of your choice.
blackberrypatch Metacritic scores can seriously harm good games that have not been reviewed extensively (e.g. if a game has 5 reviews, then one bad review can pull the score down to the mediocre range). In addition, those reviews are often based on the initial release of the game, and do not take into account later patches/improvements/etc.
Vainamoinen Metacritic is a pretty flawed rating system. It's always the individual, balanced reviews I trust, never an 'overall' score. It wouldn't make sense to introduce yet another point based rating here - one is, by far, enough.
##@@##@@ Or even from www.nikehoo.com (partners too). There are games for which MobyGames has more reviews listed than Metacritic, even a few newer ones, and for particularly old ones you can quite frequently see that, so may even be more relevant.
PaladinWay I'd like to see other alternate ratings (such as GameFaqs) too. More info is a good thing, as long as it's clearly labelled.
EraDKtor I think metacritic has done the industry more harm than good. I've seen several good games who got bad scores because some "no-name" magazines didn't like them, as well as the other way round. I wouldn't mind seeing scores from different magazines, where I can pick the ones I usually agree with, but no aggregated score with unknown weighting.
invenio I don't understand why people are against this. The more information the better. If you don't like metacrtic scores, just ignore it. Frankly, it seems like all the games on gog are rated 4 1/2 starts to 4 stars. Even the few absolute worst games are rated 3 1/2 start. GOG reviews tend to be way inflated in respect to other reviewers.
I say, the more the merrier, let the user decide what reviews he/she will take. I support metacritic scores being added, in addition to any other scoring system that is available and could be incorporated into the site.
Xiyng No, no, no. Metacritic is like communism: A good thing in theory but doesn't work in practice.
Faeja_Vu Perhaps a system similar to what Newegg has would be better? It keeps the reviews people here have made, but gives a better representation of how the votes are distributed.
dogsonofawolf OK, so the comments have convinced me this isn't actually a good idea. But you have to admit the review system on GoG has serious problems as it stands. Ratings are hopelessly inflated, and the default "most helpful" ordering reinforces biases. People see all 5 star reviews on the front page, buy the game, mark those three as helpful. Then they play the game, discover it kind of sucks, and check back to find a bunch of 2/3 star reviews on the second page which will never get enough votes to come to the front. I have no evidence GoG actively stacks reviews, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me. So anyways, metacritic sounds unideal, but something should be done to get a more objective reasding on quality. Maybe a "most helpful positive" and "most helpful negative" review button, or shortcut for viewing all 3 star reviews (a la Amazon).
TADLO137 Please dear god no. Please try and KILL Metacritic.
gnodab Please god no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never wished to vote against a feature other people might find useful, but seriously metacritic is worse than cancer. I can not believe that someone actually requested this feature. Must have been someone on metacritics payroll.
BmB Metacritic is cancer. It's the problem that causes paid off reviews. There's nothing but marketing numbers on that site.
alex242 I get were the idea comes from, but most of these games HAVE no opinions on metacritic. If you really want to focus on the opinion of a "expert computer game journalist" go check out mobygames, they have ratings of old games, both from users as well as from the press.
Kaldurenik No.
JCD-Bionicman >Fuck >Yes
kreidos No.
Kyo555 Please don't. Besides most games are so old, they don't even have a rating on Metacritic, as far as I know.
morpheus[] Opinions =/= Facts. Fuck Metacritic.
pbaggers It might not work as well as intended, but it's worth a true. As horribly biased as professional critics tend to be, I don't think they're as bad as a userbase that tends to either see everything through a nostalgia filter, or doesn't want to seem rude or "entitled" about a disappointing release. Some downright terrible games on this site have undeserved 4, and sometimes even 5-star ratings, and a metacritic score could offer a slightly better indication of a games quality. The ability to filter games by Metacritic scores would be a good feature as well.
F4LL0UT On one hand I support this as Metacritic simply aggregates scores and it's a convenient way to learn what "professionals" think. On the other hand I absolutely dislike this idea for two reasons: Metacritic does not care much for old or unpopular games. An aggregated score consisting of four reviews is a bad joke. If GOG added metascores this would only work for a small percentage of games available in the catalogue. Not to mention that critique from times of a game's release often get dated and do not reflect a game's current value and quality (let's face it: some games were panned by critic's although they went on to become cult classics or even legendary, others age really badly). ALSO: I think that the user ratings and reviews are perfectly suited for GOG and absolutely suffice. After having used GOG for some time I can say that the user score is usually closer to the actual game quality than what critics may say. It's usually honest critique by thousands of registered users, most of which are experienced gamers (after all, GOG still mostly attracts people who have been gaming for at least like fifteen years). The occasional moronic review is nothing compared to several biased professional reviewers or even scores that were increased because of pressure from the publisher. So yeah, even if I use Metacritic ocassionally: metascores should not be present on GOG.
mouton Gog's reveiw system is horrible enough, we don't need any more disinformation.
dnovraD Considering that Metacritic is simply a content aggregation, and not an actual review site, I'm all for shooting this bird down.
Sentry of the Labyrinth Please GOG whatever you do, just don't make this happen. Metacritic is awful and should be shut down forever.
capgreyfox Like many others before me, I'm AGAINST this. As Nikolaos stated: Fuck metacritic.
Tman1508 When there are 100 people who hate a game and the game would because of that reason have a rating of 5/100. And when you buy a game and find out you love it, than you would probably not have bought that game because you visited that one website where the rating was 5/100
odiro i dont think is smart to use a rating sysem that is known to cause employes to fired from their jobs if their jobs dont a high enough score
Nikolaos As there is no downvote option: Fuck metacritic.
Thammuz90 As if metacritic hadn't done enough damage to the industry already.
bushwhacker2k I'm against this. I think suggestions for an expanded rating system in GOG is fine, but there's no reason to bring in ratings from external sources.
DCT Bad idea is bad. Not only Metacritic flawed beyond belief but a good number of games on GOG don't even have Metacritic scores
tajemniczybeton Metacritic rating system is awful.
johnlurv How about no?
S/O/U/P I can honestly say that I would not want metacritic implemented in GOG.com. Metacritic is fundamentally flawed, as is the entire "out of 100" scoring system.
shin_gerharar Scoring systems for games (and art) are fundamentally idiotic by their nature. GOG should get rid of user scoring system as well. You want to learn whether you'll like the game or not? Read the damn review.
LeftHandedMatt I don't know if Metacritic or Mobygames would be the best options, but the current rating system on GOG does not work at all. Almost every game has 4/5 or 5/5 because the only people reviewing them here are those who have played and loved them.
Starmaker Do not want. A 0-100 scoring system is problematic in itself, systemic bias (meaning unintentional, intentional bias is on top of that) makes it even worse.
59 comments about this wish