Why is there such a huge discrepancy between “professional reviews” and user reviews?

Nintendo always wins baybe!!!

Attached: 77474747.png (1128x1856, 313K)

>88

User reviews are usually not paid

Because professional reviews aren't by retards who follow a hivemind on image boards.

>Because professional reviews aren't by retards who follow a hivemind
fucking lmao

HEIL

Because sonyfags are cucks.

>""""""professional"""""" game reviewers
no such thing

Remember to use the same tactic we used on astral chain.
Let's review bomb the game with negative score and give a positive score for any sony game.
When the negative scores gets deleted the score will get a nice boost.

But astral chain ended up being fucking awesome and genneraly praised right ? I mean that's litteraly gang nigger tactics, sonnyggers never made this much sense

how is the game getting user reviews already , game isnt even out

Nano is cute! CUTE!

You realize they ended up deleting the 0/10 reviews which ended up making AC look like a good game. We need to give this game mediocre reviews like around 5/10 or 6/10. I will type of easy copypasta that you can mix and match for you guys to post.

>double buffered vsync halves the framerate every time there's a frame drop

Why not just lock it at 30fps at that point?

It's all about justification of purchase, something which works for both proving you didn't waste your money but making others feel like they did.
So if you bought console 1, then you would want to think your money wasn't wasted and therefore feel inclined to praise whatever is available which isn't on console 2.
Seeing something worthwhile on console 2 would annoy you for buying the wrong thing, in order to make yourself feel better you give it a bad score in a desperate chance to make it true, when enough people do this then it gives the impression console 2 has bad games.
The people who do this are lying to themselves in until they believe their own lies.
I believe this could also be why pirates don't enjoy games as much as people who purchase them because they don't feel they lose anything other than their time and would drop a game as soon as they lose interest. Someone who paid for a game would want to get every penny of value out of that purchase, even if they recognise the game wasn't very good.

Professional reviewers are bound by professional interest and personal interest. As a reviewer they aren't swayed by a justification of purchase because they get the console and game for free and would instead adhere to what might be in it for them either professionally or personally if they give a game a good score.
If they know the dev team, or want to know them, then it's beneficial to provide a glowing review, get invited for interviews and visit studio parties.
If the game is making a big advertising push then putting a top review would mean their ["wow 5 stars"-cunt gamers] would be on every single banner and draw people to the website which itself would likely have the entire background replaced with another huge advert.

tl;dr money

Ever see Ratatouille?

That's the plan. That's why astral chain got a nice user score.

What? You fucking retard why would you want to give AC a good score? Do you even understand what we are trying to do right now?

>8.8
are nintendies going to burn down Metacritic this time?

Being bullish about user reviews is basically video game populism

Attached: 47755788.jpg (2308x1156, 503K)

No but snoys will reviewbomb the user score again

Are you dumb? Looks what we did with astral chain the plan is a success.

professional reviews aren't based on feelings

Look up Dave Chapelle's new special on Rotten Tomatoes if you want a real discrepancy.
There's no such thing as professional "video games journalism". It's just fanboy wankers spouting their precious memes and pretending to be worth a damn. You know what games you like; play those games, and stop giving a damn what a website says.

N-no, you fucking traitor!

mexican bots aren't users. They fight for a cause. Like you right now.

>88
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

It's much worse than that. The constant stuttering doesn't seem, in most cases, to be linked to action on screen. I.e. it's not a GPU bottleneck when too much is going on, since it always settles out at 60fps given a few seconds to load in. The problem is apparently tied to asset streaming, so cutting the frame rate or resolution or even overclocking does nothing to fix it. It's seemingly i/o bound.

This game really feels bad in motion in its current state, and if a day-1 patch was coming you think it'd already be out for reviewers.

Haha wtf.

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-09-20 at 12.53.38 AM.png (1078x638, 99K)

I too watched gamexplains video faggot.

Don't reply to me again.

Professionals usually take their review more seriously because they're doing it as a job/to present themselves as well as review media. They can have snafus and be affected by the politics of a piece of media, so taking a lump number of multiple reviews is still hazardous, best to follow 2 or 3 people you agree with in taste than take a metacritic/RT number as word.

User reviews are all over the place, from authentic critique and praise, to absurd ratings (0 vs 100). They're generally unreliable regardless of the score because they're even more heavily affected by politics (due to the amount of them) and without a platform to get an idea of the user personally it's hard to follow.

If you actually use Metacritic or RT to get a genuine opinion of a piece of media the only time I'de say it's slightly reliable as to the true quality of something is when both scores align. Usually means the games uncontroversial and is being judged on it's actual gameplay value/what it serves.

how a worse looking and potentially smaller texture sized game runs worse than Botw that came out 2 years ago. What the fuck is wrong with Nintendo?

Nintendo didn't make this themselves.

Also what's the point of the fixed 8-direction movement of Link when everything else in the world moves with full freedom? Just looks weird.

Who made it? Monolith?

Does it matter what the reviewers say? It's all the same in the end. It's so tiresome.

Attached: 1548184468721.png (1184x1294, 483K)

Whatever, it's so obvious by now that Nintendo journalists fix their scores when it comes to zelda that I can't imagine anyone caring about them anymore.

You cannot be honest when it's your job to sell someone elses product.

>it's so obvious by now that Nintendo journalists fix their scores when it comes to zelda
Eh, they don't really have a reason to. Not to mention Zelda tends to go up and down rather than being consistent.

It wasn't bad, I laughed quite a few times. There are some boring slice-of-life segments that aren't well thought-through and it's far worse than his routine in his prime.

These guys.

Forgot pic of course.

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-09-20 at 1.05.44 AM.png (2040x1136, 402K)

Professional reviewers only play about an hour of the game.
User reviews are dominated entirely a hatebase as shown by Astral Chain.

Professional reviews are also rushed because they have to post them while the game is fresh and new, and so reviewers can't take their time to learn the mechanics and explore the content.

If you're pro-professional reviewer, you'll say it's because user reviewers are prone to review-bombing
If you're pro-user reviewer, you'll say it's because professional reviews tend to be paid-off.
In reality, it's a bit of both.

True no one, trust yourself.