249 réponses à ce sujet

[Juggernaught203]

Soul Cool wrote...


For the people who don't like reviews: That's fine and dandy. I like to have at least some idea of what I'm getting into before I decide to buy something.

Do you buy a car without doing at least a LITTLE research on it?

Sure. But it will be exactly that; research. To get an impression on things i'll want to pay attention for. But that still doesn't mean I will have to agree with the person writing it, nor does it mean I don't want to play the game (or in your analogy, test-drive the car) myself before deciding if i'm actually going to play/buy the full game. One of the reasons would be because I have no idea what kind of person the reviewer is, how he/she experiences a game, it's story, etc.
The world is, after all, not the way it is. It's how each individual sees and experiences it, regardless if the world is fictional or not. One person may love cars, for example, but i'll take a decent motorcycle over the most smooth-looking, fastest car any day. Simply because I like riding a motorcycle a lot better. That being said, a car/motorcycle is different from a game, due to the obvious reason that a game isn't lethal when its flawed, and a car potentially is.

Translating my car v.s. motorcycle to the world of gaming; graphics don't interest me a great deal. I still play TES II: Daggerfall from time to time, for God's sake... Most people I know refuse to play it simply because of the graphics. I'm not about to base my opinion on what "others" or "the reviewer from metacritic" says. When I read a review, it's mostly looking for facts, "this and that has changed/removed/added from the previous game". I might think "****, that sucks" or "thats cool" when reading it, but when I look at Fable 3's "weapon morphs" system, I can't help but feel let down. When I read the whole thing about changing weapons, I had grand images of angelic blades or fiendish looking hammers, but when I actually played the game I had several "that's it???" moments when looking at these weapons.

I really prefer to actually see and play the game and test it out myself before I'm going to give it a definite judgement, regardless of what "everyone", "most people" or "reviewer x of website y" says.

Modifié par Juggernaught203, 22 février 2011 - 01:10 .

[Yrkoon]

AlexXIV wrote...

Also the rating magazines give can also be used to rate reviewers and not only games. If I see a bad rating from a reviewer and it is my personal best-ever-game I know that these people obviously haven't found someone who can appreciate the same things that I do.

^this.

People love to wave their hands and dismiss reviews by saying stuff like "they're being paid to praise so they can't be trusted to tell it like it really is!"

But the fact of the matter is that  a magazine/author, like any other comercial entity, puts their own credibility on the line whenever they  put  their name on something.   And a *smart* gamer can quickly learn who to trust and who not to trust based on past track records.  Someone earlier on this thread mentioned Angry Joe as a reviewer they trust.   This is a perfect example.  If you recognize someone  who has proven to have similar  gaming opinions to your own, then Yes,  his/her Review of a game you haven't played yet DOES matter.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 22 février 2011 - 01:41 .

[Vahe]

Seb Hanlon wrote...

Let's not encourage or discuss piracy on the developer's official forums, shall we.

Edit: The policy about not discussing piracy stands.

Modifié par Seb Hanlon, 22 février 2011 - 01:51 .

[Yrkoon]

Vahe wrote...

Seb Hanlon wrote...

Let's not encourage or discuss piracy on the developer's official forums, shall we.

Piracy leads to sales. 

Aah yes.   Logic that makes sense there.

Sorta like  Sex leads to virginity.  Binge drinking leads to sobriety.  Eating leads to starvation.

[The Bard From Hell]

Somewhere along the 90's, maybe 80something...



And on the whole "my opinion is the one that matters"... Splatterhouse had horrible grades, considered a crappy game. Never in my life had I so much fun with a game. Ever. And that said, I'm a much bigger fan of complex stories than simple stuff, but that game got me so into it that I played it on Brutal, and I never play past Normal (unless I really want an achievement). So yes, our own opinions are the best of all for us.

[AlexXIV]

So is the metacritic rating incomming some time soon or is this thread supposed to be up for the next couple of weeks?

[Anathemic]

I don't really see the point in this thread

[NightmarezAbound]

Frankly, I do not care, like to judge a game for myself on how much fun "I" have playing it. If I do not enjoy it off it goes and I am more careful of futures products from that company. But the reverse is also true, if a game in the past was that good, I will give the next game a shot more often. And after that go by word of mouth of people who play and like the same type of games I do.

[AlexXIV]

Anathemic wrote...

I don't really see the point in this thread

. <--- here it is.

[Soul Cool]

Juggernaught203 wrote...

Sure. But it will be exactly that; research. To get an impression on things i'll want to pay attention for. But that still doesn't mean I will have to agree with the person writing it, nor does it mean I don't want to play the game (or in your analogy, test-drive the car) myself before deciding if i'm actually going to play/buy the full game. One of the reasons would be because I have no idea what kind of person the reviewer is, how he/she experiences a game, it's story, etc.
The world is, after all, not the way it is. It's how each individual sees and experiences it, regardless if the world is fictional or not. One person may love cars, for example, but i'll take a decent motorcycle over the most smooth-looking, fastest car any day. Simply because I like riding a motorcycle a lot better. That being said, a car/motorcycle is different from a game, due to the obvious reason that a game isn't lethal when its flawed, and a car potentially is.

Translating my car v.s. motorcycle to the world of gaming; graphics don't interest me a great deal. I still play TES II: Daggerfall from time to time, for God's sake... Most people I know refuse to play it simply because of the graphics. I'm not about to base my opinion on what "others" or "the reviewer from metacritic" says. When I read a review, it's mostly looking for facts, "this and that has changed/removed/added from the previous game". I might think "****, that sucks" or "thats cool" when reading it, but when I look at Fable 3's "weapon morphs" system, I can't help but feel let down. When I read the whole thing about changing weapons, I had grand images of angelic blades or fiendish looking hammers, but when I actually played the game I had several "that's it???" moments when looking at these weapons.

I really prefer to actually see and play the game and test it out myself before I'm going to give it a definite judgement, regardless of what "everyone", "most people" or "reviewer x of website y" says.

And that is perfectly fine.

I don't look at a review and say "Oh, 8/10, this game must be good!" I see the overall score and then look into the review for WHY the reviewer said that. Which leads me to the mechanics and objects that the score is based on, which I can then judge for myself as to whether or not I LIKE that review or can agree with it. It's not that complicated a process to see why a reviewer says something in a detailed article. Which is what I think people should do.

[Estel78]

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

*I'm quite certain it will be 94% on IGN.

They definitelly won't give it 94 since they changed their scoring. Games are scored in increments of 5, so it can either be 90 or 95. 

[_Antar_]

 90%

[Sharn01]

Going out on a limb here and guessing it will be somewhere between 1 and 100.

[Gabriel S.]

Estel78 wrote...

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

*I'm quite certain it will be 94% on IGN.

They definitelly won't give it 94 since they changed their scoring. Games are scored in increments of 5, so it can either be 90 or 95. 

That they did, indeed. Hm, wonder why...

[SnakeHelah]

Something like 90% or something, but game reviews are for ******

Modifié par SnakeHelah, 22 février 2011 - 02:07 .

[PhrosniteAgainROFL]

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

Estel78 wrote...

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

*I'm quite certain it will be 94% on IGN.

They definitelly won't give it 94 since they changed their scoring. Games are scored in increments of 5, so it can either be 90 or 95. 

That they did, indeed. Hm, wonder why...

Because the 20 number system is the best rating system. Score like 79 or 94 are funny...

[BrunoB1971]

The Rock says " IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE SCORE IS" jabroni!



ahahahahah

[MorrigansLove]

OMG I WAS RIGHT! I AM THE MESSIAH!

[LyndseyCousland]

Well, considering how most people seem to have brains consisting mostly of soup...

[Boiny Bunny]

Slightly off topic in response to PhrosniteAgainROFL above:

Personally, I'd like to see a rating system for games where an absolute score is given (say 7/10), and a comparative score is given. The point of reference when comparing the two would either be a popular similar games OR a prequel if there was one.

This would be particularly useful for reviewing sequels to games, where fans undoubtedly get over-dissapointed with the changes made.

It might mean that DA2 would score something like:

- 6/10 on the Absolute Scale (where 5/10 is a completely average game)
- 3/10 on the Relative Scale (where 5/10 would be equal to Origins, > 5/10 means better than Origins)

The ratings systems in use currently don't provide much - since many are under the misconception that 5 is average, and anything with a 7 - 8 is well above average and worth purchasing. When really, the average score given today is actually in the 7 - 8 range, and it is only games that are above this that are 'above average'.

That's my take on it anyway.

[Gatt9]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Slightly off topic in response to PhrosniteAgainROFL above:

Personally, I'd like to see a rating system for games where an absolute score is given (say 7/10), and a comparative score is given. The point of reference when comparing the two would either be a popular similar games OR a prequel if there was one.

This would be particularly useful for reviewing sequels to games, where fans undoubtedly get over-dissapointed with the changes made.

It might mean that DA2 would score something like:

- 6/10 on the Absolute Scale (where 5/10 is a completely average game)
- 3/10 on the Relative Scale (where 5/10 would be equal to Origins, > 5/10 means better than Origins)

The ratings systems in use currently don't provide much - since many are under the misconception that 5 is average, and anything with a 7 - 8 is well above average and worth purchasing. When really, the average score given today is actually in the 7 - 8 range, and it is only games that are above this that are 'above average'.

That's my take on it anyway.

It's not a take anymore,  someone recently released an analysis of game ratings over a period of serveral months,  turns out 7 is the average.  Which says worlds about the integrity of the gaming press today.

[Boiny Bunny]

Gatt9 wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Slightly off topic in response to PhrosniteAgainROFL above:

Personally, I'd like to see a rating system for games where an absolute score is given (say 7/10), and a comparative score is given. The point of reference when comparing the two would either be a popular similar games OR a prequel if there was one.

This would be particularly useful for reviewing sequels to games, where fans undoubtedly get over-dissapointed with the changes made.

It might mean that DA2 would score something like:

- 6/10 on the Absolute Scale (where 5/10 is a completely average game)
- 3/10 on the Relative Scale (where 5/10 would be equal to Origins, > 5/10 means better than Origins)

The ratings systems in use currently don't provide much - since many are under the misconception that 5 is average, and anything with a 7 - 8 is well above average and worth purchasing. When really, the average score given today is actually in the 7 - 8 range, and it is only games that are above this that are 'above average'.

That's my take on it anyway.

It's not a take anymore,  someone recently released an analysis of game ratings over a period of serveral months,  turns out 7 is the average.  Which says worlds about the integrity of the gaming press today.

Thanks for that tidbit of information.  That's quite interesting - but not necessarily in incorrect I suppose.  Perhaps it's simply our way of thinking that needs to adapt.

Consider the grading system used in schools/university.  The following is approximate (the partitions differ by institution of course)

<50 = Fail.
50 - 60 = E (atrocious)
60 - 70 = D (mediocre)
70 - 75 = C (in every way average, does not excel)
75 - 80 = B (above average)
80 - 100 = A (excellent)

The ratings system used for games follows a similar structure in my opinion.  A game that gets below 5 is in the 'do not even look at the box as it may cause instantaneous and permanant blindness' category.  But 5 - 6 is still an atrocious game, certainly not above average.  6 - 7 is quite mediocre, and most wouldn't bother with it, unless it is a niche game with a hardcore fanbase (e.g. Dynasty Warriors).

7 - 8 is the average.  That's what most games get, and represents the threshold where many buyers are willing to put their money.

8+ is the great games.

That's not to say of course, that reviewers are unbiased.  That would be silly to assume.  No matter how much a person might try, there is no such thing as an unbiased review.  Rather, you read a review for that person's opinions, and only truly get something out of the review, if you understand the way in which they see the world, and understand how their personal preferences might apply to the game being reviewed.

[jmbrosendo]

I own games, such as Close Combat 3 that got horrible reviews, and I played it till exhaustion on my lunch breaks. In CCIII case it was around 32%. Depends on the reviewer.


Magazine reviewers generally do not handout bad scores to big names for a simple reason. They would be blocked and marginalized by the very publishers regarding early access to information and copies of the game for review. Without those there is no timely review, for those eager to read. It's no secret there is hardly an unbiased professional reviewer out there.

Regarding metacritic, DA2 has 2400+ user reviews. Good or bad reviews, that says alot of the current franchise popularity. It seems DA by itself is a well known brand, with a strong following relative to other games, and highly vocal.

[Gatt9]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Slightly off topic in response to PhrosniteAgainROFL above:

Personally, I'd like to see a rating system for games where an absolute score is given (say 7/10), and a comparative score is given. The point of reference when comparing the two would either be a popular similar games OR a prequel if there was one.

This would be particularly useful for reviewing sequels to games, where fans undoubtedly get over-dissapointed with the changes made.

It might mean that DA2 would score something like:

- 6/10 on the Absolute Scale (where 5/10 is a completely average game)
- 3/10 on the Relative Scale (where 5/10 would be equal to Origins, > 5/10 means better than Origins)

The ratings systems in use currently don't provide much - since many are under the misconception that 5 is average, and anything with a 7 - 8 is well above average and worth purchasing. When really, the average score given today is actually in the 7 - 8 range, and it is only games that are above this that are 'above average'.

That's my take on it anyway.

It's not a take anymore,  someone recently released an analysis of game ratings over a period of serveral months,  turns out 7 is the average.  Which says worlds about the integrity of the gaming press today.

Thanks for that tidbit of information.  That's quite interesting - but not necessarily in incorrect I suppose.  Perhaps it's simply our way of thinking that needs to adapt.

Consider the grading system used in schools/university.  The following is approximate (the partitions differ by institution of course)

<50 = Fail.
50 - 60 = E (atrocious)
60 - 70 = D (mediocre)
70 - 75 = C (in every way average, does not excel)
75 - 80 = B (above average)
80 - 100 = A (excellent)

The ratings system used for games follows a similar structure in my opinion.  A game that gets below 5 is in the 'do not even look at the box as it may cause instantaneous and permanant blindness' category.  But 5 - 6 is still an atrocious game, certainly not above average.  6 - 7 is quite mediocre, and most wouldn't bother with it, unless it is a niche game with a hardcore fanbase (e.g. Dynasty Warriors).

7 - 8 is the average.  That's what most games get, and represents the threshold where many buyers are willing to put their money.

8+ is the great games.

That's not to say of course, that reviewers are unbiased.  That would be silly to assume.  No matter how much a person might try, there is no such thing as an unbiased review.  Rather, you read a review for that person's opinions, and only truly get something out of the review, if you understand the way in which they see the world, and understand how their personal preferences might apply to the game being reviewed.

You're right of course,  about the bias.

But I disagree with your assessment of the ratings system.  Compressing it from a 10 point scale to a 5 point scale,  which is essentially what's happening,  causes enourmous problems.

First,  if you tell someone a game is 7/10,  they're going to think it's above average.  Common sense dictates that 5 is average,  so the scale is intentionally misdirecting the reader.

Second,  the granularity is too fine.  A 7 is average,  so what does a 7.5 equate to?  Technically speaking,  it's the equivalent of saying a game is a 6 as the scale is halved,  a 6 is still something likely to not be satisfying. 

Further,  it puts us on a slippery slope.  If we accept them compressing the reviews,  then how far away are we from the day when 8 becomes average?  Or 9?  By accepting the skewing of review scores,  we condemn ourselves to them inevitably losing all meaning.

Mainly because the Advertisers are being reviewed,  not the games.  If you're a big name company,  you start out at 7,  pretty much no matter what.  So really,  since 7 loses it's meaning,  we're not far off from that being further skewed.

Finally,  it's the major publishers with this benefit.  Indie games are rated on a completely different scale.  So an Indie game that receives a 5 is the equivalent of DA2,  but will receive substantially fewer sales.

@jmbrosendo

Your sig rocks!  The greatest game system ever devised,  responsible for the entire basis of virtually all video games today.  Heck,  EA started with that system,  wouldn't be here today if it weren't for the incredible C64.

[Boiny Bunny]

Oh I agree with you about the granularity of a 5 point scale.

Personally, I'd be more than happy to see a 5 or a 7-8 represent 'average' - if the gaming publications would be honest about it.

Despite 7 - 8 being 'average' by statistics, it is often labelled as 'Great!', 'Above Average!', 'Notable' etc. depending on what site/magazine you look at.

The simple truth is, reviewers have to be biased to stay in business. And game developers do not need to pay them a cent to do it.

Imagine IGN and Gamespot for example. If EA decide to give Gamespot a detailed Mass Effect 3 interview and some gameplay footage, but don't give it to IGN, people will flock to Gamespot to see the stuff. Once off, it doesn't make much of a difference. But if it keeps happening, and IGN never has the newest stuff, people will stop visiting IGN, meaning IGN loses its advertising money and a good deal of its income, leading into a horrible downward spiral.

But if IGN and Gamespot both want the stuff, they need to put as positive a spin on it as possible. It's very rare to see a game preview that isn't glowing, nay, burning with positive blather.