ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
Answers are the OGB
AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH.
/Meltbrain.
The rating of DA2 on metacritic!
Débuté par
MorrigansLove
, févr. 21 2011 12:34
#51
Posté 21 février 2011 - 12:59
wulfsturm
-
- Members
- 2 901 messages
AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH.
/Meltbrain.
Retour en haut
#53
Posté 21 février 2011 - 01:01
Gvaz
-
- Members
- 1 039 messages
October Sixth wrote...
Just buy it on the first day and decide for yourself?
This.
Here's why you don't listen to metacritic:
While it's a good idea to aggregate all the scores given to a game to show an opinion as a whole, the reviews done in the first place aren't always accurate. Too many times are paid reviewers such as PCG and IGN or Gamespot paid good money to rate a game in a good light. Many times, reviewers are fired for giving a bad rating. Many times, bad ratings are simply pulled under the pretense of "oh well he was reviewing an alpha copy, not the actual game so his rating isn't accurate" or a similar excuse. Running with this statement, when are reviewers EVER sent anything but the latest version to rate? When previewing or reviewing items, sometimes the publisher/dev will be on hand with the reviewer while he plays. For a recent example, please look at the Deus Ex: Human Revolution review/preview that was out somewhat recently.
Most use a 1-10 rating, but then only really 5-10 counts. The average ratings are 7. Ergo, 7 in this case is basically a 1-5 rating, or 50%. Anything less and people go "WORST GAME EVER". Why in that case, do you ever have a 1-10 rating? just give it 4 or five stars. People have this skewed idea that if a game gets a 5, it's this average POS that no one shoud play. 5 is an AVERAGE (in this case). It's the median. It's saying the game has faults that hinder it quite a bit, but it's not a bad game. It's just okay. A rental, a borrow, whatever.
Anyways, /rant
#57
Posté 21 février 2011 - 01:04
XBenotto18
-
- Members
- 547 messages
eeeeewwwww
Modifié par XBenotto18, 21 février 2011 - 01:05 .
#58
Posté 21 février 2011 - 01:04
Lennonkun
-
- Members
- 415 messages
GvazElite wrote...
This.
Here's why you don't listen to metacritic:
While it's a good idea to aggregate all the scores given to a game to show an opinion as a whole, the reviews done in the first place aren't always accurate. Too many times are paid reviewers such as PCG and IGN or Gamespot paid good money to rate a game in a good light. Many times, reviewers are fired for giving a bad rating. Many times, bad ratings are simply pulled under the pretense of "oh well he was reviewing an alpha copy, not the actual game so his rating isn't accurate" or a similar excuse. Running with this statement, when are reviewers EVER sent anything but the latest version to rate? When previewing or reviewing items, sometimes the publisher/dev will be on hand with the reviewer while he plays. For a recent example, please look at the Deus Ex: Human Revolution review/preview that was out somewhat recently.
Most use a 1-10 rating, but then only really 5-10 counts. The average ratings are 7. Ergo, 7 in this case is basically a 1-5 rating, or 50%. Anything less and people go "WORST GAME EVER". Why in that case, do you ever have a 1-10 rating? just give it 4 or five stars. People have this skewed idea that if a game gets a 5, it's this average POS that no one shoud play. 5 is an AVERAGE (in this case). It's the median. It's saying the game has faults that hinder it quite a bit, but it's not a bad game. It's just okay. A rental, a borrow, whatever.
Anyways, /rant
Pretty much. Take Giant Bomb for instance folks. Giant Bomb formed shortly after Jeff got fired for giving Kane and Lynch a bad review after Gamespot had been heavily advertising it.
Rock, Paper, Shotgun is another actually good site, and their preview of DX:HR honestly has me really excited.
#59
Posté 21 février 2011 - 01:05
Helena Tylena
-
- Members
- 1 237 messages
If 'less than 70% means crap' numeric scores are useless. Written (or spoken) reviews, explaining how a game works and what's enjoyable about it and what isn't are useful. Arbitrary numbers that can mean ANYTHING are not. "This game is awesome! 75%" "This game is horrible! 78%"
I've seen it happen.
I've seen it happen.
#60
Posté 21 février 2011 - 01:06
XBenotto18
-
- Members
- 547 messages
kane and lynch sucks. WORST GRAPHICS
#61
Posté 21 février 2011 - 01:06
PaulSX
-
- Members
- 1 127 messages
I'll bet at 85~90 range, most likey 88 or 89
#62
Posté 21 février 2011 - 01:07
contextual_entity
-
- Members
- 345 messages
Lennonkun wrote...
Rock, Paper, Shotgun is another actually good site, and their preview of DX:HR honestly has me really excited.
I agree with this. Most because it's just Gillian and Meers (and a few others) little side project. It's more a games blog by reviewers than an actual review site.
#64
Posté 21 février 2011 - 01:12
wulfsturm
-
- Members
- 2 901 messages
Lennonkun wrote...
Pretty much. Take Giant Bomb for instance folks. Giant Bomb formed shortly after Jeff got fired for giving Kane and Lynch a bad review after Gamespot had been heavily advertising it.
Rock, Paper, Shotgun is another actually good site, and their preview of DX:HR honestly has me really excited.
Aggregate scores > some random sites that you like.
#65
Posté 21 février 2011 - 01:12
Johnson45
-
- Members
- 347 messages
I'd say about 85, but then I don't know as much about the game as others 
#66
Posté 21 février 2011 - 01:15
XBenotto18
-
- Members
- 547 messages
Rock, Paper, Shotgun is a good site,oh please don't feed us that crap on the forums
Modifié par XBenotto18, 21 février 2011 - 01:16 .
#67
Posté 21 février 2011 - 01:16
DTKT
-
- Members
- 1 650 messages
wulfsturm wrote...
Lennonkun wrote...
Pretty much. Take Giant Bomb for instance folks. Giant Bomb formed shortly after Jeff got fired for giving Kane and Lynch a bad review after Gamespot had been heavily advertising it.
Rock, Paper, Shotgun is another actually good site, and their preview of DX:HR honestly has me really excited.
Aggregate scores > some random sites that you like.
Not when an 8 from Eurogamer is not the same as a 4 from Giant Bomb. Metacritic will aggregate as the same. Metacritic is great when you want a broad picture of the critical reception of the game, but I will never buy a game looking at the metacritic average only.
#68
Posté 21 février 2011 - 01:18
Helena Tylena
-
- Members
- 1 237 messages
XBenotto18 wrote...
kane and lynch sucks. WORST GRAPHICS
Yeah, because a game with horrible graphics cannot be good in any way possible!
Don't get me wrong. Kane and Lynch was probably one of the worst games I tried playing, but the graphics were the very LEAST of the things that frustrated me.
#69
Posté 21 février 2011 - 01:20
wulfsturm
-
- Members
- 2 901 messages
DTKT wrote...
Not when an 8 from Eurogamer is not the same as a 4 from Giant Bomb. Metacritic will aggregate as the same. Metacritic is great when you want a broad picture of the critical reception of the game, but I will never buy a game looking at the metacritic average only.
And that is why you look at more then one source.
#70
Posté 21 février 2011 - 01:20
XBenotto18
-
- Members
- 547 messages
I just went to rockpapershotgun.com and it say PC gaming since 1873. 1873?
#71
Posté 21 février 2011 - 01:21
Helena Tylena
-
- Members
- 1 237 messages
wulfsturm wrote...
Lennonkun wrote...
Pretty much. Take Giant Bomb for instance folks. Giant Bomb formed shortly after Jeff got fired for giving Kane and Lynch a bad review after Gamespot had been heavily advertising it.
Rock, Paper, Shotgun is another actually good site, and their preview of DX:HR honestly has me really excited.
Aggregate scores > some random sites that you like.
HAH!
No.
If you find 'some random sites' that seem to share your opinions and tastes about many games you know, then what they say will be of more value to you than whatever comes out of an artificial 'overmind'-ish site like Metacritic.
But goodness forbid people actually form opinions of their own. Oh, no. That wouldn't be mainstream.
#72
Posté 21 février 2011 - 01:22
Gvaz
-
- Members
- 1 039 messages
RPS and Giantbomb are okay usually. I find a large majority of the time Gametrailers is pretty good as well.
I say that from:
Beating the game, then afterward going to watch the review and nodding along agreeing with what they said. Because of this, I tend to agree with GT.
I say that from:
Beating the game, then afterward going to watch the review and nodding along agreeing with what they said. Because of this, I tend to agree with GT.
#73
Posté 21 février 2011 - 01:23
Gvaz
-
- Members
- 1 039 messages
XBenotto18 wrote...
I just went to rockpapershotgun.com and it say PC gaming since 1873. 1873?
It's a joke. People do that on the internet.
#74
Posté 21 février 2011 - 01:23
Blacklash93
-
- Members
- 4 154 messages
I'm hoping 90+, but realistically I'm expecting around 85-89.
With the problems metioned in the reviews, it would seem that Bioware has taken a step back in design quality from ME2. The mention of recycled environments worries me.
That and the skilltrees are described as mostly linear. With all the pre-requirements for skills they may only have the initial illusion of depth.
With the problems metioned in the reviews, it would seem that Bioware has taken a step back in design quality from ME2. The mention of recycled environments worries me.
That and the skilltrees are described as mostly linear. With all the pre-requirements for skills they may only have the initial illusion of depth.
Modifié par Blacklash93, 21 février 2011 - 01:29 .
#75
Posté 21 février 2011 - 01:24
wulfsturm
-
- Members
- 2 901 messages
Helena Tylena wrote...
HAH!
No.
If you find 'some random sites' that seem to share your opinions and tastes about many games you know, then what they say will be of more value to you than whatever comes out of an artificial 'overmind'-ish site like Metacritic.
But goodness forbid people actually form opinions of their own. Oh, no. That wouldn't be mainstream.
Oh yes, and as we know mainstream is terrible, right?
<_<
