177 réponses à ce sujet

[allsevens777]

Yes it could be a variety of reasons why critics and users reviews differ VASTLY. But I'd have to go with users, as I don't know if many will be buying a third after this disaster. Really, really boring story and characters.

[PeterBazooka]

Probably. It's not really a secret that big companies like EA hold a lot of sway over many of the sites that review their games.

[LeBurns]

I don't know if they actually paid them.  It wouldn't surprise me as who isn't looking for money these days.

I do believe that giving out exclusive interviews is an incentive that BW can give or take away.  Want an exclusive interview, give a glowing review.  Give an honest review that's not favorable, no interview.

Honestly I stopped looking at professional reveiws a long time ago.  I generally look for player reveiws that are the lowest, read them and determine for myself if what turned the person off is something that would bother me.  Sometimes it's actually something I would like.

[Zulu_DFA]

In a nutshell, yes. Most of the time it's indirect though, as the "professional" reviewers simply flinch all by themselves to put anything less than 8/10 to what they perceive as a big release, and risk being unofficially blacklisted by the publishers. A prospect of seeing no new invitations to various events, no interviews, and no new games to review must be a serious deterrent from being objective. But a few of the most favorable reviews are possibly outright bribed, via some kind of a backroom deal. After all, videogames are serious business...

[DTKT]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

In a nutshell, yes. Most of the time it's indirect though, as the "professional" reviewers simply flinch all by themselves to put anything less than 8/10 to what they perceive as a big release, and risk being unofficially blacklisted by the publishers. A prospect of seeing no new invitations to various events, no interviews, and no new games to review must be a serious deterrent from being objective. But a few of the most favorable reviews are possibly outright bribed, via some kind of a backroom deal. After all, videogames are serious business...

I can never tell when you are serious Zulu.

Either way, the only review that has me puzzled is the 94% from PC Gamer. It just doesnt fit.

Or the 5/5 for The Escapist.

Modifié par DTKT, 15 mars 2011 - 01:06 .

[froaga]

http://patchtimer.or...00140568537.png

[Marionetten]

They gave PC gamer exclusive coverage and the rights for the first review. Of course they are bribing critics with incentives but they are hardly alone in doing it. This questionable relationship between publishers and review outlets is an ancient one.

DTKT wrote...

Either way, the only review that has me puzzled is the 94% from PC Gamer. It just doesnt fit.

Or the 5/5 for The Escapist.

Did you really expect PC gamer to give it a bad review when they got as much exclusive coverage as they did?

The Escapist on the other hand... now THAT is puzzling. 

Modifié par Marionetten, 15 mars 2011 - 01:39 .

[Tripedius]

Yes, probably. Or it's the same old mechanism in which people who depend on gamedevellopers review the games of those same devellopers. They could give bad scores, but than next time they will miss out on the free copy pre-release or sponsor income (banners etc.). So maybe it's not a obvious bribe, but it's to connected. Same as mortagebrokers and banks.

[Aesieru]

I'd give this a 7.

[Dragon of Darknes]

For giving high scores, and writing positive reviews they will probably benefit in some way.
Like access to some exclusive material...

[serthorn]

The whole game reviewing industry is corrupted by default: their main source of income are the advertisements published by game publishers - dislike their product and forget about advertisement and their money. This is why one may see some low score on reviews of some small companies products that do not decide about "be or not to be" of the reviewing site, but the "big shots" are almost always positively reviewed.

Modifié par serthorn, 15 mars 2011 - 02:21 .

[Cobrawar]

Preliatus wrote...

Title says it all..

Either 9/10 for scores has dropped down to 4/10, or EA waves a large wad of cash infront of the Critics bribing them for a good review to increase revenue?

I just read a good chunk of Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000, a book I bought from a garage sale.. weird indeed, and I say that it has a better plot than DA2.

Where did the reviews get 'Epic' from? I don't see 'Epic' in DA2, I see 'Rushed' and 'Filler' nothing 'Epic'.

Edit: Bribe sounded better than 'pay'.

 proably. I think most review sites cannot be trusted because the whole review process can be manipulated by the companies themselves.

Modifié par Cobrawar, 15 mars 2011 - 02:23 .

[Heinrich843]

People who believe the Illuminati are behind everything are just as crazy as anyone who claims there's no possibility for corruption and that everyone is full of it.

As many rational people have mentioned before me, indirectly a game publisher would have sway over their review. This comes with the territory of having larger game productions and larger companies. Over the last 5 years or so, game reviewers have had the tendency to up vote most things (90%+). It's not unique to this game, or any other big title that has it's fans and dislikes.

http://www.escapistm...twork/1047-ROJO

Modifié par Heinrich843, 15 mars 2011 - 03:08 .

[JosephCurwen]

LeBurns wrote...

I do believe that giving out exclusive interviews is an incentive that BW can give or take away.  Want an exclusive interview, give a glowing review.  Give an honest review that's not favorable, no interview.

This is half the answer. The other half is that professional game reviewers often aren't the sophisticated people that some might imagine them to be. Bear in mind that it is a job that requires no qualifications and for which there is no training.

Many people on this forum are at least as able to judge the quality of games as your average gamespot/ign/pc gamer reviewer.

[FuseBlues]

Can’t imagine it was anything to do with reviewers actually liking the game.

[Biefstukfriet]

Direct bribes, probably not. But witholding VIP passes for events, not giving any interviews or not sending pre-release press packages etc to critical review sites and magazines are strong pressure methods.

[Gary the Gnu]

multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/05/29/low-metacritic-costs-developers/

I think EA would rather keep the bonus money.  

[Clammo]

Directly no, highly doubtful.

But exclusives, advertising, etc, must have a certain degree of influence. It's unfortunate that they seem to have a symbiotic relationship where they both need each other for survival, as this to some extent, must bring into question the impartiality of some of the major review sites.

[sarmatian1]

Biefstukfriet wrote...

Direct bribes, probably not. But witholding VIP passes for events, not giving any interviews or not sending pre-release press packages etc to critical review sites and magazines are strong pressure methods.

I agree. Also, it might have something to do with not paying attention and rushing to give any kind of review. Additionally, BW game tended to be well received by gamers so reviewers might have just assumed this one would be as well and were afraid to give lower marks because of potential user and EA/BW backlash.

Bad users score has given them pause and later reviews tend not to be so positive.

[Drake Sigar]

As I’ve said before, it’s like a financially motivated form of political correctness. Developers have the right to shun a magazine/site if they feel they’re being treated unfairly, so magazines/sites won’t do anything to offend big developers and risk losing advertising, exclusive interviews, and previews. It’s the mags/sites fault, they need to grow some balls.

[iampool]

The only review i seriously doubt about reviewers honestly is the 9.4 pc gamer gave, "best rpg of the decade", what the hell? Dunno, maybe he was on drugs when he played.
Even when to me DA2 its like a 7, 7.5, i can understand some reviewers see it as a 9 game at most...
But 9.4? WTF.

[Maverick827]

Whether or not an observable event has happened in the past is not a matter of opinion.

[Melduran]

8/10 is hogwash, I understand some of you love the game and can't understand why fans of bioware absolutley hate it with a passion. Thats understandable people have their pleasures, but as a gamer that has been around since comodore 64 I can tell you I've never felt so robbed of money after playing this what ever you wanna call it. As a matter of fact there has never been a time that I've personely felt the need to voice outrage for a video game as trivial as that sounds. And there is so many people more so then normal from reviews in the past who despise this game how can it be 8/10? When you play a RPG and you can't even stomach another play through you know theres a problem.

[Bathead]

Lame.

[Grey21]

Morrigans God son wrote...

EA games never really get real low scores. So it's likely. This game isn't a 9/10 that's for sure. More like a 6/10 or a 5/10.

EA games get plenty of low scores. The average is around a 7.0, which is funny because that is exactly what I'm giving to DA2. So in that regard DA2 is a true EA game.

If you only beat the main quest and some companion quests then this is a very enjoyable game as you would miss out on the repetitive horror that are the side quests.

One thing the 'core' fans also have to realize is that the combat system isnt broken, it is different and therefore you might hate it but it isnt broken. Tactics work rather well with the new system as your party members immediatly perform your commands. You would get a 20 hour game with a great story and a good combat system, which deserves something between a 8.0 and a 9.0.

The experience that real RPG fans got was ofcourse.... different.