132 réponses à ce sujet

[Iamnotahater]

Anyone take a look at metacritic recently?

The "Pressional" critics have Dragon Age at 84. While lay fans have rated the game 4.2.

I personally would rate this game as 7.5 and DAO 9.0. So you know where I stand but how do explain the disconnect between the two?

[tekraa]

DA:O was a niche game that catered to an large player base that loved deep, CRPG. DA2 catered to players with ADD and got a massive, negative response from the bioware/crpg fans, like myself. Cause and effect really. Major reviewers review for consoles and from a baseline add console player POV the game is amazing, thus good reviews, albeit some of the reviewers almost had to be paid because the same reviewers in the past have picked out glaring flaws in otherwise astounding games.

[marcbenigni]

It's a combination of things. I don't actually buy into the theory that reviewers are "paid off". They may be a little intimidated by EA, but that's probably a very small factor. I think it comes down to simple inertia. We believe what we want to believe. Reviewers are often previewers and they hate to reverse on the hype they've helped to propagate.

We all thought DA2 was going to be huge. It even took me about a week to start to fully grasp how little had actually been delivered.

On the flipside there's no doubt that the negative reviews are exagerrating at least where the numerical scores are concerned. I think this game is in most regards a turd, but I'd never call it a 1/10 or even a 3/10. There's a lot of good work in it. It just doesn't add up to much of a game. I'd fairly call it a 6/10 - and that's giving it the benefit of the doubt - which happens to land right between the critical vs. player scores.

Modifié par marcbenigni, 16 mars 2011 - 05:34 .

[rubydog1]

Iamnotahater wrote...

So you know where I stand but how do explain the disconnect between the two?

People are crazy.

[Osyron]

i think critics are taking the game on its own merits comparing it to all the market has to offer and i agree its on a par with most decent games out there right now, a 7 or 8 out of ten i can understand.

Fans on the other hand are comparing it DAO and by comparison a 4/10 is justified as it does fall ridiculously short of the original.

So i can see why the scores are so different.

[AkiKishi]

Thats because some reviewers gave it 94% or 10/10 which given the state of the game is borderline laughable.

Users have done the opposite giving it a very low score in protest.

I'd rate it around 4 , but any score between that and 8 would be ok.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 16 mars 2011 - 05:23 .

[StreetlightEagle]

Realistically, DA2 is nowhere near a 4... but you cannot call it an 8.4 either. Any rating higher than 8 is far too generous.

[JosephCurwen]

The truth is somewhere in between (I've given 6/10). The game passes the time, but its thin, unambitious and targeted to the lowest possible common denominator.

[javierabegazo]

A great deal of those 'reviews' by fans on Metacritic are copied and pasted, which points to a great deal of it being done by trolls from sites like 4chan and such, which I think is totally counterproductive to giving actual feedback. A two line paragraph review to me just looks like spam, where as a 3 page long review discussing actual features in specific seems much more real

[javierabegazo]

I myself would rate DA2 a 7/10. It gets docked points not for not including features that I feel "must be in an RPG" but for taking shortcuts such as reusing maps. Such a short development cycle is what really strung this game up, I think

Modifié par javierabegazo, 16 mars 2011 - 05:39 .

[Pedrak]

In general...

Professional critics are (mostly) so spineless that they typically won't rate an AAA game lower than, say, 80. Like movie critics, they try to save their credibility by listing lots of flaws but still giving a game or a movie a very high rating, so they won't make enemies with powerful developers and fanboys won't stop reading - they don't like to have their blind opinions challenged by serious reviews.

User reviews are (often) rubbish too. People use lots of hyperboles and give 0/10 to every game they did not like. WORST GAME EVAH! WORST GAME EVAH! There are also games of the opposite kind who will find no flaws about a game - BEST GAME EVAH! BEST GAME EVAH! - and they're equally worthless and embarrassing - although for DA2 trolls and haters seem to be more vocal than sycophants and fanboys.

Modifié par Pedrak, 16 mars 2011 - 05:43 .

[Nozybidaj]

Pedrak wrote...

In general...

Professional critic are (mostly) so spineless that they typically won't rate an AAA game lower than, say, 80. Like movie critics, they try to save their credibility by listing lots of flaws but still giving a game or a movie a very high rating, so they won't make enemies with powerful developers and fanboys won't stop reading - they don't like to have their blind opinions challenged by serious reviews.

User reviews are (often) rubbish too. People use lots of hyperboles and give 0/10 to every game they did not like. WORST GAME EVAH! WORST GAME EVAH!

There are also people of the opposite kind who will find no flaws about a game BEST GAME EVAH! BEST GAME EVAH!, and they're equally worthless - although for DA2 trolls and haters seem to be more vocal than sycophants and fanboys.

This pretty much.  The actual numeric scores given either by "professional" reviewers or user scores are completely useless now a days.

I might read a review now and then to get an idea of what a game is like but I always laugh a little when I see a game touting how great its review scores are or someone using a user score to show how bad a game is.  Both are pretty laughable.

[marshalleck]

marcbenigni wrote...

It's a combination of things. I don't actually buy into the theory that reviewers are "paid off".

They don't get paid off as in "here Dave, have a copy of Dragon Age 2 and enjoy this $500 check we just cut in your name. Say something nice, will ya?"

I do believe they very much have to operate under a "don't bite the hand that feeds" premise, in the sense that if they ****** off a publisher too much their magazine or site may get fewer opportunities in the future for exclusive information, previews, reviews, etc. Not to mention the risk of losing advertising dollars.

Seems like most professional reviews pull their punches quite a bit, unless the game they're reviewing truly is abhorrent, which is rare. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 16 mars 2011 - 05:43 .

[rammsoldat]

dont really care for reviews. most mags and gaming sites have to play nice nice to be able to review future games and keep friendly with game companies, others are willing to write good reviews for money. In the end you can only judge a game by your own standard because as the metacritic site has shown there are people whoi will go out of their way to spread their opinion about in a negative way also.

[Nozybidaj]

marshalleck wrote...
Not to mention the risk of losing advertising dollars.

That right there is the main reason not to take review sites too seriously.

[JamesX]

Sadly true. If this game was called Mass Effect: With Dragons, or Dragon Effect, I would have given it a 8 or 9.

It suffers from the fact that it is called DA2 and falls severely short of the series. It gets a 6 or 7 tops. It is like selling a Mini as if its a Full Size Sedan. While it is still a great car (the mini), its score is lower for not being the product it is marketed as.

[ShadowKhan]

marcbenigni wrote...

It's a combination of things. I don't actually buy into the theory that reviewers are "paid off". They may be a little intimidated by EA, but that's probably a very small factor. 

Actually professional reviewers are paid to positively review games.  Companies bring them out to wine and dine them and are usually given special treatment by the customer service team. EA is especially guilty of this among other things...

If a person reviews a game too negatively then that person generally isn't invited to the next bash or they may not get the next preview, which ultimately means they can't do their job at that fine gaming rag they write for.

So yes, all reviews will have a fairly significant amount of glow to them.  The larger the magazine the greater the glow.

That is why I prefer to watch independent reviewers. 

DA2 is not that bad. Granted I've not finished yet, but I'm not having issues or problems with the game.  

If you don't like it then don't buy the next one or take it back if you can. Please don't whine here, it is annoying and disrespectful.

[JosephCurwen]

ShadowKhan wrote...

If you don't like it then don't buy the next one or take it back if you can. Please don't whine here, it is annoying and disrespectful.

Then what is this forum's purpose in your mind?

[marshalleck]

Nozybidaj wrote...

marshalleck wrote...
Not to mention the risk of losing advertising dollars.

That right there is the main reason not to take review sites too seriously.

Yep. Or at least if you're going to look at review sites, read multiple reviews and see what they all say in common. 

[Steks25]

The reviews on metacritic are ridiculous...

The game is certainly not a 10, nor is it a 0 - trolls and blind fanboys are to blame!

[Nozybidaj]

marshalleck wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

marshalleck wrote...
Not to mention the risk of losing advertising dollars.

That right there is the main reason not to take review sites too seriously.

Yep. Or at least if you're going to look at review sites, read multiple reviews and see what they all say in common. 

I tend to just read the written reviews to see if features I am looking for are in a game.  I typically don't even care what the reviewer thought of the feature, I just want to see if it is there.

I haven't seen a good honest review site in years.  Well, maybe Yahtzee.

Modifié par Nozybidaj, 16 mars 2011 - 05:57 .

[TheAnima]

rubydog1 wrote...

Iamnotahater wrote...

So you know where I stand but how do explain the disconnect between the two?

People are crazy.

Actually, I think it's due to the average person being more likely to review something they feel is bad than something they feel is good. Where as professional ussually just go by what's out and popular.

[marcbenigni]

Actually, I think it's due to the average person being more likely to review something they feel is bad than something they feel is good.

Respectfully (as possible), utter nonsense. This just conveniently ignores the fact that SO MANY games have positive player reviews on metacritic - or at least reviews that are in line with the critical reviews.

That, and it's been said so many times now that it's making my eyes bleed.

Modifié par marcbenigni, 16 mars 2011 - 06:07 .

[AkiKishi]

JamesX wrote...

Sadly true. If this game was called Mass Effect: With Dragons, or Dragon Effect, I would have given it a 8 or 9.

It suffers from the fact that it is called DA2 and falls severely short of the series. It gets a 6 or 7 tops. It is like selling a Mini as if its a Full Size Sedan. While it is still a great car (the mini), its score is lower for not being the product it is marketed as.

I don't think a change of name  would have really changed my views. Up until a few hours in I was enjoying it. Then doing side quests got tedious, the wave combat started to get on my nerves and I found no real reason to continue except to just get it over with. Things picked up a bit in chapter 2, then went right back down again as you end up hacking your way over night maps.

Hordes and cooldowns don't really go together.