132 réponses à ce sujet

[billy the squid]

Athro wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...

Otterwarden wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...

Please explain then why metacritic is the only user review that is off that much. If you check other user reviews you will see that the DA2 gets user scores of about 7 /10. DA2 is not as good a game as DA:O by common agrement from both professianals and users but the metacritic user score is a total joke.

The scores on Amazon.com are very low, and many make an effort to explain why they've rated it as such. 

Bioware seems to feel that Metacritic's user section was compromised, but I'm not buying a giant conspiracy given the design changes and the likelihood that they were not well received by core RPG fans. 

Amazon.com has an average score of 3.5/5 so what are you talking about. That is exactly the number I gave. And since every site that allows user reviews has a higher average than the metacritic site the only logical assumption is that it is the one average that is wildly off that is wrong and not the other ten that all are roughly the same value.

There's a critical error in your assumption.

You're assuming that the other sites permit the user reviews to stand fairly,  when the truth is they have a strong motivation to manipulate them.

Gaming site reviews are only as good as they're perceived to be,  and alot of perception is how close their reviews are to the average user opinions.  If Gamespot rates a game an 8,  and the users rate it a 4,  well then Gamespot starts losing traffic,  because it says to people that they don't know how to rate games.

So gaming sites make appear to make sure the ratings fall within a tolerance of the review scores.  They do this by conviently removing scores below a certain threshold.  If you go look through Gamespot's reviews,  you'll find that scores below a certain number don't exist. 

You can even find the point these sites did their last culling at,  because you'll see low ratings up until a certain point and then they disappear. 

It's not in the sites best interests to let user reviews stand fairly.

Wait. So you're trying to claim that because nobody scored a game below a certain number it is because the site is culling them?

Despite there being absolutely no evidence to support this other than you say it is so?

That's a bold statement to make when you have no evidence, Ser.

Edit: I believe this requires the application of Occam's Razor - it is much more plausible that nobody voted below a certain number than to assume some complex conspiracy to falsify the scores.

I do believe that algorithms may negate outlier votes - so if only one person votes 10 or 1 those numbers aren't calculated - but that is traditional statistics and not some conspiracy. They are looking for the median - not the outliers because the median will tell you what that majority of gamers feel - and that is what other gamers are looking for out of these numbers.

C.

The concept of the Razor is inherently flawed, it makes no account for multiple variables. The world is not simplistic, although it is not awash with conspiracies either. Financial pressure will always play a role (or are we going to believe that corporate lobby grps have no influence on legislation/ advertising)

In short user reviews on a site are the responsibility of the site, though the site has no legal liability for the comments, the assumption that no consummer will ever look at other consummer comments and that the median will always be looked for by buyers makes no account for human psychology. The human mind is subject to  "herd mentality" and will go for follow the trend

It is not unreasonable to assume that a large publisher expressing disatisfaction over "trolling" on the site would lead to the fear of site's income stream being cut as publishers pull advertising and incentives and give them to competition, the alleged score inflation attempt on metacritic and EA's responseshows publishers are certainly not above attempting to manipulate reviews.

[TheDarkShape]

UltimoCrofto wrote...

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?

Quite simple - reviewers are, on the whole, uninformed morons who don't understand the concept of critiquing.

That's laughable.  Soyou think a 16 year old sitting in his bedroom is more unformed than reviewers, while also better understanding the value of critiquing?

A reviewer has the basic requirement of playing through a game and evaluating it.  Anonymous Kid on Metacritic does not.  Modern Warfare 2 was firebombed with negative reviews long before those same reviewers played it, and much of that is true with Dragon Age II as well.  Fans get incensed about something and they react, totally unfairly and without experience in many cases.

That's not to say any negative reaction to DA2 is incorrect.  But there's a vast difference between someone who goes into the game, doesn't enjoy it, and can thoroughly explain why, versus someone who was pissed off based on what they'd read in previews, started the game with a chip on their shoulder, and never gave it an actual chance to impress.

Cobrawar wrote...

I noticed the huge gap as well. reviewers want advertising dollars for their sites/magazines so if they give a game a bad review the game company can punish them but not throwing as much advertising their way. fans have nothing to lose or gain. They know what they like and don't like and the game is either fail or great.

But that's the thing -- there's a whole bunch of middle-ground between 'fail' and 'great.'  Critics get that, fans don't.

Modifié par TheDarkShape, 18 mars 2011 - 02:47 .

[Athro]

billy the squid wrote...

Athro wrote...
Wait. So you're trying to claim that because nobody scored a game below a certain number it is because the site is culling them?

Despite there being absolutely no evidence to support this other than you say it is so?

That's a bold statement to make when you have no evidence, Ser.

Edit: I believe this requires the application of Occam's Razor - it is much more plausible that nobody voted below a certain number than to assume some complex conspiracy to falsify the scores.

I do believe that algorithms may negate outlier votes - so if only one person votes 10 or 1 those numbers aren't calculated - but that is traditional statistics and not some conspiracy. They are looking for the median - not the outliers because the median will tell you what that majority of gamers feel - and that is what other gamers are looking for out of these numbers.

C.

The concept of the Razor is inherently flawed, it makes no account for multiple variables. The world is not simplistic, although it is not awash with conspiracies either. Financial pressure will always play a role (or are we going to believe that corporate lobby grps have no influence on legislation/ advertising)

In short user reviews on a site are the responsibility of the site, though the site has no legal liability for the comments, the assumption that no consummer will ever look at other consummer comments and that the median will always be looked for by buyers makes no account for human psychology. The human mind is subject to  "herd mentality" and will go for follow the trend

It is not unreasonable to assume that a large publisher expressing disatisfaction over "trolling" on the site would lead to the fear of site's income stream being cut as publishers pull advertising and incentives and give them to competition, the alleged score inflation attempt on metacritic and EA's responseshows publishers are certainly not above attempting to manipulate reviews.

Actually - only if you go with the Jodie Foster Contact Occam's Razor - which isn't actually Occam's Razor at all.

The point about Occam's Razor is that you cut away multiplicity in an argument. If the surviving argument still holds, then it is a valid argument.

In other words, Occam's Razor isn't "the simplest explanation is likely the right one."

In the case put forward - you're reliant on Review sites needing money from corporates who need review sites to draw in fans to make the money to give to review sites. In order for that to happen, review sites need to be honest by being dishonest to get fans to vote but not be accounted for if their votes don't reach a certain number. Further to this argument, there is still no presentation why games that are "paid for" don't all get high scores across the board. This also assumes that the companies are then monitoring and adjusting all review scores for literally hundreds if not thousands of games.

On the other hand - companies could just have a set algorithm to work out the median score and lets users input detail. They only investigate if people report abuses.

There are no multiplicities to cut out of the second argument. But the first? Even if you remove the first line you have a whole heap of separate arguments that need to be addressed. DO corporates bribe review sites? DO Review sites need money from corporates or from advertisers? DO Review sites care about user reviews? DO Review sites monitor all user scores reguarly?

Occam's razor would require us to address each individual argument and cut out the invalid ones to see if the core argument - Review sites influence user review scores to fake a 7/10 - remains valid.

The rule of thumb is that if an argument is contingent on a slew of other questionable arguments - then it's likelihood of being valid is decreased.

So, using Occam's Razor as a principle, the idea that maybe most users are voting 7-8/10 is much more likely than some conspiracy theory that the site is faking the scores.

Mostly because sites that do fake the scores tend to lose viewers, which loses revenue, which costs them work and income.

Review sites make their money from advertisers, NOT software publishers.

C.

Modifié par Athro, 18 mars 2011 - 03:04 .

[Iamnotahater]

One thing I don't understand and maybe some of individuals who rate this game 10/10 or have it on their top 10 RPG lists could explain it to me. If this game is supposed be treated differently and not viewed through the lens of DAO why did they make it the sequel to DAO and name it Dragon Age II?

After reading your responses and having some time to digest the user reveiws, I think alot of anger and negative reveiws are a result of Bioware putting out a sequel that doesn't measure up to the orginal in not only quality but style of gameplay as well. Basically, Bioware Jar-Jar Bink'ed us.

As far as it beinga black and white issue. I don't know about that. I enjoyed Alpha Procol despite it obvious flaws

Modifié par Iamnotahater, 20 mars 2011 - 07:41 .

[cast_]

It's a solid 7, which for most companies is fine, for Bioware it's embarrassing.

[Rybciek]

As far as I can see the negative reviews are purely because of shattered expectations and nerdrage. Anyone objectively evaluating the game on its own wouldn't give it anything lower than a 6/10. However you look at it, it's a fine crafted game, regardless of our personal opinion of it. I think TF2 is an utterly boring game that I can't play for more than 10 minutes, but I know it's a well-crafted game that deserves at least 7/10, and saying otherwise would just be petty rage. Most of the community can't seem to see past their own expectations, in which case it is always going to be your own fault for raising them in the first place. If you can't make a review without including personal bias and extreme emotional reactions, then reviewing is not for you.

[Iamnotahater]

cast_ wrote...

It's a solid 7, which for most companies is fine, for Bioware it's embarrassing.

Exactly. One thing I didn't factor into my rating (which I probably should have) is value. This baby costs $60. For that premium price it should have had more production value (reusued levels, reused music from mass effect, no changes to city or companions after 7 years, etc).

Another issue I have is that if Bioware wanted to make all these changes (which are conviently at the same time cheaper shortcuts) they should have started up another franchise to do it. Don't recreate what is supposed to be a sequel with a whole lot of fundmantal changes espically when the orginal was critically acclaimed and well received (91+ rating on metacritic).

I think for most fans of bioware games (I loved mass effect 1-2, Baulders Gate, Throne of Baal, Jade Empire, etc) expect better and I'm glad fans are voicing their frustration in way that bioware has to take notice (even if it isn't all genuine).

I sort of hope that in the next Dragon Age they sort of ignore this version and pretend it didn't happen. Sort of what movies do when an another director comes in screws up the movie franchise with a bad sequel noone watches and then leaves.