156 réponses à ce sujet

[Cloaking_Thane]

of course but 50 is the median score to compare it to middle of the road.....

If the aggregates were 50 we could say it was exactly an average game.

That its averages are 83 suggest it is well above average although below average when compared to other bioware titles.

Scaling it down further, to a 60-100 still makes the game above average

Modifié par Cloaking_Thane, 18 mars 2011 - 03:45 .

[Korusus]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

of course but 50 is the median score to compare it to middle of the road.....

If the aggregates were 50 we could say it was exactly an average game.

That its averages are 83 suggest it is well above average although below average when compared to other bioware titles.

Scaling it down further, to a 60-100 still makes the game above average

Oh, gee how much less condescending you seem to be when you realize I know what I'm talking about.  The median is 50.  Never said it wasn't.  But the median is not a particular helpful number in this case because the majority of games are scored far above 50.  The average of all the games ever scored is between 70 and 80 (let's say 75).  So in that case, yes DAII is indeed above average.

There are very few games rated in the 50 range so to call 50 the average is...well ridiculous.  When comparing DAII to other games you have to use the numbers that are given (actual scores), not potential scores because the scale could potentially run from 1 to 100.

[Cloaking_Thane]

The scale is the scale....just because a culture has evolved not to give things on aggregate below a 5(0) doesn't mean math goes out the window.

Regardless any way you slice it the game remains well above average, and even further above median.....so not exactly sure what your point is at all

Modifié par Cloaking_Thane, 18 mars 2011 - 03:57 .

[Everwarden]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...
BioWare owes you nothing by the way.

Hate seeing that comment over and over. Of course they don't owe you anything, So far I haven't seen anyone pretending to be Joe Pesci trying to beat protection money out of Bioware. That doesn't mean a customer can't give feedback on a product they purchased, or suggest that an appropriate recourse for releasing a product that doesn't meet standards is an apology. 

[bluecapsule6]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Korusus wrote...

Dr. Impossible wrote...

bluecapsule6 wrote...

In this thread: a fundamental lack of understanding how scales work. Just because the number 50 is the middle point between 1 and 100 doesn't mean a score of 50 = median.

Treating 50 as the average is the way games should be scored when using the 0-100 scale.

Except that 50 is not the average.  And that's not the way the industry works.  Average is in the 70 to 80 range for the vast majority of crappy games the industry puts out.  Just becuase 50 is the halfway point between 0 and 100 doesn't mean it holds any special meaning. 

You have a complete lack of understanding of statistics and averages its almost embarrassing: please look up mean: avg , median: number directly in the middle of 2 values in a set , and mode: most often #......futher your subjective "crappy games" could be someones 10's, but please quit educating people incorrectly

50 is the median or middle value if the scale is 0-100 and is by definition the middle of the road score

Holy crap. Our school system has failed another kid. You have to be trolling right? No one can possibly be this bad at simple statistics. A median is NOT the "number directly in the middle of 2 values in a set". It is the number that separates the higher half of a sample size from the lower half. 

The range of possible values is 0-100. In what world does that make 50 the automatic median? You do realize that the arbitrary boundaries 0 and 100 aren't actually numeric values in the set, right?

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

The scale is the scale....just because a culture has evolved not to give things on aggregate below a 5(0) doesn't mean math goes out the window.

Regardless any way you slice it the game remains well above average, and even further above median.....so not exactly sure what your point is at all

Good job sounding condescending. If only you knew what you were talking about. 

[Cloaking_Thane]

semantics....you phased it differently but we said the exact same thing sorry to burst your bubble wikipedia.

furth the set is inclusive of all scores ranging from 0-100, a game could receive any number on that scale therefore all are included...

Modifié par Cloaking_Thane, 18 mars 2011 - 05:58 .

[bluecapsule6]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

semantics....you phased it differently but we said the exact same thing sorry to burst your bubble wikipedia

Life must be nice inside your delusion bubble. 

[Cloaking_Thane]

sure is

[AtreiyaN7]

Everwarden wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...
BioWare owes you nothing by the way.

Hate seeing that comment over and over. Of course they don't owe you anything, So far I haven't seen anyone pretending to be Joe Pesci trying to beat protection money out of Bioware. That doesn't mean a customer can't give feedback on a product they purchased, or suggest that an appropriate recourse for releasing a product that doesn't meet standards is an apology. 

Well, I hate seeing people demanding an apology when they are neither entitled to one nor deserve one over a rating. So hey, I guess we all hate different things.

[Aesieru]

I don't think this game deserves an 83, as much as a 70... lack of quality control is just something I can't agree with, and a lot of bugs escaped the net.

[Blacklash93]

83 is not a bad score.

It may be lackluster for a Bioware title, but it's nothing to apologize about.

[Edge2177]

An apology means they did something wrong, which they didn't. If you ask me a 83 metacritic score is punishment enough to tell them we weren't pleased as punch. ;P

If we liked the game as much, it'd have a 90 or higher.

[HawXV2]

I'd at least give it a 93. Just because you don't like a great game doesn't mean BioWare did anything wrong. It's just not to your taste.

[Captain Sassy Pants]

HawXV2 wrote...

I'd at least give it a 93. Just because you don't like a great game doesn't mean BioWare did anything wrong. It's just not to your taste.

And conversely, just because you like a game it doesn't make it "great".

Just because you like like a terrible game, it doesn't make it good. Good for you, maybe.

[AtreiyaN7]

Captain Sassy Pants wrote...

HawXV2 wrote...

I'd at least give it a 93. Just because you don't like a great game doesn't mean BioWare did anything wrong. It's just not to your taste.

And conversely, just because you like a game it doesn't make it "great".

Just because you like like a terrible game, it doesn't make it good. Good for you, maybe.

And just because you think it was terrible only means it was terrible for you. We could all go back and forth all day over that one.

[Aesieru]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Captain Sassy Pants wrote...

HawXV2 wrote...

I'd at least give it a 93. Just because you don't like a great game doesn't mean BioWare did anything wrong. It's just not to your taste.

And conversely, just because you like a game it doesn't make it "great".

Just because you like like a terrible game, it doesn't make it good. Good for you, maybe.

And just because you think it was terrible only means it was terrible for you. We could all go back and forth all day over that one.

I generally agree or at least respect your posts, but this...

I know you're not an idiot or a juvenile, so how you can say that Dragon Age 2 was even worth an "80" is beyond me... You know yourself that it had repetitive environments, less polish, and story-holes or issues or retcons... 

Even the art-style is... less ingenuious.

[rhino78]

Ashr4m wrote...

[Well and thats were you are wrong. Since exactly that is the problem if we have a theoretical 0-100 score which is only partially used  by reviewers because they cant give numbers too lowe due to loosing money from advertising and early copys you obviously cant still pretend that the full scale is actually a factor. Too proof my point in a pretty simple way, just look at games with a score of 50, they are many things but not "average".

Or to put it in a school example for you. A school has a grade-scale that goes from 1 to 6. Yet one teacher decides to just use 1 to 3. So even though a student gets a 3 which is "average" on the full scale doesnt change the fact that it is bad on the reduced scale.

You cant simply look at a scale without actually looking on how its used in reality. Since if you do your results will obviously not reflect reality but just the concept of the scale used which is useless since if you dont use a scale as its supposed to be ..

The problem is you're using assumptions as facts.  For some strange reason, people seem to like the dark conspiracy theories where EA/Bioware send out brute squads to intimidate helpless reviewers.  While I don't doubt that some reviewers do try to be as positive as possible to curry favor, this is a dangerous practice.  The only reason people follow reviews is because they belive the reviewer is credible.  Most reviewers seem to know that you have to have some credibility or why would anyone listen?

As to the scale, the scenario you ignore is that AAA titles score between 70-100 because they are actually better games.  Let's be honest, big companies havemore money allowing them to hire the best talent.  In my experience, AAA titles, usually,  are better games with better developer support. 

I think DA2 is right where it should be.  It's a good game.  It's not a great game, but it's hardly a worthless cash grab as some would suggest.

[Lea-Anne]

It's really a Bell Curve... The score is adjusted so that those in the higher range end up actually equating to a middle rand score.

It's just like what happens in a really smart class room. The grade scale goes from 0-100, but if everyone is getting between 75-90 the curve is adjusted so that the 75's get a fail, while someone in the 80's would get a 50.

[Lotto]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

83 is bad? Who knew - I'm sure that everyone who ever received a B in school owes their parents an apology then. BioWare owes you nothing by the way.

see, this is typical biodrone syndrome. bioware does owe us something: our $60 worth.  we don't owe bioware a damn thing. our wages don't depend on them. it's the other way around.

[sydwaz8]

Dr. Impossible wrote...

YipLee wrote...

This is a very low score.

Saints Row 2 has 81 and it's one of the best games ever made.

Also DA2's Metascore is probably vastly inflated.

Saints Row 2 is an absolute disaster on PC.  I can't play more than 15 minutes before it crashes.

[rhino78]

Lea-Anne wrote...

It's really a Bell Curve... The score is adjusted so that those in the higher range end up actually equating to a middle rand score.

It's just like what happens in a really smart class room. The grade scale goes from 0-100, but if everyone is getting between 75-90 the curve is adjusted so that the 75's get a fail, while someone in the 80's would get a 50.

Wow!  Your school must have been tougher than mine. 

I think the best way to think of it is by using Olympic gymnastics.  If you watch gymnastics, you know that only scores between 9.5 and 10 have any chance of winning anything.  That doesn't mean that a girl who scored 9.4 sucks.  She is still an amazing gymnast. 

DA2 scored an 83.  Yes, for a AAA title that is nothing special, but that doesn't mean the game sucked.  To make that claim is sort of absurd. 

[Loremazd]

Aesieru wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Captain Sassy Pants wrote...

HawXV2 wrote...

I'd at least give it a 93. Just because you don't like a great game doesn't mean BioWare did anything wrong. It's just not to your taste.

And conversely, just because you like a game it doesn't make it "great".

Just because you like like a terrible game, it doesn't make it good. Good for you, maybe.

And just because you think it was terrible only means it was terrible for you. We could all go back and forth all day over that one.

I generally agree or at least respect your posts, but this...

I know you're not an idiot or a juvenile, so how you can say that Dragon Age 2 was even worth an "80" is beyond me... You know yourself that it had repetitive environments, less polish, and story-holes or issues or retcons... 

Even the art-style is... less ingenuious.

I would say that convincing yourself that people who enjoy a product you do not as having to be stupid or juvenile kinda infers a stubborness, or projecting your own inflated self worth onto your personal tastes .

People generally do not approach video games from an analytical viewpoint. Most play the game and find it entertaining or not. Essentially the concept is that taste is subjective, as is enjoyment. You trying to catagorize both into intellegence levels and personalities is very flawed and ultimately useless.

I thought it was a good, entertaining game. Good, entertaining games ate in the 80 range to me. It was a little worse than its predecessor in my eyes, but I enjoyed the time I had with it, and felt it was fun to play.  In your mind, this viewpoint is stupid and juvenile. In response, I think such a black and white and frankly condescending viewpoint is simply acknowledging that you feel confused that others have different viewpoints than your own, and therefore your views on the types of people that have different opinions are fundamentally flawed.