301 réponses à ce sujet

[Wivvix]

Metacritic data averages as of 18/3/2011

Dragon Age Origins:
PC: Metascore 91, user score 8.3
Xbox360: Metascore 86, user score 7.5
PS3: Metascore 87, user score 7.6

Dragon Age 2:
PC: Metascore 83, user score 4.2
Xbox360: Metascore 80, user score 4.3
PS3: Metascore 82, user score 3.7

The community has spoken, and the results are plain for all to see. Critics broadly agree Dragon Age 2 was worse than Dragon Age Origins to a lesser extent. Users broadly agree Dragon Age 2 was considerably worse than Dragon Age Origins to a great extent.

The decisions made that navigated the development path from Dragon Age Origins to Dragon Age 2, have led to poor performance of the franchise across all platforms and comparatively poor reception by industry and consumers alike.

Listen to what the community has told you here, Bioware. Overwhelmingly, the changes made in Dragon Age 2 were NOT for the better. The inference drawn can be (is) attributed to the statistical discrepancy between Metacritic scores for DAO and DA2. User reviews should be interpreted as a vague guide only, bearing in mind this sample might not accurately represent broader user reviews.

Bring back fully scripted dialogue.
Bring back mature, developed, adult personalities.
Bring back diverse dungeons and not copy-pasted level design.
Bring back party itemisation.
Bring back Dragon Age.

Edit: Clarified which statistic inferences were based on.

Modifié par Wivvix, 19 mars 2011 - 01:24 .

[AkiKishi]

Those console scores were higher before word of the missing autoattack got around.

[0x30A88]

I would disregard most of the user reviews as many are the same sihitty liitle subjective sentence stated as a fact copied to reach the limit. And many think there's close to nothing between 10 and 0.

Despite not being as good as Origins, it's not a bad game. I enjoy it r eally. But, I hope Bioware has learned from this.

[AtreiyaN7]

But gee, considering how much everyone seems to say any scores in the 80s suck per the other thread about DA2 getting an 83 on metacritic, I guess this means that DA:O sucked based on the console scores (86 and 87), coupled with the user ratings that ranged from 7.5-8.3.

In case you don't get it, I just said that to provide an example of the kind of specious logic that people use in claiming DA2 that sucks. I'll believe the metacritic user ratings if they can actually clean out all the fake reviews that might be skewing results. Otherwise, this is largely yawn-worthy to me.

[elijah_kaine]

Wivvix wrote...

Listen to what the community has told you here, Bioware. Overwhelmingly, the changes made in Dragon Age 2 were NOT for the better.

True the choices made to Dragon Age 2 didn't lead to better critic reviews [ I tend to disregard user reviews because more then likely those reviews are based on emotion and not intellectual thought out arguements and assesments in most cases].

This doesn't mean that the decisions made to change the game design was wrong just that it wasn't done well. This doesn't tell us that they should go completely back to DAO to get back their average of 6 point loss in critic reviews.

Sure they could go back to DAO to insure they get that 86-87 but why not have bioware focus on trying to get that 86-87 to a 95-99? Going back to DAO would almost insure a more negative critic review. Most of the time if a critic review website see's the same game mechanics without any innovation that effects the review quite negatively.

I'm not gonna try to argue that DA2 was perfect [or even that great really] but I will say that this statistical evidence doesn't really tell us the whole story, really what bioware should do is go and read both the reviews of DAO and DA2 off as many trusted review websites as possible and try to make logical choices about which way to go on their next game based on those reviews, not the numbers mind you, but the content of the reviews.

[abaris]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...
I'll believe the metacritic user ratings if they can actually clean out all the fake reviews that might be skewing results. Otherwise, this is largely yawn-worthy to me.

You would have to clean out the fake magazine reviews also. Based on paid ads and other encouragements from the industry. That happens, its a fact.

Truth is, you can judge the real reception, once all the rage cools down for a bit. Now it's probably highly dissapointed preorder folks vs ad driven magazine reviews.

[Wivvix]

Gisle Aune wrote...

I would disregard most of the user reviews as many are the same sihitty liitle subjective sentence stated as a fact copied to reach the limit. And many think there's close to nothing between 10 and 0.

Despite not being as good as Origins, it's not a bad game. I enjoy it r eally. But, I hope Bioware has learned from this.

If those low scores were outliers then i'd agree. The fact of the matter is that the majority of review scores are negative, and there's statistical significance in the metacritic score received also. It's a clear indication that something is at play, and the users are far less cautious to offend than review sites.

[Phonantiphon]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

But gee, considering how much everyone seems to say any scores in the 80s suck per the other thread about DA2 getting an 83 on metacritic, I guess this means that DA:O sucked based on the console scores (86 and 87), coupled with the user ratings that ranged from 7.5-8.3.

In case you don't get it, I just said that to provide an example of the kind of specious logic that people use in claiming DA2 that sucks. I'll believe the metacritic user ratings if they can actually clean out all the fake reviews that might be skewing results. Otherwise, this is largely yawn-worthy to me.

This.
People will read whatever they want to read into statistics.
Added to the fact that I don't for one second believe that the score is in any way the result of balanced reviewing by the people who like to think that they "speak for the userbase." - (you don't speak for me) - because if the opinion that you give in reviews is anywhere near the hysteria that you put into posts on here then I would not put it past you to blatantly fabricate multiple reviews just to prove whatever point it is that you think that you have.

[Perles75]

I'm WAY more inclined to believe to the vote of Gamespot users (7.2 over 2198 votes in this moment, for the PC version) as the REAL public reception of DA2.

[Athro]

Perles75 wrote...

I'm WAY more inclined to believe to the vote of Gamespot users (7.2 over 2198 votes in this moment, for the PC version) as the REAL public reception of DA2.

Me too. I love DA2 - but I'm realistic about it as well. Anything around 7-8/10 matches with what the general reception is.

Heck, look at this thread here - we have someone outright promoting dishonesty in order to badmouth the game. That kind of stunt is not proof that the game is bad but proof that there are people out there actively misrepresenting the public opinion without having played the game solely in order to falsify the statistics as being lower than they actually are.

C.

[Phonantiphon]

A very cursory search of the intertubes reveals that the spread of scores is far wider - (up the scale) - than the OP suggests.
And in many ways this just goes to prove the point that - the OP is negatively inclined towards the game and therefore picked up on on the review scores that enabled him to reinforce his(her) opinion.
None of the scores are "bad" however, in and of themselves.
It's bold game and a an excellent go at refreshing the genre. If you want to play the same old over and over again just play Baldur's Gate, does that not have what you are looking for? Because you're obviously not looking at progress...

Modifié par bassmunkee, 18 mars 2011 - 09:03 .

[Aidunno]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...
I'll believe the metacritic user ratings if they can actually clean out all the fake reviews that might be skewing results. Otherwise, this is largely yawn-worthy to me.

Statistics can be fudged. When you get user reviews copied and pasted by people who only post once you know something is up. Until things are cleaned up I'm sure Bioware will look at the statistics of people who are actually playing the game and see how far they get, what they play as etc.

[Wivvix]

Athro wrote...

Perles75 wrote...

I'm WAY more inclined to believe to the vote of Gamespot users (7.2 over 2198 votes in this moment, for the PC version) as the REAL public reception of DA2.

Me too. I love DA2 - but I'm realistic about it as well. Anything around 7-8/10 matches with what the general reception is.

Heck, look at this thread here - we have someone outright promoting dishonesty in order to badmouth the game. That kind of stunt is not proof that the game is bad but proof that there are people out there actively misrepresenting the public opinion without having played the game solely in order to falsify the statistics as being lower than they actually are.

C.

I concur with that assessment, of 7-8/10.

Dishonesty? These are statistics taken directly from Metacritic. Presenting the statistics and then drawing the inference that the statistics indicate the game hasn't been as well received as Dragon Age Origins, is not dishonest.

I never claimed these statistics were representative of the entire public sample. They are averages, and a representative sample of respondents. Moreover I have played the game, and I have no intention of falsifying statistics to prove a point. The statistics exist to make that point in any case, as any perceptive individual would have already gleaned from the metacritic score of 83.

[Mifune013]

The problem with those numbers is how many people have actually played the game, or did they just decide to hate the game because of something they heard about it.

[Athro]

Wivvix wrote...

I concur with that assessment, of 7-8/10.

Dishonesty? These are statistics taken directly from Metacritic. Presenting the statistics and then drawing the inference that the statistics indicate the game hasn't been as well received as Dragon Age Origins, is not dishonest.

I never claimed these statistics were representative of the entire public sample. They are averages, and a representative sample of respondents. Moreover I have played the game, and I have no intention of falsifying statistics to prove a point. The statistics exist to make that point in any case, as any perceptive individual would have already gleaned from the metacritic score of 83.

It has already been well established that the metacritic scores are not representative. Even Metacritic had to do a massive clean up of the scores because of the number of falsely set up multiple accounts - and the ones that remain do so because they don't have enough proof to show that they are false accounts.

A majority of the low scores on metacritic have been by people who don't even own the game, nor played it. I've seen on another forum a guy boasting that he scored it zero on metacritic to punish Bioware. So the user scores can be ignored.

83% puts Dragon Age at about the same score as most AAA titles get on metacritic - so i doubt Bioware is exactly sweating over the score.

If you wanted to do proper statistics - you would take a sampling of several sites and get a median score based on all of them - in which case, it is likely metacritic's score would likely drop off as it is an outlier - most sites user scores are sitting in the expected 7 - 8 band.

C.

[daemon1129]

Ignore the public ratings if you have to, they are not all that accurate and hardly a respectable judgment of the game. But when major gaming review sites give a game 80% or lower, that is saying something. For example, when IGN and Gamespot, which is known for giving higher ratings to high profile games (Not saying because they are paid or w/e), and you get 8.5, and 8.0 respectively, you know there is something major flaw with the game. Professional game critics don't give low (<7) ratings to high profile games without caution and would at least think twice before giving the game a ratings. So 90% is really saying, For a game with this kind of expectations, it delivers. And 80%, it is saying, its below average (for a high expectation game) and think before you buy, this is not as wonderful as you would think from hype and trailers and such. When Dragon Age Origins got 9, that is the score it should expect to get, and anything below means this is not up to par. If you study your arse off for your exam that you should ace, and you got 80%, you would be disappointed.

To sum it up for those who TL:DR, what I am trying to say is, anything below 90% for a AAA is not good at all, definitely for an indie title, but its sub par for a sequel to Dragon Age Origins.

[Phonantiphon]

Wivvix wrote...
Dishonesty? These are statistics taken directly from Metacritic. 

So they must be true then.

[Wivvix]

Athro wrote...

A majority of the low scores on metacritic have been by people who don't even own the game, nor played it. I've seen on another forum a guy boasting that he scored it zero on metacritic to punish Bioware. So the user scores can be ignored.

83% puts Dragon Age at about the same score as most AAA titles get on metacritic - so i doubt Bioware is exactly sweating over the score.

If you wanted to do proper statistics - you would take a sampling of several sites and get a median score based on all of them - in which case, it is likely metacritic's score would likely drop off as it is an outlier - most sites user scores are sitting in the expected 7 - 8 band.

C.

The metacritic scores are derived from critic reviews, not user reviews. At any rate, concerning user scores you'd need quite a lot of proof to write off the entire user score sample on metacritic as "inaccurate". I think most reasonable users would probably agree 7-8 is a fair score. Nonetheless that remains statistically significant to review scores for DAO, which were high 8, low 9.

bassmunkee wrote...

Wivvix wrote...
Dishonesty? These are statistics taken directly from Metacritic. 

So they must be true then.

As true as your post is disingenuous.

Modifié par Wivvix, 18 mars 2011 - 09:32 .

[Shockwave Pulsar]

Funny how the haters are incapable of citing other sites than metacritic, e.g gamespot, IGN or other big gaming sites. Oh wait, that's because Metacritic is the only one that has such low user ratings...

[davethorp]

You can of course use statistics to prove pretty much anything. 93% of all people know that

Modifié par davethorp, 18 mars 2011 - 09:29 .

[viverravid]

[reading comprehension fail. deleted]

Modifié par viverravid, 18 mars 2011 - 09:34 .

[Chris la Cousland di Fereldan]

I think that DA2 isnt really that bad a game, but being compared to origins brings it right down into the dirt. its just getting too simple, complexity is what makes a game better. Still, DA2 isn't a complete failure, there are still good points to it.

[Bryy_Miller]

It's not like BioWare themselves have not said they were disappointed with the scores. And even if they didn't say anything, it's not like they can't see this stuff on their own. Don't be so pretentious as to think that you're telling them anything new - they made the game, of course they are going to see how it fairs.

[Hibernating]

sigh, stop hating on the game man. I found it still to be one of the better I have ever played, and the whole final hour of the game gave me a rush that I havent felt from a game since the collectors base.

[Nightshade IX]

Judging by the number of professional reviews for both dragon age games, more than half of the PC scores are not even in yet. The scores for both console versions are pretty much set in stone though. If I were to hazard a guess, later reviews are usually harsher on games as the release hype dies down.