301 réponses à ce sujet

[ashwind]

Metacritic data averages as of 18/3/2011

Dragon Age Origins:
PC: Metascore 91, user score 8.3  (67 Critic Review, 321 User Review) <----------
Xbox360: Metascore 86, user score 7.5  (68 Critic Review, 65 User Review) <----------
PS3: Metascore 87, user score 7.6 (41 Critic Review, 52 User Review) <----------


Dragon Age 2:
PC: Metascore 83, user score 4.2  (26 Critic Review, 872 User Review) <----------
Xbox360: Metascore 80, user score 4.3 (50 Critic Review, 513 User Review) <----------
PS3: Metascore 82, user score 3.7 (39 Critic Review, 220 User Review) <----------

I find it a little hard to swallow this Statistic that does not lie. It looks like suddenly the users who "reviewed" the game as multiplied and over such a short period of time!

I should believe this "statistic" right? Unfortunately I wasnt dropped on the head enough as a baby. User review has no meaning now - NONE!! Why? Because it has become a battlefield for those who are for and against DA2 to wage war onto one another.

Modifié par ashwind, 18 mars 2011 - 09:43 .

[Gene Starwind]

That assumes that the widest held view is the correct one, I liked DAII better. Does that mean it is better? No, its simply my own opinion I like both games.

[heretica]

I actually enjoyed Dragon Age 2 more than Origins. :/ The story might be shorter but is much more intense and touching.

It feels a bit rushed and that might hurt dialogue/story but in no way it's a bad game. Besides, if you like Origins so much... well, go play Origins? I personally can't replay Origins more than 2-3 times.

This remidns me of Mass Effect "elevators: yes/no?".

[Coldest]

DA2 failed not because of the changes, but because the changes were under-developed.

[Wivvix]

ashwind wrote...

Metacritic data averages as of 18/3/2011

Dragon Age Origins:
PC: Metascore 91, user score 8.3  (67 Critic Review, 321 User Review) <----------
Xbox360: Metascore 86, user score 7.5  (68 Critic Review, 65 User Review) <----------
PS3: Metascore 87, user score 7.6 (41 Critic Review, 52 User Review) <----------


Dragon Age 2:
PC: Metascore 83, user score 4.2  (26 Critic Review, 872 User Review) <----------
Xbox360: Metascore 80, user score 4.3 (50 Critic Review, 513 User Review) <----------
PS3: Metascore 82, user score 3.7 (39 Critic Review, 220 User Review) <----------

I find it a little hard to swallow this Statistic that does not lie. It looks like suddenly the users who "reviewed" the game as multiplied and over such a short period of time!

I should believe this "statistic" right? Unfortunately I wasnt dropped on the head enough as a baby. User review has no meaning now - NONE!! Why? Because it has become a battlefield for those who are for and against DA2 to wage war onto one another.

Yet another poster who utterly fails to comprehend the purpose of the original post, or to read any subsequent clarifications. I did not base my inference on the user reviews, but on the metacritic review. Clearly I shall have to amend the original post to state this explicitly, lest another person fail to scroll down the page before replying.

Modifié par Wivvix, 18 mars 2011 - 09:54 .

[Icinix]

..You all like the shiny?

[ERJAK2]

Wivvix wrote...

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.

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.

Diverse dungeons I'll give you, everything else is close or better now. The dialogue is FAR superior in terms of the protaganist. The tone system is one of the most inovative features i've seen in any game in the past few years and PRAY they bring it to ME3. The characters are well developed and very well presented. More party conversations could have been nice but it's pretty dam great anyway. they cut down on party itemization by what? Head shoulders gloves boots? it was an unessecesary change sure but it was far from a bad one and this way your characters don't look retarded.

Go cry in your emo hole.

[Shockwave Pulsar]

Wivvix wrote...

ashwind wrote...

Metacritic data averages as of 18/3/2011

Dragon Age Origins:
PC: Metascore 91, user score 8.3  (67 Critic Review, 321 User Review) <----------
Xbox360: Metascore 86, user score 7.5  (68 Critic Review, 65 User Review) <----------
PS3: Metascore 87, user score 7.6 (41 Critic Review, 52 User Review) <----------


Dragon Age 2:
PC: Metascore 83, user score 4.2  (26 Critic Review, 872 User Review) <----------
Xbox360: Metascore 80, user score 4.3 (50 Critic Review, 513 User Review) <----------
PS3: Metascore 82, user score 3.7 (39 Critic Review, 220 User Review) <----------

I find it a little hard to swallow this Statistic that does not lie. It looks like suddenly the users who "reviewed" the game as multiplied and over such a short period of time!

I should believe this "statistic" right? Unfortunately I wasnt dropped on the head enough as a baby. User review has no meaning now - NONE!! Why? Because it has become a battlefield for those who are for and against DA2 to wage war onto one another.

Yet another poster who utterly fails to comprehend the purpose of the original post, or to read any subsequent clarifications. I did not base my inference on the user reviews, but on the metacritic review. Clearly I shall have to amend the original post to state this explicitly, lest another person fail to scroll down the page before replying.

Why did you choose only Metacritic and ignore all the rest, what makes Metacritic more important than other sites? As such you're not showing the big picture, but a tiny crop. I find it strange that the user scores there are so much lower than on other big gaming sites, and that DA II has more than three times as many user ratings a week after launch than Origins has after 2 years...

[Mifune013]

ERJAK2 wrote...

Diverse dungeons I'll give you, everything
else is close or better now. The dialogue is FAR superior in terms of
the protaganist. The tone system is one of the most inovative features
i've seen in any game in the past few years and PRAY they bring it to
ME3. The characters are well developed and very well presented. More
party conversations could have been nice but it's pretty dam great
anyway. they cut down on party itemization by what? Head shoulders
gloves boots? it was an unessecesary change sure but it was far from a
bad one and this way your characters don't look retarded.

Go cry in your emo hole.

Woah, woah, woah! Not need to use such strong language as "emo". But I'll agree with you on almost your points. I honest think they could have done something that combines the original Dragon Age armors and how Mass Effect 2 does their armor. I also think they could have improved character customization. Namely being able to choose your body type.

Modifié par Mifune013, 18 mars 2011 - 10:03 .

[TwistedComplex]

>Metacritic

Yeah, no

MEANWHILE ON OTHER REVIEW SITES

G4 user rating: 3.9/5
Gamefly user rating: 8/10
Gamestop: 8.4/10

Modifié par TwistedComplex, 18 mars 2011 - 10:05 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Coldest wrote...

DA2 failed not because of the changes, but because the changes were under-developed.

Sad;y, your post will be lost in a sea of "BioWare, you should feel horrible because you made a game that I didn't like".

[Amioran]

Lisen, boy, if you are going to quote reviews as facts at last do so in context with what they are writing instead of what YOU want they are writing. Since all you say below is COMPLETELY the contrary of what most reviewers wrote, mainly:

"Bring back fully scripted dialogue."

Most of the critics reviews agree that the "voiced dialogue" is a step forward.

"Bring back mature, developed, adult personalities."

Most of the critics reviews says that characters and storytelling is well done, some say either much better than DAO.

"Bring back party itemisation."

Here the verdict is divided. There are those that think it a step-up and those who think it a step-down.

"Bring back Dragon Age. "

It IS Dragon Age and many critics reviews said it feels much the same as DAO.

As always good work on trying to prove some points with a parvence that's not supported by the supposed facts you bring about. You have tried demonstrating that critics reviews don't like what you don't like and failed miserably. Next time before providing evidences you should read them to avoid making a s**tty figure as you have done. Bravo!

As for users scores their "remarks" mean either less than yours, and this speaks volumes on their utility.

Modifié par Amioran, 18 mars 2011 - 10:21 .

[Warheadz]

Actually, I think you can't trust any statistics that depend on critic or user reviews.
User reviews:
The good thing about internet is that you can share your opinions with anyone. The bad thing is that you can be completely "extreme" on your opinion, you don't have to explain why you feel that way and you are completely anonymous. You don't even need to be honest. If you feel like some game was worth a score of 7, you might as well give it a 1 as you didn't like it. This is why most user reviews are: "This is utter ****!" or "All hail the new god of games!". There isn't that much decent or average reviews. Some reviews give ridiculous scores for ridiculous, personal preferences. This is partly the reason why I feel you can't trust user reviews.

Critic reviews:
Reviewing games on this level is business. Some sources can be trusted, some can not be. I personally believe that money or other things change owner when some vritics review a game. I can't state this as a fact, but it is what I believe.

For example: The Escapist gave Dragon Age 2 full five stars, which translates to 10/10, touting it as the greatest RPG that will change everything, claiming "It's what videogames are meant to be". Does anyone actually feel that strongly about this game? The two pages long review doesn't even mention that there are areas that are recycled. Is it not even worth mentioning?

Things like this are reasons I have lost faith in reviews made by critics.


What I personally do: I try to cherrypick details that interest me, and ignore the rest of the review.

[The Brigand]

Balthamoss wrote...
Why did you choose only Metacritic and ignore all the rest, what makes Metacritic more important than other sites?

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Metacritic

Metacritic is a website
that collates reviews of music albums, games,
movies, TV shows and DVDs. For each
product, a numerical score from each review is obtained and the total is
averaged. An excerpt of each review is provided along with a hyperlink
to the source. Three colour codes of Green, Yellow and Red summarize the
critic's recommendation. This gives an idea of the general appeal of
the product among reviewers and, to a lesser extent, the public.

I'm thinking that's why he goes with Metacritic instead of "other sites". I would suggest doing your research before trying to call people out on cherrypicking.

[Jim_uk]

Why bother taking notice of scores at all? the "professionals" can't be trusted because their employer relies on income from the makers of the products they review and the total score from user reviews includes the opinions of morons. Go where people who have bought the game are discussing it, it's takes longer but you will come away better informed.

[Amioran]

Warheadz wrote...
For example: The Escapist gave Dragon Age 2 full five stars, which translates to 10/10, touting it as the greatest RPG that will change everything, claiming "It's what videogames are meant to be". Does anyone actually feel that strongly about this game? The two pages long review doesn't even mention that there are areas that are recycled. Is it not even worth mentioning?
.

Maybe because it's not THAT important in the grand scheme of the game? Surely copy&paste environments can be an issue but it depends mostly on the context of the game. Firstly Bioware ALWAYS made games with copy&paste enviorments, secondly they bother some people really so much because they ACTIVELY look for it. If you are transported by the story & co. you notice them much much less.

A reviewer must take these things in consideration and then decide if they are an issue that prevents enjoynment of users - and in this case make them notice - or not. Given the context (that many simply discard altogheter because it's much simpler this way) there's nothing wrong with not mentioning it.

As for "paid reviews" I assure you that The Escapist is not one of those.

[Amioran]

Jim_uk wrote...

Why bother taking notice of scores at all? the "professionals" can't be trusted because their employer relies on income from the makers of the products they review and the total score from user reviews includes the opinions of morons. Go where people who have bought the game are discussing it, it's takes longer but you will come away better informed.

Yes, "don't trust those who are paid by devs" that gives the game an objective 8/9 (because it's the score that DA2 objectively should get), trust those that spam the game with 0/1 because it's not objectively a game that deserves that score. It makes sense.

Modifié par Amioran, 18 mars 2011 - 10:37 .

[Phonantiphon]

The Brigand wrote...

Balthamoss wrote...
Why did you choose only Metacritic and ignore all the rest, what makes Metacritic more important than other sites?

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Metacritic

Metacritic is a website
that collates reviews of music albums, games,
movies, TV shows and DVDs. For each
product, a numerical score from each review is obtained and the total is
averaged. An excerpt of each review is provided along with a hyperlink
to the source. Three colour codes of Green, Yellow and Red summarize the
critic's recommendation. This gives an idea of the general appeal of
the product among reviewers and, to a lesser extent, the public.

I'm thinking that's why he goes with Metacritic instead of "other sites". I would suggest doing your research before trying to call people out on cherrypicking.

Still doesn't make it any more valid than anywhere else.
It's an aggregator site - it doesn't mean it's accurate and again, you can read the scores anyway you like.
And he is cherrypicking - if he was not cherrypicking he would have used more than one site. QED.

[Wynne]

This again?

Take user reviews from any site but metacritic to prove this. Try it.

[Fallout_IX]

Metacritic scores are spammed with RPG purists raging about everything because its different. DA 2 isnt as good as DA 1 sure, but its still an enjoyable game and it kinda grows on you as you play through.

ps. £29.99 for 28 ish hours of play isnt a bad deal. Not many SP games last that long anymore

[AkiKishi]

Amioran wrote...

Warheadz wrote...
For example: The Escapist gave Dragon Age 2 full five stars, which translates to 10/10, touting it as the greatest RPG that will change everything, claiming "It's what videogames are meant to be". Does anyone actually feel that strongly about this game? The two pages long review doesn't even mention that there are areas that are recycled. Is it not even worth mentioning?
.

Maybe because it's not THAT important in the grand scheme of the game? Surely copy&paste environments can be an issue but it depends mostly on the context of the game. Firstly Bioware ALWAYS made games with copy&paste enviorments, secondly they bother some people really so much because they ACTIVELY look for it. If you are transported by the story & co. you notice them much much less.

A reviewer must take these things in consideration and then decide if they are an issue that prevents enjoynment of users - and in this case make them notice - or not. Given the context (that many simply discard altogheter because it's much simpler this way) there's nothing wrong with not mentioning it.

As for "paid reviews" I assure you that The Escapist is not one of those.

Escapist was the one that mentioned there being an auto attack option and choosing not to use it. That makes the whole review null and void and it should be removed.

[Jim_uk]

BobSmith101 wrote...


Escapist was the one that mentioned there being an auto attack option and choosing not to use it. That makes the whole review null and void and it should be removed.

The Escapist review stank of payola, not only did it fail to mention any flaws the language was similar to that of marketing twonks.

[Shockwave Pulsar]

The Brigand wrote...

Balthamoss wrote...
Why did you choose only Metacritic and ignore all the rest, what makes Metacritic more important than other sites?

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Metacritic

Metacritic is a website
that collates reviews of music albums, games,
movies, TV shows and DVDs. For each
product, a numerical score from each review is obtained and the total is
averaged. An excerpt of each review is provided along with a hyperlink
to the source. Three colour codes of Green, Yellow and Red summarize the
critic's recommendation. This gives an idea of the general appeal of
the product among reviewers and, to a lesser extent, the public.

I'm thinking that's why he goes with Metacritic instead of "other sites". I would suggest doing your research before trying to call people out on cherrypicking.

I would suggest you take a look at Metacritic, you will find that the CRITIC REVIEW average is around 83, which is far from bad, yet people make it look like the Metacritic USER RATINGS, which are for some reason far lower than on any other site, are actual reviews. That's why Metacritic is usually the only site cited by haters because it's the only one that has such a low user score. ;)Are the opinions of the users on Metacritic more important than those of others ?

[JabbaDaHutt30]

Wivvix wrote...

ashwind wrote...

Metacritic data averages as of 18/3/2011

Dragon Age Origins:
PC: Metascore 91, user score 8.3  (67 Critic Review, 321 User Review) <----------
Xbox360: Metascore 86, user score 7.5  (68 Critic Review, 65 User Review) <----------
PS3: Metascore 87, user score 7.6 (41 Critic Review, 52 User Review) <----------


Dragon Age 2:
PC: Metascore 83, user score 4.2  (26 Critic Review, 872 User Review) <----------
Xbox360: Metascore 80, user score 4.3 (50 Critic Review, 513 User Review) <----------
PS3: Metascore 82, user score 3.7 (39 Critic Review, 220 User Review) <----------

I find it a little hard to swallow this Statistic that does not lie. It looks like suddenly the users who "reviewed" the game as multiplied and over such a short period of time!

I should believe this "statistic" right? Unfortunately I wasnt dropped on the head enough as a baby. User review has no meaning now - NONE!! Why? Because it has become a battlefield for those who are for and against DA2 to wage war onto one another.

Yet another poster who utterly fails to comprehend the purpose of the original post, or to read any subsequent clarifications. I did not base my inference on the user reviews, but on the metacritic review. Clearly I shall have to amend the original post to state this explicitly, lest another person fail to scroll down the page before replying.

 you listed the user scores from metacritic as 'evidence' that people think Dragon Age 2 is 'considerably worse' and that 'statistics do not lie'... or made it seem like that in your post. What do you want people to understand? Hmm?

At the very least, why list user scores on metacritic at all if you do not believe them to be reliable? why put them forth and make it seem like they are in agreement with what you are about to say?

Modifié par JabbaDaHutt30, 18 mars 2011 - 11:14 .