261 réponses à ce sujet

[taine]

TwistedComplex wrote...

Alex Kershaw wrote...

tenshi_no_hone wrote...

because as we know, 82 is a terrible score...

It may be the lowest rated of Bioware's games (bar SC:DB) but that doesn't make it a bad game! Even if it wasn't my favourite, I still loved it.

Accusing it of being a truly terrible game is not supported by this score, just that it doesn't quite meet the greatness of Mass Effect or DA:O. It's being damned by slightly less glowing praise rather than outright hatred by its scores!

82 is actually pretty bad. You can't use 82/100 in the same way you'd rate other things - in games, 85 is about average for a game that's good enough to be worth buying.

No, to USER SCORES an 8/10 is average

To actual reviewers who are in touch with reality, a 5/10 is average

The game has an 82 professional score

It would be really nice if this were true, but it just isn't. Look at the games that get 5/10 from professional reviewers. These are *terrible* games. Not average, bad. 

Scores for games on Metacritic are heavily inflated, unlike for movies and TV shows. A good general formula to get an accurate score from Metacritic is to subtract 5-10 points from any AAA title, and add 5 to any title released by a small developer. This is a bit less true recently as indy games have started getting more general recognition, but historically it has worked for me. 

[Persephone]

Altered Idol wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Alex Kershaw wrote...

Alpha Protocol got really bad reviews...

Totally deserved them as well. But the RP ideas being Alpha Protocol border on genius. That game was tense, not only did everything you do have a consequence, but you had to do it "on the clock" as well.

Alpha Protocol had alot of faults, but the reviews it received were almost criminally harsh. It had a solid storyline, an excellent conversation system and decisions truly made an impact upon the direction of the story (most notably the ending). It looked dated and was riddled with bugs but so was Fallout New Vegas and that received a 9/10 on IGN compared with just over 6 for Alpha Protocol.

This. Completely agree.

[Avaggdu]

It's all relative. You can't compare games from 12 years ago to expectations of a game that has just been released. I remember when playing Space Invaders was a truly mind-blowing experience. All I can say is, Mr. Kershaw, manage your own expectations and you won't be so disappointed.

Though it would be nice to not have so many game crashes, glitches and actually receive the downloadable content I've paid for. But I'm patient. Patches will follow...problems will be resolved.

I'm loving DA2, despite the problems I'm experiencing, I'm working around them.

Chill, everyone.

[Alex Kershaw]

Avaggdu wrote...

It's all relative. You can't compare games from 12 years ago to expectations of a game that has just been released. I remember when playing Space Invaders was a truly mind-blowing experience. All I can say is, Mr. Kershaw, manage your own expectations and you won't be so disappointed.

Though it would be nice to not have so many game crashes, glitches and actually receive the downloadable content I've paid for. But I'm patient. Patches will follow...problems will be resolved.

I'm loving DA2, despite the problems I'm experiencing, I'm working around them.

Chill, everyone.

I don't understand why you can't compare them? As you said yourself - it's all relative. The games back in 2000 were rated compared to games made in 2000. Either way, DAO was released less than 18 months ago - is that still too long to be accurate? In my opinion, bugs and glitches were the least of the game's problems. I'm not sure how I should manage my expectations any better when Bioware have produced excellent RPGs consistently for over a decade, then hype up the sequel to a brilliant game only to have it be a major disappointment, hence the extremely low user scores on pretty much any website. But still - the OP was about presenting facts.

[Drake Sigar]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

Drake Sigar wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Alex Kershaw wrote...

Alpha Protocol got really bad reviews...

Totally deserved them as well. But the RP ideas being Alpha Protocol border on genius. That game was tense, not only did everything you do have a consequence, but you had to do it "on the clock" as well.

I don’t think it did deserve those reviews. Or at least, not when we have a closer look. IGN give Alpha Protocol a 6.3 and Night at the Museum a 7.5? Nobody will ever convince me Night at the Museum – a 2 hour game with appalling graphics and puzzles, is better than Alpha Protocol, or even in the same league.

I assume that they compare arcade games to other arcade games. That 2 hour thing is an arcade game, right?

Nope.

[Deified Data]

88mphSlayer wrote...

i think most people here who are criticizing Bioware or Dragon Age 2 are doing it out of a love of Bioware's other games, and not because they hope the series fails or Bioware goes under

That's a bit optimistic - I think seeing the game fail and Bioware go under is what alot of these spiteful people want.

[Chunkor]

ElectricPhase wrote...

It's been my experience that if a
game is rated lower than 85 with Metacritic style averaging, the
chances of it being worth playing are almost nil.   I've also taken to
averaging the pro and user scores on Metacritic to counter the payola
effect.   ymmv

Well, that's strictly your opinion. Fact of the matter is that games ranging from 80-85 are still worth playing and still garner success in terms of sales and fan reaction.

taine wrote...

Scores for games on Metacritic are heavily inflated, unlike for movies and TV shows. A good general formula to get an accurate score from Metacritic is to subtract 5-10 points from any AAA title, and add 5 to any title released by a small developer. This is a bit less true recently as indy games have started getting more general recognition, but historically it has worked for me. 

Haha, I like this interpretation of the scoring system and it makes a world of sense. Though, I wouldn't necessarily say ALL AAA titles are inflated to that extent. A quick list of AAA titles that have earned their scores that come to mind are Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2 (debatable), Demon Souls, and Metal Gear Solid IV.

[Alex Kershaw]

Deified Data wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

i think most people here who are criticizing Bioware or Dragon Age 2 are doing it out of a love of Bioware's other games, and not because they hope the series fails or Bioware goes under

That's a bit optimistic - I think seeing the game fail and Bioware go under is what alot of these spiteful people want.

I definitely don't want that

[blacqout]

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on a Metacritic score. It's laughable that a site with such poor writers as x360a is deemed "professional".

[R-F]

Because 82 is an awful score. I can't wait to see the fallout for tor

[Alex Kershaw]

blacqout wrote...

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on a Metacritic score. It's laughable that a site with such poor writers as x360a is deemed "professional".

And the reaction on these forums and on the user ratings across the net are for nothing? Metacritic has always been pretty accurate in my experience.

[Relshar]

Altered Idol wrote...

I played another good game that was panned by the critics, namely Alpha Protocol.

And after that, the sequel was cancelled. Lets hope they don't do the same with Dragon Age as I am looking forward to DA:3. Losing the franchise completely would be disastrous.

On the flip side, I enjoyed the game so these scores don't mean much to me at the moment

If DA:2 is anything to judge what DA:3 is going to be like this is me hoping they sell or loose the IP to a better company.

[Foolsfolly]

Drake Sigar wrote...

b00mQQ wrote...

Mass Effect 2 outscored Baldur's Gate II. I smell some bull**** right there. Everyone knows Mass Effect 2 was the most dumbed down sequel in BioWare history -- yes, even worse than Dragon Age II.

If you’re talking about the RPG elements, they were pretty tame to begin with. I thought Bioware made the smart move by ‘streamlining’ Mass Effect. Dragon Age: Origins on the other hand, was a pure RPG from the get-go.

This man speaks truth.

ME1 wasn't so much about old school role-playing elements. It had skills that you upgraded, sure but so did GTA: San Andreas and no one would call that an RPG. It had choices but so does StarCraft 2 and those choices limit your options and have consquences. It had a third-person shooter mechanic that played too much like an old-school arcade game. You just fired your unlimited gun at the enemy who did the same. On the higher difficulty levels it was ridiclous how many rounds of Tungstun VII or Shredder VII with two Frictionless Materials Xs and a constant spamming of Marksman it took to take down a Krogan or Geth Prime.

You threw on Immunity and just sat there trading rounds until you won.

Or you use Singularity and Throw to insta-kill (or there was an upgrade path that made Lift have more AoE than Singularity).

ME2 fixed the combat. It's still not the best shooter combat in the world, but it's the best shooter combat BioWare's done yet. And the small RPG elements are still there, you still have skills, upgrades, and armor pieces. It's just streamlined.

ME2's BioWare best game ever. As it should be. They should continue getting better with each game.

DA2's a little worse than DA:O but it doesn't damn the series to hell because of that. Despite my disappointment with DA2 I'd totally buy a DA3, and actually look forward to it. BioWare's a great company and one disappointment doesn't make me swear them all off.

[Cazlee]

In terms of how an 80 or 82 actually ranks, here is an objective way of looking at it:

The PC version of DA2 is rated 82/100 on Metacritic. This score places DA2 at rank #10 of 20 compared to its peers on Metacritic's Current PC Games list. (An average score compared to peers)

The PS3 version of DA2 is rated 82/100 on Metacritic. This score places DA2 at rank #12 of 20 compared to its peers on the on Metacritic's Current PS3 Games list. (A below average score compared to peers)

The Xbox version of DA2 is rated 80/100 on Metacritic. This score places DA2 at rank #12 of 20 on Metacritic's Current Xbox Games list. (A below average score compared to peers)

Using these results it seems that 80-82 is an average or below average score depending on platform.

Modifié par Cazlee, 22 mars 2011 - 02:32 .

[scpulley]

T3rror3y3s wrote...

I wish they had taken the 6 or so months more it would have taken to finish the game properly. The state they released it in along with the $60 price tag makes it seem like a cash grab. Hopefully they finish SW:ToR soon, I have a feeling it had a part in what happened to DA2 :.

Me too...I really don't think it's conincidence that RIGHT when DA 2 is coming out we start hearing that TOR is pushing back now with more development time. I think they pushed this out the door for a quick money grab so they can finish spending more money to finish TOR. I feel like TOR is the 300 million dollar gamble they are riding everything on. Seriously, this makes me really really nervious. Now, I'm not saying TOR doesn't look like it's going to be great, but they took the DA series and turned it into a sacrificial goat to get a few more drops of blood sweat and tears into TOR. At least that's what makes most since to me.

[Emberwake]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

'Tis true. Here's the list of Bioware games with their metacritic score:

(I didn't include that Sonic DS game because it's a handheld nor Shattered Steel from 1996 as no reviews are available)

(multi-platform games were given their highest score)

Mass Effect 2 (2010) - 96
Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn (2000) - 95
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (2003 )- 93
Baldur's Gate (1998) - 91
Neverwinter Nights (2002) - 91
Mass Effect (2007) - 91
Dragon Age: Origins (2009) - 91
Jade Empire (2005) - 89
MDK2 (2000) - 83
Dragon Age II (2011) - 82

Why fix what isn't broken, Bioware?   

The answer to your question is right there at the top of your list.

[xYOSSARIANx]

stewie1974 wrote...

where is KOTOR 2 on that list?  ((85 for the record)) which is only 3 points ahead of DA2.

But out of 100 82 isn't bad.

1 out of 100 would be terrible... 50 would be average 100 would be best game ever. 

Why do people look at 8 out of 10 ((rounding up)) as bad. Are any of you seriously saying if you had the chance to bed an 8 you wouldn't?

Why would pepole say 8 out of 10 is bad ? Because they use the 7-10 or 8-10 scale. No matter how rubbish a game is, it's RARE to see a review of less than 70%. Reviewers don't start at 1%, they start at 70%.

A rubbish game scores 70-80%, Meh scores 80-85%, Good 85-90%, Very good 90-95%, Thank you for spending $$$ advertising your game on our site 95-100%

I wish the people that give review scores marked academic exams, we'd all be PhD's. Call me Dr Yossarian.

[goatman42]

Ah, the "score" thread. I've never seen one of these before.

Scores don't really matter in the long run. Its all about how you personally felt, not a collection of numbers.

[Nozybidaj]

Drake Sigar wrote...

I don’t think it did deserve those reviews. Or at least, not when we have a closer look. IGN give Alpha Protocol a 6.3 and Night at the Museum a 7.5? Nobody will ever convince me Night at the Museum – a 2 hour game with appalling graphics and puzzles, is better than Alpha Protocol, or even in the same league.

Only thing AP lacked was a larger advertising budget.  Then it would have gotten 8-9/10 reviews too.

[mundus66]

I've been saying this since i finally played the game. Its not bad, its just not as good as some of their other games and this is mostly because of the development time. Seriously 24 months should be bare minimum on games that are not portable/downloadable today.

They should have made it come out in November or so and they used the extra time to make the locations different as well as make some things more interesting like most of the side quests, which imo are pretty generic. I know the last game had chanters board quests, but overally the quests where more interesting.

[EternalPink]

xYOSSARIANx wrote...

stewie1974 wrote...

where is KOTOR 2 on that list?  ((85 for the record)) which is only 3 points ahead of DA2.

But out of 100 82 isn't bad.

1 out of 100 would be terrible... 50 would be average 100 would be best game ever. 

Why do people look at 8 out of 10 ((rounding up)) as bad. Are any of you seriously saying if you had the chance to bed an 8 you wouldn't?

Why would pepole say 8 out of 10 is bad ? Because they use the 7-10 or 8-10 scale. No matter how rubbish a game is, it's RARE to see a review of less than 70%. Reviewers don't start at 1%, they start at 70%.

A rubbish game scores 70-80%, Meh scores 80-85%, Good 85-90%, Very good 90-95%, Thank you for spending $$$ advertising your game on our site 95-100%

I wish the people that give review scores marked academic exams, we'd all be PhD's. Call me Dr Yossarian.

To get a 1% the game would probably have to corrupt your computer, sneak out while you where sleeping and wreck your car and then set fire to your house

[Chunkor]

xYOSSARIANx wrote...

No matter how rubbish a game is, it's RARE to see a review of less than 70%. Reviewers don't start at 1%, they start at 70%.

What? I don't even... What? Games that get below 50% are usually games that have been so poorly designed that they were made by some low end, unknown company; therefore, you wouldn't hear about it in the first place. Games for the 50 and below are reserved for games that are so damn broken that no one, not even the most desperate and loyal fans, could enjoy them. These are grades reserved for the crappiest of the crap, like Sonic the Hedgehog (43), Tony Hawk Ride (44), and Rogue Warrior (27).

There are also plenty of games that get 60s. Lost Planet 2, Spider-Man Web of Shadows, and Turok just to name a few major titles in the recent years. Keep in mind that Lost Planet 2 was hyped up by Capcom and major game sites and had huge expectations. I don't even know what you're talking about.

... Seriously, what?

[Dr. Impossible]

Narreneth wrote...

Dr. Impossible wrote...

Chunkor wrote...

The branching storylines and customization? Never. I said it was for RPGs, not JRPGs. Perhaps I should have distinctly said Western RPG.

Why are you talking about RPGs and JRPGs as if they had anything to do with each other? They don't. They're different genres.

God you're dumb.

Yes, you are dumb. JRPGs are not RPGs.

Foolsfolly wrote...

ME2's BioWare best game ever. As it should be. They should continue getting better with each game.

ME2 is a mediocre shooter and a kinda-sorta RPG with a bad story.

[LilyasAvalon]

I haven't played all the Bioware games, just the more recent ones, but yeah, I do have to agree. DA2, while still good, was a disappointment. It HAD potential, it HAD a compelling storyline that could've been told GREATLY...

...But too many corners were cut, too many easy ways out.

One of them? I dislike having to go into the EXACT SAME MAP 10 times for 10 seperate, unreleated sidequests. I remember some maps being redone in Origins, but this? This was just pathetic.

It was still a good game all things considering, I liked the gameplay, I liked the storyline and I enjoyed it enough, but it's hardly the gem of Bioware games. I am very angry and upset with myself I wasted nearly $150 for all the collectors edition stuff. I would've still bought the game and the guide, but I would've waited until it was much cheaper.

If DA3 resembles what DA2 is, with no signs of improvement and the same Twilight-esque male LI's and no Cullen romance, I'm gonna hook up with another gaming company. At least we still have ME3.

Modifié par LilyasAvalon, 22 mars 2011 - 08:00 .

[AkiKishi]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

Drake Sigar wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Alex Kershaw wrote...

Alpha Protocol got really bad reviews...

Totally deserved them as well. But the RP ideas being Alpha Protocol border on genius. That game was tense, not only did everything you do have a consequence, but you had to do it "on the clock" as well.

I don’t think it did deserve those reviews. Or at least, not when we have a closer look. IGN give Alpha Protocol a 6.3 and Night at the Museum a 7.5? Nobody will ever convince me Night at the Museum – a 2 hour game with appalling graphics and puzzles, is better than Alpha Protocol, or even in the same league.

I assume that they compare arcade games to other arcade games. That 2 hour thing is an arcade game, right? E.g. I think Portal was a fantastic game, but it would be harsh to compare it to full retail releases

I don't know if they compare scores across generes, probably not.

It's my belief that even if you like something, you still score it somewhat objectively and there is no reason I can find against giving AP a mid 60 score.
Which is actually higher than the personal score I gave DA2, which was 40. Then again I do tend to use the full scale, where as for AAA games, to be worthy In pro reviews it's a 90-100% anything lower is suspect of a bad game.