390 réponses à ce sujet

[xkg]

Elhanan wrote...

 Does it also invalidxate like scores for other games like TW2?

http://www.metacriti.../critic-reviews

I can't say anything about TW2 scores because as i have told you i haven't played it.
I just crashed my Honda motorbike and fixing it is going to cost me a small fortune lol - can't afford any extra spending right now.

Modifié par xkg, 26 mai 2011 - 06:31 .

[Chromie]

Merced652 wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

So now we have presented evidence that there may be biased reviews on the plus side of the coin, as well as the negative. It does not make the site any better. Does it also invalidxate like scores for other games like TW2?

http://www.metacriti.../critic-reviews

Even if it did, does it matter? TW2 metacritc score and user score aren't wildly divergent. 

INB4 4CHAN.

The rabbid DA2 fans refuse to believe The Witcher 2 is better. I like both Witcher 2 is the sequel I was hoping DA2 could have been. Something that improves upon the original not strip it of everthing I loved.

[Il Divo]

abaris wrote...

That's what reviews are for. If anyone rated it low without giving an explanation, you can discard that right away. But those reviews I read all pointed out the combat system, the repetitivness, non reacting NPCs and the empty city.

Actually, I've seen reviews which list all those things, but I still have trouble taking them seriously, mainly when I see a '0' or '10' listed at the end. But I think this still does a good job of illustrating why a review's content is more important and why scores actually cloud the issue, more than anything else.

 Many of these reviews sound more like knee-jerk reactions to the game than people who have actually given it sufficient consideration in where it ranks in the world of video games. A 0 is a very low rank, to the point saying that there's absolutely nothing redeemable about it. I'm simply skeptical of many of these user reviews.

 
I haven't seen a single one complaining about not being the Warden.

I think you're kind of missing the point. It is not simply someone writing in their review "Hey, I don't get to play as the Warden, 0/10". It's simply that there are players who will refuse to give a game any chance once they hear about a feature they dislike. The Warden is simply an example that would pop up pre-release in threads. And this gives the user reviews a different bias from a critic's, which is still a problem and doesn't really place them in a much better position.

[abaris]

Il Divo wrote...

I think you're kind of missing the point. It is not simply someone writing in their review "Hey, I don't get to play as the Warden, 0/10". It's simply that there are players who will refuse to give a game any chance once they hear about a feature they dislike. The Warden is simply an example that would pop up pre-release in threads. And this gives the user reviews a different bias from a critic's, which is still a problem and doesn't really place them in a much better position.

Emphasis on different bias.

And I said repeatedly that I don't look at the score, but at the review. Sure they are biased, but there's a general consensus about things being wrong in the state of Denmark, if you get my meaning.

If someone feels that things are that wrong to deserve a big fat zero, its his opinion. I refrained from buying after playing the demo with that goofy combat and wave systems and I am glad I have done so, because the things I learned from the reviews since, make it even clearer that its not my type of game.

Look at the numbers alone and you are screwed one way or the other. The game mags want you to believe, its gods gift to humanity as do some of the players. And others rate it as if it was a wayward turd.

[Elhanan]

Ringo12 wrote...

The rabbid DA2 fans refuse to believe The Witcher 2 is better. I like both Witcher 2 is the sequel I was hoping DA2 could have been. Something that improves upon the original not strip it of everthing I loved.

And while some people do not appear to be ingnoring posts, they do so anyway.

I am not - say again - not contesting that TW2 may be better, but if one set of people consider high votes (or low) invalid from one game, it would seem to be fair to discard them for the other. Meatacritic is good for storing reviews, and that appears to be it, IMO. Pass.

Silly rabbid; kicks are for treads!

[Mykel54]

I admit this is a noob question, but i was wondering why is metacritic reviews so important? I mean, there are hundreds of sites that do review, and user reviews are not a new thing either. I don´t understand what is the big deal these days with all games wanted to have a good score in metacritic.

I personally detest metacritic because everyone can give a 0 to a decent game, or a 10 to a bad one. I would prefer instead if after beating each game, you got a message in the credits that linked you to a site where you woud be asked questions and finally put a note on the game. But just putting a number there, and then some copy-paste text is not what i call a review. I understand that people are just playing the game and many don´t want to waste time writing long reviews, but i think the metacritic way of doing it tell litte true information about what the game does good or bad, it only gives you a number.

[OmegaBlue0231]

Mykel54 wrote...

I admit this is a noob question, but i was wondering why is metacritic reviews so important? I mean, there are hundreds of sites that do review, and user reviews are not a new thing either. I don´t understand what is the big deal these days with all games wanted to have a good score in metacritic.

I personally detest metacritic because everyone can give a 0 to a decent game, or a 10 to a bad one. I would prefer instead if after beating each game, you got a message in the credits that linked you to a site where you woud be asked questions and finally put a note on the game. But just putting a number there, and then some copy-paste text is not what i call a review. I understand that people are just playing the game and many don´t want to waste time writing long reviews, but i think the metacritic way of doing it tell litte true information about what the game does good or bad, it only gives you a number.

It's currently the most popular way to say, "See I'm right!"

Modifié par OmegaBlue0231, 27 mai 2011 - 12:19 .

[Cnorthup]

Personally I love DA2. I've had more fun with it than many, many other games.

That it is obvious many people did not like it for various reasons doesn't bother me.  I find myself once again, as with a fair amount of  books. tv, movies and music (dear god music especially), on the opposite side of majority opinion.  I simply don't care whether the masses agree with me or not when it comes to my entertainment.

In contrast to the Witcher 2, I enjoyed DA2 far more.

As far as I can tell DA2 is a game with a number of flaws and strange design choices that I found fantastic and fun.

TW2 is a game with fewer flaws, an excellent design and gorgeous to boot, but I don't find it very fun. 

Such is life.

I do find DA2 to be superior, according to my tastes, in a number of ways. I prefer the characters, the dialogue, the voice acting, the loot system, the inventory system and the combat to TW2.  The Witcher looks so good that just wondering around is nice but everything else falls flat for me (except Roche, he is cool).  I find the overall stories to be quite good, and I'd give a slight edge to The Witcher.

I guess I can just move on from the unfortunate design choices like the re-used maps (I did find they looked good, but they really were used far too often).  If there is enough of what I like I ignore what I don't.  I can understand the argument's of the disappointed though.

So, while I won't disagree that metacritic gives an accurate sense of how a game was received by the public, I will continue to not trust the majority to tell me what I find to be quality.  I hope Bioware takes the direction they went in DA2 and works on it some more, hopefully resulting in a product that the flaws don't override the great stuff for many people.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Mykel54 wrote...

I admit this is a noob question, but i was wondering why is metacritic reviews so important? I mean, there are hundreds of sites that do review, and user reviews are not a new thing either. I don´t understand what is the big deal these days with all games wanted to have a good score in metacritic.

I personally detest metacritic because everyone can give a 0 to a decent game, or a 10 to a bad one. I would prefer instead if after beating each game, you got a message in the credits that linked you to a site where you woud be asked questions and finally put a note on the game. But just putting a number there, and then some copy-paste text is not what i call a review. I understand that people are just playing the game and many don´t want to waste time writing long reviews, but i think the metacritic way of doing it tell litte true information about what the game does good or bad, it only gives you a number.

While I do agree with you, it is the metric that Bioware themselves brought up before launching Dragon Age 2 to measure it's success critically and from the users. I believe they said they aimed at 90 or above on Metacritic. So everyone's swarmed to the site as proof of their arguments one way or the other.

[marshalleck]

Metacritic ratings obviously don't make a game good or bad. They just indicate the general reception. I've seen no argument or conclusive proof that really calls it into question for me.

Besides. The only user reviews I implicitly 100% trust come from good friends whom I've known for a long time, and I suspect that's true for a vast majority of people. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 27 mai 2011 - 03:58 .

[In Exile]

I just think that metacritic would be more worthwhile if they graphed their data. An average rating is meaningless. If we could see the actual data points, that would let us know what the reception was really like. The one forum poll that was around here somewhere with ratings for DA2 was really good, in that you could see how opinions ranged.

[Oopsieoops]

Mykel54 wrote...

I admit this is a noob question, but i was wondering why is metacritic reviews so important? I mean, there are hundreds of sites that do review, and user reviews are not a new thing either. I don´t understand what is the big deal these days with all games wanted to have a good score in metacritic.

I personally detest metacritic because everyone can give a 0 to a decent game, or a 10 to a bad one. I would prefer instead if after beating each game, you got a message in the credits that linked you to a site where you woud be asked questions and finally put a note on the game. But just putting a number there, and then some copy-paste text is not what i call a review. I understand that people are just playing the game and many don´t want to waste time writing long reviews, but i think the metacritic way of doing it tell litte true information about what the game does good or bad, it only gives you a number.

Yes, people can give 0's and 10's, but extreme scores cancel eachother out. The end result is an average which IMO is a good meter of how well received a game was. From my experience, they certainly are more in line with what I usually think of games than professional reviews, which invariably give inflated scores to releases from big companies.

Modifié par Oopsieoops, 27 mai 2011 - 02:53 .

[contextual_entity]

xkg wrote...

Amitar wrote...

The amount of hyperbole that goes into those review scores is just insane. There is no way that Dragon Age 2 deserves 4.4.

Amount of hyperbole is insane huh ? why ? 
Is it just because "you don't agree" with that score ?.
4.4 for DA2 ?

If 0(or 1) - is unplayable, broken game
5 is mediocre
10 is the best of the best

then yes, DA2 deserves 4 imo (4.4 is too high). 5 for being totally mediocre "meh" game and -1 for bugs.

I'm not saying the 4.4 itself is insane and if you think it's a 4/10 (which, yes, I disagree with, and encountered no bugs on 3 playthroughs - but I certainly wouldn't label it "insane") but the average is significantly based on a bunch 0/10 and 10/10 scores (more of the former than the later) and even you have to admit that it's not a 0/10 game, at least not by my definition in which the game would be literally unplayable or cause significant physical or psychological damage.

[terdferguson123]

Right because the game totally deserves a 4 metacritic score. The OP's post is idiotic. As someone else already stated, The Witcher 2 had 10's go up in the first few hours of it's release, and DA2 had 0's go up in the first few hours of it's release. The point is people knew what they wanted to rate a game before they played it. This doesn't prove anything, in fact this is a huge detractor to the credibility of metacritic. And an even bigger detractor to the OP'
s credibility for thinking that rating a game an extreme score before playing it is perfectly OK.

Modifié par terdferguson123, 27 mai 2011 - 04:11 .

[DiebytheSword]

Subjective: Dragon Age 2 is a bad game.
Objective: A lot of people didn't like Dragon Age 2 that rate games on Metacritic.

Tastes are subjective, people will like or not like Dragon Age 2 and it won't have anything to do with the game being good or bad. Does DA2 have flaws? Yes, sometimes glaring. Did I enjoy it through three playthroughs, despite those flaws? Yes. Is it as good as DAO? No, but thats a trick question because it does improve on some things.

I have a feeling people rated it low because they felt personally betrayed by change. Find new cheese.

[Thalorin1919]

I like how some of you will totally disregard it's 83 metacritic score, or whatever it has, because you think that Metacritic is BS.

But you'll pull out the ultra-high Metacritic score for a game you guys do like.

I also agree with the OP. Dragon Age 2 shouldn't get this much flak. It has flaws, but it's just nonsense.