390 réponses à ce sujet

[DrFumb1ezX]

Malanek999 wrote...

2papercuts wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Mecher3k wrote...

Malanek999, must be nice to be able to deny reality so much with out having to be on some powerful drugs.

It must suck to have ones head buried so deeply in cynicism and/or self importance that you have to retort to comments like this.

really though, it appears that professional reviews can be just as biased

just look at the PC Gamer review

DA2 is closer to an 8.2/10 than a 4.3/10. That is the point of metacritic to get a range of views and collect them in one place. The critical reviews are a lot more reliable because they have to put their name to it.

Yeah, scoring something is a bit different when you have to put your reputation on the line. Which is why I generally agree critical reviews over user reviews.

[Drachasor]

ScepticMatt wrote...

Drachasor wrote...
All reviews are based on emotions.  Enjoyment is an emotion and all the various ways to appreciate design fundamentally come down to emotions.

What I meant is that paid reviewers generally don't consider things like broken promises, DLC or DRM as much in their score as users do.

True, but that's mitigated by fanboyism.  I'm not saying aggregate user reviews are perfect, but for every thing that pushed them down there are factors that push them up.  In my experience as a gamer, those tend to balance them out -- not perfectly, but mostly. They also tend to have games with a 5/10 as actually average games, whereas an 8/10 user review is actually really good (unlike professional reviews).

[Mrbananagrabber]

The Escapist review and Pcgamer ones are the only two professional reviews I find disturbingly polarized.

[DrFumb1ezX]

Mrbananagrabber wrote...

The Escapist review and Pcgamer ones are the only two professional reviews I find disturbingly polarized.

Maybe the people who wrote the review really liked the game? That's all I can of at the moment. 

[Abispa]

I remember, well over a decade ago, a "traditional" publication (Time?) was doing an article on how (shock!) video games were so popular and that there were then SO MANY VG magazines to choose from. It then did an overview of them all and investigated how they went about doing their VG reviews.

The Atari Jaguar was a struggling system at that time, and Time (?) found it interesting that most Jaguar game reviews were very favorable until Atari was so financially strapped that it demanded that reviewers return cartridge-ROMs and game systems after the reviews were done. In other words, Atari wasn't giving away freebies anymore. And, strangely enough the game reviews took a nose-dive if the magazines bothered to run them at all. The article then observed that Sony was wisely giving reviewers a lot of free stuff when they released their first Playstation.

Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. Early game releases for the Jaguar, like Alien Vs. Predator and Iron Soldier were definitely better than the games being released after Atari stopped sending out free stuff, but other weaker early releases still got favorable reviews.

[2papercuts]

soccerchick wrote...

Mrbananagrabber wrote...

The Escapist review and Pcgamer ones are the only two professional reviews I find disturbingly polarized.

Maybe the people who wrote the review really liked the game? That's all I can of at the moment. 

I think the Pcgamer review is pretty funny

I love how the reviewer has almost no complaints with the game, even though in previous reviews for other games he had complained about flaws that were noticable in DA2

[xkg]

soccerchick wrote...

Mrbananagrabber wrote...

The Escapist review and Pcgamer ones are the only two professional reviews I find disturbingly polarized.

Maybe the people who wrote the review really liked the game? That's all I can of at the moment. 

Then they are not professionals at all. What is the difference between their reviews and user reviews besides the "beauty" language they are using ?

Modifié par xkg, 22 mai 2011 - 10:58 .

[Mrbananagrabber]

soccerchick wrote...

Mrbananagrabber wrote...

The Escapist review and Pcgamer ones are the only two professional reviews I find disturbingly polarized.

Maybe the people who wrote the review really liked the game? That's all I can of at the moment. 

Really, 100%? You're telling me DAII has NO flaws?

I consider Metal Gear Solid 3 the best videogame of all time, I play it 4 times a year. Yet I wouldn't give it anywhere near 100% because I can definately see some flaws in it.

[astrallite]

Such as the re-spawning enemies?

[Mrbananagrabber]

astrallite wrote...

Such as the re-spawning enemies?

Thats exactly one of my gripe. That and some loose plot holes you have to read about on the internet to figure out.

[DrFumb1ezX]

Mrbananagrabber wrote...

soccerchick wrote...

Mrbananagrabber wrote...

The Escapist review and Pcgamer ones are the only two professional reviews I find disturbingly polarized.

Maybe the people who wrote the review really liked the game? That's all I can of at the moment. 

Really, 100%? You're telling me DAII has NO flaws?

I consider Metal Gear Solid 3 the best videogame of all time, I play it 4 times a year. Yet I wouldn't give it anywhere near 100% because I can definately see some flaws in it.

I didn't imply ANYWHERE that DA2 has no flaws. Please read my quote again, if you must.

Its probably more likely that either they didn't encounter ANY of the numerous flaws, so they couldn't factor them into their reviews, or that they have a very selective memory.

So blind luck or forgetfulness, which is more likely?

And no game deserves 100%. 'Cause if it does, then we've hit the pinnacle of gaming, so it never gets any better.

And MGS3, the best video-game of all time (In your opinion)? ... I'd have to match it up with some of the others I've played... Hard choice...

[ScepticMatt]

PCGames and Escapist show that you cannot trust early reviews.

[inkjay]

soccerchick wrote...

I didn't imply ANYWHERE that DA2 has no flaws. Please read my quote again, if you must.

Its probably more likely that either they didn't encounter ANY of the numerous flaws, so they couldn't factor them into their reviews, or that they have a very selective memory.

LOL I think the infinitely repeated dungeons and enemy waves spawing out of thin air on top of you are really hard to miss, but whatever lets you sleep at night.

Even if you like the game a lot such blatant and obvious flaws should prevent any game from getting a perfect grade at all.

Modifié par inkjay, 22 mai 2011 - 11:20 .

[Darc Tangent]

Drachasor wrote...

To be more precise, people giving the game a 10 because they truly loved it or a 0 because they truly hated it are NOT noise.  If we consider the Signal to be the real opinions of people and the noise to be faked opinions, then people really hating or loving it are not noise.

Now, let's consider that a good game where the signal from the consumers is an 8 with 2000 votes.  Nefarious entities have decided to ruin that score.  BOOM one hundred zeroes get added.  So now the score is 7.6.

Oh, I guess you need more.  Let's have 200 faked scores of zero.  Mmm, 7.2.
400? 6.7  That's with 20% of the scores being faked opinions just to bring it down (as opposed to actual players who legitimatedly disliked the game that much...those gamers give scores that have value).

So does anyone have any evidence that hundreds of votes are faked on here?  They also just have to be faked ONE WAY, because fake 10s will severely offset fake 0s.

So anyone?  ANYONE?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Without validations as Selene mentioned, you cannot know either way. I can agree that many people may be given towards ridiculously high or low ratings to any given game based on an emotional response as opposed to a critical response to a game, and I would not discount that completely, but posined rating (either way) are nothing new.

From my experience of nearly 19 years on the Internet, if people wish to take advantage of their anonymity and post multiple rants or raves, they most certainly can and will if they think they can get away with it. It would be rather naive to discount such possibilities and would certainly suggest a possibility of abuse concerning posting game ratings from the general public. 

Metacritic is pretty good, imho, and at best I've only seen wild fantasies to the contrary with no basis in fact.  On the other hand, professional reveiws have been noted by people in the industry to be significantly impacted by the desire advertising revenue and industries capturing reviewers/regulators is a pretty well-known phenomenon in the business world.  So those reviews are legitimately suspect.

Personally, I take any game review with a view that any extreme is suspect, whether by a professional critic or from an individual gamer.

[DrFumb1ezX]

inkjay wrote...

soccerchick wrote...

I didn't imply ANYWHERE that DA2 has no flaws. Please read my quote again, if you must.

Its probably more likely that either they didn't encounter ANY of the numerous flaws, so they couldn't factor them into their reviews, or that they have a very selective memory.

LOL I think the infinitely repeated dungeons and enemy waves spawing out of thin air on top of you are really hard to miss, but whatever lets you sleep at night.

Even if you like the game a lot such blatant and obvious flaws should prevent any game from getting a perfect grade at all.

When did I say it deserved a perfect grade? DId you read the rest of that comment? I clearly stated that NO GAME deserves 100%.

The infinitely repeated dungeons and enemy waves random spawning were terrible, horrible ideas, but most games DO spawn enemies into thin air.  That being said, most games also don't spawn them right in front of you.

The repeated dungeons have no excuses. That's just silly. But I guess if you're enjoying the game, you might not notice them.

In any case, just try not listen to those scores that hit way off the mark of the mean review. They might be biased. 

[billy the squid]

Darc Tangent wrote...

Drachasor wrote...

Metacritic is pretty good, imho, and at best I've only seen wild fantasies to the contrary with no basis in fact.  On the other hand, professional reveiws have been noted by people in the industry to be significantly impacted by the desire advertising revenue and industries capturing reviewers/regulators is a pretty well-known phenomenon in the business world.  So those reviews are legitimately suspect.

Personally, I take any game review with a view that any extreme is suspect, whether by a professional critic or from an individual gamer.

I agree that Metacritic seems to be a reasonable, if not overly accurate measure of feeling towards certain games rather that being an objective critique of the pros and cons of DA2, but then again the emphasis one places on the changes will inherently never lead to an objective valuation.

Personally I tend to look at the reviews which actually make an effort to explain the low, mixed or high score, rather than those which simply state "immersion and combat are unmatched." Great, now tell me why please before I dismiss the entire review as blind gushing and zealotry. The same goes for those who come across as a raving loons tell me why.

I remain very suspicious of most professional critic reviews, PCgamer's alternative review to their official DA2 review has back peddling plastered all over it. The defence, well it was a different person that reviewed the game, so what? if DA2 had been succesful it is extreamely unlikely they would have printed an alternative review. In such reviews advertising revenue, exclusive interviews, exclusive plays for certain magazines have had a big effect on the score and the review itself.

I don't think a "professional" critic is by and large more reliable than an anonymous user, it may not suffer from the extreame ratings of 0-2, but certainly having your name associated with a review serves as more of a constraint than any measure of objectivity or reliability. For instance, if I tell my boss' most important client he's an arse and his product/ business plan etc. is a badly thought out, ill designed and poorly concieved rushed mess, I'm not going to be in my job for long and I won't be getting any new jobs in that sector any time soon, particularly if that client holds a lot of weight.

[inkjay]

Yea, I read it all, though in fact I misread it. Your first comment sounded like 94% and 100 were justifiable grades because they "liked" the game regardless of flaws, and my response was that objectively the game was so flawed that even if it is your favourite game ever you can't really award them a perfect score.

I do believe tho that in other scales, like 10 point or 5 stars scales you CAN have games worthy of full marks, provided that you inform your audience that 10 or 5 deosn't really mean "perfect". So yea, I apologize if we are basically saying the same thing.

[DrFumb1ezX]

inkjay wrote...

Yea, I read it all, though in fact I misread it. Your first comment sounded like 94% and 100 were justifiable grades because they "liked" the game regardless of flaws, and my response was that objectively the game was so flawed that even if it is your favourite game ever you can't really award them a perfect score.

I do believe tho that in other scales, like 10 point or 5 stars scales you CAN have games worthy of full marks, provided that you inform your audience that 10 or 5 deosn't really mean "perfect". So yea, I apologize if we are basically saying the same thing.

That is what I'm trying to say, thank you. Sorry for going nuts, but you wouldn't believe how many times people haven't read my full quote. Just frustrating sometimes. 

.

[Selene Moonsong]

marshalleck wrote...

Keep dreaming. Somehow I doubt you'd be rationalizing DA2's user rating in such a way if it were 9.5+.

Despite what you may think, I am not rationalizing, I am suggesting remove the lowest and highest scores as possibly being invalid, along with removing possible multiple entries by a same individual, which would be invalid.

My suggestion is to remove all extremes not just bad reviews. If Metecritic were to verify and validate each and every gamer review as being authentic and unique, as well as verify that those same reviewrs have in fact actually played a given game they are reviewing, then I could accept those reviews.

I am not an employee of BioWare, EA, or any other game developer or publisher, I am a game player just like anyone else, nor am I required to, as a  Moderator, give up posting my own opinions about a BioWare game or otherwise required  post nothing but positive comments regarding a given game they have developed. 

If you want my honest opinion about DA II, for example, I don't think it a great game, nor do I think it a bad game. The game is hardly flawless, and I frankly feel it would have much better served fans and new players had it retained more of the things I felt made DA: Origins such a great game.

In some ways, DA II sometimes feels like it was designed to appeal to casual shooter players,  more than RPG fans. At least I thought that way at first untill I played ME 2. While they certainly did borrow from ME 2, I feel that ME 2 is a shooter with RPG elements while DAII comes off as a RPG with elements of a shooter.

Other things that disappointed me with DA II, is the art direction taken, particularly in ragards to character races, specifically in regards to Elves.  I consider it the same kind of poor choice in character design as Obsidian's  development of NWN 2 when WotC insisted that creatures (including races) be designed as per the artwork in their D&D publications, artwork that I have always considered as poor design quality.

However, my impromptu review is taking this off topic, so let's not continue that part of the discussion....

[Elhanan]

Summary thus far for DA2 from Metacritics: Professional reviews are invalid, high votes are invaid, and anyone else's opinion other than the low User standard is invalid. Reverse for TW2.....



As Flemeth suggested, "Believe what you will. You are required to do nothing, least of all believe. Shut one's eyes tight or open one's arms wide, either way, one's a fool."

[Boiny Bunny]

Elhanan wrote...

daemon1129 wrote...

It's not like there is someone who just hate Bioware so much that he just spams reviews...It might not be an accurate score on how good or bad the game is, but such extreme low scores shows how disappointed a lot of people are. The noise doesn't just barge in and randomly start bashing a random game. There must be a reason why so many of them put in an effort to flame. And that reason is quite obvious.

Yep; Witcher fans....

DA2's low metacritic scores are most likely due solely to Bioware fans.  The game was a very large disappointment, to many.  That's all there is to it.

TW2 fans not only have no reason to bash DA2 on metacritic - they don't even need to, and never did.  Bioware fans who bought the game did all the work already.

[Romantiq]

soccerchick wrote...

Mrbananagrabber wrote...

The Escapist review and Pcgamer ones are the only two professional reviews I find disturbingly polarized.

Maybe the people who wrote the review really liked the game? That's all I can of at the moment. 

Actually , I read the pcgamer review and it seems that he didn't even play the game. Just spat some lines and got his money.  :happy:

I am a BioWare fan. I even purchased two overpriced mass effect 2 t-shirts from their store in support. But right now its more of an EaWare with low quality games designed for milking the crowd. If they continue down this path then I will still remain a fan of BioWare of old.

Modifié par Romantiq, 23 mai 2011 - 01:30 .

[Drachasor]

Darc Tangent wrote...

Without validations as Selene mentioned, you cannot know either way. I can agree that many people may be given towards ridiculously high or low ratings to any given game based on an emotional response as opposed to a critical response to a game, and I would not discount that completely, but posined rating (either way) are nothing new.

From my experience of nearly 19 years on the Internet, if people wish to take advantage of their anonymity and post multiple rants or raves, they most certainly can and will if they think they can get away with it. It would be rather naive to discount such possibilities and would certainly suggest a possibility of abuse concerning posting game ratings from the general public. 

Metacritic is pretty good, imho, and at best I've only seen wild fantasies to the contrary with no basis in fact.  On the other hand, professional reveiws have been noted by people in the industry to be significantly impacted by the desire advertising revenue and industries capturing reviewers/regulators is a pretty well-known phenomenon in the business world.  So those reviews are legitimately suspect.

Personally, I take any game review with a view that any extreme is suspect, whether by a professional critic or from an individual gamer.

That's the thing though, you don't have to take any one review as good or bad on metacritic.  It's the aggregate that is pretty good.  One person or even a dozen making multiple reviews are not going to signficantly impact the aggregate score -- a score that again, looks pretty good (at most you could argue it is a point off, I think).  This is basic statistics (again, I wish they'd show score totals in a bar graph...that would be interesting and useful).

This score is extremely useful, unlike the scores by professionals.  If it scores under a 5 on average with a couple thousand votes, then you know the game has major problems (like DA2).  If it scores over an 8, then you know it is quite good.  Very, very useful.  Professional critics, on other hand, are pretty darn useless either singly or in aggregate because their numbers are very clearly padded -- you just can't consistently trust their ratings on games.

[Drachasor]

Boiny Bunny wrote...
DA2's low metacritic scores are most likely due solely to Bioware fans.  The game was a very large disappointment, to many.  That's all there is to it.

It's due to the game not being very good.  Tons and tons of map recycling with minimaps showing corridors that aren't being used on the current recycle.  There are plenty of plots holes.  There's no consistent plot/story over the course of the game.  You make tons of decisions that just don't matter at all, even during times important to the plot.  The combat system is poorly balanced and the wave mechanics is rediculous.

Hey, unsurprisingly a game that gets rushed out the door without enough assets (particularly in art), get's a low metacritic score.  Who would have thought that could happen?  The game is decidedly below average.  The only thing about the game that has no faults is the voice acting.

Modifié par Drachasor, 23 mai 2011 - 03:38 .

[Drachasor]

Selene Moonsong wrote...
In some ways, DA II sometimes feels like it was designed to appeal to casual shooter players,  more than RPG fans. At least I thought that way at first untill I played ME 2. While they certainly did borrow from ME 2, I feel that ME 2 is a shooter with RPG elements while DAII comes off as a RPG with elements of a shooter.

Now consider how many shooters have heavily recycled maps.  Not just recycled map elements, but completely recycling entire maps and pretending they are different places.  I can't think of one.  While it was maybe designed to appeal to casual shooter players, the game has flaws that even the mere average shooter avoids.  That's what makes it a below average game.