390 réponses à ce sujet

[_Aine_]

I love logic!

Example: watermelons are 90% water. The human lungs are 90% water. Therefore, in an emergency I can transplant a watermelon for a lung.

YAY !

[edit: this post was merely sarcasm. Do not try this in case of a real emergency.  There are no compatible vascular structure in watermelon.]

Modifié par shantisands, 23 mai 2011 - 05:16 .

[Aurvan]

As long as there are enough users that submit a score, the result does reflect the quality of the game. For games with flaws, the score will perhaps be too low, but that's easy to take into account. Can you find a game that has low score without deserving it?

[inkjay]

Aurvan wrote...

As long as there are enough users that submit a score, the result does reflect the quality of the game. For games with flaws, the score will perhaps be too low, but that's easy to take into account. Can you find a game that has low score without deserving it?

If not the quality, at least the sentiment towards the game, which in this particular game is that most people not only didn't like it but actively hated it. Of course, those are much more emotional scores because the people who go there feel misrepresented by the "professional media" scores, which in the case of Dragon Age 2 are insulting to the audience's intelligence. I mean, 100, 95, 94... they are ridiculous.

[OddityAngel]

Well...

I'm willing to admit that for the most part metacritic is a healthy barometer of how a game has been received by the players. That said, I think it is worth looking at the build up to  Dragon Age II and considering what other factors may have contributed to its abysmal scores upon release.

The most obvious thing to me is the PR disasters that both preceded the game's release and followed quickly on its heels. SecuROM. Paying customers being locked out of their game due to a forum ban. Bioware employees reviewing their own games. These things angered people. I think they contributed to the hostility towards the game and possibly biased players before they even started playing. Many of the extreme negative reviews came out the day of release or VERY soon after, and while I am not one who believes you have to play a game to its conclusion to judge its merits I do believe an informed opinion can't really be made without time for reflection. To be fair, Bioware has no one to blame but themselves for all the negative attention, they didn't handle it well, but it doesn't hurt to acknowledge that some of the more extreme negative reviews were likely due to fans (and non fans) being swept up in the PR nightmare and hostile atmosphere that accompanied the game's release.

I don't believe it deserves a score of zero, and when I see zeros I tend to assume the person is making a statement rather than objectively judging the game. Obviously some people honestly believes it deserves a zero, and that's cool, but wow, what standards!

Again, I don't think all the low scores are due to people reacting to outside factors. There are so many problems with the game that I don't have any trouble imagining people legitimately giving it a four or five or any negative score really (my standards are different than many old school RPG fans, so I'm happy giving it a seven), but I do think it's worth considering that many people had preconceptions about the game before playing, and that others were intent on punishing Bioware for its transgressions even at the expense of their own credibility as objective reviewers.

 If we can acknowledge that people can get caught up in the hype and give a game a higher score than it likely deserves, well,  doesn't it make sense to admit the opposite may also be true?

Modifié par OddityAngel, 23 mai 2011 - 05:47 .

[Elhanan]

OddityAngel wrote...

Well...

I'm willing to admit that for the most part metacritic is a healthy barometer of how a game has been received by the players. That said, I think it is worth looking at Dragon Age II's scores and considering what other factors may have contributed to its abysmal scores.

The most obvious thing to me is the PR disasters that both preceded the game's release and followed quickly on the heels of release. SecuROM. Paying customers being locked out of their game due to a forum ban. Bioware employees reviewing their own games. These things angered people. I think they contributed to the hostility towards the game and possibly biased players before they even started the game. Many of the extreme negative reviews came out the day of release or VERY soon after, and while I am not one who believes you have to play a game to its conclusion judge its merits I do believe an informed opinion can't really be made without time for reflection. To be fair, Bioware has no one to blame but themselves for all the negative attention, they didn't handle it well, but it doesn't hurt to acknowledge that some of the more extreme negative reviews were likely due to fans (and non fans) being swept up in the PR nightmare and hostile atmosphere that accompanied the game's release.

I don't believe it deserves a score of zero, and when I see zeros I tend to assume the person is making a statement rather than objectively judging the game. Obviously some people honestly believes it deserves a zero, and that's cool, but wow, what standards!

Again, I don't think all the low scores are due to people reacting to outside factors. There are so many problems with the games I don't have any trouble imagining people legitimately giving it a four or five or any negative score (my standards are different than many old school RPG fans, so I'm happy giving it a seven), but I do think it's worth considering that any people had preconceptions about the game before playing, and that others were intent on punishing Bioware for its transgressions even at the expense of their own credibility as objective reviewers.

It may be a barometer. but far from one that is well calibrated. For if you have Users voting on things outside of the game for good or ill, then that data is corrupt. But Bioware is not to blame; tis the reactionary fan that voted from bias. Looking elsewhere.

[OddityAngel]

Bioware is a company, good PR is something they need to consider. The internet (and the fans) are never quick to forget or forgive a slight.

Modifié par OddityAngel, 23 mai 2011 - 05:51 .

[Aurvan]

Actually, I think they should add another rating system for user scores on Metacritic, in addition to actual user reviews. A simple positive/mixed/negative opinion (so you only get 3 choices on how to rate a game) system would be better than the current one, since that seems how most people rate the games now anyway (with the many 0 and 10 scores). This works well when the amount of people scoring the game is high.

This is how I think of the scores already, anyway.

Modifié par Aurvan, 23 mai 2011 - 06:02 .

[Elhanan]

OddityAngel wrote...

Bioware is a company, good PR is something they need to consider. The internet (and the fans) are never quick to forget or forgive a slight.

A perceived one; some things nobody could/ should have forseen (eg; backlash from an employee vote).

Personally, I get my data elsewhere, and leave the biased metascoring alone, employee included.

[Drachasor]

Aurvan wrote...

Actually, I think they should add another rating system for user scores on Metacritic, in addition to actual user reviews. A simple positive/mixed/negative opinion (so you only get 3 choices on how to rate a game) system would be better than the current one, since that seems how most people rate the games now anyway (with the many 0 and 10 scores). This works well when the amount of people scoring the game is high.

This is how I think of the scores already, anyway.

Quite possibly, but it would be interesting to see how much of a difference that makes.

[thesilverlinedviking]

shantisands wrote...

I love logic!

Example: watermelons are 90% water. The human lungs are 90% water. Therefore, in an emergency I can transplant a watermelon for a lung.

YAY !

[edit: this post was merely sarcasm. Do not try this in case of a real emergency.  There are no compatible vascular structure in watermelon.]

[Rxdiaz]

I'm more interested in the number of people who give a game a 0 or a 10 than I am in the actual score.

As weak as I found DA2 there is no way it's a 0. But really can anyone say it's a 10?

Edit: I meant the actual score of 0 or 10. I'm still interested in the average of course but if lots of people are either raging or loving a game I'm curious as to why.

Modifié par Rxdiaz, 23 mai 2011 - 08:43 .

[Teredan]

this thread is so wrong can we close it please?

[SennenScale]

So, apparently I am the only person who takes 20-25 minutes of my life to look into a game before purchasing, asks friends, asks the person at the counter, borrows, or rents games I think I might only want to play once?

[Khayness]

SennenScale wrote...

So, apparently I am the only person who takes 20-25 minutes of my life to look into a game before purchasing, asks friends, asks the person at the counter, borrows, or rents games I think I might only want to play once?

Conscious customers aren't hip anymore.

We all get the money for games from the secret cookie jar around here mate.

[Perles75]

The majority of the reviews of the two games are written more or less in the first three days from launch! I believe it's safe to say that it's impossible to get a fair idea of a game in so little time.

And besides, 0s and 10s are rarely objective. They dont mean anything to me.

Modifié par Perles75, 23 mai 2011 - 08:40 .

[abaris]

Elhanan wrote...

Personally, I get my data elsewhere, and leave the biased metascoring alone, employee included.

Is there something like an unbiased vote or criticism?

It's always subjective and based on likes and dislikes. And in the case of magazine reviews based on outside factors like ad money or the promise to be invited for the next early sneak peak.

Rxdiaz wrote...

Edit: I meant the actual score of 0 or 10.
I'm still interested in the average of course but if lots of people are
either raging or loving a game I'm curious as to why.

Quite recently I had a lot of time at work waiting for the next pile being dropped on my desk and I took the opportunity to read through many of the reviews. 10s and 0s aren't that common. Most rate it between 3 and 6 which is rather fitting in my opinion. Not satisfying and certainly not worth a solid sixty as it was at release, but not in the human waste region either.

Modifié par abaris, 23 mai 2011 - 08:50 .

[Elhanan]

abaris wrote...

Is there something like an unbiased vote or criticism?

It's always subjective and based on likes and dislikes. And in the case of magazine reviews based on outside factors like ad money or the promise to be invited for the next early sneak peak.

Not certain what it would look like, but 10-0 variations ain't it. This leads me away from this site to look at indv reviews and professional reviews elsewhere. Epic fail, IMO.

Quite recently I had a lot of time at work waiting for the next pile being dropped on my desk and I took the opportunity to read through many of the reviews. 10s and 0s aren't that common. Most rate it between 3 and 6 which is rather fitting in my opinion. Not satisfying and certainly not worth a solid sixty as it was at release, but not in the human waste region either.

Did you happen to catch the voting dates on the 10-0 votes? I have not looked, but based on the hoopla, I am guessing it happened early after release. And based on the majority, it makes one wonder as to motivation,

[Luvinn]

While metacritic shouldn't make a yes/no decision for you.....you can at least get an idea of what to expect by reading some reviews.

One constant though with the user reviews.....great games tend to be high, and average games are low. There will be dramatic reviews of 10's or 0's, but a good game will have enough responses to filter those out and get a reasonable number.

[Elhanan]

Luvinn wrote...

While metacritic shouldn't make a yes/no decision for you.....you can at least get an idea of what to expect by reading some reviews.

One constant though with the user reviews.....great games tend to be high, and average games are low. There will be dramatic reviews of 10's or 0's, but a good game will have enough responses to filter those out and get a reasonable number.

However, as one has may have noticed here, many are tuned into the aggrogate score; not looking into the indv reviews as much unless they suspect they are fans, employees, etc. But as I can aquire these elsewhere, I prefer to do so and avoid the taint.

[Il Divo]

Rxdiaz wrote...

Absolutely. I am not saying it's the be all, end all tool. But it certainly gives you some interesting data as far as people's opinions of a game. I usually find my opinion is pretty well reflected in metacritic scores. Has there been exceptions? Sure, but overall I haven't found any single reviewer whose opinions match mine as accurately as metacritic tends to.

There is a reason why BioWare themselves admits they target certain scores on metacritic...

I'm not denying that the data is interesting, but I personally have found that metacritic doesn't quite capture my own opinions half so well. That's pretty much why I have trouble accepting the conclusion that metacritic scores are an accurate reflection of a game's excellence.

[ShakeZoohla]

Yeah but who do you trust more in the end the users scores or the journalists? I can't believe that there is not at least a little shadiness going on with the critic/publisher thing. Not calling it a conspiracy at all. Im just always a little weary of reviews and how they affect my experiences with the game. But then again ive been turned on to some great games from reviews before. I read them just to learn what others think i suppose.

[Nozybidaj]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

Since any user can rate a game on Metecritic, it can hardly be taken as definitive as to any game's success or failure based on user ratings. Take out all 1's and 10's, remove all scores entered by those who have not even played a given game they are rating, take out all user ratings where a same person has been using multiple identities to rate a game, THEN you might have a more reasonable idea of actual player ratings.

Without verification and validation of the 'player ratings', Metecritic is just so much noise on the Web.

Funny, I don't remember seeing this sort of message when folks were lauding ME2's Metacritic score.

I agree though, Metacritic is about as useful as review site scores, in other words not worth much......

[Alex Kershaw]

Critic scores are a much better score than the user scores in my opinion since users are more likely to be biased; for example, pretty much anyone who has played DA2 may subconsciously give TW2 a higher score even if they want to remain unbiased, just because of the large difference in quality in two 'similar' games that they played in quick succession.