92 réponses à ce sujet

[MDT1]

aftohsix wrote...

This comes AGAIN to Metacritic as the "proof" for criticism...  Metacritic is a joke. 

Unfortunately for a company there are no failsafe ways to measure success, as you'll never have a complete set of data.
Metacritic is even one of the better ways imho.

Modifié par MDT1, 03 juin 2011 - 05:41 .

[aftohsix]

MDT1 wrote...

Unfortunately for a company there are no failsafe ways to measure success, as you'll never have a complete set of data.
Metacritic is even one of the better ways imho.

True but it's still very flawed.  I could start a gaming blog where I review games and get added to the list of aggregate reviews if I wanted to.  Then I'm free to review games in any way I want.  This is the problem with Metacritic.  It includes scores from several websites I would deem less than reputable.

For example.  A reviewer gave Splatterhouse a higher score than he did Dragon Age 2.

Modifié par aftohsix, 03 juin 2011 - 05:52 .

[KenKenpachi]

MDT1 wrote...

aftohsix wrote...

This comes AGAIN to Metacritic as the "proof" for criticism...  Metacritic is a joke. 

Unfortunately for a company there are no failsafe ways to measure success, as you'll never have a complete set of data.
Metacritic is even one of the better ways imho.

Prefer Game FAQ's Usser review my self actully.

[Aaleel]

MDT1 wrote...

aftohsix wrote...

This comes AGAIN to Metacritic as the "proof" for criticism...  Metacritic is a joke. 

Unfortunately for a company there are no failsafe ways to measure success, as you'll never have a complete set of data.
Metacritic is even one of the better ways imho.

Laidlaw said in an interview they shoot for a metacritic score of 90.  So regardless of how useful we think it is, they do watch it.

Modifié par Aaleel, 03 juin 2011 - 06:03 .

[88mphSlayer]

aftohsix wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

Unfortunately for a company there are no failsafe ways to measure success, as you'll never have a complete set of data.
Metacritic is even one of the better ways imho.

True but it's still very flawed.  I could start a gaming blog where I review games and get added to the list of aggregate reviews if I wanted to.  Then I'm free to review games in any way I want.  This is the problem with Metacritic.  It includes scores from several websites I would deem less than reputable.

For example.  A reviewer gave Splatterhouse a higher score than he did Dragon Age 2.

that's not really the issue with metacritic, if somebody has legit reasons for liking Splatterhouse more then oh well, somebody could always pull up that escapist reviewer who gave DA2 a 10 and slobbered all over it like it was better than baldur's gate 2, then panned The Witcher 2 hardcore

the problem with metacritic is that there is no standard score system, some websites have 1-5, other's have 1-10, most think anything below a 7 sucks, and how they reach those scores is often chaotic

it's the same reason why metacritic user scores has to be taken at face value as simply "reactionary" and not "quantifiable"

anyways if it makes anybody feel better CDPR isn't on this list of top 100 devs either

[Anathemic]

88mphSlayer wrote...

aftohsix wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

Unfortunately for a company there are no failsafe ways to measure success, as you'll never have a complete set of data.
Metacritic is even one of the better ways imho.

True but it's still very flawed.  I could start a gaming blog where I review games and get added to the list of aggregate reviews if I wanted to.  Then I'm free to review games in any way I want.  This is the problem with Metacritic.  It includes scores from several websites I would deem less than reputable.

For example.  A reviewer gave Splatterhouse a higher score than he did Dragon Age 2.

that's not really the issue with metacritic, if somebody has legit reasons for liking Splatterhouse more then oh well, somebody could always pull up that escapist reviewer who gave DA2 a 10 and slobbered all over it like it was better than baldur's gate 2, then panned The Witcher 2 hardcore

the problem with metacritic is that there is no standard score system, some websites have 1-5, other's have 1-10, most think anything below a 7 sucks, and how they reach those scores is often chaotic

it's the same reason why metacritic user scores has to be taken at face value as simply "reactionary" and not "quantifiable"

anyways if it makes anybody feel better CDPR isn't on this list of top 100 devs either

The list didnt take into account of DA2, meaning it probably isn't for 2011 but for 2010, and CD Projekt RED didn't release anything in 2010.

Point of the matter is, Blizzard Entertainment is in the top 10, I'm satisfied.

[slimgrin]

outlaw1109 wrote...

hard to look at this objectively, but in a list that features an iPhone game developer at #3, it's hard to take it seriously. 

Exactly.

[sympathy4saren]

BioWare isn't on the list? That is unbelievable. Those sources are illegitimate, not the sources that you quoted, but those sources themselves. How can anybody even take them seriously after that ridiculous analysis? Lol, seriously. Those sources need some friggin eyes, ears and a brain.

BTW....who is this 4chan??

[Chromie]

It's this
4chan and wiki. It's the most powerful force on the internet!

Modifié par Ringo12, 03 juin 2011 - 07:24 .

[rolson00]

to me this is complete and utter bullcr*p!
sure they wouldnt make top 10 but this is unfair!
bioware i think you should disput this! i mean nitendo win!? how the flying monkey **** is that possible?! they release sonic and mario games like their porno mags!

[Lenimph]

Accusing Bioware of milking it's user base when devCAT is on that list... *facehoof*

Modifié par Lenimph, 03 juin 2011 - 07:35 .

[Erani]

#2: 2D Boy. One game released 3 years ago. 
BioWare not on list.

We have dismissed that claim.

[Skilled Seeker]

Metacritic is a joke. I cannot believe how much sway Metacritic scores hold. What happened to independent judgement?

Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 03 juin 2011 - 08:08 .

[ink07]

^Funny thing developers themselves care much more about Metacritic than consumers.

Elton John is dead wrote...

HAL Labs?

This list is bull****.

Why so mad then?
You don't know who HAL Laboratories is? This is only proving your ignorance if anything.

Modifié par ink07, 03 juin 2011 - 08:11 .

[Apollo Starflare]

Based off Metacritic averages? What a silly list. I would have thought a supposedly respectable website would know better. Even if you accept those scores it hardly tells you who the best developer is, it doesn't take into account details such as ambition or innovation, or consider those who took risks or those who produced one or two titles of immense (arguably unsurpassed) quality that unfortunately got backed up by some somewhat rushed add on content.

It's basically saying BioWare (for example, as I'm sure they are just the most high profile of the dev teams who got snubbed by this list) are a worse developer because they took the time to develop extra content. Those evil evil people! All in favour of BioWare switching to Mac only development of small indie games raise you hand?

Nintendo remain awesome however.

[Brockololly]

Problem is, you listen to what the execs at EA say and like it or not, they use Metacritic quite a bit as a quality measure. While ME2 was a Metacritic darling, BioWare's DLC, with the exception of Shadow Broker and Overlord (80's) is in the low 70s to 50's for the likes of Witch Hunt.

I think the issue is with DAO's DLC where it was quantity over quality, where the new content didn't come close to equaling the content from Origins and often times didn't offer good value, with marketing that often provided for out of whack expectations as to what to expect (Witch Hunt).

If anything comes of this, I hope it causes BioWare to adjust their DLC practices- fewer DLC's but higher quality and greater value for the consumer.

As for the list overall though, I have no issue with smaller mobile devs being on there. A game is a game, whether its for free or for $60.

Modifié par Brockololly, 03 juin 2011 - 08:23 .

[ScepticMatt]

this list is purely bases on 2010 'professional' metacritic ratings, and making no difference between iOS angry birds or AAA mass effect games. Therefore I strongly disagree with that list.
Bioware got down ranked for their DLC though, so that's a plus in my book.

[Fallstar]

Brockololly wrote...

Problem is, you listen to what the execs at EA say and like it or not, they use Metacritic quite a bit as a quality measure. While ME2 was a Metacritic darling, BioWare's DLC, with the exception of Shadow Broker and Overlord (80's) is in the low 70s to 50's for the likes of Witch Hunt.

I think the issue is with DAO's DLC where it was quantity over quality, where the new content didn't come close to equaling the content from Origins and often times didn't offer good value, with marketing that often provided for out of whack expectations as to what to expect (Witch Hunt).

If anything comes of this, I hope it causes BioWare to adjust their DLC practices- fewer DLC's but higher quality and greater value for the consumer.

Agreed. Origins itself is spectacular. But there was so many dlcs! We had, what, 7? Most were 2 hours long, and the only really enjoyable one (for me at least) was Golems of Amgarrak. I absolutely love the Harvester fight. Its like a crucible, is your build good enough to stand the test?

Anyhow, back on topic, Bioware seriously need to look to FO:3 for how to do dlcs. Point Lookout anyone?

[rolson00]

Apollo Starflare wrote...
 

Nintendo remain awesome however.

they release games like there pokemon cards!

[Skilled Seeker]

Yeah Bethesda are fantastic at making quality DLC. £2 Horse armour anyone?

[Marionetten]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Yeah Bethesda are fantastic at making quality DLC. £2 Horse armour anyone?

As opposed to $5 Hawke armor.

[Da Mecca]

Khayness wrote...

Raided by 4chan, must be.

It's good to see that not everyone forgot the spectacular DA:O DLC fiascos.

I laughed so hard you have no idea.

[TW2GERALT]

When Mercury System is at No.65 and you see no sign of Rare, then you should really start doubting the credibilty of the list.
Bioware is easilly among the top ten developers right now.  Easilly.  From Baldur's Gate to Mass Effect, they have outdone all of their competitors when it comes to WRPGs.

[ink07]

TW2GERALT wrote...

When Mercury System is at No.65 and you see no sign of Rare, then you should really start doubting the credibilty of the list.
Bioware is easilly among the top ten developers right now.  Easilly.  From Baldur's Gate to Mass Effect, they have outdone all of their competitors when it comes to WRPGs.

LOL, first of all they are only rating 2010 output, so old Bioware good games don't count even if you hang on to them just to prove BW hasn't declined in quality (which they have, a lot) and ME is not a WRPG, it is a WTPS.

Then, provided you mean Mercury Steam and not System, they haven't done some amazing thing everyone is talking about, they only just released a competent game.

And Finally, RARE? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha if any studio is an example of being a shadow of its former self is RARE, who are basically a glorified Kinect studio right now, and are the sight of Bioware's future who will probably end up making facebook and iOs games shall SWTOR fail.

Modifié par ink07, 03 juin 2011 - 09:31 .

[Jelefant]

Bioware has been going downhill for a very long time. Now with EA behind it, it's about to meet westwood's fate. There is very little hope for TOR, I think its flop is going to be the finishing blow. Nothing of true value will be lost though, bioware has been living off its former glory for what, 8 years now?