Reiella wrote...
Seifz wrote...
In the end, though, the rating system exists to make comparisons between games. If that wasn't the case, then the numerical rating would have no meaning. Thus, it needs to be consistantly applied. As far as I can tell, that's not the case here.
Here's the thing, the numerical rating has no meaning. They're just something milked for the metacritic scores, something to help people who have already made the decision to buy a game justify buying it. Something that the publishers can use to consider how their game was 'critically recieved'. It's all tripe.
I remember fun reviews from EGM, round robin, different reviewers, different scores. For the same game, in the same magazine, at the same time. It's ok. People have different opinions it happens.
I mean BioShock [fun question for folks, why would bioshock be in RPG at Steam?] has a higher metaCritic rating than Dragon Age Origins, is it a better game? Oblivion has a higher metacritic score as well, is it a better game? Grand Theft Auto 3, also higher... The number is largely meaningless, even more so if you don't know what went into that number.
The numbers are not meaningless per say. Obviously games reviewed in the past with high scores may not be as good as today's games with the same scores. This is because expectations grow with each passing year. So a game that gets 98% three years ago may only get 75 or 80% today, especially if that's considering that the 98% game was already released and the "new" game is essentially an exact copy of the old one.
This is why games like titan quest and torchlight haven't really broken the 9.0 or 9.5 marks. They are good games. Perhaps titan quest lacks the "just 5 more minute" magic that diablo had... and perhaps torchlight needed to have online play... but even games like sacred 2 which is pretty solid didn't manage to outrank it.
I would probably rank a lot of rpgs such as iwd2 or nwn2 lower if they were released today because of the shear amount of knowledge required to build a party. There is a gaming era expectation mismatch here. The one thing I like about Dragon Age is that while there is definitely a penalty for building characters incorrectly, it's nowhere near as complex as say NWN2, where the builds and options and customization are too much for the average RPG gamer (let alone the average general gamer) to really get into and start playing. It takes a lot of playtime to understand these mechanics if one is not familiar with them.
There's also the pacing/boredom factor. Today's games tend to be shorter, because the assets take longer to create. There's also different expectations out of games today. People hate padding, so it's generally better to have a shorter, tighter game. Reviews scores reflect this, and in the past, they didn't consider it at all. Today, it's better to have a game where the pacing is fluid. Some classic older games understood this, but not all of them did - and they were rarely penalized because of it in their review scores. The original wolfenstein or doom are incredibly boring to play after the first few levels. It's just more of the same, and a lot of games played like that. A lot of older games forced the player to re-start levels after turning the game off... and in today's world, that would be utterly absurd.
So... to sum that up... it's pretty clear that the era a game is released should also account for a disparty of scores. That should be obvious actually.
I think it is fair to compare games within similar timeframes. Perhaps a comparison between dragon age and neverwinter nights is not fair. Still, comparing games released within a few years of neverwinter nights is totally fair, and it was definitely below expectations for most fans of baldur's gate, planescape torment, etc.
Likewise, Dragon Age is clearly superior to a game like Mass Effect. I can't think of a single thing that mass effect does better honestly. It does a few things different - of course - and some people may prefer them over dragon age... but when it comes to execution, engine, graphics, game mechanics and depth, unique area designs, lore, full voice acting, and overall quality and polish, Dragon Age wins hands down.
Now if Mass Effect can at least get a 7/10, it stands to reason that dragon age should at least get a 7/10 as well, if not 8/10. The games are only 2 years apart after all, and are fair comparisons.
And lastly, numbers should not be opinions. They has to be a set of standards used to get the number, or the whole affair is pointless. Some sites have such standards, while others don't. It's pretty obvious that Edge magazine gives numbers on a whim. I can't see a standard being used with their ratings at all.
Modifié par egervari, 22 novembre 2009 - 07:11 .
. Of course, if I didn't, I prolly wouldn't be saying they were meaningless, eh?
Retour en haut
I've seen the reviews of MW2, and I think it probably deserves an 8 or 9, even if it doesn't innovate that much.
