81 réponses à ce sujet

[squee365]

Anybody else have the feeling that from now on, all Bioware games are going to have their metacritic userscore bombed? I mean, regardless of how good the game actually is, I feel like people are going to ignore the game and just still go crazy with rating the game '0'. I'm worried this is going to happen with Mass Effect 3, and most likely the new C&C game. Its happening right now with the Old Republic, and it seems to be the "cool thing" to do to bomb a userscore, especially after DAII. Anybody else feel like metacritic can't be trusted anymore?

[LordMandalore]

Mass Effect has scores ranging from 89-91.
Mass effect 2 has scores ranging from 94-96.
Dragon Age Origins has scores ranging from 86-91.

Maybe, just maybe, the games getting bad scores are bad.

[squee365]

So I bet you think the professional reviews are just "paid off"?

[Gunderic]

LordMandalore wrote...

Mass Effect has scores ranging from 89-91.
Mass effect 2 has scores ranging from 94-96.
Dragon Age Origins has scores ranging from 86-91.

Maybe, just maybe, the games getting bad scores are bad.

That was before Dragon Age 2 though.

[LordMandalore]

Gunderic wrote...

LordMandalore wrote...

Mass Effect has scores ranging from 89-91.
Mass effect 2 has scores ranging from 94-96.
Dragon Age Origins has scores ranging from 86-91.

Maybe, just maybe, the games getting bad scores are bad.

That was before Dragon Age 2 though.

The only game(s) that have come after Dragon Age 2 is the Old Republic.

Bioware games have gotten TONS of great user reviews on all games before that, and the OP seems to believe that bad scores given to Dragon Age 2 and an MMO which has basically been a 300 million WoW reskin means that EVERY game Bioware makes will be given bad scores.

[csfteeeer]

I Doubt it.

1) TOR is still very fresh(it came out today for god's sake), usually the first people to "review" the games are trolls who haven't even played the game, in a few days people will start bumping the score up(happened with Portal 2)

2)TOR is an MMO, and a game that kills the possibility for another KOTOR, which is something that have many people upset even before the game was out.

3)Again, it's an MMO, and MMO's don't usually have very glowing User Score (WoW has like 7.1 or something), unless They come without subscription fees(Guild Wars FTW!!!)

[Stanley Woo]

The internet is full of users who believe that, in order to be heard, one must exhibit the extremes of emotion or opinion. Anything good is "THE BEST THING EVAR" and anything they disagree with or don't like is "THE WORST THING EVAR." So it is with user reviews. You have to bust through the purely emotional scores and reviews in order to find the ones who are genuinely reporting their experience. And this goes for both the scores you agree with and the scores you don't.

A user review site is only as good as its users, so if most of the users aren't posting credible reviews or scores, anyone using that site to research a game may have to work that much harder to get the information they want. Whether such a site can be "trusted" is immaterial. No site which posts a review or score can be "trusted." It all comes down to whether you, as a consumer, trust the people posting such reviews and scores.

Like with any review site, if you believe in and "trust" the word of a certain website, then who is anyone else to tell you you're wrong? People can only agree or disagree with those you agree with, and we can (and should) do so with respect and maturity.

[Arcadian Legend]

Stanley Woo wrote...

The internet is full of users who believe that, in order to be heard, one must exhibit the extremes of emotion or opinion. Anything good is "THE BEST THING EVAR" and anything they disagree with or don't like is "THE WORST THING EVAR." So it is with user reviews. You have to bust through the purely emotional scores and reviews in order to find the ones who are genuinely reporting their experience. And this goes for both the scores you agree with and the scores you don't.

A user review site is only as good as its users, so if most of the users aren't posting credible reviews or scores, anyone using that site to research a game may have to work that much harder to get the information they want. Whether such a site can be "trusted" is immaterial. No site which posts a review or score can be "trusted." It all comes down to whether you, as a consumer, trust the people posting such reviews and scores.

Like with any review site, if you believe in and "trust" the word of a certain website, then who is anyone else to tell you you're wrong? People can only agree or disagree with those you agree with, and we can (and should) do so with respect and maturity.

Wow, this. Pretty much summed it up in the best way possible.

[Veex]

I won't be surprised to see all future BioWare games trolled in this fashion, no.

[Stanley Woo]

Veex wrote...

I won't be surprised to see all future BioWare games trolled in this fashion, no.

Personally, I would consider that a counter-productive action, since continuing to troll games not only undermines the "trustworthiness" of a given site (unless you happen to agree with the ultra-high or ultra-low scores, of course), but may ultimately create a backlash of opinion that, since people are trying so hard to review-bomb the game, it must have some decent qualities to it. I mean, why try so hard to trash something if it truly is worthless, right?

I've often said that the polar of opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference.

[squee365]

No, I believe some of the bad scores given to DAII, I also believe that DAII effectively ruined Bioware's reputation because of that. So they had a misstep in gaming? Big deal, people can't seem to let go of that and just focus on DAII.

Yes, it was a DISAPPOINTMENT, but that in no way makes the game inherently BAD. Now, just because of swirling emotions focusing on DAII, it seems people can NOT let go of that disappointment and automatically assume anything from Bioware is going to be bad now. That was the point I was trying to make.

People are already expressing "disappointment" in Mass Effect 3, and yet it's not even out and theres very limited information on the game (from what I've read and seen though, I am excited to play it). What I'm saying is, people have already made up their minds and have already decided if the game is bad or not.

[squee365]

Stanley Woo wrote...
I mean, why try so hard to trash something if it truly is worthless, right?

I've often said that the polar of opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference.

Couldn't have said that better myself. 

[wolfsite]

Honestly in the end only one opinion matters...... your own.

I have been on other forums were someone who brings up a metacritic rating often gets dismissed so the reputation of the site has taken a hit already.

[Fishy]

I think you worry to much Squee.
We also call what happened to DA2 at metacritic ...

antisocial personality disorder

Modifié par Suprez30, 20 décembre 2011 - 10:47 .

[Stanley Woo]

wolfsite wrote...

Honestly in the end only one opinion matters...... your own.

I have been on other forums were someone who brings up a metacritic rating often gets dismissed so the reputation of the site has taken a hit already.

I find your two statements here contradictory, wolfsite. My point is that the "reputation" of a site is immaterial, since different people will "trust" or "not trust" a given site for very different reasons and it's not really anyone else's concern what those reasons are. For example, I may say that I don't use Site A's user rating averages because its system is prone to misuse. Most likely, I would say that because I often disagree with its ratings.

Another user may agree with many of that same site's ratings and trust it implicitly, for his or her own reasons. It's not up to us to disavow someone else of their beliefs or their information sources, as I said before, but to be able to discuss our differences and disagreements in the spirit of friendship, mutual respect and, of course, being excellent to each other as fellow gamers.

[CroGamer002]

I'd like to remind you that Portal 2 had very low score near launch as well and now it has 95 on all platforms.

So I say Metacritic is BS.

[Stanley Woo]

Suprez30 wrote...

I think you worry to much Squee.
We also call what happened to DA2 at metacritic ...

antisocial personality disorder

As much as I might sympathize with those suffering from genuine psychological disorders, I wonder how much of the negativity we see online is just plain egotism, self-entitlement and the inability to articulate one's arguments. No one likes to "lose" an argument, after all, and everyone wants to feel like their opinions are "right," or at least "popular."

[Fishy]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Suprez30 wrote...

I think you worry to much Squee.
We also call what happened to DA2 at metacritic ...

antisocial personality disorder

As much as I might sympathize with those suffering from genuine psychological disorders, I wonder how much of the negativity we see online is just plain egotism, self-entitlement and the inability to articulate one's arguments. No one likes to "lose" an argument, after all, and everyone wants to feel like their opinions are "right," or at least "popular."

Of course . I sympathize also. Emotion control too many people. Since opinions can be so easily dismissed on the internet  some folk go at the extreme to be heards. Of course not everyone has APD.

Modifié par Suprez30, 20 décembre 2011 - 11:09 .

[ItsThat01Guy]

Stanley Woo: dropping philosophical bombshells.

But in all seriousness, your personal opinion of a review site may determine if it is "good" or "bad", but if a review site has extremes in one direction or the other, it is not valid or reputable. At this point, whether the site is "good" or "bad" doesn't matter. It is not reliable for obtaining a relatively objective view of the game's quality.

It metacritic has users bombing the game's ratings, then the validity of metacritic, not the game itself, will take a hit. If the extremely low review scores can't be supported with logical reasoning, then the game is clearly not as bad as the review would make it out to be. This would lead to people not putting much faith in metacritic, which, from reading some of the posts, seems to have already happened.

(TL;DR) If a site has reviewers bombing games for the sake of lowering the review score, or simply in order to make a statement, it hurts the validity of the site, not the game.

Modifié par ItsThat01Guy, 20 décembre 2011 - 11:18 .

[sympathyforsaren]

After seeing this thread I went to metacritic to see what you were talking about. I agree, but I also see BioWare employees obviously trying to counteract those scores.

The reality, though, is that metacritic is a source that is commonly used and established, and fans who are disgruntled can realistically and materially alter potential sales by portraying perspective. Not saying its ethical...although it works both ways if it favors the producers of a product. It's sad people don't have better things to do. Fans should express desires directly to developers in forums and not submit to pseudo-defamation.

[Deathwurm]

I find Metacritic useful...but because I employ a very jaded eye while looking things up on it. I usually skip anything with a 10 or a 0 unless they articulate their points really well.

All in all, I find the best sources for opinions on Games I'm interested in among some of my friends here on BSN...there are a few community members who I've come to trust based on seeing how well they've articulated their points in posts on varying topics.

And look at Stanley go! Popping in and dropping the knowledge! Cool!

[brightblueink]

Honestly, I didn't even realize Metacritic *had* user reviews until the DA2 debacle, so I don't particularly care what the userbase of that site is saying either way. That being said, when I visit other sites that have user ratings, I always take them with a grain of salt. The 0 to 10 scale has gotten a little useless these days, since people so rarely use the middle of the scale. Everything's either 0/1/2/3 or 7/8/9/10, and usually even the extreme of those. Plus, like Woo mentioned upthread, everything on the internet is either the BEST EVAR!! or WORST EVAR!! so people are really prone to blowing scores out of proportion. When I seek out user opinions, I look to see how articulate the content of the review is, and how well they back up their points--the more thought-out the review itself is, the more likely I am to find it useful and to trust that the reviewer has put a lot of thought into how they feel about the game.

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if people are actually trolling Bioware games. There's a lot of bitter feelings about the company in gaming circles right now--particularly on a certain image board, which has been spending a lot of time bashing Bioware games, including TOR months before it was released, and even insisting that they "never liked Bioware games" and "Mass Effect 2 sucked" etc etc. I wouldn't even be surprised if people are jumping on the "hate Bioware" bandwagon just to feel like a part of the crowd.

[frustratemyself]

What Dark Stanley said.

I personally haven't been on Metacritic and from what I've heard about it I have no intentions of doing so. Sounds like it's full of screech in the extreme positive or negative and shouldn't be given too much credibility.
Even reviews from bigger sites like Game Informer etc I use as a guide only. There have been a couple of games that have been released this year that got mediocre reviews that I absolutely loved so take it with a grain of salt.