81 réponses à ce sujet

[lobi]

scyphozoa wrote...

I'm probably being really snobby but why on earth do people trust the opinions of any other human being? Are you all aware that they are not credible sources of information. I've read literally dozens of reviews from professional outfits who have written and scored games on objectively inaccurate assessments of games.

It drives me crazy that consumers are so willing to get indignant and nerd-rage, but they aren't willing to put in 30 minutes of real product research, looking up the gameplay footage on youtube or the game's official website.

I think if people have the time to **** retroactively, then they had the time to do product research before buying.

Looking at a vid is vastly different to playing.
Demos are required not these recokulous vids of gameplay with a company employee at the controls.
Research options are so limited that on the off chance an independent reviewer gets their hands on a pre-release I want to know what they think.
Seeing a few of their past reviews as to their opinions of past titles 'I liked' and more importantly 'did not like' gives me insight.
And yes you are being snobby, sorry it's true.
I don't look at aggregates like Metacritic, I look to reviewers with a similar mindset to me.

Modifié par lobi, 21 décembre 2011 - 01:39 .

[slimgrin]

There is no stopping user scores - I think all should be allowed. It's usually obvious which ones are flaming.

The sad part is legitimate 'critics' get away with doing the same thing. [inappropriate comment removed]

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 21 décembre 2011 - 05:56 .

[Fishy]

I take some review at metacritic .. One say

He gave it 1/10

Feels
like a budget expansion release, should have cost 15 and be DLC for the
original. 1 setting, same dungeon every corner not to mention none of the deep combat of the original from someone nicknamed Mikolaf

So what's was it all about? Does not look like a review to me . It's not even an opinions. What's the point of that? There's zero though and effort put into this.

Silvermaul said

He gave it 0/10

I
have been following Bioware through their first ever steps. I own all
their RPG titles until this day. Sadly this will be the last Bioware
title I will own. As such an old fan I came to appreciate the effort put
into game making. Titles such as Baldur's Gate, KOTOR will always be
memorable. What can someone say about Dragon Age II though? The gameplay
is dumbed down to the point of hack/slash.
Thanks but no thanks, Diablo III will do a better job than this.
Storytelling is linear and non thrilling. Tactics are next to non
existent and inventory, customization are a shadow of what is expected
for an RPG game of this caliber. That said I think 60 bucks for a game
rushed to please the mass fan base it too much. 30 would be good for
this quality..

All he's doing here it's trying to make you agree with his opinions. He don't really talk about the game and what need to be improved and what did not work etc ... That not an opinion again. He try too hard to play the nostalgia card and try to hit the 'sensitive nerve' of the hardcore fans of other series. He have a very similiar comment to my previous one.

and the polar opposite

Avanost Gave it 10/10 and said

The immersion and combat of this game are unmatched! A truly moving and
fun epic. Anything negative you'll see about this game is an
overreaction of personal preference. For what it is, it is flawlessly
executed and endlessly entertaining

Again the same thing.There's not much too see here only the 'why' he gave it a 10 it's because of the 'negative outburst' . Not much to see again.

Ramaah said and started with (He gave it a 0/10)

One of the most overrated games ever, second to Treyarch's works

I stopped to read. The most overrated game ever?Really?What? That make no sense. What's is he talking about?
What's the most overrated thing ever? I don't ....  I ....  Forget it. Soemtime it's just better to move on with your life.

It's like all the hate about MW.

Hell I`m pretty sure the developer received even threat.

Modifié par Suprez30, 21 décembre 2011 - 01:56 .

[lobi]

[inappropriate comments removed]

The only people that are  worse are the ones that think his 'Professional Opinion' has anything to do with what the game is actually like to play.
Hyperbole is contagious, I need a coffee.

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 21 décembre 2011 - 05:58 .

[bandfred]

Erm...exactly who is that?

[lobi]

bandfred wrote...

Erm...exactly who is that?

Jimothy Sterling.
At least he has some good material about SOPA. Sounds like he is being less dishonest than usual. Thing is preaching to the chior is profitable.

Modifié par lobi, 21 décembre 2011 - 02:33 .

[slimgrin]

lobi wrote...

bandfred wrote...

Erm...exactly who is that?

Jimothy Sterling.
At least he has some good material about SOPA. Sounds like he is being less dishonest than usual. Thing is preaching to the chior is profitable.

It's also a very easy way to gain favor.

[Rockworm503]

Metacritic is a joke.

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

I can see how DAII might get particularly low scores even if the reviewers weren't particularly trying to troll it.

Look, in all honesty I'd give DA2 a 5. Maybe even a 6 if I was in a good mood. It wasn't a BAD game. It just wasn't particularly good. But because the game is from Bioware, and because my expectations from Bio are SO much higher than it is for other studios, I felt a profound sense of disappointment with the game far beyond anything I would feel for any other "meh" cRPG. I could easily see this driving me have an emotional tantrum like Silvermaul's back when I was a ****** 'n vinegar young 'un. And even as a temperate old fart I'd still be inclined to score it down to a 3 or 4 just because Bio has traditionally set it's bar so much higher than "mediocre".

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 21 décembre 2011 - 03:01 .

[Rockworm503]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

I can see how DAII might get particularly low scores even if the reviewers were particularly trying to troll it.

Look, in all honesty I'd give DA2 a 5. Maybe even a 6 if I was in a good mood. It wasn't a BAD game. It just wasn't particularly good. But because the game from Bioware, and because my expectations from Bio are SO much higher than it is for other studios, I felt a profound sense of disappointment with the game far beyond anything I would feel for any other "meh" cRPG. I could easily see this driving me have an emotional tantrum like Silvermaul's back when I was a ****** 'n vinegar young 'un. And even as a temperate old fart I'd still be inclined to score it down to a 3 or 4 just because Bio has traditionally set it's bar so much higher than "mediocre".

You are way too rational for Metacritic.

Metacritic users will give 0s to anything that isn't perfect and fanboys will give perfect 10s just cause.
Anyone who knows how the scoring system works should be ashamed at ever giving anything besides Superman 64 a 0 and to earn a perfect 10 you better damn not find anything wrong with it.
0 = broken
10 = you can't find anything to improve on it

There are a lot of broken and perfect games on Metacritic 

[Fishy]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

I can see how DAII might get particularly low scores even if the reviewers were particularly trying to troll it.

Look, in all honesty I'd give DA2 a 5. Maybe even a 6 if I was in a good mood. It wasn't a BAD game. It just wasn't particularly good. But because the game is from Bioware, and because my expectations from Bio are SO much higher than it is for other studios, I felt a profound sense of disappointment with the game far beyond anything I would feel for any other "meh" cRPG. I could easily see this driving me have an emotional tantrum like Silvermaul's back when I was a ****** 'n vinegar young 'un. And even as a temperate old fart I'd still be inclined to score it down to a 3 or 4 just because Bio has traditionally set it's bar so much higher than "mediocre".

That an opinion.  Tell me why 'X'  did not work and  NOT why you think origin was a 'better game' .  When  I am reading a review I am not seeking your preference but the analysis of a product..

The user critic go much further than that. It's was just trolling.


For instance .. If you tell me

' DA2 had not reason for having such bad texture. I could understand in a game very heavy on the CPU in  other aspect but DA2 did not meet those aspect ( Information )  ...

and not
The DA2 texture soook !!! Because EH! Candy the game had even better texture !!

I can understand why not everyone want to do deep into the tech . But when you do a review, make some effort to inform consumer.  That goes for everything.

Modifié par Suprez30, 21 décembre 2011 - 03:17 .

[Homebound]

i dunno about u guys, but it usually takes me weeks or even months to figure out if i want a game. if u want to have a valid idea of how a game really is, you need to look at multiple sources, not just one. for me this includes MULTIPLE websites that review games, LetsPlays, user video comments, and demos.

seems a lot for 60buck but hey, its important to be smart with your money.

[Fishy]

Hellbound555 wrote...

i dunno about u guys, but it usually takes me weeks or even months to figure out if i want a game. if u want to have a valid idea of how a game really is, you need to look at multiple sources, not just one. for me this includes MULTIPLE websites that review games, LetsPlays, user video comments, and demos.

seems a lot for 60buck but hey, its important to be smart with your money.

I agree but you have to underdtand that not everyone have  your time. Although if you don't have the time to make the proper choice ... Don't complain that your choice did not meet your expectation. We live  in a world of instant gratification today but it's more a society problem and has no place of discussion in such a topic.

When I build my computer it's took me a month for just choosing the right piece and I never regretted it.

Modifié par Suprez30, 21 décembre 2011 - 03:22 .

[Wicked 702]

Not sure if I'm in the minority on this, but I've never really used Metacritic for user reviews. I'm really only interested in the "professional" ones and the aggregate score they generate. I personally believe statistical averages convey a lot of useful information above and beyond that of individual reviews.But user reviews destroy the usefulness of that average since there's no regulation.

[Gatt9]

squee365 wrote...

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?

Bad games get bad scores,  there's no "Bombing" happening,  it's the quality of games Bioware is putting out.  ME3 is probably going to get horrible reviews,  it's easy to see that it isn't being designed to be a great game,  it's being designed to try to appeal to the most people humanly possible,  and history has demonstrated time and again,  this ends in a horrible game.

As far as the ratings themselves go:  If a person goes out,  spends $60,  and then discovers the game is just horribly designed and horribly implemented,  they're going to feel strongly about it.  They feel their money is completely wasted,  so no,  they're not going to be reasonable about it.

Further,  you may want to do some research.  Many companies permit their employees to rate games on Metacritic as if they were "Average users" without disclosing their affiliation,  and I believe EA is one of those companies.

There are many games being played with Metacritic scores by people,  but the truly nefarious ones are being played by companies.

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

So what you're saying is that you still haven't figured out how websites that don't charge viewers generate revenue yet have you?

I'll give you a big hint:  Look for the advertisements.

Then contemplate what happens when a advertiser isn't happy with their review score.  I'll help you out,  it's not a case of "Oh,  well,  we have to be honest and let them rate our game a 5!".

Alternatively,  you can go back and dig out old Computer Gaming World issues,  and read about how advertisers threatened to pull their ads if CGW didn't "Play ball",  and how two big companies wouldn't advertise with them when they wouldn't.

Now contemplate what happens when you're not generating revenue from sales to readers.

[lobi]

A lot of us buy on impulse because we want some great entertainment NOW.
Good games are few and far between because it all comes down to personal preference.
I play PC because I like doing my own keybinding and macro's, it's about personalisation.
I may have money but still call games a ripoff when I don't get what I think I should have from playing them.
Some reviewers tie their political/moral beliefs into if a game is good or not.
Sterlings statements about Skyrim is a good example of this.
Jimothy's Skyrim statement that it proves the industry wrong is pure bollocks. He sidesteps the simple fact that people are buying based on the hype and the fervent uproar of fanboi love from the ElderScrolls community.
A lot of folks buying the game had never played an ElderScrolls game before or quit Oblivion because it was not linier enough.
Elder Scrolls actually fell into line with the industry and made linarity more important in the game structure, thankfully it is still open enough to enjoy with freedom.
Marketing makes a game a success, the industry knows this. Rise to Power failed because it was marketed as DragonAge2.
Imagine if MassEffect three's lead protagonist was James Vega and Shepard was only refered to by chars from ME2 in cameo's.
Expectations not being met cause uncomfortable feelings, reviews are by nature emotive because pure mechanics of gameplay alone make for dry content.
Fan reviews get in the way of games more often than they illuminate and not everyone that tells you what you want to hear is doing you a service.
I like hearing what Tara long and Max Scoville say on Destructiod but there is no way I will accept it as gospel.

Modifié par lobi, 21 décembre 2011 - 03:40 .

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

Suprez30 wrote...

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

I can see how DAII might get particularly low scores even if the reviewers were particularly trying to troll it.

Look, in all honesty I'd give DA2 a 5. Maybe even a 6 if I was in a good mood. It wasn't a BAD game. It just wasn't particularly good. But because the game is from Bioware, and because my expectations from Bio are SO much higher than it is for other studios, I felt a profound sense of disappointment with the game far beyond anything I would feel for any other "meh" cRPG. I could easily see this driving me have an emotional tantrum like Silvermaul's back when I was a ****** 'n vinegar young 'un. And even as a temperate old fart I'd still be inclined to score it down to a 3 or 4 just because Bio has traditionally set it's bar so much higher than "mediocre".

That an opinion.  Tell me why 'X'  did not work and  NOT why you think origin was a 'better game' .  When  I am reading a review I am not seeking your preference but the analysis of a product..

The user critic go much further than that. It's was just trolling.


For instance .. If you tell me

' DA2 had not reason for having such bad texture. I could understand in a game very heavy on the CPU in  other aspect but DA2 did not meet those aspect ( Information )  ...

and not
The DA2 texture soook !!! Because EH! Candy the game had even better texture !!

I can understand why not everyone want to do deep into the tech . But when you do a review, make some effort to inform consumer.  That goes for everything.

Wtf? Dude that wasn't a review. I was making a point. Do you really want me to justify my score? Or are you just looking to start but another flame war about the merits of DA2? Because I'd be happy to go on and on about the dumbed down game mechanic, the copy paste dungeons, the cloying sense of sameness in the exteriors, the way being trapped in the same setting for the whole game made it feel like the game wasn't going anywhere... etc etc etc...

But in the end ALL reviews are opinions. What I call "dumbed down" you'll call "accessible". And in the end the reasons for my score don't matter in this context. What matters is that Bio would lose points in my review simply because it was Bio and as a former fan I was disappointed.

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 21 décembre 2011 - 03:40 .

[Homebound]

lobi wrote...

A lot of us buy on impulse because we want some great entertainment NOW.
Good games are few and far between because it all comes down to personal preference.
I play PC because I like doing my own keybinding and macro's, it's about personalisation.
I may have money but still call games a ripoff when I don't get what I think I should have from playing them.
Some reviewers tie their political/moral beliefs into if a game is good or not.
Sterlings statements about Skyrim is a good example of this.
Jimothy's Skyrim statement that it proves the industry wrong is pure bollocks. He sidesteps the simple fact that people are buying based on the hype and the fervent uproar of fanboi love from the ElderScrolls community.
A lot of folks buying the game had never played an ElderScrolls game before or quit Oblivion because it was not linier enough.
Elder Scrolls actually fell into line with the industry and made linarity more important in the game structure, thankfully it is still open enough to enjoy with freedom.
Marketing makes a game a success, the industry knows this. Rise to Power failed because it was marketed as DragonAge2.
Imagine if MassEffect three's lead protagonist was James Vega and Shepard was only refered to by chars from ME2 in cameo's.
Expectations not being met cause uncomfortable feelings, reviews are by nature emotive because pure mechanics of gameplay alone make for dry content.
Fan reviews get in the way of games more often than they illuminate and not everyone that tells you what you want to hear is doing you a service.
I like hearing what Tara long and Max Scoville say on Destructiod but there is no way I will accept it as gospel.

with that being said, Im STILL waiting for an official Western release for Mother3.  ffs reggie, get your *Buysomeapples together.

[lobi]

Look at a reviewers past reviews on games you have already played. If you are in agreement and they have pre-release access to a game you are interested in chances are you can rely on what they say.
Aggregates are internet gossip on a spreadsheet. Metacritic does not tell you if the reviewers share your taste or how stacked the industry is with a certain mindset.

edit: DA2 didn't fail the marketing let it down. Whats in a name? plenty. Rise to Power is a great quality game.

Modifié par lobi, 21 décembre 2011 - 03:54 .

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

Well said, Lobi, at least in regards to value of aggregate scores.

Don't connect with the reviews, and certainly don't look at the aggregate scores. Most people are, after all, idiots. Connect with the reviewers. Find people with similar taste in games who's opinions you respect. Read those reviews and you'll make much more informed purchasing choices.

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 21 décembre 2011 - 03:57 .

[Rockworm503]

Gatt9 wrote...

squee365 wrote...

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?

Bad games get bad scores,  there's no "Bombing" happening,  it's the quality of games Bioware is putting out.  ME3 is probably going to get horrible reviews,  it's easy to see that it isn't being designed to be a great game,  it's being designed to try to appeal to the most people humanly possible,  and history has demonstrated time and again,  this ends in a horrible game.

As far as the ratings themselves go:  If a person goes out,  spends $60,  and then discovers the game is just horribly designed and horribly implemented,  they're going to feel strongly about it.  They feel their money is completely wasted,  so no,  they're not going to be reasonable about it.

Further,  you may want to do some research.  Many companies permit their employees to rate games on Metacritic as if they were "Average users" without disclosing their affiliation,  and I believe EA is one of those companies.

There are many games being played with Metacritic scores by people,  but the truly nefarious ones are being played by companies.

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

So what you're saying is that you still haven't figured out how websites that don't charge viewers generate revenue yet have you?

I'll give you a big hint:  Look for the advertisements.

Then contemplate what happens when a advertiser isn't happy with their review score.  I'll help you out,  it's not a case of "Oh,  well,  we have to be honest and let them rate our game a 5!".

Alternatively,  you can go back and dig out old Computer Gaming World issues,  and read about how advertisers threatened to pull their ads if CGW didn't "Play ball",  and how two big companies wouldn't advertise with them when they wouldn't.

Now contemplate what happens when you're not generating revenue from sales to readers.

You'd have legs to stand on if Mindjack got good reviews but it was terrible game that every critic bashed on oh look there's an ad on one of Game Informer's magazine and they tore that game down.
You realize that every game ever made ends up being advertised everywhere right?  How come there are ANY bad reviews at all with your logic?

[Tommy6860]

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.

I agree with this. But, well written reviews can be made by developer employees (yes Bioware, I am talking to you) which are plain disengenuous. Reading well written and thought-out game experiences is what I do whether they are in the great to bad in their ranges, every experience is going to be different. One should easily tell if the review or opinion is going to be downright dreck and ad hominem and just ignore them. When ME3 comes out, I am waiting on a few friends IRL, that I trust to give me their thoughts as I am not pre-ordering anymore. There are also a few folks here I trust and a few of them have near complete differences in their gaming preferences than I have, but they are respectful and have always been fair and open minded regarding their opinions and to their experiences, so I always consider them despite our differences.

[SkittlesKat96]

A lot of the people down voting SW:TOR are from /v/ (the forum/image board on 4Chan)

For some reason a large portion of members from /v/ hates Bioware games all of a sudden, its weird I know. I think its because in the last few years Bioware has gotten a little bit more popular and mainstream and because of DA 2 people are acting weirdly about it.

I think SWTOR is a great game...maybe even a bit underrated.

In fact a large portion of people on /v/ even hate Skyrim now too and want to zero bomb it on Metacritc...

Modifié par SkittlesKat96, 21 décembre 2011 - 05:53 .

[Rockworm503]

HAHA I just went there to look.
Most people bashing it on 4chan are like
"only COD (enter expletive here) play this game" Its the ultimate casual game."
Its so funny simple logic flys out the window for most folks.
1. COD fans play multiplayer and the very idea they'd try something different is hilarious.
2. I guess they've all finished Dark Souls and are tired of complaining about how easy it was.
3. No one I know even likes COD and love Skyrim.
4. Using COD as a simple insult is starting to look as ridiculous as using sexual orientation as an insult.

[Morroian]

Gatt9 wrote...

Bad games get bad scores,  there's no "Bombing" happening,  it's the quality of games Bioware is putting out. 

Well if its happening to TOR then it is happening to a good game.