Morroian wrote...
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.
Guest_greengoron89_*
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...
...and so on and so forth.
Modifié par Savber100, 21 décembre 2011 - 07:53 .
Stanley Woo wrote...
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.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.
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.
Candidate 88766 wrote...
What Metacritic should do is take the average critic score, and then remove any user reviews that fall outside a certain range - say, two points above or below the critic score. So, if critics give a game an average of 7 then any user reviews lower than 5 or greater than 9 should either be dismissed or flagged in some way. People are welcome to their opinions, but not liking something is not the same as something being bad. I don't like Schindler's List, but I don't think its a bad film - I understand that it is a great film, its just not for me.
Also, any user reviews that mention the word 'average' should have a score between 5 and 6 automatically.
The problem is that most people can't distinguish between not liking something and deciding whether it is good or bad. Someone who hates sports games isn't going to give Fifa a good score for example, despite the fact that for a sports game Fifa is incredible. Not liking a game is not reason to give it a low score.Tommy6860 wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
What Metacritic should do is take the average critic score, and then remove any user reviews that fall outside a certain range - say, two points above or below the critic score. So, if critics give a game an average of 7 then any user reviews lower than 5 or greater than 9 should either be dismissed or flagged in some way. People are welcome to their opinions, but not liking something is not the same as something being bad. I don't like Schindler's List, but I don't think its a bad film - I understand that it is a great film, its just not for me.
Also, any user reviews that mention the word 'average' should have a score between 5 and 6 automatically.
That wouldn't work at all. If someone truly dislikes the game for very valid reasons, forcing their reviews off because they don't fall into a critics range, simply is censoring them. Besides, most games of high profile are going to have high critic scores. I say let them all stand. The best way is for a reader to just sort through the ad hominem and fast generalized reviews that offer nothing in regard to explaing why the game is really good or bad. Then take what is left and make decisions from those who offer good reviews and bad reviews with good reasonings and use judgment from there..
Modifié par Candidate 88766, 21 décembre 2011 - 02:21 .
greengoron89 wrote...
TL;DR. Take this crap back to ME3 General where it (sadly) belongs.
LordMandalore wrote...
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.
Mesina2 wrote...
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.
Shepard the Leper wrote...
I think it's worth mentioning that some games (including TOR) have terrible issues at launch. There are many players who pre-ordered the game who received a copy with a missing or unreadable activation code or suffer from other technical issues. That should not affect the review of the actual game, but it can infuriate people to give poor scores.
I recall Battlefield 3 got thousands of 1 scores on German Amazon, not because it's a bad game, but because of issues not related to the game (Origin). I hope this upsets the devs because it will hopefully encourage them to remove such nonsense and conduct proper QA to keep bugs and other issues to an absolute minimum.
Candidate 88766 wrote...
The problem is that most people can't distinguish between not liking something and deciding whether it is good or bad. Someone who hates sports games isn't going to give Fifa a good score for example, despite the fact that for a sports game Fifa is incredible. Not liking a game is not reason to give it a low score.Tommy6860 wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
What Metacritic should do is take the average critic score, and then remove any user reviews that fall outside a certain range - say, two points above or below the critic score. So, if critics give a game an average of 7 then any user reviews lower than 5 or greater than 9 should either be dismissed or flagged in some way. People are welcome to their opinions, but not liking something is not the same as something being bad. I don't like Schindler's List, but I don't think its a bad film - I understand that it is a great film, its just not for me.
Also, any user reviews that mention the word 'average' should have a score between 5 and 6 automatically.
That wouldn't work at all. If someone truly dislikes the game for very valid reasons, forcing their reviews off because they don't fall into a critics range, simply is censoring them. Besides, most games of high profile are going to have high critic scores. I say let them all stand. The best way is for a reader to just sort through the ad hominem and fast generalized reviews that offer nothing in regard to explaing why the game is really good or bad. Then take what is left and make decisions from those who offer good reviews and bad reviews with good reasonings and use judgment from there..
Deleting reviews is, I agree, a bit extreme. Perhaps a tag system whereby reviews falling outside that range do not contribute less to the overal score, but are still available to read.
I also feel that critic scores are far too high anyway.
Modifié par Tommy6860, 22 décembre 2011 - 02:34 .
Savber100 wrote...
Gatt9. why do you even bother to waste your time here if you thought the only good Bioware game was way back in 2000?
As for the review-bombs, I'm going to call trolls.
Also ME3 WILL be review-bombed by users simply because it has Origins. xD
Gatt9 wrote...
As far as Origins goes, TBH, by the time ME3 releases, people will simply no longer be buying EA games.
Il Divo wrote...
I've long held to the idea that review scores are utterly worthless in telling a reader anything about a product. I don't see any reason to change that view. The number assigned is really just a way for fanboys to cheer/complain when their favorite game beats/is beaten by another game. The content of the review is the only part that I find helpful.
wolfsite wrote...
Ya reviews like that should be expunged from review sites since they are dragging down a game for things that are not a part of the game itself (Plus Origin has addressed a lot of the issues they were complaining about making the reviews now invalid)
*Note please don't start on Origin and derail the thread I am merely basing my opinion on some research I did using process monitering programs.
Retour en haut
