81 réponses à ce sujet

[CenturyCrow]

I can think of several games that I bought based on 'professional' reviews and I'm sorry I listened to them and not the negative reviews posted by the fans. Some of the games reviewed are not with retail copies of the game; or some reviewers somehow just fail to tell of the problems they encounter. And frequently the reviewer is under an NDA and a time constraint, so they can't offer a review until after the release date; not at all useful to someone who wants to pre-order. A lot of people have been 'burned' by a pre-order purchase that turns out a lot different than how it was advertised.

As a purchaser I want to know the problems whether it's with the game, any DRM or now if it's with the added baggage like Origin and it's problems. While Origin may not be part of the game, it's something you get anyway with some games, so it needs to be reviewed as well.

I've yet to see rating systems that have much logic in them; in part this is due to the great variety of games available–there just isn't an easy way to layout a one size fits all formula that works for all games anymore. And even if there was such a standard formula it still wouldn't account for personal tastes and opinions. A Metacritic review does represents accumlated viewpoints and has a value from that vantage point.

Modifié par CenturyCrow, 22 décembre 2011 - 02:08 .

[Il Divo]

SOLID_EVEREST wrote...

I find sites like Metacritic to be more useful than "professional reviewers." I mean a game like Alpha Protocol gets butchered by various review sites, but its siting close to a 7 on all consoles except the PS3's 6.8. Even though Metacritic isn't perfect, I like how it reflects on more than just the game itself but also what fans truely think. All the other scores that I've seen given look fine, but just because BioWare won't admit that they messed up on Dragon Age: 2 it becomes null and void.

I can see the usefulness of Metacritic in terms of telling the developers how fans might feel about a product, but even there I've found that Metacritic user scores isn't really a good indicator of how I'll think of a game. Dark Souls is a great example. It's gotten pretty decent reviews across the board, but most reviewers have added the caveat that it's not a stress relief and has a very particular market it's appealing to. I think it's a great game, but the rating attached to Dark Souls doesn't tell me anything substantial, beyond perhaps whether the reviewer enjoyed it, which isn't enough to tell me if I'll enjoy it.

There's just so much about the game that a raw number cannot represent that I think it doesn't tell us much about where a game succeeds/fails. Add to that players evaluating a game according to different criteria, etc, and it's hard to take the numbers as an indicator of quality. That's usually why I disregard the rating attached to any review; it's less helpful than the content, which tells me whom exactly the reviewer thinks the game will appeal to.

Modifié par Il Divo, 22 décembre 2011 - 04:55 .

[Gunderic]

[Violation of Rule #2 removed.]

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 22 décembre 2011 - 05:22 .

[TKDancer]

Personally, I think that "Professional Reviews" are not important, i usualybuy games that is of a genre I like, and sequels to games I own and like, but there are games I buy just because of the story like MW3, that's because I liked MW and MW2, but hated WoW and BO, but I wanted to see the story end, and personally, most Reviewers base themselves on their opinions, the only way to get a person to review a game right, is to put someone who likes the genre to play a game for the first time and then review it.. for example, put someone who never playd DA:O but likes the genre to review DA2, the score would be much higher...

[In Exile]

I just find aggregate scores for anything that's largely subjective to be useless. The substance of the opinion matters. If we were dealing with at least semi-objective features of a game (e.g. if the game was in the RPG categorize, it would have multiple ratings like "graphics" "stability" and "customization) then maybe that would be useful, but some "I like it thiiiiiis much!" number is so vague as to be meaningless.

[Aaleel]

I never really read the 1-2, and 9-10 reviews anyway. I usually read the reviews in the middle. Those are generally more detailed, give pros and cons, etc. The ends are usually either, this game is great, or this game sucks, and offer no explanation a lot of the time.

I don't really go by professional reviews. Since we're talking about DA2, there was one pre release review.

A pinnacle of role-playing games with well-designed mechanics and excellent story-telling, Dragon Age II is what videogames are meant to be.

I mean even if you enjoyed the game despite the rushed development, C'mon.

[In Exile]

Aaleel wrote...

A pinnacle of role-playing games with well-designed mechanics and excellent story-telling, Dragon Age II is what videogames are meant to be.

I mean even if you enjoyed the game despite the rushed development, C'mon.

You could have really enjoyed the game. Anything that has rhetoric sounds stupid to my ears, though, so I'm not the best judge at all.

I'd think the statement, re-written as such:

A pinnacle of role-playing games with
well-designed mechanics and excellent story-telling, Dragon Age Origins is
what videogames are meant to be.

Is equally ridiculous, even though it's much close to the truth.