1113 réponses à ce sujet

[Sgt Stryker]

aridor1570 wrote...

argonian persona wrote...

I went and looked at Skyrim's PS3 metacritic...the first two media reviews I saw both said "100".

I also went and looked at The Old Republic user scores on metacritic....it was very low. First DA2 and now TOR getting very low user scores.

What's going on with SWTOR is something that's been going on for years in the MMO market, look at WoW, high metacritic scores from reviewers but a very low score from users,  most of those users are players who have never even played it, mostly WoW fanboys that fear the fact that there's a game that is better than the game they're already playing, this has happened to every other MMO in the past except for GW, but that was never a true MMO.

I can also guarentee it's going to happen with Guild Wars 2, the game is getting positive feedback from reviewers and players who have played the demos in different conventions, but from the WoW and SWTOR forums I see players who don't know **** about the game already calling it bad, I can give you a few examples right now from a thread that just opened up in the SWTOR forums, someone called out the game bad because it's going to be like the first game, which is just wrong, you can't get more wrong than that, or someone who has said the game didn't even make it into the Alpha stage, which is again wrong, the game entered Closed Beta two weeks ago, THEN the same guy said he is testing the game right now in CB, which is impossible because ArenaNet are keeping the closed beta CLOSED.

My point is, the user score on SWTOR is not by players who have played it and say it's bad, it's from haters who never even touched the game and said it's bad.

This. It's highly likely that TOR's user score is saturated with nonsense data.

[Kradsk]

http://www.1up.com/f...ttle-rpg-titans

I think this article nicely sums up the differences between the approaches of Bioware and Bethesda. Ultimately, these companies create 2 very different kinds of RPGs. While Bethesda focuses on freedom, non-linear gameplay, expansive worlds, and customization, in order to do so they neglect character depth, depth of story, relationships between characters, as well as relationships between the player and the characters. Neither method is inherently better than the other, they simply choose to emphasize different things, and attract different types of players. Personally, I do not enjoy Bethesda games at all. I love the characters and stories created by Bioware, and it is these elements that keep me playing the Mass Effect games. I can appreciate why some people prefer Bethesda's methods over Bioware's, but personally I am very glad that they both exist, and are both successful at doing what they do best.

Modifié par Kradsk, 31 décembre 2011 - 07:54 .

[aridor1570]

SWTOR is a very polished game from what I've seen, but it's also a WoW clone, which was a big reason for me not to buy it. But I'm not going on Metacritic and give it a low score because I've never even touched it.

Modifié par aridor1570, 31 décembre 2011 - 08:01 .

[Alex_SM]

 

Sgt Stryker wrote...

aridor1570 wrote...

argonian persona wrote...

I went and looked at Skyrim's PS3 metacritic...the first two media reviews I saw both said "100".

I also went and looked at The Old Republic user scores on metacritic....it was very low. First DA2 and now TOR getting very low user scores.

What's going on with SWTOR is something that's been going on for years in the MMO market, look at WoW, high metacritic scores from reviewers but a very low score from users,  most of those users are players who have never even played it, mostly WoW fanboys that fear the fact that there's a game that is better than the game they're already playing, this has happened to every other MMO in the past except for GW, but that was never a true MMO.

I can also guarentee it's going to happen with Guild Wars 2, the game is getting positive feedback from reviewers and players who have played the demos in different conventions, but from the WoW and SWTOR forums I see players who don't know **** about the game already calling it bad, I can give you a few examples right now from a thread that just opened up in the SWTOR forums, someone called out the game bad because it's going to be like the first game, which is just wrong, you can't get more wrong than that, or someone who has said the game didn't even make it into the Alpha stage, which is again wrong, the game entered Closed Beta two weeks ago, THEN the same guy said he is testing the game right now in CB, which is impossible because ArenaNet are keeping the closed beta CLOSED.

My point is, the user score on SWTOR is not by players who have played it and say it's bad, it's from haters who never even touched the game and said it's bad.

This. It's highly likely that TOR's user score is saturated with nonsense data.

Maybe also that's because press ratings sucks. If you look at them carefully it's easy to see how around 90% games from biggest labels (EA, Activision) go from great games to all time masterpieces. And that's clearly wrong. A freaking "average" game can't be scored around 80/100, and lots of reviewers do it.

I've even seen one where the reviewer said: Technically average, gameplay average, nearly the same game as last years version, short campaign, unimaginative levels, etc.. and gave it 9/10. Why? Because it was released by Activision. The rating was 9/10, but the written review was screaming 5/10 or even less.

An average game can't be over 6/10, a good game can't be over 7/10, a remarkable game can't be over 8/10. A game should be really really great to get a 9/10, and an all-time masterpiece to go over 9,5.

But giving bad ratings is bad for the reviewers, so they rate high except when the game is an undeniable disaster with no redeeming qualities (like some of the last Need for Speed games).

Modifié par Alex_SM, 31 décembre 2011 - 08:02 .

[Alex_SM]

About the topic. I don't see why both approaches should be mutually exclusive.

Maybe in the "total freedom" approach of Bethesda is hard to make a good story with good characters, but you don't need to reduce the world to a few narrow corridors to make it. You can have a story and characters, and good interaction, in bigger environments.

[aridor1570]

Alex_SM wrote...

 

Sgt Stryker wrote...

aridor1570 wrote...

argonian persona wrote...

I went and looked at Skyrim's PS3 metacritic...the first two media reviews I saw both said "100".

I also went and looked at The Old Republic user scores on metacritic....it was very low. First DA2 and now TOR getting very low user scores.

What's going on with SWTOR is something that's been going on for years in the MMO market, look at WoW, high metacritic scores from reviewers but a very low score from users,  most of those users are players who have never even played it, mostly WoW fanboys that fear the fact that there's a game that is better than the game they're already playing, this has happened to every other MMO in the past except for GW, but that was never a true MMO.

I can also guarentee it's going to happen with Guild Wars 2, the game is getting positive feedback from reviewers and players who have played the demos in different conventions, but from the WoW and SWTOR forums I see players who don't know **** about the game already calling it bad, I can give you a few examples right now from a thread that just opened up in the SWTOR forums, someone called out the game bad because it's going to be like the first game, which is just wrong, you can't get more wrong than that, or someone who has said the game didn't even make it into the Alpha stage, which is again wrong, the game entered Closed Beta two weeks ago, THEN the same guy said he is testing the game right now in CB, which is impossible because ArenaNet are keeping the closed beta CLOSED.

My point is, the user score on SWTOR is not by players who have played it and say it's bad, it's from haters who never even touched the game and said it's bad.

This. It's highly likely that TOR's user score is saturated with nonsense data.

Maybe also that's because press ratings sucks. If you look at them carefully it's easy to see how around 90% games from biggest labels (EA, Activision) go from great games to all time masterpieces. And that's clearly wrong. A freaking "average" game can't be scored around 80/100, and lots of reviewers do it.

I've even seen one where the reviewer said: Technically average, gameplay average, nearly the same game as last years version, short campaign, unimaginative levels, etc.. and gave it 9/10. Why? Because it was released by Activision. The rating was 9/10, but the written review was screaming 5/10 or even less.

An average game can't be over 6/10, a good game can't be over 7/10, a remarkable game can't be over 8/10. A game should be really really great to get a 9/10, and an all-time masterpiece to go over 9,5.

But giving bad ratings is bad for the reviewers, so they rate high except when the game is an undeniable disaster with no redeeming qualities (like some of the last Need for Speed games).

That could be said about Skyrim aswell, many reviewers call it a masterpiece, but the game lacks alot of things that were promised.

They've promised us we can be what we want to be, which is wrong, I can only be what the game wants me to be.
They've said the game's main quest may change if something happens in the general world, oh, you mean like when that bear attacked me on the road while I was on my way to the next objective? that truly changed the quest line, for 30 seconds.

Modifié par aridor1570, 31 décembre 2011 - 08:08 .

[Redcoat]

Didn't someone do a tally of review scores for titles released by major publishers, and found out that scores generally fell into the 80-100 range, while games published by smaller companies got the full 0-100 range?

I mean, look at the PS3 version of Skyrim; it shipped with glaring performance issues, and yet it has an average rating of 92 from the "professional" critics, and 5.2 from users.

[PsychoWARD23]

Redcoat wrote...

Didn't someone do a tally of review scores for titles released by major publishers, and found out that scores generally fell into the 80-100 range, while games published by smaller companies got the full 0-100 range?

I mean, look at the PS3 version of Skyrim; it shipped with glaring performance issues, and yet it has an average rating of 92 from the "professional" critics, and 5.2 from users.

Well, considering the reviewers couldn't have possibly known that stuff that early, yeah, it makes sense.


However, stuff like Dragon Age 2 and LA Noire........
 Edit; Related, I just read your DA2 review, great stuff.

Modifié par PsychoWARD23, 31 décembre 2011 - 08:13 .

[Alex_SM]

aridor1570 wrote...


That could be said about Skyrim aswell, many reviewers call it a masterpiece, but the game lacks alot of things that were promised.

They've promised us we can be what we want to be, which is wrong, I can only be what the game wants me to be.
They've said the game's main quest may change if something happens in the general world, oh, you mean like when that bear attacked me on the road while I was on my way to the next objective? that truly changed the quest line, for 30 secons.

That, of course, could be said about any game. I would love to have a real IMDB for games. I don't agree with lots of ratings, but at least I know that movies with lots of votes have a more or less honest rating. 

I didn't played Skyrim yet, but it looks like it's the classical Bethesda approach, but somehow better (because the public reception is more entusiasthic). In the previous ones the main quest was like the less important point of the game. 

[aridor1570]

It still isn't.

[PsychoWARD23]

It still isn't the main focus, yeah, but it is also bearable this time around.

[Alex_SM]

jreezy wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

About the topic. I don't see why both approaches should be mutually exclusive.

It isn't. It's just pure coincidence that it sort of turned out to be that way

The sad point is that Bioware seems to be every day less interested in creating complex worlds, with complex stories involving lots of characters and going further in their decision implementation, making them dramatically important, etc... and instead is going to more a more streamlined everything. 

IMO the Bioware formula is great, but needs to radicalize instead of trying to standarize it. Instead of raising the stakes at every game they are lowering them. While bethesda, even when they pretty much stick to their formula, seems to want every game to be bigger than the previous one. 

[ArkkAngel007]

didymos1120 wrote...

argonian persona wrote...

That's another aspect of the post-Skyrim era. The empirical proof that a game, especially an rpg, doesn't need lame, tacked-on multiplayer to sell immensely well.

The sales statistics of Skyrim is demonstrative of that.

I disagree.  That's clearly an aspect of the post-Arkham City era.

Post-Arkham Asylum era 

[Estel78]

jreezy wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

About the topic. I don't see why both approaches should be mutually exclusive.

It isn't. It's just pure coincidence that it sort of turned out to be that way

But it is. You either can have a huge world with lots of people but brief interactions or a small number of fleshed out characters.

[Alex_SM]

Estel78 wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

About the topic. I don't see why both approaches should be mutually exclusive.

It isn't. It's just pure coincidence that it sort of turned out to be that way

But it is. You either can have a huge world with lots of people but brief interactions or a small number of fleshed out characters.

That's not true. You only need your game to be more ambitious.

Just remember Baldur's Gate II. Bigger than DA, KOTOR or Mass Effect and full of fleshed out characters. Ok, there was no voice acting or cutscenes, but that was just due to technology limitations. 

Modifié par Alex_SM, 31 décembre 2011 - 08:42 .

[Estel78]

And a $200m budget.

[Alex_SM]

The Witcher 2 is bigger than ME2 or DA2, it's full of fleshed out characters, and it had a 10M budget.

[Estel78]

The Witcher 2 might be a tad bigger (i'm waiting for the xbox version to play it) but it's nowhere near an Elder Scrolls. Dragon Age was even bigger than Witcher 2, at least in playing hours. I remember people finishing Witcher 2 in like 35 hours and being kinda disappointed that it was quite a bit shorter than the first.

Modifié par Estel78, 31 décembre 2011 - 08:50 .

[Dean_the_Young]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

To OP:
I love Skyrim. I've got a bit over 100 hours so far, and plenty more to do. And I hate, HATE the direction ME is headed.

But comparing the two is senseless. Nowhere in Skyrim will I have the chance to help a woman save her younger sister from their father, and learn all about their backstory. Nowhere in Skyrim will I have the chance to meet someone like Jack, and have the choice to reject her or try to help her. No where in Skyrim will I feel my humanity like in ME: In Skyrim, I'm somehow the leader of the Theives, the Listener for the assassins of demonic/daedric (Sithis) origins, the leader of the most famous fighting guild, and the arch-mage of the only magical university, along with being able to absorb the souls of dragons. It's absurd. In ME, I'm...a man.

The two games have such different focuses that you can't compare them.

Eternal Ambiguity having a gender-identity conflict?

This thread was worth entering just for that.

[Estel78]

Alex_SM wrote...

it had a 10M budget.

It was made in Poland.

Modifié par Estel78, 31 décembre 2011 - 09:02 .

[Dean_the_Young]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Eternal Ambiguity having a gender-identity conflict?

This thread was worth entering just for that.

Yo, Dean!

That was a pause for dramatic effect. Any wordsmith would know that!

And it did have an effect! Just not the one you intended.