1113 réponses à ce sujet

[mybudgee]

'Dark knight rises' What an AWFUL title. Batman Forever was a better title

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...

Oh, great... now you're using Metacritic user scores as evidence? Any system that easily spoofed shouldn't be used for anything.

That being said, at least we can say that Skyrim has succesfuly demonstrated how meaningless metacritic really is.

[Ahglock]

[quote]Ahglock wrote...
But if you want the sales numbers not including direct digital downloads form steam.

3,941,739 Xbox360
2,693,254 PS3
1,620,904 PC packaged retail discs 

Or a bit over 8 million copies sold so far even when not including steam downloads.  

[/quote]

Were those supposed to be links?

[/quote]

No, just crap formatting from where I grabbed the data.

If you want a link find the sales on here.  
www.vgchartz.com/weekly/

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...

Oh, great... now you're using Metacritic user scores as evidence? Any system that easily spoofed shouldn't be used for anything.
[/quote]

That being said, at least we can say that Skyrim has succesfuly demonstrated how meaningless metacritic really is.

[/quote]

To be fair he linked the PS3 platform which until the 2nd patch had a game braking bug with a memory leak of some kind, people would probably tank the score for that.  

[AtreiyaN7]

For once I agree with Gatt9 on something he said earlier about the Skyrim VA - it was incredibly annoying to hear the same VA using the same exact voice during the Nightingale quest chain. I kind of never want to hear Belethor again after hearing him as three-four different characters (maybe five even), but I usually have a bunch of junk to sell in Whiterun. It was odd having this dunmer ally (voiced by Belethor's VA) basically help me catch himself as Mercer. Some minimal effort in sounding different would have been nice.

[Il Divo]

Ahglock wrote...

To be fair he linked the PS3 platform which until the 2nd patch had a game braking bug with a memory leak of some kind, people would probably tank the score for that.  

Admittedly, I would probably do the same in that position as well. When the current release of a game is virtually unplayable, people tend to be upset, especially when they've paid a good $60 for it.

[Niulus Kriyk]

Skyrim...










is not that great.

[OMTING52601]

argonian persona wrote...

I'm new to these forums, but I have been a Mass Effect fan for a long time and have very large concerns for this game. It looks rather like a pure third-person shooter with very limited exploration, narrow and linear environments and simplistic 'press X, go to Y' gameplay. I have stayed clear of spoilers to this point, but I must say I'm very disappointed about what I see and is known sofar, so much so I have held off preordering (once seemingly an impossible notion to me) and will wait a bit before purchase. Multiplayer also has me frustrated.

Am I alone in this? I'm new here, but alot on here seem content with this game, and it doesn't really look that good, to be frank.

I interpreted the OP completely differently from everyone else in this thread. I thought he was asking the question in regard to Bethesda giving the fans exactly what they wanted and reaping the wicked awesome oats that are big profits and happy players, in general, who are ready and willing to shell out for DLC and buy more of what Bethesda is selling. Which is exactly the same thing COD did and is also now enjoying unbelievable popularity from their efforts.

So, if Bioware manages to absolutely satisfy their core audience with ME3, I think it'll be viewed as further proof that catering to your base, and not to what the current trend is(unless the trend is indeed your core audience), makes for happy customers and a profitable product. If it fails, it'll be held up as a highly anticipated sequel that fell short because it failed to deliver. It'll be another tolling bell, sadly like DA2 seems to have been, that when companies abandon the base it's exceptionally costly. 

I think, for the most part, folks around here (including the Bioware staff) are hoping against hope that ME3 is the penultimate awesomeness of Shep's completed saga. March will let us know if the BUYERS discovered this to be so.

[Phategod1]

 Just to answer the Topic title I think Mass effect will be fine they are both calssified as RPG's but the similarities end there. Skyims prides itself on having and expansive world with plenty to do in it, but lets be real the Story is poor, and the characters are weak to say the least. Character delevopement in Skyrim adds up to random person coming up to you asking you to complete some fetch quest. I'm not knocking Skyrim, no game this era will ever be as expansive but they can not hold a candle to Mass Effects ability to tell a complete story with engaging characters. Hell they can't compete with GTA4 in the realm story telling. 

[In Exile]

Ahglock wrote...
To be fair he linked the PS3 platform which until the 2nd patch had a game braking bug with a memory leak of some kind, people would probably tank the score for that. 

That's really dishonest. I checked the 360 numbers, and it's at 8.5 I shold have done the research. My apologies.

[argonian persona]

In Exile wrote...

Ahglock wrote...
To be fair he linked the PS3 platform which until the 2nd patch had a game braking bug with a memory leak of some kind, people would probably tank the score for that. 

That's really dishonest. I checked the 360 numbers, and it's at 8.5 I shold have done the research. My apologies.

How's TOR doing? And if you want to use critic reviews from the gaming media, what does the gaming media say about Skyrim? Just curious.

[Ahglock]

argonian persona wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Ahglock wrote...
To be fair he linked the PS3 platform which until the 2nd patch had a game braking bug with a memory leak of some kind, people would probably tank the score for that. 

That's really dishonest. I checked the 360 numbers, and it's at 8.5 I shold have done the research. My apologies.

How's TOR doing? And if you want to use critic reviews from the gaming media, what does the gaming media say about Skyrim? Just curious.

The gaming media overall is giving Skyrim really high marks and quite a few GOTY awards.  I think they are giving it too high of a score, but I thought the same thing for ME2.  

While i love both games, both games had sections that sucked that were too big for me to give it a 10/10.  Skyrim had far too many opening day bugs for me to give it a 10 even if I think the game is awesome,  
And for my personal tastes far too many game elements were removed, though I can see how some might onsider it a positive.    ME2 hoestly the mining takes up way too much time of a 35 hour game for me to give it a perfect score. Any time something aorund 10% of your time is spent doing something eye gougingly boring a 10/10 should not be in the cards.  Without gibs save editior I would not have 300+ hours in ME2, in fact I doubt I would have cracked 100 hours.  

[Darth_Ravor]

This game is like heavy rain in space, only bigger and more involving action. You honestly can't put this and skyrim in the same catagory. Besides the ability to level up your character and change and mod weapons and armor, they are almost nothing alike. There are maybe MAYBE 10 "decisions" in skyrim that effect the end of a quest and the main story line is so linear its unbearable at times. Mass Effect 3 will have over 1000 variables. Skyrim, Great game? yes, but mass effect is not an open world fantasy RPG, and you shouldn't compare it to one.

[Gatt9]

AlanC9 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
Obviously,  you aren't being honest here.

http://www.metacriti...crolls-v-skyrim

5.2 rating,  how skeptical are you when you're labeling a game fans gave a 5.2 as the second coming?

Oh, great... now you're using Metacritic user scores as evidence? Any system that easily spoofed shouldn't be used for anything.

Then by nature of your arguement,  all review scores,  professional and user,  are henceforth invalid.  Because it's really obvious how professional ones are spoofed,  advertisers are rated and not games because advertisers are where the paychecks come from.

User scores are User scores,  they're not "easily spoofed",  because the number of email addresses required to achieve an agenda scales with the number of user reviews.  If there's 100 perfect reviews,  you have to have 100 email accounts to rate 0/10 in order to bring the game down to a 5/10.

Your arguement is basically the DA2 Teams arguement.  "Our game is perfect,  it's those evil 4chan people!  Everyone loves our game!".

Bethesda released a PS3 version with a incredibly obvious gamekilling bug.  Not only that,  but all of the reviewers somehow didn't notice it*.  It's getting the rating it deserves.

*Which becomes much easier to understand when you realize it's not in their best interests to notice it,  report on it,  and score it the way it should've been scored.  When the Star Trek fansites dared to challenge Bethesda,  Bethesda reportedly blacklisted them.  When the Fallout fansites dared to express concerns,  Bethesda reportedly blacklisted them as well.  Last time I checked,  typing certain web addresses into Bethesda's boards gets them autocorrected to "I love Oblivion".  Why would a gamesite even consider reporting anything but "It's the greatest game ever made!" with a company whose history is reportedly one of blacklisting?

[ArkkAngel007]

Gatt9 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
Obviously,  you aren't being honest here.

http://www.metacriti...crolls-v-skyrim

5.2 rating,  how skeptical are you when you're labeling a game fans gave a 5.2 as the second coming?

Oh, great... now you're using Metacritic user scores as evidence? Any system that easily spoofed shouldn't be used for anything.

Then by nature of your arguement,  all review scores,  professional and user,  are henceforth invalid.  Because it's really obvious how professional ones are spoofed,  advertisers are rated and not games because advertisers are where the paychecks come from.

User scores are User scores,  they're not "easily spoofed",  because the number of email addresses required to achieve an agenda scales with the number of user reviews.  If there's 100 perfect reviews,  you have to have 100 email accounts to rate 0/10 in order to bring the game down to a 5/10.

Your arguement is basically the DA2 Teams arguement.  "Our game is perfect,  it's those evil 4chan people!  Everyone loves our game!".

Bethesda released a PS3 version with a incredibly obvious gamekilling bug.  Not only that,  but all of the reviewers somehow didn't notice it*.  It's getting the rating it deserves.

*Which becomes much easier to understand when you realize it's not in their best interests to notice it,  report on it,  and score it the way it should've been scored.  When the Star Trek fansites dared to challenge Bethesda,  Bethesda reportedly blacklisted them.  When the Fallout fansites dared to express concerns,  Bethesda reportedly blacklisted them as well.  Last time I checked,  typing certain web addresses into Bethesda's boards gets them autocorrected to "I love Oblivion".  Why would a gamesite even consider reporting anything but "It's the greatest game ever made!" with a company whose history is reportedly one of blacklisting?

Here I was hoping this whole thing would die a neglectful death, and suddenly you took it back in.  You monster.

Anyways, I believe the whole review system, throughout all media, is archaic and oversimplified.  They can throw numbers at me all they want, through metacritic or the newspaper, but until I see someone actually critically analyze the product, I won't give a s**t what that person thinks.  

But people don't want to actually read and need some quantitative number so they can actually "understand" and compare things without letting them stand out on their own.

[Ahglock]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Here I was hoping this whole thing would die a neglectful death, and suddenly you took it back in.  You monster.

Anyways, I believe the whole review system, throughout all media, is archaic and oversimplified.  They can throw numbers at me all they want, through metacritic or the newspaper, but until I see someone actually critically analyze the product, I won't give a s**t what that person thinks.  

But people don't want to actually read and need some quantitative number so they can actually "understand" and compare things without letting them stand out on their own.

I feel the same about reviews the number does not matter much but the analysis does.  Even if someone gives a really bad review numerically what they say might let you know that for you this product is a winner.  

As a example way back when ilived in Sacramento california a movie called the Long Kiss Goddnight came out.  The local reviewer gave it a 0 stars review which meant the movie was so bad it insulted his artisitc sensibilities.  After reading his review though I knew I had to see it, and I was not disapointed.  It was an awesome cheesy action movie, great action, fantastic one liners, good buddy flick dynamics etc. 

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
Obviously,  you aren't being honest here.

http://www.metacriti...crolls-v-skyrim

5.2 rating,  how skeptical are you when you're labeling a game fans gave a 5.2 as the second coming?

Oh, great... now you're using Metacritic user scores as evidence? Any system that easily spoofed shouldn't be used for anything.

Then by nature of your arguement,  all review scores,  professional and user,  are henceforth invalid.  Because it's really obvious how professional ones are spoofed,  advertisers are rated and not games because advertisers are where the paychecks come from.

Sure, those things happen with professional reviews. And people attempt to spoof user reviews.

If you want to say that we shoudn't use Metacritic as evidence either way, feel free. But you seem to be saying that critic reviews are not valid but user reviews are. 

I'm not sure that position would be rational even if we grant your assumptions. We could still compare critic scores for A-list titles because the advertiser cash involved is approximately equal, and so the distortion in the scores would cancel out. 

User scores are User scores,  they're not "easily spoofed",  because the number of email addresses required to achieve an agenda scales with the number of user reviews.  If there's 100 perfect reviews,  you have to have 100 email accounts to rate 0/10 in order to bring the game down to a 5/10.

Aren't email addresses, you know,  free? OK, not free... I'd need about 30 seconds to set one up.

Anyway, if you really want to keep using the Metacritic scores, shouldn't you be averaging the different platform scores rather than cherry-picking the bad one and hoping nobody notices?

Edit: that's just advice about rhetoric, not an accusation of intellectual dishonesty.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 janvier 2012 - 06:59 .

[ArkkAngel007]

Ahglock wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Here I was hoping this whole thing would die a neglectful death, and suddenly you took it back in.  You monster.

Anyways, I believe the whole review system, throughout all media, is archaic and oversimplified.  They can throw numbers at me all they want, through metacritic or the newspaper, but until I see someone actually critically analyze the product, I won't give a s**t what that person thinks.  

But people don't want to actually read and need some quantitative number so they can actually "understand" and compare things without letting them stand out on their own.

I feel the same about reviews the number does not matter much but the analysis does.  Even if someone gives a really bad review numerically what they say might let you know that for you this product is a winner.  

As a example way back when ilived in Sacramento california a movie called the Long Kiss Goddnight came out.  The local reviewer gave it a 0 stars review which meant the movie was so bad it insulted his artisitc sensibilities.  After reading his review though I knew I had to see it, and I was not disapointed.  It was an awesome cheesy action movie, great action, fantastic one liners, good buddy flick dynamics etc. 

And that is why metacritic (and Rotten Tomatoes/IMDB) mean very little when it comes to quality in games.  Sure, it's nice to have a digit to throw around to make it sound more "official", but unless you can't back it up with a sound thought process, you ain't got squat.

Btw, The Long Kiss Goodnight was a fun movie and that reviewer should take his English major and apply for the committee of the Oscars.  Sounds like he would be their type.

[BellaStrega]

I enjoyed Long Kiss Goodnight and I never quite got the dislike people had for it.

Then again, I love to watch movies with ninjas who attack by throwing giant throwing stars, jumping onto those stars, and flying through the air while throwing regular-sized stars at everything around them. And they get counterattacked with magical snakes.

(Swordsman 2, one of the most entertaining wuxia films I've ever seen).

Modifié par BellaStrega, 06 janvier 2012 - 06:20 .

[Ottemis]

Comparing apples and pears this, completely useless.

[wolfennights]

A much better game for comparison would be Planescape: Torment. That game should have had a much bigger effect on the gaming industry than it did when it was released 10 years ago.

[Fraevar]

If you want to compare Mass Effect 3 to anything pick a game that actually put a deep, personal journey at the center of it, instead of a sandbox game. I'd recommend Planescape: Torment.

[nelly21]

40 watt compact flourescent. Dimmed very low so I can find the remote but it doesn't affect my view of the screen.

Oh... that wasn't what he asked at all.

[didymos1120]

Ottemis wrote...

Comparing apples and pears this, completely useless.

You have any idea how closely related apples and pears are?

[Exia001]

I must say, it must be lonely for skyrim up there on its lonely, flimsy pedestal.

[Calibrationmaster]

skyrim is ****ing broken on ps3 for example, its a disapointment , **** bathesda they are liars and stole 60 bucks from me