155 réponses à ce sujet

[neubourn]

poofpoof wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Taciter wrote...

Regardless of how much or how little credence you place in metacritic polls, it's a fool who doesn't seek to question why.

I already know why.  Fanboys score-bomb games for the most childish reasons on that site all the time.  Thats all there is to it. 

Then why have all Bioware games up until Dragon age 2 very high user scores? Clearly people think that something went wrong with that game, and it seems to continue with mass effect 3

Because up until recently, people didnt know they could score bomb a review site like metacritic, and/or misunderstood the importance metacritic has. MW3 started that trend i believe.

If you seriously want to believe that hundreds of "0" scores are in ANY WAY valid as a measure of what people think of a game, then more power to you, i guess. 

[AlexMBrennan]

Metacritic is no less reliable than professional critical opinion.

[BadgerladDK]

Metacritic user scores are about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

And no, overly postive commercial reviews aren't that much more useful. Although I'm enjoying the game massively so far, it's not perfect so a 10/10 review is silly. Those should be reserved for completely genre-defining games. But, inflation has set in regarding review scores. 8/10 is now mediocre (shouldn't that be 5... you know, the middle of the scale?)

[Freakiq]

4chan and Reddit openly admit to review-bombing the game on metacritic.

[Gel214th]

poofpoof wrote...

 This if from metacritic.com (hope the formating works):
                                                         
                                        Critic score             User score

Baldursgate:                 91/100                     9.1/10
Baldurs gate 2:             95/100                     9.3/10
KOTOR:                          93/100                     8.9/10
Mass Effect:                   89/100                     8.5/10
Dragon Age:                  91/100                     8.4/10
Mass Effect2:                 94/100                    8.6/10
Dragon Age2:                82/100                    4.2/10
Mass Effect 3:               92/100                     3.3/10


Your are doing it wrong!
You are on the wrong track and you are alienating your fanbase, can it be any clearer? One more step in this direction and I think you’re in real trouble.  Constant adoption to the lowest common denominator is simply not working.  I’ve always thought of Bioware games as a sure thing, if I saw one in the store I grabbed it knowing I would enjoy it, but not so anymore.

Thanks for reading

I loved DRagon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3. I actually agreed with the reviewer scores for both games. A few hundred people can greatly skew a games' User Score if they really want to, and for whatever reason they wanted to. The games are certainly not as bad as the user scores indicate. The sad result of this is that they can only be dismissed and a person looking for information won't be able to get it from the overall user review score.

[neubourn]

Duncaaaaaan wrote...

neubourn wrote...

Taciter wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...
I already know why.  Fanboys score-bomb games for the most childish reasons on that site all the time.  Thats all there is to it.

I admire your resolve - I'm sure that's as good an interpretation as any other.

Riiiiight...because hundreds of "0" scores just scream out "valid user review"

And what makes a 10/10 more valid?

When it comes to reviews, there's no 'valid' and 'invalid'. It's a review, it's what someone thought of the game. Someone's opinion cannot, at a fundamental level, be cast off as invalid.

Yes, it can. A zero score is ridiculous. and seeing as how probably 75% of games are typically within the 75-90% range in review scores, a 10 is alot more reasonable then a zero.  

If someone seriously rates it a zero, they are basically saying its the worst game EVER, with NO redeeming qualities or horrible mechanics and gameplay. If someone says its a 10, they are basically saying its the best game ever, their favorite game of all time.

So...what is more reaosnable, that someone thinks ME3 is the WORST game ever, or that someone thinks its the BEST game ever? I can think of many, many games worse then ME3.

[essarr71]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Metacritic is no less reliable than professional critical opinion.

Critics dont give out 0s because of homosexuality being present or not liking an ending. 

I'm not saying prof critics word is gospel, but I'm giving their numbers a lot more weight. 

[Super.Sid]

Read this article. It has a lot of truth to it and about how reviews are done.
http://www.vg247.com...d-our-way-back/

[Super.Sid]

It is obvious that the site that generates more traffic is listed first on google and people watch the review on that site first and then make a decision.

Modifié par Super.Sid, 09 mars 2012 - 01:28 .

[poofpoof]

neubourn wrote...

poofpoof wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Taciter wrote...

Regardless of how much or how little credence you place in metacritic polls, it's a fool who doesn't seek to question why.

I already know why.  Fanboys score-bomb games for the most childish reasons on that site all the time.  Thats all there is to it. 

Then why have all Bioware games up until Dragon age 2 very high user scores? Clearly people think that something went wrong with that game, and it seems to continue with mass effect 3

Because up until recently, people didnt know they could score bomb a review site like metacritic, and/or misunderstood the importance metacritic has. MW3 started that trend i believe.

If you seriously want to believe that hundreds of "0" scores are in ANY WAY valid as a measure of what people think of a game, then more power to you, i guess. 

Skyrim has a user score of 8.1.  But I guess you mean that only Bioware games gets "score bombed" ? It's all a conspiracy right?

[heathxxx]

Whilst I've yet to play the game (still waiting for delivery to Spain from Amazon UK), I'm sincerely hoping I'm not as disappointed as I was with DA2.

I've thoroughly enjoyed the ME series and hope that ME3 is at least as good as the previous two games were, in my opinion.

Ultimately it's all about opinions, but that said, ME3 may be the last EA Games title I buy, simply because I've been so disappointed and frustrated with other EA Games titles of the last few years.

Whilst I do occasionally glance at reviews, I certainly don't set any stall by the "professional" reviews, because generally they're effectively "paid for" by those producing games, in terms of advertising and whatnot.

User reviews tend to be more accurate in my opinion, once you separate the dross and mindless rants, from those that are genuinely well considered and constructively critical.

Thankfully I'm intelligent enough to form my own opinions. I've ordered the game, so EA and BioWare have had my money, but I will make my own assumptions based on what I experience when I play the game itself... constructively of course.

Modifié par heathxxx, 09 mars 2012 - 01:31 .

[Duncaaaaaan]

neubourn wrote...

Duncaaaaaan wrote...

neubourn wrote...

Taciter wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...
I already know why.  Fanboys score-bomb games for the most childish reasons on that site all the time.  Thats all there is to it.

I admire your resolve - I'm sure that's as good an interpretation as any other.

Riiiiight...because hundreds of "0" scores just scream out "valid user review"

And what makes a 10/10 more valid?

When it comes to reviews, there's no 'valid' and 'invalid'. It's a review, it's what someone thought of the game. Someone's opinion cannot, at a fundamental level, be cast off as invalid.

Yes, it can. A zero score is ridiculous. and seeing as how probably 75% of games are typically within the 75-90% range in review scores, a 10 is alot more reasonable then a zero.  

If someone seriously rates it a zero, they are basically saying its the worst game EVER, with NO redeeming qualities or horrible mechanics and gameplay. If someone says its a 10, they are basically saying its the best game ever, their favorite game of all time.

So...what is more reaosnable, that someone thinks ME3 is the WORST game ever, or that someone thinks its the BEST game ever? I can think of many, many games worse then ME3.

Well guess what, I think anything 9-10/10 for this game is ridiculous.

If someone seriously rates it a 10, they are basically saying its the best game EVER, with NO faults in mechanics and gameplay. If someone says its a 0, they are basically saying its the worst game ever, their least favourite game of all time. 

So...what is more reaosnable, that someone thinks ME3 is the WORST game ever, or that someone thinks its the BEST game ever? I can think of many, many games better then ME3. 

See what I just did there?

Pull your head out of your arse, please.

Modifié par Duncaaaaaan, 09 mars 2012 - 01:31 .

[Super.Sid]

poofpoof wrote...

neubourn wrote...

poofpoof wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Taciter wrote...

Regardless of how much or how little credence you place in metacritic polls, it's a fool who doesn't seek to question why.

I already know why.  Fanboys score-bomb games for the most childish reasons on that site all the time.  Thats all there is to it. 

Then why have all Bioware games up until Dragon age 2 very high user scores? Clearly people think that something went wrong with that game, and it seems to continue with mass effect 3

Because up until recently, people didnt know they could score bomb a review site like metacritic, and/or misunderstood the importance metacritic has. MW3 started that trend i believe.

If you seriously want to believe that hundreds of "0" scores are in ANY WAY valid as a measure of what people think of a game, then more power to you, i guess. 

Skyrim has a user score of 8.1.  But I guess you mean that only Bioware games gets "score bombed" ? It's all a conspiracy right?

People had high expections that BW produces quality stories in games and it was advertised as great stories where choices mattered. This hasn't happened that much over the past few games.
High expectations ruin you when you know that the game is not according to what you have wished.

[Legbiter]

Freakiq wrote...

4chan and Reddit openly admit to review-bombing the game on metacritic.

Yep.

[neubourn]

poofpoof wrote...


Skyrim has a user score of 8.1.  But I guess you mean that only Bioware games gets "score bombed" ? It's all a conspiracy right?

Umm...yeah...it IS a conspiracy. i.e. alot of people conspired to jump on metacritic to review bomb it, and admitted to it. I seriously have to explain this?

And as i stated above, BW isnt the first...they did the same exact thing to MW3, and i GUARANTEE it will happen again when a game comes out that pisses off fanboys in some way shape or form.

Also...the vast majority of those zero scores were posted HOURS after the game was released (and put up for review on Metacritic). So yeah...a bunch of zero scores from users on a game that takes at least 20+ hours to beat, but was posted within a couple of hours of the game being released...yeah TOTALLY legit....

[Super.Sid]

Read this
http://www.vg247.com...d-our-way-back/

[neubourn]

Duncaaaaaan wrote...


Well guess what, I think anything 9-10/10 for this game is ridiculous.

If someone seriously rates it a 10, they are basically saying its the best game EVER, with NO faults in mechanics and gameplay. If someone says its a 0, they are basically saying its the worst game ever, their least favourite game of all time. 

So...what is more reaosnable, that someone thinks ME3 is the WORST game ever, or that someone thinks its the BEST game ever? I can think of many, many games better then ME3. 

See what I just did there?

Pull your head out of your arse, please.

So anything above a 9 is ridiculous, but a zero is totally legit? And you are telling me to pull MY head out of my 'arse?"

A 10 score might not be accurate, but as i said...it is more REASONABLE as being a legit user score then a 0 is. Most people would give ME3 around a 9, so a 10 isnt that much of a stretch.

But, youd have to stretch pretty damn far to reach a damn zero. 

[submarinex1]

user scores on game websites mean as much as reviews on fourms, anyone can go on a review site and make pointless reviews even if they dont have game. same way people can make big posts on forums.

90% of the people are smart enough to look at whole picture on a game rather than pay attention to some review score.

[Taciter]

Phydeaux314 wrote...
A lot of people didn't like ME3's ending. A lot of these people finished the game, and went to express their outrage at the ending via low scores.

You see Phy, this is the problem. It reminds me of those Election results in which a significant number of voters place their faith in a fringe party in preference to a mainstream party. After the ballot count, so called 'impartial political analysts' use the the protest vote card to obscure the message that's right in front of their noses.

Phydeaux314 wrote...
The issue is that it's not a BAD game - in fact, it's a pretty bloody awesome game. Right until the last few minutes. And so the critic, which looks at the whole picture, gives decent marks based on the overall quality of the content, whereas the more casual user reacts to what they just went through.

scores of 10/10 and 100%? Have you ever as far as you can recall ever played a game that was perfect in every way? It's also worth remembering that unlike 'professional' critics, there is no real incentive to provide a biased opinion contrary to that which their conscience seemingly dictates. Their scores are merely a numerical representation of their retrospective analysis - be it predominantly emotional or rational, both are valid expressions.

Phydeaux314 wrote...
If something is heavily panned by users, there's usually something wrong with it that bothers a lot of the player base.

And herein, lies my point. I'm reasonably partisan on the matter as I don't yet have enough experience of the game to formulate a valid conclusion but as you stated, critical or nay, metacritic's users still constitute 'the player base' and if there appears to be a negative trend emerging, from the perspective of the publisher, you can either choose to ignore it (counter-productive) or investigate it (proactive).

Modifié par Taciter, 09 mars 2012 - 01:42 .

[DragonRageGT]

99% of Metacritic's users score for ME3 is from people who have NOT played the game. Need to say more?

You want to see how frakin Epic this game is? Watch this: - *SPOILER WARNING* - but since people already "know" all the endings.. this is NOT the ending.

And I have to agree with some comments there.  It is a 10/10 game. If you really hate the endings, then perhaps a 7/10 to some mode radical people. For me? A 9.5/10 easy, very easy, being the -0.5 on account of the endings.

Modifié par DragonRageGT, 09 mars 2012 - 01:40 .

[Super.Sid]

Its not just metacritic but a majority of the fans have been disappointed, just checkout the youtube and facebook comments and to mention the other site forums like gamespot,ign,giantbomb, etc

[Duncaaaaaan]

neubourn wrote...

Duncaaaaaan wrote...


Well guess what, I think anything 9-10/10 for this game is ridiculous.

If someone seriously rates it a 10, they are basically saying its the best game EVER, with NO faults in mechanics and gameplay. If someone says its a 0, they are basically saying its the worst game ever, their least favourite game of all time. 

So...what is more reaosnable, that someone thinks ME3 is the WORST game ever, or that someone thinks its the BEST game ever? I can think of many, many games better then ME3. 

See what I just did there?

Pull your head out of your arse, please.

So anything above a 9 is ridiculous, but a zero is totally legit? And you are telling me to pull MY head out of my 'arse?"

A 10 score might not be accurate, but as i said...it is more REASONABLE as being a legit user score then a 0 is. Most people would give ME3 around a 9, so a 10 isnt that much of a stretch.

But, youd have to stretch pretty damn far to reach a damn zero. 

You can't even explain why in your view a 10 is more reasonable than a 0. Why is it more reasonable? Because you THINK it's more reasonable? What if someone else thinks a 0 is more reasonable? So your view and opinion is superior, and theres is superficial? So you're some kind of higher up being to everyone else? 

You have a serious superiority complex if you think this way. Everyones opinion on something, no matter how outlandish and no matter how much you disagree with, is just as valid as any other. Opinions are never right or wrong. They are opinions.

Also, reasonable =/= valid. Two different words and meanings.

[poofpoof]

neubourn wrote...

And as i stated above, BW isnt the first...they did the same exact thing to MW3, and i GUARANTEE it will happen again when a game comes out that pisses off fanboys in some way shape or form.

Errr...isn't that the whole point of user reviews? The "fanboys" as you call them were upset with the game and therefore gave it a low score. Thats how it works, If people werent so disapointed in the game the score would be higher. It's very simple really.

Modifié par poofpoof, 09 mars 2012 - 01:42 .

[Giantdeathrobot]

Implying that the Metacritic score bombers represent the ''fanbase'' in any way, shape or form.

lol.