321 réponses à ce sujet

[Navasha]

They likely audited the reviews and removed all the multiple ones that came from the same users. If a site ever wants to be taken seriously and not earn a bad reputation as just a review bomb site, then they need to take steps to ensure that one person can't post 100 poor reviews.

Its because of review bombing that I consider user reviews completely worthless.

[The Protheans]

Laurencio wrote...

v TricKy v wrote...

Laurencio wrote...


Of course not, that's the whole reason why user reviews were introduced in the first place! Now however it's evident that user reviews don't work, they are just as bad if not worse than commerical interest reviews.

Oh my god!
Good games like Dragon Age:Origins, Skyrim, The Witcher have good scores while bad/average/rushed games like Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2 etc. have bad scores.
yeah there must be something wrong with them. User reviews cant be trusted.(sarcasm)

There's a fairly huge difference between disappointing games and bad games. Even then, how does 32 for Mass Effect 3, and 98 for Kings of Kingdoms for iphone even remotely make sense?

It is a successful game and does it exactly what it says on the tin.
It must be very engaging and of top quality for persons it interests.

Mass effect 3 is merely a different type of game with a bigger budget.
Does bigger budget = 10/10

[MrDavid]

While I would never think about defending IGN or Gamespot, I find it hard to justify giving Mass Effect 3 anything lower than a 7/10 (on a 10 point scale). While I enjoyed the ending, I consent that it was poorly conceived and poorly written. But there have been plenty of good games with plot holes before Mass Effect 3. Think of Fable 2 and Fallout 3, both games were heavily criticized for their endings (and rightfully so). Remember that a professional review is meant to exist exclusively in logic and not emotion. Admittedly, the journey that leads up to the ending means less when the ending is poorly executed, but this doesn't ruin the entire game for me. I objectively rate ME3 between 8-9/10.

[Daedalus1773]

The Protheans wrote...

Daedalus1773 wrote...

All the people posting that someone's low review score is invalid because they admit they liked some aspects of the game make me lawl. You don't get it.

3/10 or 4/10 is very valid score to say if you like some aspects otherwise it would be 0/10

I would personally agree with that. My point, however, is that every individual person is going to use their own scale and criteria by which to judge a game/book/movie/etc/whatever on an objective scale. And it's not someone else's place to tell them that their personal validation criteria is wrong & therefore null.

[Joukahainen]

Well game is grate up to the last 10 minutes when everything gets messy.. So i think it doesnt earn full 10 but neither it deserves low score like 3/10.

[The Protheans]

Navasha wrote...

They likely audited the reviews and removed all the multiple ones that came from the same users. If a site ever wants to be taken seriously and not earn a bad reputation as just a review bomb site, then they need to take steps to ensure that one person can't post 100 poor reviews.

Its because of review bombing that I consider user reviews completely worthless.

I consider all reviews useless and I look at none, but from the basis if a game scored a low average in user reviews it will likely leave me bored and ripped off.

They are very accurate that way, the patterns hold true to this.

Modifié par The Protheans, 07 mai 2012 - 06:00 .

[StarcloudSWG]

There's a reason that game publishers spend most of their development time on the first ten hours of a game as they can manage, because most reviewers never play the full game.

And that works if it's primarily a shooter, with no story. Just level after level and a plot that's just an excuse to go to the next level to shoot more foes.

But for a story-based game, the story has to be solid *from beginning to end*. And the 'Spend most of our time on the beginning and middle" approach to game design, that leaves the ending as an afterthought, does. not. work.

If I were in charge of development, I would put a priority on getting the main story done *first*, and then fill out the side missions, fetch quests, and incidental conversations as time permits, spread evenly throughout the game.

The "three act" structure of Bioware's games is getting old, because of the sharp breaks between acts. It's the sign of an amateur scriptwriter. Look at the better movies, and you'll be hard pressed to see where act I ends and act II begins. That's what Bioware needs; a more natural flow of the story.

[Laurencio]

The Protheans wrote...

Laurencio wrote...

v TricKy v wrote...

Laurencio wrote...


Of course not, that's the whole reason why user reviews were introduced in the first place! Now however it's evident that user reviews don't work, they are just as bad if not worse than commerical interest reviews.

Oh my god!
Good games like Dragon Age:Origins, Skyrim, The Witcher have good scores while bad/average/rushed games like Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2 etc. have bad scores.
yeah there must be something wrong with them. User reviews cant be trusted.(sarcasm)

There's a fairly huge difference between disappointing games and bad games. Even then, how does 32 for Mass Effect 3, and 98 for Kings of Kingdoms for iphone even remotely make sense?

It is a successful game and does it exactly what it says on the tin.
It must be very engaging and of top quality for persons it interests.

Mass effect 3 is merely a different type of game with a bigger budget.
Does bigger budget = 10/10

Of course not. However disappointing 5 minutes out of 30 hours does not = 0/10 either.

[Daedalus1773]

Laurencio wrote...

Of course not. However disappointing 5 minutes out of 30 hours does not = 0/10 either.

For you, I'm sure that is a 100% valid statement.

However, you don't get to set the judging criteria for others. What defines a games "score" for you isn't the same as everyone else. Sorry.

[Persephone]

v TricKy v wrote...

Laurencio wrote...


Of course not, that's the whole reason why user reviews were introduced in the first place! Now however it's evident that user reviews don't work, they are just as bad if not worse than commerical interest reviews.

Oh my god!
Good games like Dragon Age:Origins, Skyrim, The Witcher have good scores while bad/average/rushed games like Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2 etc. have bad scores.
yeah there must be something wrong with them. User reviews cant be trusted.(sarcasm)

No, they can't be trusted, given the gibberish on MC. And fan ratings are herd driven. A LOT. It's "in" to like TW2 & DAO. It takes effin' guts to love DAII and defend ME3. You get trampled if you do.

And a "good" game according to whom? You? The majority of the herd?

To me Skyrim is effin' bugged, shallow, poorly written fool's gold. Shiny and pretty but about as deep as bubble gum once the "Ooooh pretty!" effect wears off. Did I bash Skyrim on MC? Anywhere? UM, NO.

[AlexXIV]

The Protheans wrote...

Laurencio wrote...

v TricKy v wrote...

Laurencio wrote...


Of course not, that's the whole reason why user reviews were introduced in the first place! Now however it's evident that user reviews don't work, they are just as bad if not worse than commerical interest reviews.

Oh my god!
Good games like Dragon Age:Origins, Skyrim, The Witcher have good scores while bad/average/rushed games like Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2 etc. have bad scores.
yeah there must be something wrong with them. User reviews cant be trusted.(sarcasm)

There's a fairly huge difference between disappointing games and bad games. Even then, how does 32 for Mass Effect 3, and 98 for Kings of Kingdoms for iphone even remotely make sense?

It is a successful game and does it exactly what it says on the tin.
It must be very engaging and of top quality for persons it interests.

Mass effect 3 is merely a different type of game with a bigger budget.
Does bigger budget = 10/10

User reviews work because they are what they are, user reviews. You can't grasp the concept then I am sorry. But if user reviews were professional we wouldn't need them. Their purpose is to see the user side. The side of the people who bought the game, played it through from start to end, probably multiple times. From the fans that follow not only game but the company, the franchise. For the people who are emotionally invested. Of course they are more extreme. Because that's the nature of emotional investment. The positive or negative, the reaction will be more extreme than a level headed review from someone who is  'just doing his/her job'. That's why user reviews work the way they should unless some ****** thinks they need to have user reviews and then tweak them because they don't like them. The problem is not that they are not fair or something, the problem is that some people can't read them because they have no clue what they are about.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 07 mai 2012 - 06:06 .

[Reorte]

Ignore any reviews that can't spell at all or have direct attacks at other people ("This is crap" isn't but "People who think that this is crap are idiots" is). Even with those filtered out you're left with a pretty poor user review score and quite frankly I trust user reviews much more than professional ones.

By the way why are people giving fairly high scores for the music? We had some good stuff in ME3 but also a lot of reused music and quite a few missions without any at all. That marks it down quite heavily for me.

The main strengths of Mass Effect are story and characters so IMO it's fine to mark it down quite heavily when it fails spectacularly on them even if the gameplay and technical aspects are great (and they're not, perhaps 7-8 / 10 for those). They are also the aspects that you need to spend time in the game to really appreciate so it's almost inevitable that professional reviews will miss the point. If the gameplay and graphics had gone back to ME1 standard but the story was great and the ending brilliant for just about everyone? Professional reviews would probably score it low, user reviews high.

Modifié par Reorte, 07 mai 2012 - 06:03 .

[Persephone]

Navasha wrote...

They likely audited the reviews and removed all the multiple ones that came from the same users. If a site ever wants to be taken seriously and not earn a bad reputation as just a review bomb site, then they need to take steps to ensure that one person can't post 100 poor reviews.

Its because of review bombing that I consider user reviews completely worthless.

This. Works the other way around as well. Review hyping. Just as bad.

[Father Alvito]

Elite Midget wrote...

You really believe IGN and Gamespot are trustworthy on this regard? They proved where their loyalties lay, it isn't farfetched they may change and remove things on their own site which they have all the power to do if they so as see fit. Besides, we all know how IGN in particular thinks of ME3 Fans atm.

Small wonder Greg Kasavin quit to go make games, eh?

Journalism is only as unbiased as the media outlet's business model permits it to be.  Major newspapers provide quality movie reviews because they can afford to tick the studios off.  But get an unbiased TV news story on a pharmaceutical company?  Ha!  They have too much influence over the bottom line due to the sheer volume of dollars they spend on advertising.

Gaming review sites have a horrific business model; their advertising revenue is provided entirely by the publishers whose products they review.  The result is predictable.  Triple A titles by major publishers get glowing review scores irrespective of quality; indie games get a fair shake because they have no influence over the editorial process.

Ironically, this has helped to fuel the rise of indie gaming.  It's easy to figure out which low-cost games are worth taking a flyer on, and much harder to determine which games are worth spending full price on at release.

The seemingly irrational overreactions by fans are likely prompted by the lies professional reviewers are asking them to swallow.  The truth is usually somewhere in between the two scores, and ME3 is no exception.  I'd be willing to bet that if the gaming sites had scored this game between a 7 and an 8, users would have followed along.  The multiplayer would help pick the title up considerably if it weren't for all the bugs that still show no sign of resolution two months later.

The really sad thing about the whole fiasco is that this is a title that probably could have been considered an all-timer with another six months of development to tighten things down.  But that's not the EA way; they want their financials to look a certain way, and long-term interests be damned.

Modifié par Father Alvito, 07 mai 2012 - 06:05 .

[AlexXIV]

Persephone wrote...

Navasha wrote...

They likely audited the reviews and removed all the multiple ones that came from the same users. If a site ever wants to be taken seriously and not earn a bad reputation as just a review bomb site, then they need to take steps to ensure that one person can't post 100 poor reviews.

Its because of review bombing that I consider user reviews completely worthless.

This. Works the other way around as well. Review hyping. Just as bad.

Metacritic did it too. It can be exploited by both sides.

[PsyrenY]

Laurencio wrote...

With the majority of user reviews being a joke, I'm surprised they haven't purged the system completely.

Example from Metacritic:

3/10 - Red green and blue explosions I rest my case
0/10 -  My choices didn't matter, well, I mean the ending was ****, and they want me to buy DLC
0/10 -  Wasn't an RPG
5/10 - Multiple faults, uses the same engine as ME2 (how that is "bad" I do not know), one day DLC. Ending.
5/10 - Face import didn't work, it's an outrage
2/10 - It's Gears of War and the game mostly still uses the whole Paragon Renegade concept which I find stupid
1/10  - Day One dlc, Sex with Ashley was awkward (seriously), Rachni was understated, oh and multiplayer is bad
0/10 - Terrible graphics, poor lip synching and everything is just ****.
4/10 - "I feel betrayed", Jessica Chobot, Game is too expensive
1/10 - B-movie script, go play these games instead
1/10 - This game is average
0/10 - Booo Bioware made me feel bad!
0/10 - RGB explosions
1/10 - Too much shooting, B-movie script
0/10 -  This isn't Witcher 2
1/10 - Everything is bad, voice acting is terrible, animations are terrible and my favorite characters died.
0/10 - It's all EAs FAULT!
1/10 - Poor writing, good game, but poor writing.
0/10 - I didn't feel like my choices mattered
3/10 - Not an RPG
0/10 - Critic scores are a joke, my score is the right one!
0/10 - Terrible graphics, terrible writing, terrible controls.
0/10 - Great fantastic game until the end.
1/10 - EA
2/10 - DEUS EX WAS BETTER!
3/10 - Not an RPG!
5/10 - Didn't like the cast, the writing or the ending. (actually one of the few ones that make a semblance of sense)
0/10 - Play the game, it's terrible!
2/10 - Not an RPG! EA!
1/10 - Day one DLC! Lack of meaningful choices! BUY MORE DLC BANNER!
0/10 - The best RPG turned to the worst in 5 minutes!
0/10 - ME3 is what ME1 would be if it was a bad hollywood produced movie!
1/10 - Animations are beyond terrible, writing is terrible. SW TOR!



And that's just a small fraction of the user reviews on metacritic. Yeah I can't imagine why they would consider reviews like this to be meaningless.

I died laughing at these, thank you.

[The Protheans]

Laurencio wrote...

The Protheans wrote...

Laurencio wrote...

v TricKy v wrote...

Laurencio wrote...


Of course not, that's the whole reason why user reviews were introduced in the first place! Now however it's evident that user reviews don't work, they are just as bad if not worse than commerical interest reviews.

Oh my god!
Good games like Dragon Age:Origins, Skyrim, The Witcher have good scores while bad/average/rushed games like Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2 etc. have bad scores.
yeah there must be something wrong with them. User reviews cant be trusted.(sarcasm)

There's a fairly huge difference between disappointing games and bad games. Even then, how does 32 for Mass Effect 3, and 98 for Kings of Kingdoms for iphone even remotely make sense?

It is a successful game and does it exactly what it says on the tin.
It must be very engaging and of top quality for persons it interests.

Mass effect 3 is merely a different type of game with a bigger budget.
Does bigger budget = 10/10

Of course not. However disappointing 5 minutes out of 30 hours does not = 0/10 either.

It was not just the last 5 minutes.

Mass effect is a story driven and character interaction series.
When you poop on the story after you're about to conclude then it is not very nice.
And when you limit dialogue and the choices then you really annoy a lot of peope, an over use of auto-dialogue does not help.

People think about the things that pissed them off and there is too many things to do that as it stands.

[Persephone]

AlexXIV wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Navasha wrote...

They likely audited the reviews and removed all the multiple ones that came from the same users. If a site ever wants to be taken seriously and not earn a bad reputation as just a review bomb site, then they need to take steps to ensure that one person can't post 100 poor reviews.

Its because of review bombing that I consider user reviews completely worthless.

This. Works the other way around as well. Review hyping. Just as bad.

Metacritic did it too. It can be exploited by both sides.

Yep. Therefore....all scores & reviews are useless to me.

[Hussain747715]

I would give it a score of 6.5/10

-1 for the ending.
-1 for journal system and the overuse of fetch quests.
-1.5 for a variety of other game-play/story related elements such as the Rachnia mission and cut animations for the sake of consoles.

[AlexXIV]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Laurencio wrote...

With the majority of user reviews being a joke, I'm surprised they haven't purged the system completely.

Example from Metacritic:

3/10 - Red green and blue explosions I rest my case
0/10 -  My choices didn't matter, well, I mean the ending was ****, and they want me to buy DLC
0/10 -  Wasn't an RPG
5/10 - Multiple faults, uses the same engine as ME2 (how that is "bad" I do not know), one day DLC. Ending.
5/10 - Face import didn't work, it's an outrage
2/10 - It's Gears of War and the game mostly still uses the whole Paragon Renegade concept which I find stupid
1/10  - Day One dlc, Sex with Ashley was awkward (seriously), Rachni was understated, oh and multiplayer is bad
0/10 - Terrible graphics, poor lip synching and everything is just ****.
4/10 - "I feel betrayed", Jessica Chobot, Game is too expensive
1/10 - B-movie script, go play these games instead
1/10 - This game is average
0/10 - Booo Bioware made me feel bad!
0/10 - RGB explosions
1/10 - Too much shooting, B-movie script
0/10 -  This isn't Witcher 2
1/10 - Everything is bad, voice acting is terrible, animations are terrible and my favorite characters died.
0/10 - It's all EAs FAULT!
1/10 - Poor writing, good game, but poor writing.
0/10 - I didn't feel like my choices mattered
3/10 - Not an RPG
0/10 - Critic scores are a joke, my score is the right one!
0/10 - Terrible graphics, terrible writing, terrible controls.
0/10 - Great fantastic game until the end.
1/10 - EA
2/10 - DEUS EX WAS BETTER!
3/10 - Not an RPG!
5/10 - Didn't like the cast, the writing or the ending. (actually one of the few ones that make a semblance of sense)
0/10 - Play the game, it's terrible!
2/10 - Not an RPG! EA!
1/10 - Day one DLC! Lack of meaningful choices! BUY MORE DLC BANNER!
0/10 - The best RPG turned to the worst in 5 minutes!
0/10 - ME3 is what ME1 would be if it was a bad hollywood produced movie!
1/10 - Animations are beyond terrible, writing is terrible. SW TOR!



And that's just a small fraction of the user reviews on metacritic. Yeah I can't imagine why they would consider reviews like this to be meaningless.

I died laughing at these, thank you.

Ok they are bad from a reader point of view. I mean you don't know what they are talking about if you read this. But they are valid as opinion. You could say they could have been more detailed, but obviously they were not in the mood to write an assay about a game/ending they hated.

[Jeric]

MadRabbit999 wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

Laurencio wrote...

With the majority of user reviews being a joke, I'm surprised they haven't purged the system completely.

Example from Metacritic:

3/10 - Red green and blue explosions I rest my case
0/10 -  My choices didn't matter, well, I mean the ending was ****, and they want me to buy DLC
0/10 -  Wasn't an RPG
5/10 - Multiple faults, uses the same engine as ME2 (how that is "bad" I do not know), one day DLC. Ending.
5/10 - Face import didn't work, it's an outrage
2/10 - It's Gears of War and the game mostly still uses the whole Paragon Renegade concept which I find stupid
1/10  - Day One dlc, Sex with Ashley was awkward (seriously), Rachni was understated, oh and multiplayer is bad
0/10 - Terrible graphics, poor lip synching and everything is just ****.
4/10 - "I feel betrayed", Jessica Chobot, Game is too expensive
1/10 - B-movie script, go play these games instead
1/10 - This game is average
0/10 - Booo Bioware made me feel bad!
0/10 - RGB explosions
1/10 - Too much shooting, B-movie script
0/10 -  This isn't Witcher 2
1/10 - Everything is bad, voice acting is terrible, animations are terrible and my favorite characters died.
0/10 - It's all EAs FAULT!
1/10 - Poor writing, good game, but poor writing.
0/10 - I didn't feel like my choices mattered
3/10 - Not an RPG
0/10 - Critic scores are a joke, my score is the right one!
0/10 - Terrible graphics, terrible writing, terrible controls.
0/10 - Great fantastic game until the end.
1/10 - EA
2/10 - DEUS EX WAS BETTER!
3/10 - Not an RPG!
5/10 - Didn't like the cast, the writing or the ending. (actually one of the few ones that make a semblance of sense)
0/10 - Play the game, it's terrible!
2/10 - Not an RPG! EA!
1/10 - Day one DLC! Lack of meaningful choices! BUY MORE DLC BANNER!
0/10 - The best RPG turned to the worst in 5 minutes!
0/10 - ME3 is what ME1 would be if it was a bad hollywood produced movie!
1/10 - Animations are beyond terrible, writing is terrible. SW TOR!



And that's just a small fraction of the user reviews on metacritic. Yeah I can't imagine why they would consider reviews like this to be meaningless.

You do realize, some of those are reasonable. I'd rate my fridge 0/10 if it didn't cool my food. If ME3 doesn't take my choices into account, which was kinda the point, it's not hard to argue a 0/10 rating for that reason.

You do realize that is pure nonsense?

You do NOT rate 0/10 something that works for the 95% of the times.. that is just plain stupid...

My Ferrari goes up to +300kmph the pain job is amazing the seats of pure leather, perfect friction with the road, everything about driving is perfect... but the cup holder is slightly smaller than my personal cup that I fit in so I cannot carry drinks in it.. so I rate this car 0/10.....    huh O.o?

I mean, without offense to the disabled, because actually they have more brain than the retards that write such things...

How would you rate that Ferrari if the engine didn't work and it sat in the garage because you couldn't drive it?  The ending of a game is WAY more critical then a cupholder in a car.

I do agree the game doesn't deserve the 0. My vote, 7/10.

[palker]

The reviewers giving ME3 are gamers angry with how the ending went so their opinions are biased and therefore they are wrong ME3 does not deserve such low score just for botched last 15 minutes. On the other hand professional game reviewers are also wrong giving ME3 perfect scores across the board without any good reason.
Apart from the endings there are multiple things wrong with ME3 (retarded eavesdrop fetch quest, poorly executed journal, god-awful creepy character animations) mostly cosmetic things really but a perfect score should be reserved for perfect games.
I consider 8 to be appropriate rating 7 for SP only + 1 for great MP part of the game.

[Navasha]

AlexXIV wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Navasha wrote...

They likely audited the reviews and removed all the multiple ones that came from the same users. If a site ever wants to be taken seriously and not earn a bad reputation as just a review bomb site, then they need to take steps to ensure that one person can't post 100 poor reviews.

Its because of review bombing that I consider user reviews completely worthless.

This. Works the other way around as well. Review hyping. Just as bad.

Metacritic did it too. It can be exploited by both sides.

Exactly, which is why you take reviews with a grain of salt, if at all.    To me, reviews are based on a built up trust over time.    I generally find the reviews given by PC Gamer, for instance, to agree with my own more often than not.    I would try a game that gained a good PC Gamer review, simply because in the past....  They have proven to generally rate games in the same manner as I have after playing.  

There is no "trust" built up in user reviews.   Peoples opinions are too varied and too erratic.    The ONLY way reviews matter is after a baseline set of opinions has been measured and judged.  

[Reorte]

palker wrote...

The reviewers giving ME3 are gamers angry with how the ending went so their opinions are biased and therefore they are wrong ME3 does not deserve such low score just for botched last 15 minutes.

Why not? If that's how someone feels about it then that's how they feel about it.

[Laurencio]

AlexXIV wrote...
User reviews work because they are what they are, user reviews. You can't grasp the concept then I am sorry. But if user reviews were professional we wouldn't need them. Their purpose is to see the user side. The side of the people who bought the game, played it through from start to end, probably multiple times. From the fans that follow not only game but the company, the franchise. For the people who are emotionally invested. Of course they are more extreme. Because that's the nature of emotional investment. The positive or negative, the reaction will be more extreme than a level headed review from someone who is 'just doing his/her job'. That's why user reviews work the way they should unless some ****** thinks they need to have user reviews and then tweak them because they don't like them. The problem is not that they are not fair or something, the problem is that some people can't read them because they have no clue what they are about.

I don't have a problem with the concept, I have the problem with the abuse of the system which leads the user reviews to often becoming utterly meaningless.

There are many fair and level headed reviews written down, however it's not surprising that some sites have decided to remove the more nonsensical ones. As it is you can't trust user reviews and you can't trust professional reviews. Basically it's all untrustworthy nonsense.

Daedalus1773 wrote...
However, you don't get to set the judging criteria for others. What defines a games "score" for you isn't the same as everyone else. Sorry.

Fair enough. I simply can't see the logic behind the 0/10 score mentality. Especially not with some of the reasons being presented on metacritic.

Certain sellers on Amazon even got their rep scores completely shattered because of erratic scores. The consumer wasn't happy with the product, but it really didn't have anything to do with the seller rather the game.

Modifié par Laurencio, 07 mai 2012 - 06:18 .