321 réponses à ce sujet

[Kmack11]

Zix13 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

There were a lot of things wrong with the game. It deserved a 5/10, because, despite the polish, it was rushed, lazy, short, only had a couple real sidequests, and of course the last few missions/ending were just bad. The fact that it ruined an excellent series would make we want to rate it lower than that. 

Contradictions, outright lies AND opinions turned into "facts"?

Yeah, user reviews are useless indeed.

By polish I meant the already complete engine and the already hired VA's. The resources put towards those aspects are there. The content is not. Please, count the sidequests. I remember.......... three? Monastery, Cerberus defectors, and Grissom.

Rachni mission, Bomb on Tuchanka, Entering the Geth Consensus, Saving General Koris.  All were great side missions, along WITH the Monastery, Cerberus defectors and Grissom.  Remember, Quality>Quanity.  Not to mention some of the N7 missions were decent as well. 

EDIT:  Also, Aria's quests, the mission with the Salarian spectre, and Conrad Verner's small little mission.

Modifié par Kmack11, 07 mai 2012 - 06:19 .

[Peranor]

Daedalus1773 wrote...

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.

This is so true. And this is why you should not look at the numers at the end of a review. Neither professional or user reviews =)

And with that said. I'd rate ME3 a 6,5/10 

[Linksys17]

 pfff.... numerical scores, just play the damn game and see if it floats your boat.

You will probably be disappointed if you were expecting the following from ME3:

1. consequences/rewards for your decisions from the previous two games

2. endings that support the lore and theme of the series and reflect your accomplishments/failures

3. many different dialogue options; investigate, paragon, renegade, optimistic, pessimistic, neutral..... ect

4. improved objective journal

5. HUB worlds

6. Emily Wong, Reeger, Morinth, and more characters im too lazy to recall

7. Abundance of exploration of culture, worlds, people ect; Fetch quests do not count!!!!!!!!!

8. a fully realized RPG experience, not just a third person shooter with a few RPG elements

9. more than 28 hours of gameplay on a completionist run <_<

10. Multiplayer with different game modes in order to increase the entertainment for a longer period of time;
"Horde Mode" yeah nuff said.......

[humes spork]

Pissed-off anti-fans review bombing because of the ending. That's really as far as it goes.

Paying attention to numerical reviews is silly anyways; you want to get a feeler for how good a game is, read indie journalists' in-depth reviews.

[Torrible]

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.

 

 OK. http://www.imdb.com/...1839558/ratings 

2,528 votes. Arithmetic mean = 9.2 

Modifié par Torrible, 07 mai 2012 - 06:31 .

[palker]

Reorte wrote...

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.

BIASED is the word. You should stay neutral when you try to review something and want your review to actually help someone in deciding wheter a game/product is worth they money. 
If you are just mad about ending be mad on the forums. 15 minute of a game is nothing to base a review on even if it destroys and invalidates 3 games and hundreds of hours playtime and even if your anger is righteous there are places to vent that anger and reviewing site is not it.

[Father Alvito]

Torrible wrote...

 OK. http://www.imdb.com/...1839558/ratings 

2,528 votes. Arithmetic mean = 9.2

Which is a biased sample of reviewers by design and you know it.  Does frequently reviewing movies on that site make these users more or less qualified to review ME3?

Look, I'm not saying that the scores on Metacritic are fair, and never have been.  All I'm saying is that exclusion based on the criteria imdb uses doesn't generate a legitimate representation either, and that in the absence of some decent criteria regarding whose vote 'counts' and whose doesn't, laissez faire is the best solution.

[v TricKy v]

Persephone 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)

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.

User reviews onyl goal is to show what the majority of the customers feel about the game. They dont have to be professional and objective because they are supposed to be from YOUR point of view which is the view from a customer and fan. If your a some rare breed who doesnt feel emotions when playing games than thats ok but the majority isnt like that.
A simple point: If 5000 people say the game is bad and rate it 0/10 but you say its the best game ever made 10/10 that means that the game IS bad and has flaws you just happen to dont see them or care about them. Of course its a matter of perspective and personal opinion but if the majority agrees on something you can be sure that there is an objective flaw or good thing.
And your argument about herd driven ratings is silly. TW2 and co. ARE good games because the majority thinks they are and your negative opinion doesnt change the fact that most people have a positive opinion.

Modifié par v TricKy v, 07 mai 2012 - 06:40 .

[v TricKy v]

double post

Modifié par v TricKy v, 07 mai 2012 - 06:40 .

[upsettingshorts]

Except people who hate the game, or have a bone to pick with specific parts of it (eg, ME3's ending) will go out and review-bomb in droves.  

People who enjoy the game, or take a broader look at it when evaluating it as a whole, are less likely to do this.

It's skewed and misleading. The only people who disagree are those with an agenda sympathetic to said review-bombers.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 mai 2012 - 06:41 .

[braisbr1]

OP, where have you been for the last couple of months? Since the crappy ending appeared on the horizon, the campaign called Retake Mass Effect has been taking some steps to get Bioware's attention. Remember that they called us the minority? Well, that's how they counterattacked.

Hold the Line

[Zix13]

Persephone wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

Horribly out of scale example. I do agree that some of them are nonsense, and some of the scores associated with them are nonsense. In fact, 0/10 is justified based on day 1 dlc only. Incomplete game should not be rated.

So DAO deserves a 0 too then? Oh no, it's only stuff you want rated down.....

Hm? Didn't realize it had day 1 dlc, only the awakening or whatever that came later. If it did have a part of it released seperately on day 1, then yes. I would have given it 0/10 for exactly that reason. I do not like being ripped off. 

Yes. That reflects the QUALITY of the game superbly.

It reflects my opinion of the game. That's what user reviews are for. 

[Torrible]

Father Alvito wrote...

Torrible wrote...

 OK. http://www.imdb.com/...1839558/ratings 

2,528 votes. Arithmetic mean = 9.2

Which is a biased sample of reviewers by design and you know it.  Does frequently reviewing movies on that site make these users more or less qualified to review ME3?

Look, I'm not saying that the scores on Metacritic are fair, and never have been.  All I'm saying is that exclusion based on the criteria imdb uses doesn't generate a legitimate representation either, and that in the absence of some decent criteria regarding whose vote 'counts' and whose doesn't, laissez faire is the best solution.

v TricKy v wrote...

User reviews onyl goal is to show what the majority of the customers feel about the game. They dont have to be professional and objective because they are supposed to be from YOUR point of view. 

 If 5000  2,528 people say the game is bad good and rate it 9.2/10 but you say its the best worst game ever made 0/10 that means that the game IS bad  good and has flaws strengths you just happen to dont see them or care about them. 

Of course its a matter of perspective and personal opinion but if the majority agrees on something you can be sure that there is an objective flaw or good thing.

argument about herd driven ratings is silly. 

 

Ultimately, using ratings to prove one point or the other is silly. 

[upsettingshorts]

Daedalus1773 wrote...

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.

Behold an example of the problem.

Professional reviewers have relatively uniform standards for evaluation.  If there is a question, you can look at their other reviews, or even an explanation of their policy.

User reviews are an aggregate.  Since there are so many of them, a comprehensive analysis of user review criteria is impossible.  Therefore, the raw score - an average of the user ratings - is all people tend to consider.  So while in Deadalus' opinion, sinking the score an entire game because of the ending is perfectly reasonable, no-one reading a his raw number review score will know that this is simply his interpretation of that endings' value and effect on the experience.  They will instead see a user average score of 4.0 and draw a possibly wildly different conclusion, that the game is an unplayable mess, which it is not.  

This is why user reviews are a problem.

It happens on Amazon too, for things that aren't games, but simply consumer goods.  I've lost track of the number of times where I've seen a product with a low Star rating that had more to say about Amazon's delivery record than the usefuless of the product in question.  That many people - myself included - might overlook the product because of shoddy, mis-targeted user reviews, stands to reason.  

It would benefit retailers and sites like Metacritic to drop user reviews for this reason.  There's no consistency and that lack of consistency is open to abuse.

[Linksys17]

palker wrote...

Reorte wrote...

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.

BIASED is the word. You should stay neutral when you try to review something and want your review to actually help someone in deciding wheter a game/product is worth they money. 
If you are just mad about ending be mad on the forums. 15 minute of a game is nothing to base a review on even if it destroys and invalidates 3 games and hundreds of hours playtime and even if your anger is righteous there are places to vent that anger and reviewing site is not it.

Problem is that Mass Effect 3 will affect people differently based on their previous gameplay.  If I had known what ME3 was I would not have blindly purchased it day one of launch because of my experience of the previous two games then I would have waited until the price dropped because it was offensive to myself as a loyal Bioware customer, I even bought the day one DLC begrudgingly but thought, hey its Bioware itll all be worth it when im immersed in the control of my experience.  Then my heart sank as I was bludgeoned with auto-dialog, and a linear story with no replayability value regardless of the terrible endings because it doesnt matter what variations you executed in previous playthroughs you get the same story in the third making you question why you bothered with the multiple playthroughs......., any Mass Effect 3 review should point out these flaws because unfortunately bias comes with experience and you expect to have different outcomes based on the gameplay of ME1 and ME2 as well as from their advertisements and interviews for the third.  If a numeric score is needed their should be one for ME veterans taking into account its respect to the lore and previous choices and one for newcomers taking into account just combat basic story and design.

[mesmerizedish]

Zix13 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

Horribly out of scale example. I do agree that some of them are nonsense, and some of the scores associated with them are nonsense. In fact, 0/10 is justified based on day 1 dlc only. Incomplete game should not be rated.

So DAO deserves a 0 too then? Oh no, it's only stuff you want rated down.....

Hm? Didn't realize it had day 1 dlc, only the awakening or whatever that came later. If it did have a part of it released seperately on day 1, then yes. I would have given it 0/10 for exactly that reason. I do not like being ripped off. 

Yes. That reflects the QUALITY of the game superbly.

It reflects my opinion of the game. That's what user reviews are for. 

Yes, Origins had Day 1 DLC.

This also reflects why user reviews are worthless: because some user opinions are worthless.

[upsettingshorts]

braisbr1 wrote...

OP, where have you been for the last couple of months? Since the crappy ending appeared on the horizon, the campaign called Retake Mass Effect has been taking some steps to get Bioware's attention. Remember that they called us the minority? Well, that's how they counterattacked.

Hold the Line

They have a better idea of the numbers than you do.

They can look at sales and gameplay metrics and compare those numbers with the number of posters in the Retake threads, or donations to Child's Play, and draw a conclusion.  

Retake lacks the numbers necessary to determine whether or not they constitute a majority.  This is simple math, and not any personal statement on my part one way or another.  In order to determine if X > Y, you need to know X and Y.  Retake does not have access to half of the inequality.  BioWare does.  However, they might also be posturing.  There's no way to be completely sure.

Whether or not they do is irrelevant in any case, since BioWare has announced the extended ending DLC.  They were certainly loud enough to have their demands heard, so whether or not they are the majority really doesn't matter.

The fact of the matter is, and this is always true no matter what the game or the issue in question, the majority of consumers do not participate on the forums or internet discussions of the game at all, one way or the other.  What these consumers felt about the endings is a matter for debate, but there's little we can conclude about them.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 mai 2012 - 06:51 .

[richard_rider]

I'd give it a 5/10

I personally don't care what professional or amateur critics say, most times they end up being wrong, although this time...they may not be that far off, the game has a lot of issues that could've been overlooked, but the ending just works to bring them to light.

[Zix13]

Kmack11 wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

There were a lot of things wrong with the game. It deserved a 5/10, because, despite the polish, it was rushed, lazy, short, only had a couple real sidequests, and of course the last few missions/ending were just bad. The fact that it ruined an excellent series would make we want to rate it lower than that. 

Contradictions, outright lies AND opinions turned into "facts"?

Yeah, user reviews are useless indeed.

By polish I meant the already complete engine and the already hired VA's. The resources put towards those aspects are there. The content is not. Please, count the sidequests. I remember.......... three? Monastery, Cerberus defectors, and Grissom.

Rachni mission, Bomb on Tuchanka, Entering the Geth Consensus, Saving General Koris.  All were great side missions, along WITH the Monastery, Cerberus defectors and Grissom.  Remember, Quality>Quanity.  Not to mention some of the N7 missions were decent as well. 

EDIT:  Also, Aria's quests, the mission with the Salarian spectre, and Conrad Verner's small little mission.

Right, forgot about the rachni and bomb quests. Koris and Consensus, though optional, were part of the rannoch arc, and thus not truly sidequests. N7 missions were the MP maps with an introduction by the admiral, they do not count as sidequests, they're all horde-mode. Little citadel talk to so and so, then go talk to so and so quests are important, but not significant sidequests.

[v TricKy v]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Daedalus1773 wrote...

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.

Behold an example of the problem.

Professional reviewers have relatively uniform standards for evaluation.  If there is a question, you can look at their other reviews, or even an explanation of their policy.

User reviews are an aggregate.  Since there are so many of them, a comprehensive analysis of user review criteria is impossible.  Therefore, the raw score - an average of the user ratings - is all people tend to consider.  So while in Deadalus' opinion, sinking the score an entire game because of the ending is perfectly reasonable, no-one reading a his raw number review score will know that this is simply his interpretation of that endings' value and effect on the experience.  They will instead see a user average score of 4.0 and draw a possibly wildly different conclusion, that the game is an unplayable mess, which it is not.  

This is why user reviews are a problem.

It happens on Amazon too, for things that aren't games, but simply consumer goods.  I've lost track of the number of times where I've seen a product with a low Star rating that had more to say about Amazon's delivery record than the usefuless of the product in question.  That many people - myself included - might overlook the product because of shoddy, mis-targeted user reviews, stands to reason.  

It would benefit retailers and sites like Metacritic to drop user reviews for this reason.  There's no consistency and that lack of consistency is open to abuse.

And who should we trust then? The "honest" professional who earns his money with reviews and if he talks bad about something gets fired because he ruined the sales of Amazon and co.? 

[Zix13]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

Horribly out of scale example. I do agree that some of them are nonsense, and some of the scores associated with them are nonsense. In fact, 0/10 is justified based on day 1 dlc only. Incomplete game should not be rated.

So DAO deserves a 0 too then? Oh no, it's only stuff you want rated down.....

Hm? Didn't realize it had day 1 dlc, only the awakening or whatever that came later. If it did have a part of it released seperately on day 1, then yes. I would have given it 0/10 for exactly that reason. I do not like being ripped off. 

Yes. That reflects the QUALITY of the game superbly.

It reflects my opinion of the game. That's what user reviews are for. 

Yes, Origins had Day 1 DLC.

This also reflects why user reviews are worthless: because some user opinions are worthless.

That viewpoint is why EA continues to rip off their customers. +1 for supporting that.

Anyways, to some degree I'm playing devils advocate. I wouldn't actually rate an unfinished game because it's too difficult to do in a representative way. I have not rated ME3 anywhere, and have no intention of doing so. When I say 0/10, it's more an indication that it's not fit to be rated. 

Modifié par Zix13, 07 mai 2012 - 07:00 .

[upsettingshorts]

v TricKy v wrote...

And who should we trust then? The "honest" professional who earns his money with reviews and if he talks bad about something gets fired because he ruined the sales of Amazon and co.? 

That's a difficult question.  I don't think there's an easy answer.  I'm less prone to buying conspiracy theories about bought reviews than your average forumgoer, but I won't deny the possibility.

I'd say the best bet is to find a professional reviewer or reviewers whose opinions you often agree most consistently with, and follow them.

That and always play demos when they are available, and do you own research.

[savionen]

Seems like only pro-enders claim that others opinions are worthless.

[KotorEffect3]

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.

Yeah people have the gall to complain about professional reviews when they are at least competant when compared to retarded user reviews.

[upsettingshorts]

savionen wrote...

Seems like only pro-enders claim that others opinions are worthless.

I'm not pro-endings.  I'm pro-critical thinking:  Which is why I dislike the endings and why I dislike user reviews.

Furthermore, that statement is inherently hypocritical.  You're invalidating the opinions of all pro-enders by lumping them into a criticism that may not apply to them, thus rendering their opinions worthless in your estimation.