1470 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

 

yukon fire wrote...

I am sorry, but quite a few people get up everyday and go to work doing jobs that suck, there is not an excuse for putting in a subpar effort. We live in a world where people should be thankful they have a job, because some of those KOA people don't.

And what of the people who don't see it as a subpar effort? Not speaking for myself here (I have my own issues with the writing and design choices, as to be expected), but there are plenty of consumers, both loyalists on the BSN and mainstreamers, who are by and large satisfied. Despite Amazon's three-star rating, which was swarmed with ending criticisms, there are pages upon pages of four and five star reviews from consumers.  The game has an 8.8 on IMDB, with plenty of positive user reviews.

People still think that the BioWare people met the requirements of their jobs.  I hate what happened to 38 and Big Huge and I really dug Amalur, but let's keep things in perspective. 

[chemiclord]

AlanC9 wrote...

But if your game really was a success, presumably you could get a job with another dev. Might have to move, though.

Possibly.  You could also get caught in a situation where no one wants anything more to do with you because you're not doing "X" anymore.

Sure, it's not a particularly logical fear that you'll get stuck doing one IP your entire career, but that's why its a fear.  And it's happened enough times to others to keep the nightmare fuel burning.

[yukon fire]

Yeah,an auto dialogued "action mode"ed linear Mass Effect with a broken quest menu and character importation problems certainly falls quite short of even Alpha Protocol level quality.

[yukon fire]

And that's without the crap story.

[Morlath]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

Game journalism is just pretty much worthless. All the games a magazine/website/tv show profiles can't be 8-10 in everything, that's not how percentiles work.

Not in the slightest.

Games aren't being rated so that if you rate one game an 8, the next only has a chance to earn 2 marks. Each one is rated in isolation so that it's quite possible (if unlikely) that every single game a site/magazine rates is 7+.

The percentiles would still be accurate since the ten 10 percentile would still only have the top 10% of rated games even if 11-20% also had similar ratings.

[Kel Riever]

No, I would agree that game journalism is a pile of trash at the bottom of a cesspool. That may change one day. In fact, I'm sure it will. But it won't change when all the reviews are for the magazine's primary sponsors' products.

The car industry was the same, until a few, non affiliated reviewers finally came out some decades ago. But really, if you want to go buy a car, slap yourself hard if you go based on the review written in Road & Track. It is the same thing with games. You have a better chance at finding a neutral review with a search on youtube then you do reading IGN smut.

[Morlath]

Kel Riever wrote...

No, I would agree that game journalism is a pile of trash at the bottom of a cesspool. That may change one day. In fact, I'm sure it will. But it won't change when all the reviews are for the magazine's primary sponsors' products.

The car industry was the same, until a few, non affiliated reviewers finally came out some decades ago. But really, if you want to go buy a car, slap yourself hard if you go based on the review written in Road & Track. It is the same thing with games. You have a better chance at finding a neutral review with a search on youtube then you do reading IGN smut.

Is the anti-IGN attitude on BSN all down to Chobot/Allers?

Seriously, I've found no issue with their review system at all as a general guideline for what games are good/bad and that's all anyone can ask for without playign the games themselves.

[IanPolaris]

Morlath wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

No, I would agree that game journalism is a pile of trash at the bottom of a cesspool. That may change one day. In fact, I'm sure it will. But it won't change when all the reviews are for the magazine's primary sponsors' products.

The car industry was the same, until a few, non affiliated reviewers finally came out some decades ago. But really, if you want to go buy a car, slap yourself hard if you go based on the review written in Road & Track. It is the same thing with games. You have a better chance at finding a neutral review with a search on youtube then you do reading IGN smut.

Is the anti-IGN attitude on BSN all down to Chobot/Allers?

No.  That would be enough in of itself given that this would be illegal in other forms of media entertainment given the Payola Laws, but no, it goes well beyond that.

Seriously, I've found no issue with their review system at all as a general guideline for what games are good/bad and that's all anyone can ask for without playign the games themselves.

O'Rly

Let me put this as politely as possible.  If one were to read the so-called professional game reviews of DA2 right after it's release, you could be excused for thinking it was the greatest game (or at least one of the greatest games) of all time.  That was until you read the user reviews that rated the game as mediocre at best.

In hindsight we know that the user score was a lot closer to right.

-Polaris

[chemiclord]

Morlath wrote...

Is the anti-IGN attitude on BSN all down to Chobot/Allers?

Seriously, I've found no issue with their review system at all as a general guideline for what games are good/bad and that's all anyone can ask for without playign the games themselves.

The entire Jessica Chobot debacle is a microcosm to a much larger issue.  And I hate to break it to you, it exists in ALL forms of journalism at this point, not just videogames.

You have a form of media that is supposed to be an impartial voice... that do the fluky nature of capitalistic investment... finds itself almost entirely beholden to the area of interest they are supposed to be an impartial voice towards.  Ad dollars from the very industries they are supposed to be reporting on represent the bulk of most publications operating revenue.

Lemme borrow an example from one of my early stops on the internship road.  Going into sportswriting, I was astonished how much the columnists and beat reporters were effectively in the pocket of the teams they were covering.  Unless you were REALLY big, you better tow the line the team fed you, or you were out of a job and the publication you worked for could lose a chunk of their revenue.

This was about 15 years ago, by the way.  This isn't new.

Impartial journalism is extremely hard to find, if it even exists at all... or even really did to begin with.

[David7204]

Oh boy. This crap again.

I don't bother with IGN. But I do check the GameInformer website now and again. And I can say with certainty that the idea that they're slaves to big games like Call of Duty or whatever is not only completely wrong and moronic, but the inverse of the actual truth. The editorials they run overwhelmingly tend to criticize the decisions of bigger franchises and praise smaller games rather than the opposite. They've just recently ran some very damning material against EA concerning the SimCIty launch - there's no possible way any reasonable person would say they're in EA's pocket to give them nothing but praise.

That doesn't even touch scores. Suffice it to say, it should be plain to anyone with a kindagarden level education that the most 'hyped' games don't get the highest scores. Not even close.

Modifié par David7204, 11 mai 2013 - 06:05 .

[dreamgazer]

IanPolaris wrote...

Let me put this as politely as possible. If one were to read the so-called professional game reviews of DA2 right after it's release, you could be excused for thinking it was the greatest game (or at least one of the greatest games) of all time. That was until you read the user reviews that rated the game as mediocre at best.

The pro critics weren't all wine and roses at release either.

http://www.metacriti.../critic-reviews

Some 60s and 70s (and critical 80s) published within the first few weeks. And let's not pretend that user reviews aren't guilty of hyperbolic bombing for the hell of it.

[Morlath]

chemiclord wrote...

You have a form of media that is supposed to be an impartial voice... that do the fluky nature of capitalistic investment... finds itself almost entirely beholden to the area of interest they are supposed to be an impartial voice towards.  Ad dollars from the very industries they are supposed to be reporting on represent the bulk of most publications operating revenue.

Lemme borrow an example from one of my early stops on the internship road.  Going into sportswriting, I was astonished how much the columnists and beat reporters were effectively in the pocket of the teams they were covering.  Unless you were REALLY big, you better tow the line the team fed you, or you were out of a job and the publication you worked for could lose a chunk of their revenue.

This was about 15 years ago, by the way.  This isn't new.

Impartial journalism is extremely hard to find, if it even exists at all... or even really did to begin with.

Journalism has definitely gone on a general slide and that types of sports/whatever area issue is something that's a danger everywhere.

But I repeat my point. Generally (within 1 swing point either way) IGN's ratings have matched my experience with a game and if it's not then it's mostly because the game itself isn't for me.

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

Oh boy. This crap again.

I don't bother with IGN. But I do check the GameInformer website now and again. And I can say with certainty that the idea that they're slaves to big games like Call of Duty or whatever is not only completely wrong and moronic, but the inverse of the actual truth. The editorials they run overwhelmingly tend to criticize the decisions of bigger franchises and tend to praise smaller games rather than the opposite.

That doesn't even touch scores. Suffice it to say, it should be plain to anyone with a kindagarden level education that the most 'hyped' games don't get the highest. Not even close.

I won't say it's impossible to find an 'official' review that is useful and informative and even critical.  That said, of late there seems to be an increasing dichotomy between how the so-called "industry" people rate and review games and how the users receive games (especially with the last few Bioware titles), and of late, I have found the concensus user opinion to be a lot closer to a useful reflection of how the game really is.

-Polaris

[David7204]

Maybe you should consider the obvious fact that your experience with a game involves lots of emotional baggage that reviewers aren't supposed to take into account. I was incredibly upset with the ending to ME 3, but I'd really like to think I would know better than to give the game a '2' or something, as plenty of people on the BSN would gleefully suggest.

I read the review to Dragon Age 2. It was made abundently clear that the reviewer considered it a dissappointment and a step back. What more are they supposed to say? You seem to be thinking along of the lines of "Unless reviewers say this is the worst game ever, ever, they're in EA's pocket."

I've been on the BSN for months, I've seen every complaint there is about ME 3. I know exactly what the flaws are. And it's still leaps and bounds above anything else. (If it wasn't, I would spend my time on that forum instead of here.)

Modifié par David7204, 11 mai 2013 - 06:17 .

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

Maybe you should consider the obvious fact that your experience with a game involves lots of emotional baggage that reviewers aren't supposed to take into account. I was incredibly upset with the ending to ME 3, but I'd really like to think I would know better than to give the game a '2' or something, as plenty of people on the BSN would gleefully suggest.

I read the review to Dragon Age 2. It was made abundently clear that the reviewer considered it a dissappointment and a step back. What more are they supposed to say? You seem to be thinking along of the lines of "Unless reviewers say this is the worst game ever, ever, they're in EA's pocket."

I've been on the BSN for months, I've seen every complaint there is about ME 3. I know exactly what the flaws are. And it's still leaps and bounds above anything else. (If it wasn't, I would spend my time on that forum instead of here.)

Don't personalize this.  It's not just "my" experience.  I am talking about a well documented pattern that multiple people from multiple backgrounds have seen and commented on for the past ten years not just here on BSN and not just for EA but over much of the computer gaming industry.  There is an increasing disconnect between the industry scores and the user evaluation scores, and when you look at the same games years later, it is clear that for all their flaws, the user eveluation scores are generally more reliable.  This was true in spades for DA2 as just one example.

-Polaris

[Megaton_Hope]

Take IGN's review of Mass Effect 2 as an example:

http://www.ign.com/a...2-review?page=2

9, 9, 9, 9.5, 10.

I do not see two words in there about planet-scanning, which is a necessary and integral part of researching upgrades for Shepard's armor, weapons and ship, and yet a tedious exercise in futility.

Now Game Informer, Game Informer has my back. "Tired eyes." You see that? Tired eyes. Exactly, buddy.

http://www.gameinfor.../26/review.aspx

[Morlath]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

Take IGN's review of Mass Effect 2 as an example:

http://www.ign.com/a...2-review?page=2

9, 9, 9, 9.5, 10.

I do not see two words in there about planet-scanning, which is a necessary and integral part of researching upgrades for Shepard's armor, weapons and ship, and yet a tedious exercise in futility.

Now Game Informer, Game Informer has my back. "Tired eyes." You see that? Tired eyes. Exactly, buddy.

http://www.gameinfor.../26/review.aspx

So let me get this straight...

A review that is a 9.75 and talks about how brilliant the game is is a far better review than the IGN score of 9.5 because one mentions the minigames and one doesn't?

[David7204]

You know what? Then that's really just too damn bad.

The people who say ME 3 or DA 2 deserve a two or a four are deluded. It's clear they have no interest in actually being impartial. They simply want to 'punish' the developer for putting out a product they didn't like, and that means the lowest score they can justify. And ultimately, that will do a lot more harm than good since it drags down all the good content in games as well as the bad.

That's it. There's your disconnect. It exists because reviewers generally do a decent job thinking such things out, and players don't. And if you want to be a part of that, and kid yourself into thinking ME 3 deserves a two because you hated the ending, go right ahead. But doing that and then complaining the reviewers are generally at fault is nonsense.

Modifié par David7204, 11 mai 2013 - 06:37 .

[IanPolaris]

Morlath wrote...

So let me get this straight...

A review that is a 9.75 and talks about how brilliant the game is is a far better review than the IGN score of 9.5 because one mentions the minigames and one doesn't?

In this case I probably would say that it was since it gives the user more information about how the game plays.

-Polaris

[David7204]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

Take IGN's review of Mass Effect 2 as an example:

http://www.ign.com/a...2-review?page=2

9, 9, 9, 9.5, 10.

I do not see two words in there about planet-scanning, which is a necessary and integral part of researching upgrades for Shepard's armor, weapons and ship, and yet a tedious exercise in futility.

Now Game Informer, Game Informer has my back. "Tired eyes." You see that? Tired eyes. Exactly, buddy.

What the hell is that supposed to prove? That IGN is in EA's pocket because they didn't talk about planet scanning? Gee, the possibility never crossed your mind that they don't consider it that big a deal?

[Morlath]

IanPolaris wrote...

In this case I probably would say that it was since it gives the user more information about how the game plays.

-Polaris

And there are reviews by IGN that mentions these things.

Shock. Horror. IGN Reviewer was so excited about how good the game actually was that one of the only "poor" parts of the game (in people's opinions since personally I enjoyed them and missed hacking in ME3) got missed in the review.

Are you really suggesting that the hacking is bad enough to take the game from a 9+ to a 7? and 8? It's THAT important an aspect to the game?

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

You know what? Then that's really just too damn bad.

The people who say ME 3 or DA 2 deserve a two or a four are deluded. It's clear they have no interest in actually being impartial. They simply want to 'punish' the developer for putting out a product they didn't like, and that means the lowest score they can justify. And ultimately, that will do a lot more harm than good since it drags down all the good content in games as well as the bad.

That's it. There's your disconnect. It exists because reviewers generally do a decent job thinking such things out, and players don't. And if you want to be a part of that, and kid yourself into thinking ME 3 deserves a two because you hated the ending, go right ahead. But doing that and then complaining the reviewers are generally at fault is nonsense.

If a company produces a product you don't like and/or you think is inferior, then you absolutely should punish it with a bad review.  To do otherwise would be to negate the entire purpose of a review and criticism in general.  Frankly speaking of ME3, the ME3 ending is follows almost precisely what my College English Comp professors told me (and others) when telling us how NOT to write an ending.  As such the ending along absolutely merits a substandard review score for the whole game since the ending is one of the most important parts of the game.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Morlath wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

In this case I probably would say that it was since it gives the user more information about how the game plays.

-Polaris

And there are reviews by IGN that mentions these things.

Shock. Horror. IGN Reviewer was so excited about how good the game actually was that one of the only "poor" parts of the game (in people's opinions since personally I enjoyed them and missed hacking in ME3) got missed in the review.

Are you really suggesting that the hacking is bad enough to take the game from a 9+ to a 7? and 8? It's THAT important an aspect to the game?

We are talkimng about one game ME2 (which I thought was a pretty good game).  As for it being enough to take it from a 9+ to a 7, yes I can see it.  9+ is supposed to be for excellent to near perfect games, i.e. an "A".  If a game is good but still has annoying or distracting (and correctable) flaws, then it isn't exellent but merely "good" or maybe even "better than average" (letter grades B and C respectively) which would be 7 or 8s.

-Polaris

[David7204]

And guess what? It's not like ME 3 is a mediocre game with a bad ending that dragged it down further. It does a lot of things a hell of a lot better than any other game has done, including plenty of games that have gotten 10s. You want to 'punish' the game for the ending? Fine. But you don't get to cherry pick all the things you don't like and ignore all the things that are done well. Those things need to push it up just as the ending should drag it down. There's way too much high quality content in ME 3 for the game as a whole to deserve remotely close to a low score. 

You're standards are stupid. ME 2 deserves to be taken from a 9.75 to a 7 because of planet scanning? That is just laughable. Why don't we just go ahead and give every game a zero, because I can guarentee you I can find bigger flaws in pretty much any game you'd care to name.

Modifié par David7204, 11 mai 2013 - 06:47 .

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

And guess what? It's not like ME 3 is a mediocre game with a bad ending that dragged it down further. It does a lot of things a hell of a lot better than any other game has done, including plenty of games that have gotten 10s. You want to 'punish' the game for the ending? Fine. But you don't get to cherry pick all the things you don't like and ignore all the things that are done well. Those things need to push it up just as the ending should drag it down. There's way too much high quality content in ME 3 for the game as a whole to deserve remotely close to a low score. 

I'm not ignoring the things the ME3 does well, but to be honest and if you really look at it critically, there aren't that many if you view it as a person interested in a ROLEPLAYING game.  The best thing about ME3 is the improved combat system (but many FPS games still do it better) and a MP that while simple horde-mode, does seem to work well for what it is.  The Tuchanka quest story is also well written and the genophage arc is brought to a close in many multiple ways that are intersting.

Unfortunately that's about where the good points stop.  There is the ending which alone would be enough to drop it if it were a literary work for an English Lit class at least a full letter grade.  Then there is the autodialog and linear structure of the game.  Then there is the negation of meaningful choice that happens throughout (like the Rachni Queen).  The side-quest journal system is buggy and difficult to use.  i could go one but why bother.  I am sure everyone here has heard it before.

The point is that if I am reviewing it (as in giving the game a letter grade), these points count against the overall grade and I don't grade on a curve.  After just a few of this we are already looking at a 70% product or less which is a "C" at best which is average at best.

-Polaris