300 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

You're right. Developers shouldn't release low quality games with Day One DLC. That is certainly true.

But no, the argument isn't flawed at all. It just means some sort of income beyond a 60 dollar price tag is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for a good game.

[Fast Jimmy]

Skorm777 wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

I stopped reading when you implied the toxicity is a recent thing and not something that has been with this forum during its very inception.

I didn't imply it was a recent thing, only that it's recent to since i've been frequenting. I had read the article about the developer saying he doesn't like browsing the forum anymore, and I began posting looking out for that. WIthin the past week or so I noticed the mood change, likely because hate breeds hate and someone starting up the negative topics. 

Or, the much more likely scenario... you caught the BSN on a good couple weeks. If you think this is bad, you definitely weren't here closer to some of the recent game release dates. 

[David7204]

I'm unsure how exactly you think saying 'even the critics think this is mediocre' when the critics clearly think the thing in question is high quality is 'sardonic.'

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Sanunes wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I had no idea a 93 was a mediocre score. What does that make the Witcher 2 at an 88, exactly?

I guess being sardonic doesn't work with you.

What's the user score for ME3? DA2?

Compare it with the user score for the Witcher 2.

I guarantee you did not look at the User Score for any of them.

I listed you the scores.

ME3 - 5/10

DA2 - 4.3/10

The Witcher 2 - 8.4/10.

I don't trust Metacritic for its too easy to upset the numbers for how many people voted about how bad a game is when they never even played it? That and people tend to play the game "lets sink the Metacritic score of this game because it made me mad".

I am not saying that people who voted enjoyed The Witcher 2 more, but I don't like Metacrtic's system for player input and take what is posted there the exact same way I take professional reviews.

Fair enough. It's always best to withold judgment until you've actually played a game for yourself, but personally, I do find a lot of the scores and user reviews reflecting of what I liked or didn't like about a game. I don't agree with all of them of course, but it's really a matter of taste. 

Were there reviews for ME3 that were intended to lower its score? Absolutely. You're going to find that with every game. But does that mean that everything is skewed in a way that it can't be taken seriously? No.

The disparity between user reviews and critical reviews tells me that there is some kind of disconnect between what people thought about the game and what the critics think about it. It's inadmissable, but it's still something to ponder.

[Dutchess]

Skorm777 wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

I stopped reading when you implied the toxicity is a recent thing and not something that has been with this forum during its very inception.

I didn't imply it was a recent thing, only that it's recent to since i've been frequenting. I had read the article about the developer saying he doesn't like browsing the forum anymore, and I began posting looking out for that. WIthin the past week or so I noticed the mood change, likely because hate breeds hate and someone starting up the negative topics. 

If anything, I find that the current DAI forum is skewed to the positive side. Most people who still post are the most loyal fans, who not only liked the games but also read the books and the comics and whatever else Bioware is putting out to milk the franchise. In threads asking about who is planning to preorder, a - to me - suprising amount of people answer with a confident "YES". 

The people who are less enthusiastic about DA2 and other recent Bioware games are not as active anymore as when DA2 had just come out. You'll mostly see them in threads like these, when they are being called ignorant in the title, and toxic and spiteful and other negative words you can come up with to dismiss their opinion. So, yeah, starting a negative thread will lead to more negative reactions, as you have just demonstrated with this thread.

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

You're right. Developers shouldn't release low quality games with Day One DLC. That is certainly true.

But no, the argument isn't flawed at all. It just means some sort of income beyond a 60 dollar price tag is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for a good game.

It IS flawed. Because a developer can't know a game will be of good (let alone high) quality before it ships. No developer wakes up and says "you know what? I'm going to make a game as mediocre as possible today." I am willing to bet many people at Bioware thought DA2 and ME3 were phenomenal games when they were in development. So why NOT pursue a policy that charges more to the player in a roundabout way? It gets more revenue for this high quality product. 

Except the product, to many people's eyes, was not high quality at all. Making the paid D1DLC salt on the wound of their experience. 

So it's a bad idea to assume practices that hinge on your product being received really well. DA2 ran into that as well, because the game's ending was planned to be resolved in an expansion pack (The Exalted March) but, due to low retailer interest (which translates to "we can't sell copies of DA2 as it is), the expansion pack was cancelled. Again, designing your product in a way that esrns more revenue but also assumes a high level of customer satisfaction is a bad business decision. 

Bioware had never really had to deal with much of this in the past, because their past games were always heralded as great successes, even if they didn't perform stellarly in the marketplace. Their assumption that everything they put out will be treated as golden by fans, while rooted in past experience, has peoven to be their downfall in revent years. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 17 décembre 2013 - 12:57 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

I'm unsure how exactly you think saying 'even the critics think this is mediocre' when the critics clearly think the thing in question is high quality is 'sardonic.'

Because you clearly didn't read the user reviews and score. Like I posted. 

You posted the critic score and claimed that I posted it as a user score. Which I did not post.

I mocked your statement. I was being incredulous that you'd changed what I said to make me seem incorrect.

Putting words in quotes does not make you appear intelligent.

I'm sorry if the words are too big for you.

[David7204]

David7204 wrote...

Are those scores from the same categories as the ones you listed earlier?

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Yep. These are the user reviews. Critical reviews are different for them of course.

Modifié par David7204, 17 décembre 2013 - 12:57 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Are those scores from the same categories as the ones you listed earlier?

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Yep. These are the user reviews. Critical reviews are different for them of course.

Exactly. 

User Reviews.

Btw, reported for no text.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 17 décembre 2013 - 12:58 .

[David7204]

Except the first scores you posted weren't user reviews. They were critical reviewers. You claimed they were 'the same,' both user reviews. They weren't.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Except the first scores you posted weren't user reviews. They were critical reviewers. You claimed they were 'the same,' both user reviews. They weren't.

I didn't claim the user reviews or the critical reviews were the same.

In that very post you quoted, I made it clear that the user reviews and critcal reviews were separate.

[David7204]

Yes, this is indeed a very tedious and pointless argument. I think we're about done here.

[wolfhowwl]

Thank the Maker.

[Sanunes]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Fair enough. It's always best to withold judgment until you've actually played a game for yourself, but personally, I do find a lot of the scores and user reviews reflecting of what I liked or didn't like about a game. I don't agree with all of them of course, but it's really a matter of taste. 

Were there reviews for ME3 that were intended to lower its score? Absolutely. You're going to find that with every game. But does that mean that everything is skewed in a way that it can't be taken seriously? No.

The disparity between user reviews and critical reviews tells me that there is some kind of disconnect between what people thought about the game and what the critics think about it. It's inadmissable, but it's still something to ponder.

I agree that someone giving the game a zero doesn't skewer the game poorly, but if people on a message board organize to give the game zero for some reason or another and then create additional accounts to do so I believe does.  This might not have been the case with Mass Effect 3, but there was an open call to try and tank the Diablo 3 score to match the login server error message code when it was first released and this is before the other issues of the game were noticed. To me that ruined Metacritic's score neutrality for any game because it could happen and from what I have seen they haven't tried to prevent it from happening in the future.  I will still go there and read the lengthy review that someone will post for I find those helpful, but the aggrigate score is something I can't trust, just like I don't trust the numerical score from a professional reviewer either.

Now of course that is how I view things and people are welcome to disagree, but I have been burned by both sides and wish to avoid it from happening again.

[ianvillan]

David7204 wrote...

Yes, they probably did. That's how many people it takes to make a modern AAA video game.

It takes a lot of people to make an AAA movie, maybe even more then it does to make the games yet the movie industry is not charging $60-$80 for the movies that they produce.

I am waiting for the movie industry to charge $60-$80 for a movie and also cut characters and scenes from the film which they would produce at day one for an extra $10. All they would need to say to the customers who buy it is that the cost of making the movies has gotten higher so they have to charge more.

Modifié par ianvillan, 17 décembre 2013 - 01:29 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Back to the point the entire review score tirade kicked off... The Witcher is a very succesful AAA franchise that costs "only" the $60 price tag and includes ongoing toolkit support, patches and free DLC. It's a viable model.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 17 décembre 2013 - 01:28 .

[David7204]

It's only a model if it's good. And my faith in that crucial element is not robust.

In any case, a single game is a single game. I could point to Team Fortress 2, a free game on which I've had more fun with than any $60 multiplayer experience. And even when wasn't free, came as part of a five game set for 60 bucks and has received continual free patches and updates for serveral years.

Modifié par David7204, 17 décembre 2013 - 01:34 .

[WhiteKnyght]

Skorm777 wrote...

 I was pretty impressed with the quality of posts and
maturity level on this forum when I began visiting frequently only a month ago.
Lately however it seems this forum is drowned in anxiety and negativity ranging
from questions concerning Biowares capabilities and intentions, to bashing
early release DLC.

Personally I think this anti-gamer corporate attitude that
everyone believes Bioware has adopted, is nothing more than misunderstanding.

Everyone seems to place DA2 as a benchmark of Biowares
capabilities, and an example of what's to come in the future. However nobody
seems to realise that they spent 1.5 years on the title, half of the time spent
on the average AAA RPG; and they didn't have a full development team.

If you compare what they created in 1.5 years to Skyrim,
which had a team of 100 working on it for 3 years, DA2 is a commendation to
Biowares potential.

On the subject of day one DLC. If Bioware has ideas for DLC
containing additional characters, why would they begin development after
release and drop a character into the mix months later, when a good portion of
players have already beaten the game. It seems logical to increase the budget
during development in order to release this character on or close to launch, so
that people completing the game for the first time can make use of them.


Understand that I'm not trying to make excuses for Biowares
excessive release of non contributing DLC, or the fact that they released DA2
early (despite my assumptions as to why, which indicates rationality and not
malice; the latter which so many of you assume is the case) and for full price.

All I want to communicate is that Bioware is an exceptional studio, who
is releasing a game that will have had adequate development time, and use of a modern
engine. Therefore we should reserve judgement for after playing the game, or at
least refrain from making connections to their last title given the difference
in effort this time.

I agree. I wonder the ages of the people posting here. They're supposed to be adults but they act like whiny children. I'd be embarassed as hell if I behaved like that.

I say to them: go back to watching Barney or the Teletubbies and leave Bioware games for mature adults to play.

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 17 décembre 2013 - 01:32 .

[Fast Jimmy]

ianvillan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Yes, they probably did. That's how many people it takes to make a modern AAA video game.

It takes a lot of people to make an AAA movie, maybe even more then it does to make the games yet the movie industry is not charging $60-$80 for the movies that they produce.

I am waiting for the movie industry to charge $60-$80 for a movie and also cut characters and scenes from the film which they would produce at day one for an extra $10. All they would need to say to the customers who buy it is that the cost of movies has gotten higher so they have to charge more.

A movie is 1.5 - 3 hours, max. A video game, even a "short" game of twenty hours, is much more content and a better value, even at $80.

That being said, I agree that the movie industry has (wisely) not tried to release additional story content for more money at the first day of release*.




*Before anyone respknds with "3-D" or "extended cut DVDs," please read what I wrote - extra STORY content for extra ON THE DAY OF RELEASE. Meaning the day it hits theaters the first time, not nine months down the road when the DVE comes out. 

[ianvillan]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Back to the point the entire review score tirade kicked off... The Witcher is a very succesful AAA franchise that costs "only" the $60 price tag and includes ongoing toolkit support, patches and free DLC. It's a viable model.

With no DRM included. Other companies say they have DLC and DRM because of pirates and without it they would loose money, Yet the Witcher developers were willing to take the risk because they said if you support and look after your customers they will buy your game and stay loyal.

[David7204]

Other mediums really don't have additional content at all. What you get is what you get.

[ianvillan]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Yes, they probably did. That's how many people it takes to make a modern AAA video game.

It takes a lot of people to make an AAA movie, maybe even more then it does to make the games yet the movie industry is not charging $60-$80 for the movies that they produce.

I am waiting for the movie industry to charge $60-$80 for a movie and also cut characters and scenes from the film which they would produce at day one for an extra $10. All they would need to say to the customers who buy it is that the cost of movies has gotten higher so they have to charge more.

A movie is 1.5 - 3 hours, max. A video game, even a "short" game of twenty hours, is much more content and a better value, even at $80.

That being said, I agree that the movie industry has (wisely) not tried to release additional story content for more money at the first day of release*.




*Before anyone respknds with "3-D" or "extended cut DVDs," please read what I wrote - extra STORY content for extra ON THE DAY OF RELEASE. Meaning the day it hits theaters the first time, not nine months down the road when the DVE comes out. 

I agree that you get more hours of content in the games so should pay more, but to say that the games should now be worth $20-$30 more because the cost has suddenly increased is absurd. 

The Movie industry is constantly growing and the size of productions and after work of movies is increasing yet the movie industry knows that we wont go to the movies if they said they would cost $20 more to see.

I believe the price we pay know is justified for an AAA title, but it is getting to the point with all the DLC, Micro Transactions and price rises that it is not worth getting the games no matter how good they are.

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

Other mediums really don't have additional content at all. What you get is what you get.

Not true. Movies (and to lesser extent, books and music) release cut content all the time. But they do so, again, months, if not years, after the initital release. The cut content from movies is fully completed and finished, BTW. Many film producers show early/advance viewings wih multiple scenes/endings and gauge viewer reaction to determine what should be in the final product. 

Yet the movie industry has never had two versions of a movie come out the opening day, one with the vanilla sotry and one with "extra content" story for more money. And that is to the movie industry's credit. 

[David7204]

Actually, CGI is consistently getting cheaper and more versatile and has been for decades. It's enormously easier to do certain stunts and effects with CGI than other means developers had to use not long ago.