250 réponses à ce sujet

[Grieving Natashina]

I haven't trusted a professional game site review in years, and Dragon Age 2 has little to do with it. There seems to be a game journalist version of "payola" that's been going on for a long time now. Payola is an old term dating back to the 1950s, when record companies would pay DJs for telling the kids how great their music was.   Some gaming companies have been doing that with profession game journalists.  Thankfully that's a minority among writers.  Minority or not. has been a sad trend on sites such as Gamespot and IGN for a long time now.

It's not EA or BioWare. This sort of payola crap by the gaming companies has been going on for quite some time. If you're skeptical about the game, wait a couple of months or so. Check out the forums here, check out player reviews and wait for some inevitable bug fixes.

Nice to see the Channel Awesome fans around here! I trust Angry Joe as well as some of the other fan reviewers out there. Find someone who's opinion can trust (a lot of recommendations have been listed) and see what they have to say. Metacritic is very good for written reviews.

No offense to any gaming journalists out there, but when it comes to my games...I trust the player reviews more than some of the professional gaming sites.

Modifié par Starsyn, 23 janvier 2014 - 12:41 .

[Ailith Tycane]

Good thing I don't give a crap about game reviews and buy what I think looks interesting.

[Naesaki]

Ailith430 wrote...

Good thing I don't give a crap about game reviews and buy what I think looks interesting.

Same here, I like to make my own judgements on whether a game interests me, And I love the world Thedas and its Lore to the point that is all I need to keep me interested in DA : I, gameplay is the bottom of the list for me, I want a rich story and world and thats what I see what were going to get.

[addiction21]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Okay, hands up:

Who in here actually ever trusted a game review.

*puts hand up*

I am familiar with a handful (maybe 2-3) reviewers who our interests line up enough that I trust them. That does not mean I don't do my own research on any game and always take whatever they or anyone else says with a "grain of salt"

The truth is most will go buy the game THEY WANT buy regardless of reviews. Professional, blogs or whatever. They will then declare reviews the "truth" or "bought and paid for" depending on how it aligns with their feelings on the game.

If they like the game and its a good review its okay. If they dislike the game and its positive then its clearly been bought because no one else could ever genuinely like a game they did not.

In truth I find this circus amusing.

[dreamgazer]

No one can be trusted. Not even yourself.

[HiddenInWar]

Viktoria Landers wrote...

Angry Joe Show.

[The Night Mammoth]

1. Read reviews from different people. Each website has a large staff of writers, so find who reviewed ME3 and DA2 and maybe don't read reviews written by the same writer.

2. Read reviews from different places. I personally take reviews and scores from multiple sources. Places like Destructoid, the Escapist and GiantBomb are quite reliable, whilst the likes of IGN and Gamespot are more likely to be influenced by publishers and advertising.

3. Don't read any professional reviews at all. Find a blog, read the comments, search a forum, talk to people, You might not get the same quality or detail, but you'll probably be able to gauge the general consensus among the consumers, which often paints a slightly different picture.

At the very least don't preorder games and don't buy stuff like season passes.

[Rotward]

Many of them were paid off, but there were a LOT of negative reviews to balance that.

[GreyLycanTrope]

I have outlets who's opinion I trust/share.

[General TSAR]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Okay, hands up:

Who in here actually ever trusted a game review.

(Raises Hand)

But only from AJ and TB.

[Seboist]

addiction21 wrote...

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Okay, hands up:

Who in here actually ever trusted a game review.

*puts hand up*

I am familiar with a handful (maybe 2-3) reviewers who our interests line up enough that I trust them. That does not mean I don't do my own research on any game and always take whatever they or anyone else says with a "grain of salt"

The truth is most will go buy the game THEY WANT buy regardless of reviews. Professional, blogs or whatever. They will then declare reviews the "truth" or "bought and paid for" depending on how it aligns with their feelings on the game.

If they like the game and its a good review its okay. If they dislike the game and its positive then its clearly been bought because no one else could ever genuinely like a game they did not.

In truth I find this circus amusing.

Nah, game reviews are bought and paid for period. That a mediocre game like DA2 gets a 8.5 on IGN and the reviewer ends up working for Bioware later should tell you there's something rotten in Denmark.

Gaming "journalists" and the game industry have the same kind of incestous relationship that that celebs and entertainment tv shows have(which are the same kind of PR fluff pieces for that industry as "game journalism"). There'll always be a conflict of interests due to these sites depedency on the industry for material to cover.

[SirGladiator]

It's terrible that there are so many people out there whose reviews you simply can't trust, but for a game like DAI it doesn't really matter what the reviewers think about it, we get FAR more information about the game from Bioware than we'll ever get from reviewers, so we'll know if it's worth buying or not regardless of what any 'professional' reviewer thinks. Each review is just one man's opinion anyway, it's not worth any more or less than anybody else's just because somebody calls them a 'professional'. The fact is, whether somebody is paid to write positive, or negative, reviews of DAI I'll make my decision based on what I know about the game, not what somebody else thinks, and right now based on what I know I'd pre-order it in a heartbeat if it were available for pre-order already. I don't need anybody else's opinion to tell me that, based on what I know, I will absolutely love this game. The only thing that would change my mind would be information we learn from Bioware that makes the game sound less awesome than it does now, not anybody's opinions. Think for yourself, learn about the game for yourself, and this scandal won't impact you at all.

[Hrungr]

TotalBiscuit created what I though was a very good, very informative video on this topic. Well worth checking out IMO.

[Wothen]

How could no one in this thread mention god-like Yahtzee from zero punctuation?
Even total biscuit respects the guy

Modifié par Wothen, 23 janvier 2014 - 02:16 .

[JoltDealer]

eluvianix wrote...

Yes, yes, we know. EA's evil....However, I don't believe Bioware would let this sort of thing happen. That being said, I trust reviewers like LadyInsanity and Gamermd83 to do the game justice, and review it well.

Secondly, I am a firm believer in reviewing a game for oneself, rather than trusting game review sites.

I agree wholeheartedly.  We on the BSN have an entire community that we can turn to for reviews.  However, we are admittedly fanatical and biased most of the time.

I think it must be said though, why do we assume that every reviewer will completely abandon their integrity for a few extra bucks?  If you already have a positive opinion of the game regardless of money, the extra compensation is more opportunistic than anything.  Are we really so cynical that we believe that every reviewer on the internet will abandon their journalistic integrity at the site of $3-10 CPM (per one thousand views)?  And this is only for YouTube content.  This does not extend in the same way to sites like IGN or Kotaku.  There is reward for excluding negative features, but it usually comes in the form of exclusive stories and being able to post your review before other sites.

I highly recommend people watch TotalBiscuit's video on the subject.

www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par Crimson Sound, 23 janvier 2014 - 02:17 .

[CybAnt1]

I like Metacritic. It's good for both film and game reviews. What I mostly care about are averages, which Metacritic gives you, especially the larger the number of reviews that are being averaged. In the end, critics may vary in all dimensions, including bought-offedness and knowing their ass from their elbow. But that mean score at least samples a large range of their views.

Then, I turn to the user reviews. It's true game companies can create "fake" user reviews, but they can only do this so many times. Personally, again, while user taste and knowledge could be even more unreliable, seeing a nice sample of thousands of users reactions tend to even all that out.

The perennial DA:O vs. DA2 debate .... well, I do like to point out the Metacritic scores.

DA:O has 91 (of 100).
DA2: 82. (Those are the PC version scores.) Only 9 points less. But clearly even the critics could see it was not an improvement. Still, that puts the score in the Green "Good" Zone.

Buuuuut ... compare the user scores.

DA:O -- User Score: 8.5 (out of 10)
DA II -- User Score: 4.3

Whoa.

I guess there's only two ways to explain that dissonance.

1. The critics saw some greatness in the title that the players/users didn't pick up on.
2. The critics are either bought off, don't know their ass from their elbow, or just are somehow so insulated from real-world fan/user/player reactions that they just don't get what they're upset about.

I'll throw in that just like not all players will come to a game forum, not all players will bother to rate a game title with a score, and the population that will do either is somewhat self-selecting. (i.e. "self-entitled nerd-raging whiners", pick your appellation.) That is part of the explanation, too, but still.

Large sample size means don't lie, even if individual critics or players do.

[slimgrin]

Mirrman70 wrote...

this is not a new tactic and more companies use it than just EA.

It's still a douchebag tactic though, like Ubisoft showing tech demos in place of real game play. 

Modifié par slimgrin, 23 janvier 2014 - 02:28 .

[FreshRevenge]

It is funny that IGN will post their review on a game and say they give a 7, which is okay, or mediocre or is that 6.5? Either way you look at the users review and they are giving the game a much higher score. Makes you think was the reviewer playing the same game? There were a few games that IGN gave a great game a low score but they will give Call of Duty a great score when they didn't change anything to it.

[Martyr1777]

[quote]Martyr1777 wrote...

 That's were you find unbiased reviews.[/quote]


There's no such thing as an "Unbiased review", because there's no way to objectively measure art.[/quote]

The story and graphics are the only thing art related in a game though. Gameplay mechanics, bugs, engine, etc... all this you can totally be objective about and these are the things that morw times then not make or break a game.

Its very easy to be unbias about a game, I do it all the time on boards. Just like I'm a bioware/ME/DA fanboy but I wouldnt pay full price for ME3 or DA2. I may love an IP or something but I'll still lay it out real if something is **** and reviews on metacritic are similar (some of them). However the stuff on the big game sites are just stupid reviewers or flat out lies, in some (many?) cases.

[Savber100]

This is the internet. Nothing stays hidden for long.

[Elhanan]

CybAnt1 wrote...

I like Metacritic. It's good for both film and game reviews. What I mostly care about are averages, which Metacritic gives you, especially the larger the number of reviews that are being averaged. In the end, critics may vary in all dimensions, including bought-offedness and knowing their ass from their elbow. But that mean score at least samples a large range of their views.

Then, I turn to the user reviews. It's true game companies can create "fake" user reviews, but they can only do this so many times. Personally, again, while user taste and knowledge could be even more unreliable, seeing a nice sample of thousands of users reactions tend to even all that out.

The perennial DA:O vs. DA2 debate .... well, I do like to point out the Metacritic scores.

DA:O has 91 (of 100).
DA2: 82. (Those are the PC version scores.) Only 9 points less. But clearly even the critics could see it was not an improvement. Still, that puts the score in the Green "Good" Zone.

Buuuuut ... compare the user scores.

DA:O -- User Score: 8.5 (out of 10)
DA II -- User Score: 4.3

Whoa.

I guess there's only two ways to explain that dissonance.

1. The critics saw some greatness in the title that the players/users didn't pick up on.
2. The critics are either bought off, don't know their ass from their elbow, or just are somehow so insulated from real-world fan/user/player reactions that they just don't get what they're upset about.

I'll throw in that just like not all players will come to a game forum, not all players will bother to rate a game title with a score, and the population that will do either is somewhat self-selecting. (i.e. "self-entitled nerd-raging whiners", pick your appellation.) That is part of the explanation, too, but still.

Large sample size means don't lie, even if individual critics or players do. 

As we noted some time ago, those scores do not appear to be quite objective:

http://www.brainygam...metacritic.html

While reviews can help one discover strengths & weaknesses, subjective grading from users and non-users are not helpful to me. Still passing on metacritic.

[Martyr1777]

Elhanan wrote...

CybAnt1 wrote...

I like Metacritic. It's good for both film and game reviews. What I mostly care about are averages, which Metacritic gives you, especially the larger the number of reviews that are being averaged. In the end, critics may vary in all dimensions, including bought-offedness and knowing their ass from their elbow. But that mean score at least samples a large range of their views.

Then, I turn to the user reviews. It's true game companies can create "fake" user reviews, but they can only do this so many times. Personally, again, while user taste and knowledge could be even more unreliable, seeing a nice sample of thousands of users reactions tend to even all that out.

The perennial DA:O vs. DA2 debate .... well, I do like to point out the Metacritic scores.

DA:O has 91 (of 100).
DA2: 82. (Those are the PC version scores.) Only 9 points less. But clearly even the critics could see it was not an improvement. Still, that puts the score in the Green "Good" Zone.

Buuuuut ... compare the user scores.

DA:O -- User Score: 8.5 (out of 10)
DA II -- User Score: 4.3

Whoa.

I guess there's only two ways to explain that dissonance.

1. The critics saw some greatness in the title that the players/users didn't pick up on.
2. The critics are either bought off, don't know their ass from their elbow, or just are somehow so insulated from real-world fan/user/player reactions that they just don't get what they're upset about.

I'll throw in that just like not all players will come to a game forum, not all players will bother to rate a game title with a score, and the population that will do either is somewhat self-selecting. (i.e. "self-entitled nerd-raging whiners", pick your appellation.) That is part of the explanation, too, but still.

Large sample size means don't lie, even if individual critics or players do. 

As we noted some time ago, those scores do not appear to be quite objective:

http://www.brainygam...metacritic.html

While reviews can help one discover strengths & weaknesses, subjective grading from users and non-users are not helpful to me. Still passing on metacritic.

Realistically the score are more a guide to determine if you should spend the time investigating more. I mena if its a game that sound mildly interesting and it gets good scores then I read some of the middle reviews to see those strengths and weaknesses. If its got a bad average I dont waste any more of my time.

[coldflame]

For the so called mainstream gaming sites like IGN and Gamespot the, their reviews will most likely be biased or out right influenced by game publishers in my opinion. Take IGN and Gamespot as an example, since both rely heavily on game publishers for materials, there doesn't even have to have money involved.

For example, imagine a game from a big publisher got reviewed by both IGN and Gamespot, while IGN gave a positive review and Gamespot gave a negative review. After that whenever that big publisher has a new game preview or press conference only IGN gets invited and not Gamespot. The thought of not getting the invite is enough to influence Gamespot's review.

You might think well, that's only one publisher right, but hang on, if Gamespot does the "unbiased review" to every publisher then eventually no publisher would like to deal with Gamespot

A lot of times the so called game journalist is nothing but a glorified advertising agent for game publishers.

Modifié par tcgtqu, 23 janvier 2014 - 03:42 .

[Mathias]

I recently replayed Dragon Age 2 and gave it another chance. I wanted to be completely fair and judge it on it's own merits. The truth of the matter is as a sequel to DA:O it's pretty damn lousy, but if you look at it as it's own separate thing, it's just average at best. The writing wasn't that good, combat was dull despite it's Hollywood approach, the characters weren't that interesting, and the music was a huge step down to the beautiful and atmosphere soundtrack we had in DA:O.

When I first completed DA2 I was absolutely shocked that it was getting such good reviews across the board. There was no doubt in my mind that there was more than one review site being a little dishonest with their readers. I mean I know some people still found enjoyment out of DA2, but out of all those people i've probably seen 2-3 of them actually say they liked it better than DA:O.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 23 janvier 2014 - 03:33 .