126 réponses à ce sujet

[Pateu]

I read up on most ME3 reviews. Most called it stellar and had little complaints. Almost none I've read complained about the ending ( in contrast with the mad playerbase ).

 

The difference between the review scores and fan scores are huge, though. Just like with watch dogs, we're talking 9-9.5 from critics, whereas on metacritic fans rated it 5.1

 

That's... appalling.

 

Clearly, most fans were really jaded by the ending ( but considering what I've seen in my 2 months here, I'm not exactly sure their criticism is valid ) but the game is nowhere near a 5.1

 

 

So what's your opinion on this mess?

 

Was the game really that bad or are fans just complaining to complain?

 

My opinion is that you can't bash a great game that spans 30-40 hours for 10 minutes at the end.

[Althix]

ignore both meta and users scores.

[KaiserShep]

Hard to say, but a user is more likely to cast aside any and all positive aspects of a game or work of fiction and simply declare it to be total garbage that should be piled up and incinerated.

[BioWareM0d13]

A little bit of column A and some of column B.

[Endurium]

I think professional reviewers aren't critical enough (afraid of stepping on toes; biting the hands that feed them, etc.), and players are overly critical. I am careful when reading reviews from either camp, and in the case of ME3 I purchased it and made my own decision. The only way I will play it nowadays is as the final part of a trilogy play-through.

[Cheviot]

Both critics and fans can be caught up in hype, whether positive or negative.  Also, Metacritic isn't a useful measure of fan opinion.  Too many people who use it to astroturf.

[dreamgazer]

Professional reviewers are overly cautious, and players or "fans" are prone to the disingenuous rating-bomb mentality.  It's a problem going both ways.

[zestalyn]

I'd be pissed if alot of critics gave ME3 a low rating just cause of the ending. It's a good thing they didn't. They're right, ME3 for the most part is pretty damn awesome, and the epilogue, despite the ending's flaws, still made me uber emotional. 

[dreamgazer]

I'd be pissed if alot of critics gave ME3 a low rating just cause of the ending. It's a good thing they didn't. They're right, ME3 for the most part is pretty damn awesome, and the epilogue, despite the ending's flaws, still made me uber emotional. 

 

Some critics even liked the ending to the game. It happens.

[Abraham_uk]

I read up on most ME3 reviews. Most called it stellar and had little complaints. Almost none I've read complained about the ending ( in contrast with the mad playerbase ).

 

The difference between the review scores and fan scores are huge, though. Just like with watch dogs, we're talking 9-9.5 from critics, whereas on metacritic fans rated it 5.1

 

That's... appalling.

 

Clearly, most fans were really jaded by the ending ( but considering what I've seen in my 2 months here, I'm not exactly sure their criticism is valid ) but the game is nowhere near a 5.1

 

 

So what's your opinion on this mess?

 

Was the game really that bad or are fans just complaining to complain?

 

My opinion is that you can't bash a great game that spans 30-40 hours for 10 minutes at the end.

 

 

Professional video game critics are players too. Heck they play more video games than the regular joe gamer.

Secondly regular joe gamers can also be critics.

 

The lines are more blurred than you think.

What truly separates AngryJoe from Naomi Kyle?

Not much aside from gender and a lot less anger from Naomi.

 

Here is a thought. When you play the garbage games that professional critics have to play, suddenly Mass Effect 3 seems like a gem by comparassan.

 

 

 

How many people on this thread has actually played Road to Retribution?

Nobody? Well that's because A we know that game is terrible and B we aren't in a job that forced us to play that garbage excuse for a game.

[Abraham_uk]

Point A: Horrible regimes are brought down by "vocal minorities" not "vocal majorities". Silent majorities are the ones who are battered so badly by the horrible regime that they are simply unable to fight.

 

Point B: There is no consensus opinion on Mass Effect 3. We don't really know what the majority thought of the game. We know a large mass of people were upset by the endings. We know a great deal of those people include us The Bioware Forum/ex-Bioware Social Network crowd.

 

Point C: There are no reliable data on how "good" a game is. Too subjective, and we can't get every single person's opinion.

 

Point D: What the fans think of the game is good enough. Don't look for what the "majority" thinks. Look for recurring critiques from both professional and non professional critiques. Get as many different point of views as possible. Then you have some reliable data to work on. Sure it's all qualitative but the quantitative data is flat out useless. It's all sales figures, polls and meta critic scores.

 

Point E: Metacritic isn't useless. Ignore the scores. Read positive and negative reviews from professional and non-professional critics. Metacritic is the best tool out there for determining how "good" a game is and whether or not you will like said game. Just ignore the numbers! The numbers are completely useless! The reviews are the useful part.

 

Point F: [The opening poster did not fall into this trap] If you have any allegations about professionals and non professionals review bombing Metacritic, provide some evidence to back up the claims. Also if you have any claims about professional reviewers have been bribed, prove it. I am not asking for proof that this stuff happens. Of course it does. I am asking for evidence of specific individuals/organisations being culpable. These are serious allegations that demand strong evidence that can hold up in court.

 

Point G: [The opening poster did not fall into this trap] We're not all the same. Not all professional video game journalists/critics are the same. Not all non professional game journalists/critics are the same. Not all gamers are the same. Please bare this in mind.

[BioWareM0d13]

Professional video game critics are players too. 

 

While that is true presumably not all of them are people who would play RPGs outside of having to review one, just as there are gamers with little or no interest in RPGs. That might in part explain why the critics were nearly as silent about the endings as the fans were vocal.

 

Many probably never got to the endings, and some that did may not have been as invested in the story as fans.

[Pateu]

I think professional reviewers aren't critical enough (afraid of stepping on toes; biting the hands that feed them, etc.), and players are overly critical. I am careful when reading reviews from either camp, and in the case of ME3 I purchased it and made my own decision. The only way I will play it nowadays is as the final part of a trilogy play-through.

 

On that end, I read Gamespot's ( the place I mainly read reviews from ) reviews of games I know and played- Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Dark Souls, TES series, World of Warcraft, GW2.

 

To my utter surprise, I was agreeing with most ratings ( and most of the time they were lower than my own. Dark Souls was a 9 compared to my 9.5 and Origins/ME3 should've been near 10 ).

 

So I can't accuse Gamespot of giving too much when I thought they gave too little.

[Daemul]

While that is true presumably not all of them are people who would play RPGs outside of having to review one, just as there are gamers with little or no interest in RPGs. That might in part explain why the critics were nearly as silent about the endings as the fans were vocal.

Many probably never got to the endings, and some that did may not have been as invested in the story as fans.

Eh, all the reviewers will have finished the game, publishers send review copies out a couple of weeks before a games release specifically so that reviewers have time to play through it and finish it.

The real answer was posted above, reviewers play far more games than the average person, meaning they come across a lot of dross, which most people won't. So when they actually do come across good games it feels like Christmas. Reviewers are able to look at games objectively and say, "The ending was average, but the rest of the game was so good that it shouldn't affect the score", whilst the core fan base will be acting as if the whole game sucks just because the ending didn't live up to their expectations.

Games with a 90+ score on metacritic are by and large objectively good games, regardless of what some overcritical fanbases might sometimes wish to believe.

[capn233]

The Zero Punctuation review is pretty good.

[Abraham_uk]

The Zero Punctuation review is pretty good.

 

I rarely agree with that guys opinions but you know what?

His show is really, really entertaining.

He sees games in an entirely different way.

Also he is very, very witty.

I recommend this show.

 

I also recommend the Jimquisition. Thank God for Jim!

[Daemul]

The Zero Punctuation review is pretty good.

It is. I love the message he leaves at the end of the video.

[NM_Che56]

A quote from Ratatouille:

 

"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so".

[Nuclear]

I never take stock in what "professional reviewers" say. Most of them get payed off by the game publishers, there are those that don't play the games like they say they do (I remember one guy getting called out for lying by saying he played a game on normal yet got the easy ending, while complaining about how easy the gameplay was. He then proceeded to pretend he never got caught)  or even bother to play enough of it to really get used to it and the way they review similar points on different games is awful.

 

Video game reviewers are as terrible as video game reporters. Absolutely awful, no journalistic integrity whatsoever.

[Malanek]

Eh, all the reviewers will have finished the game, publishers send review copies out a couple of weeks before a games release specifically so that reviewers have time to play through it and finish it.

The real answer was posted above, reviewers play far more games than the average person, meaning they come across a lot of dross, which most people won't. So when they actually do come across good games it feels like Christmas. Reviewers are able to look at games objectively and say, "The ending was average, but the rest of the game was so good that it shouldn't affect the score", whilst the core fan base will be acting as if the whole game sucks just because the ending didn't live up to their expectations.

Games with a 90+ score on metacritic are by and large objectively good games, regardless of what some overcritical fanbases might sometimes wish to believe.

Reviewers have been caught out in the past by not finishing games. I would be very surprised if every critic finished ME3 before posting a review.

 

As to the OP, I do think fans went off the deep end based on both the ending and expectation. Most of the game was game was great in terms of the emotional strings it pulled. No other game I have ever played got close to that. Aside from the ending I do think the overall plot and going after the super weapon was pretty average, I kept hoping there was some twist meaning that it wasn't going to be important. It is tricky because the Reapers were written up to be omnipotent, but I still think they could have done better. But because of the emotional content, the lower level storytelling below the main plot, and the amazing multiplayer, I would personally give it more than 9/10 despite its big flaws.

[dreamgazer]

I never take stock in what "professional reviewers" say. Most of them get payed off by the game publishers ...

 

Yeah, this isn't true. Some may receive the games free from the publishers and tone down their language to maintain the relationship, but it doesn't go down like the bolded. 

[Jaulen]

Personally, I think reviewers are too easy. a 10 or even a 9.5 should be VERY VERY hard to get. A game would need to be almost perfection in every aspect (interface, score, gameplay, graphics, style, story, voice overs, soundeffects) to get a score like that if I was a critic. But I'm not. Thank the maker.

 

But as for reading fan/user/customer reviews (for any product)...I always read through some of the reviews that give the best, the worst and the middle ratings and distill.

Reviews that are like "This was the best! So awesome!" get ignored....why did you think so?

Reviews that are like "EA Sucks!" get ignored as does "I don't like Y because it isn't X"

[Malanek]

I would also say professional reviewers have to put their name to it, which in turn opens themself to criticism. Anonymous reviews are virtually useless in terms of knowing whether you can trust them, all you can do is absorb a large number, identify the non-stupid ones, and try to determine a trend.

[dreamgazer]

The new Metacritic trend of red-zone reviews saying that any positive reviews have to be devs or fanboys is adorable. 

[Abedsbrother]

Whatever. Better to try something yourself. But the prospective buyer needs something to go on. For me, that's what gameplay videos are for (preferably sans commentary). I've got expectations of what I want a game to look and play like. Reviews and pre-rendered trailers rarely help.

And while it's no help to the prospective buyer, the multiplicity of opinions is better IMO than having a unified chorus. 

People like to feel good about themselves. Getting someone to adopt your opinion as their own is a great power-trip. No surprise that pushing back against an established (generally accepted) opinion / game review can (but doesn't always) trigger petulant argumentative rhetoric.