350 réponses à ce sujet

[robertthebard]

I don't have to even photoshop this picture and change the text.

Here we go, ladies and gentlemen, the post that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, how relevant Metacritic is. Let me guess, w/out ever buying the game, you gave it a 0/10 score over there, right? I mean, since the topic of this thread is metacritic, and you're assuming that anyone that doesn't use it is a Bio-drone, I have to question how your cognitive processes really work, or if they work at all. You didn't, after all, notice that, after 9 pages, this thread is about the relevance of reviews on metacritic, and went straight for the troll of Biodrone, with no idea what we're discussing. I have to assume, based on this, that that's the approach you would take to a game review.

[vnth]

The purpose of the review score is to help individuals form an opinion of the game by giving a score WHICH REFLECTS THE GAME. User reviews slamming a 0 and whining about PC controls are more useless than the professional reviews you're so eager to criticise. 

 

Metacritic is well known to be the sewer of the review industry. All your cries about "review scores not meaning to be taken at face value" just add amusement to an otherwise sad situation.

I honestly cannot express how little I care about what the review score is or isnt supposed to be. The only thing care about is that there're about 10 DAI PC reviews in existence because, and I'm paraphrasing a BW rep on reddit, it's easier for reviewers to review it on console. So how about that for professional reviews? They have transcended the level of hiding AAA titles' embarrassment and reached the not giving one **** level.  

[keyip]

I honestly cannot express how little I care about what the review score is or isnt supposed to be. 

 

Which is why your analysis of it's integrity is well off.

[vnth]

Which is why your analysis of it's integrity is well off.

Could be. Again I care very little of MT's integrity, or even my own really. What I care for is its usefulness, and you still have nothing to say about the fact that not a single professional review, perhaps save for AngryJOe but he's a youtuber - hardly fit in your lofty standard surely, point out that the PC control is clunky to put it nicely, something that is mentioned in abundance on MT. And that's just one example.

 

And before you go on about how's you have no problem with the control, or it's not that bad, or anything to that effect, let me say right now that your point would be perfectly valid. After all gaming is a personal experience. People are entitled to like all sorts of crap. But let me point out that the very first PC gameplay video of DAI was played on a controller. A mouse and keyboard video was released weeks later after complaints of baffled fans. Well now everyone can see why.

[Elhanan]

Could be. Again I care very little of MT's integrity, or even my own really. What I care for is its usefulness, and you still have nothing to say about the fact that not a single professional review, perhaps save for AngryJOe but he's a youtuber - hardly fit in your lofty standard surely, point out that the PC control is clunky to put it nicely, something that is mentioned in abundance on MT.

Tissue paper is also useful, but would not write anything of much importance on it. Prefer other sites with more reliable and actual authentic owners, and those that might have integrity.

[vnth]

Tissue paper is also useful, but would not write anything of much importance on it. Prefer other sites with more reliable and actual authentic owners, and those that might have integrity.

Just because the paper is meant for important writings doesnt mean anything important is ever written on it. I dont care for or trust in integrity. I care and trust in the rage and frustration of the people who spent 70 bucks for a console game on PC.

[keyip]

 

Could be. Again I care very little of MT's integrity, or even my own really. What I care for is its usefulness, 

 

Which considering half of them are copy+pasted from others, and others address insignificant issues as if they're world-ending - their usefulness as a REVIEW of the game is very little indeed. As a source of miscellaneous criticisms it may provide SOME use, but other sites do this + much more. As a REVIEW service, it is quite useless.

 

and you still have nothing to say about the fact that not a single professional review, perhaps save for AngryJOe but he's a youtuber - hardly fit in your lofty standard 

 

The topic title declares a position, that position is hardly one that can be argued against. Whether professional reviews are just as bad doesn't at all lessen Metacritic's uselessness as a site. 

 

And its worthlessness is quite legendary.

 

The problem is not that professional reviews are faultless, the problem is people consider metacritic user reviews to be somehow better. A laughable position.

[Akka le Vil]

The purpose of the review score is to help individuals form an opinion of the game by giving a score WHICH REFLECTS THE GAME.

 

Let me quote myself :

 

Scores in themselves are meaningless to begin with, even if we talk only about theorical 100 % honest reviews.

Some people consider 5/10 an "average, moderately fun" game. Many others consider anything under 7 as garbage. Even more think in a totally binary way, putting 10/10 "best game eva'" on everything they like, even if full of glaring flaws (or 0/10 "worst game eva'" on anything they dislike, even if filled with nice elements).

And that's only speaking, again, of 100 % honest reviews.

 

To sum up : a score "which reflects the game" is a good ideal but seldom happens in reality, considering the widely differing perception of what even the scale of scores represent.

 

 

 

User reviews slamming a 0 and whining about PC controls are more useless than the professional reviews you're so eager to criticise.

 

Just like 10/10 fanboyish are. That's not the point, AGAIN.

The point is : Metacritic's informativeness doesn't come from taking one random 0/10 review, it comes from having THOUSANDS of reviews and being able to see TRENDS.

The value of Metacritics comes from its ability to offer a snapshot of countless differing player's opinions, and see if there is a large consensus (one way or another) or a certain amount of controversy. THAT is useful information, and all your knee-jerk hate toward the site doesn't count for much against statistical reality.

 

That was all spelled out for you already. How many times do we have to repeat it ?

[learie]

It's not the scores, it's the comments. Metacritic users who don't like the game describe the MMO grinding, the lack of tactics, the 8 skills, the potions/no healing, m/kb control problems, as opposed to the paid reviewers who usually didn't. You don't have a problem with those issues? You would have disregarded the scores/comments.

I was totally sucked in by the hype: if I'd read the Metacritic user reviews I would have been more cautious about laying down $80 for a game I was told was a successor to DA:O.    

I will be looking at Metacritic before buying any Bioware game in the future.

[keyip]

 

Just like 10/10 fanboyish are. That's not the point, AGAIN.

The point is : Metacritic's informativeness doesn't come from taking one random 0/10 review, it comes from having THOUSANDS of reviews and being able to see TRENDS.

The value of Metacritics comes from its ability to offer a snapshot of countless differing player's opinions, and see if there is a large consensus (one way or another) or a certain amount of controversy. THAT is useful information, and all your knee-jerk hate toward the site doesn't count for much against statistical reality.

 

 

And once more, such a system becomes useless when hundreds of people descend on mass on Metacritic to score their game using their prejudice against A) the publisher or the SJW habits of the developers as the deciding factor,

 

This was also spelled out for you already. I'd also like to ask how many times it needs to be repeated?

[Elhanan]

Just because the paper is meant for important writings doesnt mean anything important is ever written on it. I dont care for or trust in integrity. I care and trust in the rage and frustration of the people who spent 70 bucks for a console game on PC.

This describes meta-critic fairly well; raging gamers who lack integrity, and place more value on money. Pass.

While there may be informative posting from some users, sifting thru the trash to get to it seems counter-productive. Recommend going elsewhere.

[Cyonan]

It's not the scores, it's the comments. Metacritic users who don't like the game describe the MMO grinding, the lack of tactics, the 8 skills, the potions/no healing, m/kb control problems, as opposed to the paid reviewers who usually didn't. You don't have a problem with those issues? You would have disregarded the scores/comments.

I was totally sucked in by the hype: if I'd read the Metacritic user reviews I would have been more cautious about laying down $80 for a game I was told was a successor to DA:O.    

I will be looking at Metacritic before buying any Bioware game in the future.

 

The comments themselves can be useful when they're not just "couldn't romance dragon 0/10" or "could bang Cassandra 10/10" and are actually telling the truth about the game.

 

In general I think it's a good idea to look at both professional reviews as well as user reviews, and to see if there are any platform specific issues. I always look to see how good the PC port is of something that's multi-platform. On top of that never buy into the hype, the entire point of it is to make the game seem far better than it actually is.

 

That's for every game, not just BioWare ones.

[Akka le Vil]

And once more, such a system becomes useless when hundreds of people descend on mass on Metacritic to score their game using their prejudice against A) the publisher or the SJW habits of the developers as the deciding factor,

 

This was also spelled out for you already. I'd also like to ask how many times it needs to be repeated?

 

=>

 

Also, people don't randomly make account just to trash a random game in enough numbers to affect score. If it happens, then it means there is some reason why so many disgruntled people do it, hence it already is an information worthy of consideration

 

If your bias is preventing you from processing information, it doesn't mean there isn't information, just that you're blinding yourself to it.

[robertthebard]

It's hilarious to me that, in reading over the last couple of pages, the Metacritic White Knights are essentially agreeing with the OP's premise: That the scores on Metacritic are a joke, and should be ignored.

Such as this one

Scores in themselves are meaningless to begin with, even if we talk only about theorical 100 % honest reviews.

Some people consider 5/10 an "average, moderately fun" game. Many others consider anything under 7 as garbage. Even more think in a totally binary way, putting 10/10 "best game eva'" on everything they like, even if full of glaring flaws (or 0/10 "worst game eva'" on anything they dislike, even if filled with nice elements).

And that's only speaking, again, of 100 % honest reviews.

That qualifier at the end speaks to the major concern I have, which reviews are 100% honest? We're told now that we should ignore the scores, and only read the reviews. Well, by ignoring the scores, which reviews should one read? Without some kind of reason to look at the actual review, there's no reason to read any of them, which again leaves the site reveling in it's irrelevance.

Then there's this gem: Integrity doesn't matter.

Could be. Again I care very little of MT's integrity, or even my own really. What I care for is its usefulness, and you still have nothing to say about the fact that not a single professional review, perhaps save for AngryJOe but he's a youtuber - hardly fit in your lofty standard surely, point out that the PC control is clunky to put it nicely, something that is mentioned in abundance on MT. And that's just one example.



And before you go on about how's you have no problem with the control, or it's not that bad, or anything to that effect, let me say right now that your point would be perfectly valid. After all gaming is a personal experience. People are entitled to like all sorts of crap. But let me point out that the very first PC gameplay video of DAI was played on a controller. A mouse and keyboard video was released weeks later after complaints of baffled fans. Well now everyone can see why.

Which is kind of sad, really, because I am onboard for the last bit. However, claiming that professional reviews aren't any better sort of shoots holes in the argument that integrity doesn't matter, doesn't it? If integrity doesn't matter, you can just get your reviews from Metacritic, wait, what??? Irony is delicious with my morning coffee.

TL;DR: Since we have the people that are staunchly defending Metacritic telling us the same thing the OP did, that the review scores can be completely ignored, what are they arguing about?

[vnth]

It's hilarious to me that, in reading over the last couple of pages, the Metacritic White Knights are essentially agreeing with the OP's premise: That the scores on Metacritic are a joke, and should be ignored.

Then there's this gem: Integrity doesn't matter.

 claiming that professional reviews aren't any better sort of shoots holes in the argument that integrity doesn't matter, doesn't it? If integrity doesn't matter, you can just get your reviews from Metacritic, wait, what??? Irony is delicious with my morning coffee.

TL;DR: Since we have the people that are staunchly defending Metacritic telling us the same thing the OP did, that the review scores can be completely ignored, what are they arguing about?

Well your dubious reading ability is also hilarious to me. The OP saying that the score doesnt matter and that the site is crap. I'm saying that the reviews can be useful, at least more so than the professional anyway. As for the score, I confess to have no statistical knowledge. As far as I can tell, the score themselves are arbitrary and inexact with people have different rating scales and stuff, but overall it still makes sense. There are highly rated games like the last of us or dao that I find nearly flawless. mid range scores like this one are considered mixed. Is it not so? 

 

As for the integrity thing. Professional reviewers may or may not be honest in their reviews, but the rage of an average joe who spent 70 bucks preordering a crappy game is absolute certain. So yes I do trust more in these unwashed masses than in the highly trained professionals, who had proven times and times again to be not only shady but also incompetent. People are not idiots. Of course everyone knows there may be trolls and haters and bigots among MT reviewrs, and even honest ones can be hyperbolic. That's why you need to look for trends instead of any single one. Why is this new to anyone?

[robertthebard]

Well your dubious reading ability is also hilarious to me. The OP saying that the score doesnt matter and that the site is crap. I'm saying that the reviews can be useful, at least more so than the professional anyway. As for the score, I confess to have no statistical knowledge. As far as I can tell, the score themselves are arbitrary and inexact with people have different rating scales and stuff, but overall it still makes sense. There are highly rated games like the last of us or dao that I find nearly flawless. mid range scores like this one are considered mixed. Is it not so? 
 
As for the integrity thing. Professional reviewers may or may not be honest in their reviews, but the rage of an average joe who spent 70 bucks preordering a crappy game is absolute certain. So yes I do trust more in these unwashed masses than in the highly trained professionals, who had proven times and times again to be not only shady but also incompetent. People are not idiots. Of course everyone knows there may be trolls and haters and bigots among MT reviewrs, and even honest ones can be hyperbolic. That's why you need to look for trends instead of any single one. Why is this new to anyone?

Your dubious logic amuses me. "Don't pay attention to the scores, just read the reviews. Integrity of the reviews doesn't matter". I'm not misrepresenting, or misinterpreting anything you have actually said, in fact, some of that is actually verbatim what you said. So, we have a review site that uses numerical reviews to rate games, but we're supposed to disregard the numerical reviews. What's the point in even going to the site then? What gauge am I supposed to use to pick which reviews I should even read, let alone trust? There is no criteria to go on, if the scores don't matter/should be ignored. The scores are what they exist to provide, so if they're irrelevant, then so is the site.

[Elhanan]

Yes there are users giving ridiculous scores such as zero. Unfair for sure IMO, but the average user score can still be very useful when deciding to buy a game, but no not solely based on the score
 
2900 ratings give PC DA: Origins 8.6 /10. I would never judge a game solely on this score, but it's still an indication that it might be good, doesn't raise any alarm bells.
2400 ratings give PC Inquisition 5.8 / 10. A signal that there might be a problem worth taking a deeper look at.
 
With both games I would also look at professional reviews, videos, recommendations from friends (maybe even try it), user scores from other sites and forums. But with Inquisition I'd really want to find out why it scored so low (other than trolls giving it 0).
 
Following the above I got the impression that Origins was EXACTLY MY KIND OF GAME, which it is
 
Trying Inquisition at a friends, and digging through these forums, I found Inquisition TO BE GREAT, BUT for certain players (*raising my hand*) severely lacking in m/kb controls, character build, and tactics
Lo and behold! The 5.8 / 10 from metacritic made me spend more time deciding whether or not Inquisition is worth my time and money. Maybe after some patches I'll change my opinion about Inquisition, I hope.
MauveTick out

Ironically, my own personal take is close to the professional score.

And as User scores are simply a general guide, looking at specific complaints and praises was helpful; those at Amazon anyway. Have no interest in supporting metacritic at all, even if the same folks might post at both locations. Bad info is still bad; prefer actual Users to post User reviews, am wary of skewed equations to create totals, as well as same day reviews pro or con.

P.S. Also, this:

As has been pointed out, the haters who give the game a 0 and the fanboys who give it a 10 does not statistically cancel each other out. If you have 1000 haters who give the game a 0, and 1000 fanboys who give the game a 10 the average score is 5. If you add 1000 balanced reviews that score somewhere between 5 and 10 with an average of 7,5, that only brings the average up to 6 ((1000x0) + (1000x10) + (1000x7,5))/3000.

So the more polarized the userbase and discussion around the game is, the more the average scores will be drifting towards 5,0.

[Lebanese Dude]

 

2900 ratings give PC DA: Origins 8.6 /10. I would never judge a game solely on this score, but it's still an indication that it might be good, doesn't raise any alarm bells.

2400 ratings give PC Inquisition 5.8 / 10. A signal that there might be a problem worth taking a deeper look at.

 

With both games I would also look at professional reviews, videos, recommendations from friends (maybe even try it), user scores from other sites and forums. But with Inquisition I'd really want to find out why it scored so low (other than trolls giving it 0).

 

Following the above I got the impression that Origins was EXACTLY MY KIND OF GAME, which it is

 

 

Statistics are nice, but one cannot compare in a vacuum.

Considering that DAI:

 

1) was released in a much more high profile manner

2) is a sequel and thus subject to wild unmet expectations and unjustified nostalgia-fueled comparisons to its predecessors

3) is demanding on the machine and therefore unreliable on old-gen consoles and relatively outdated PCs

4) cannot be played illegally and thus has earned the ire of pirates

5) is an EA title and therefore has an immediate hate troll-base

 

I would say that the comparison is unfair

[Akka le Vil]

4) cannot be played illegally and thus has earned the ire of pirates

 

Afraid you're full of wishful thinking here.

Also I'm very unconvinced by the explanations you attempt, trying to find reasons to dismiss the bad press, and I find it amusing how it eerily echoes back to the times of DA2.

ME2 fits all the criteria you're listing save the 3) (which doesn't feel like a particularly big one anyway), and it still didn't reach anywhere near close to this level of controversy.

[Lebanese Dude]

Afraid you're full of wishful thinking here.

Also I'm very unconvinced by the explanations you attempt, trying to find reasons to dismiss the bad press, and I find it amusing how it eerily echoes back to the times of DA2.

ME2 fits all the criteria you're listing save the 3) (which doesn't feel like a particularly big one anyway), and it still didn't reach anywhere near close to this level of controversy.

 

Are you seriously dismissing the third point? Most negative reviews cite technical problems as their main complaint. I haven't even experienced a single technical problem yet but that's because I know how to maintain and upgrade my systems when necessary. Considering previous DA and ME games were relatively light on the systems (barring the notorious yet conveniently forgotten Memory Leak in DAO), I don't really blame people for thinking they can run DAI on whatever system they are currently using. That's unfortunately not the case in DAI. There are a plethora of people who are still running dual cores or 400 series Nvidia cards and posted zeros because they couldn't run the game. Read the recommendations people.

 

One need only look at the remaining complaints and see that they are full of people who are disappointed the game isn't DAO (which is funny to me since I personally consider DAI miles above DAO but that's my opinion really).

 

Also, ME2 came out before the DA2 and ME3 debacle. Let's not go there.

[vnth]

Your dubious logic amuses me. "Don't pay attention to the scores, just read the reviews. Integrity of the reviews doesn't matter". I'm not misrepresenting, or misinterpreting anything you have actually said, in fact, some of that is actually verbatim what you said. So, we have a review site that uses numerical reviews to rate games, but we're supposed to disregard the numerical reviews. What's the point in even going to the site then? What gauge am I supposed to use to pick which reviews I should even read, let alone trust? There is no criteria to go on, if the scores don't matter/should be ignored. The scores are what they exist to provide, so if they're irrelevant, then so is the site.

Sorry no offense but now I doubt not only your reading but also your logic skill. I mean how is that verbatim? I said not to take the score at face value, not disregarding it. for instance, let say a game got a 50 score. That doesnt mean the game is terrible or average, it doesnt even mean that it deserves the 50 score. it only mean there is clearly an issue that you need to investigate further by reading the reviews. If you dont find yourself agreeing with the score, dont beat yourself over it because thats not the point.

 

And again for the last time I do not trust in or care for the integrity of any reviewers, as in I do not expect any review to be written in complete honesty and without other motives, and as such I prefer to trust in fact that people tend to be pissed when they bought crappy games. Also MT's integrity may be questionable but it's not nonexistent. It was MT that pointed out problems with AAA titles before anyone else when the professional community was in complete approval, so how's that for integrity?

[robertthebard]

Sorry no offense but now I doubt not only your reading but also your logic skill. I mean how is that verbatim? I said not to take the score at face value, not disregarding it. for instance, let say a game got a 50 score. That doesnt mean the game is terrible or average, it doesnt even mean that it deserves the 50 score. it only mean there is clearly an issue that you need to investigate further by reading the reviews. If you dont find yourself agreeing with the score, dont beat yourself over it because thats not the point.
 
And again for the last time I do not trust in or care for the integrity of any reviewers, as in I do not expect any review to be written in complete honesty and without other motives, and as such I prefer to trust in fact that people tend to be pissed when they bought crappy games. Also MT's integrity may be questionable but it's not nonexistence. It was MT that pointed out problems with AAA titles before anyone else when the professional community was in complete approval, so how's that for integrity?

I really love this, I do: You directly contradict the purpose of a site, and then proceed to question my logical capabilities and reading comprehension. There's a reason some people rely on Metacritic, and I think we've just uncovered it...

[vnth]

I really love this, I do: You directly contradict the purpose of a site, and then proceed to question my logical capabilities and reading comprehension. There's a reason some people rely on Metacritic, and I think we've just uncovered it...

I distinctly remember I covered this above. Yes I do not care for the purpose's of MT or whatever it is supposed to be. I only care for how it is useful to me personally. 

 

Also you seem to be fascinated by the fact that i dont take MT score at face value. To be fair I dont trust any review score in general. AAA games almost always get an automatic above 7. Why should I care if it's a 7 to someone and an 8 to someone else? If the so called professionals had been more competent in their job in the first place, people wouldnt have to rely on MT.

[robertthebard]

I distinctly remember I covered this above. Yes I do not care for the purpose's of MT or whatever it is supposed to be. I only care for how it is useful to me personally.

...and, apparently, as I pointed out yesterday, how far down my throat you can cram how useful I should find it, and how irrational, illogical, and now, apparently stupid I am for disagreeing. All while bearing out the stated purpose of the thread, that the user scores should be disregarded. So the only real issue you have is that I don't use it. I haven't misrepresented anything about the site, I haven't slandered it in any way, shape or form, and have, in fact, tacitly agreed that the scores are useless, and yet, we've had two more pages of "You don't know what you're talking about, the site is great".