350 réponses à ce sujet

[vnth]

...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.

*sigh* I think the problem here is that you're replying too fast without reading anything. First, I have never said that you or anyone else for that matter "irrational, illogical, or stupid" for disagreeing with me. My complaint is that you're not at all getting what im saying and summing my point up completely wrong, a problem that still persists to this post.

 

 

 

So the only real issue you have is that I don't use it.

Wth does that come from? You're the one saying that my comment is hilariously illogical and here we are. Before that im only defend MT against unfair criticisms, and not convincing ppl to use it. 

 

 

 

I haven't slandered it in any way, shape or form, 

that is very hard for me to say because, again, youre the one responded to my post.

 

 

All while bearing out the stated purpose of the thread, that the user scores should be disregarded

and I have point out that it shouldnt. excuse me but I was under the impression that this is a discussion board.

[Giantdeathrobot]

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.

 

That's the point. When ME2 released there wasn't this culture of metacritic bombing in place yet. The game had loads of detractors; about its poor story, about its dumbing down of RPG elements, about its playability on PC (among other things). The forums here and elsewhere were full of complaints, just as they were for Inquisition, and it still scored high on use ratings. I'm positive that if a sequel as contested as ME2 released today, it would also get bombed to a degree.

 

In fact, let's take the number of reviews shown for Origins, ME2 and Inquisition on Metacritic (PC). I'm skipping DA2 because it was indeed largely recognized as not very good and ME3 because the ending debacle skews the score a whole lot.

 

All of them have around 400 positive reviews. Inquisition has a bit more at 460, but it's not really significant.

ME2 and Origins have 50ish mixed reviews, Inquisition has 100ish.

ME2 has less than 40 negative reviews. Origins 70. Inquisition close to 500.

 

So what does that tell us, exactly? More or less that just as many people liked Inquisition (relatively) as the other two games and posted about it on Metracritic. What changed is that many more people have downgraded it.

 

You could find a hundred reasons for that; the game indeed has actual flaws that bear pointing out, EA is easy to hate, Bioware's ''SJW agenda'' pisses some people off, the game requires a pretty beastly PC to run, many things were changed, Bioware drags DA2 and ME3 around, etc.

 

But you could have just as many complaints for any recent Bioware game. As I've said ME2 had lots of detractors, and Origins was far from immune either, it had numerous bugs at release and many people thought it was dumbed down from BG2 et all. But at the time the ideas of bombing the game's Metacritic rating wasn't in vogue. 

 

This, again, isn't to say that Inquisition is better than Origins. I think Origins is better too. The point is that Inquisition was released in a time where review bombing on Metacritic is a thing and its score has suffered for it. Sure, it has spawned a ''if people rate it 0 then I rate it 10'' response, but get this; people were already giving Bioware games 10s. According to the data I found, they weren't giving them 0s en masse however.

 

My favorite example is Company of Heroes 2, a WW2 RTS. The first game got nigh on universal critical acclaim at 8.9 user score and 9.3 review score. The sequel wasn't as good admitedly but still considered solid and played to this day. What score did it get? 2.0. Because it was complete ****, you ask? No, because it portrayed the war in the Eastern Front as a terrible thing and some Russian youtuber told his followers to dogpile on the game. COH2 actually has twice as many positive reviews as the first game, but the sheer amount of bombing it got destroyed its score.

 

Inquisition didn't get it as bad as COH2, definitely. But it suffers from the same broad phenomenon; any game that has any sort of controversial element nowadays gets slammed on Metracritic for it. Meanwhile the re-releases like Last of Us get mad scores.

[Akka le Vil]

The forums here and elsewhere were full of complaints, just as they were for Inquisition, and it still scored high on use ratings. I'm positive that if a sequel as contested as ME2 released today, it would also get bombed to a degree.

 

And to repeat one thing I've said before : EVERY game is full of complaints. The difference is the AMOUNT, and NO, ME2 certainly hadn't the same amount as DAI.

Just like DAO had lots of complaints, yes, but NO not in the same measure than DA2 - and we saw that exact same argument being used there still.

 

DAI's amount of complaints is commensurate with its amount of flaws. I don't buy the ideas about trying to link enough of them with something else in a significant enough numbers to make a difference.

[Marika]

DAO had lots of complaints but DAO had something going for it that DAI doesn't. DAO had proper modding tools which allowed for the modding community to "fix" some of the problems DAI has no official modding tools and the one currently being developed is a loooooong way from being able to do the type of things DAO's tools did.

[Akka le Vil]

Are you seriously dismissing the third point?

 

Yes, simply because it's false : the game has been cracked for a long time now. No reason to claim it's "not possible to play it illegally".

 

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.

 

I'm not convinced that the amount of bugs is due to some external reason. Seems to be simply due to lack of caring and QA testing - same reason why the atrocious UI on PC was allowed to go through.

And the excuse "people just complain because it's not [previous iteration of the serie]" is just so cliché I can't take it seriously. You'll have to do better.

[Marika]

Yes, simply because it's false : the game has been cracked for a long time now. No reason to claim it's "not possible to play it illegally".

The saddest part is I payed $69.99 for the game and Denuvo cuts into my games performance but by all accounts the game without denuvo runs MUCH smoother.

 

I'm hoping BW/EA choose not to use this in the future as I feel it hinders the game more then helps it.

[st0ra]

This game is a good game, yes a GOOD game, not a great game, certainly not the amazing game the hordes of fanboys flood this forum with.

No amount how's, why's, and but's in threads like this can change that.

This game deserves a 7 out 10 for being a good game.

[Marika]

My exact words from a topic about DAI in another forum.

 

 

My only complaints with the game. Obviously the lack of proper modding tools, the excessive load times of course I found a fix for that, the nasty pajamas they MAKE us wear, the use of Race and gender locks on romance partners and a general lack of romance options, the crafting system needed just a little more variety in armor designs/Colors (I wanted the Tavinter robes), The game needed an NPC or something like the Face sculptor in Skyrim so players could change their appearance whenever they wanted to, and the MP was basically just ME3 MP v2.0 without guns.

 

 

I personally would rate DA:I a solid 7.5 if not for the romance things and those Pajamas I'd have rated the game an 8 to 8.5.

[Hair Serious Business]

I just don't get it how anyone can take Metacritic seriously xD

I mean common Metacritic has been famous over the years for one thing,having one person that has multiple accounts! So honestly how can anyone take anything from there seriously?

[Marika]

I think the proper word is infamous more then famous 

[Draining Dragon]

The critic scores are just as much of a joke.

[CronoDragoon]

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.

 

Sure, though that doesn't tell us if the "controversy" of a bunch of people 0 bombing a game is at all justified or intelligent.

 

By the way, has anyone who considers the MC user rating justified in terms of fan consensus dealt with the spanking DA: I has given all other games in terms of aggregate Reader's Choice awards yet?

 

[Akka le Vil]

Sure, though that doesn't tell us if the "controversy" of a bunch of people 0 bombing a game is at all justified or intelligent.

 

=>

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

 

Third or fourth time it's repeated already. I know people have trouble with understanding even basic statistics, but I'm starting to wonder if there is not some correlation here.

[robertthebard]

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.

 
 

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.

 
 

Well your dubious reading ability is also hilarious to me.

 
 

Sorry no offense but now I doubt not only your reading but also your logic skill.
 
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?

 
 

*sigh* I think the problem here is that you're replying too fast without reading anything. First, I have never said that you or anyone else for that matter "irrational, illogical, or stupid

" for disagreeing with me. My complaint is that you're not at all getting what im saying and summing my point up completely wrong, a problem that still persists to this post.
 
Wth does that come from? You're the one saying that my comment is hilariously illogical and here we are. Before that im only defend MT against unfair criticisms, and not convincing ppl to use it. 
 
that is very hard for me to say because, again, youre the one responded to my post.
and I have point out that it shouldnt. excuse me but I was under the impression that this is a discussion board.

For your perusal, the last 4 comments, on top of this post denying that you've said anything negative about me in regards to not using Metacritic. Which unfair criticisms are you referring to? The one where you yourself state that you don't care about it's integrity, or your own? Your stock in integrity is definitely falling though, considering the posts above where you call my logic and my ability to read and comprehend into question, even while admitting that I'm right, Metacritic isn't the most reputable site for reviews. Otherwise, why say it's level of integrity is questionable? The problem here isn't my ability to read, or communicate, or to understand what you're saying. The problem here is that you can't even make up your mind what you're saying long enough for anyone to get a bead on any other position than: You should really use the site, despite all it's inherent flaws.

[Elhanan]

It suddenly occurs to me that some folks are actually using a site known for allowing invalid, unethical, and slanted postings and practices to rage against a company they believe does the same kinds of things. Then they defend one to chastise the other.

[CronoDragoon]

=>

 

 

 

Third or fourth time it's repeated already. I know people have trouble with understanding even basic statistics, but I'm starting to wonder if there is not some correlation here.

 

I didn't say there wasn't a reason. I said the reason is not necessarily justified or intelligent.

[X Equestris]

It suddenly occurs to me that some folks are actually using a site known for allowing invalid, unethical, and slanted postings and practices to rage against a company they believe does the same kinds of things. Then they defend one to chastise the other.

You can never underestimate the number of hypocrites on the Internet.

[Lebanese Dude]

 

*snip*

 

 

Although I disagree that Origins is a better game overall, the rest of your post is on point. Good post.

[Giantdeathrobot]

And to repeat one thing I've said before : EVERY game is full of complaints. The difference is the AMOUNT, and NO, ME2 certainly hadn't the same amount as DAI.

Just like DAO had lots of complaints, yes, but NO not in the same measure than DA2 - and we saw that exact same argument being used there still.

 

DAI's amount of complaints is commensurate with its amount of flaws. I don't buy the ideas about trying to link enough of them with something else in a significant enough numbers to make a difference.

 

I was on the forums when ME2 hit, and the vitriol around here was as bad and probably worse than towards Inquisition. The game had flaws that were denounced in several places. Just not that much on Metacritic because of the reasons I stated.

 

And riddle me this; why was Inquisition a fairly good candidate for Reader's Choice awards on several other websites, Gamespot among them (where it won by a fairly significant margin last time I checked)? Why is there no outrage over the fact that it wins more GOTY awards than any other game this year? Don't say that it has no competition, there were plenty of indie and smaller publicher titles this year that got very good press.

 

I'm not saying the critic reviews or awards are spotless, they sure as hell aren't, if only because they tend to only really pay attention to AAA titles. But there's a fairly massive dissonance between the game's reception on Metacritic and its reception, well, everywhere else including user ratings, and Inquisition is not unique in this regard at all. And a lot of this has to do with the site's very laissez-faire approach to scoring and the reputation it now has for rating bombs big and small.

 

The point is, Metacritic sucks. If you want user reviews, you can get loads of those everywhere else, and these usually have at least minimal amouns of quality control. One could use it to know the flaws in a game, to a degree (assuming they are even posted), but it's not a good representative of how well a game was received at all.

[Jestina]

The user scores are more accurate than the bought off game reviewer scores. I don't even bother with game review sites because most of the AAA developers reward those sites in some way so their game will get a top score. Usually I'll go on Youtube and watch let's plays before deciding whether to get a game or not. I got DA:I at a bargain so it's not much of a loss to me. I would say the review sites wayyyy overrated this rubbish though. DA:I is mediocre at best and not even close to being the best RPG of 2014. For the best RPG's of 2014 you have to look in the indie game section.

[CronoDragoon]

The point is, Metacritic sucks. If you want user reviews, you can get loads of those everywhere else, and these usually have at least minimal amouns of quality control. One could use it to know the flaws in a game, to a degree (assuming they are even posted), but it's not a good representative of how well a game was received at all.

 

If they ever pin a Review thread in the DA: I forum I'd be interested to see the results. Those threads tend to draw more of those who normally would remain silent and better represent (though not perfectly) a cross-section of the fanbase. Reading through the ME3 and even Dragon Age 2 review threads produces a surprising narrative for each that doesn't gel with what revisionists want you to think (ie, ME3 was greatly loved for virtually everything except the ending, and DA2's reception was actually more along the lines of "pretty good but not great" than "piece of crap").

[vnth]

 
For your perusal, the last 4 comments, on top of this post denying that you've said anything negative about me in regards to not using Metacritic. Which unfair criticisms are you referring to? The one where you yourself state that you don't care about it's integrity, or your own? Your stock in integrity is definitely falling though, considering the posts above where you call my logic and my ability to read and comprehend into question, even while admitting that I'm right, Metacritic isn't the most reputable site for reviews. Otherwise, why say it's level of integrity is questionable? The problem here isn't my ability to read, or communicate, or to understand what you're saying. The problem here is that you can't even make up your mind what you're saying long enough for anyone to get a bead on any other position than: You should really use the site, despite all it's inherent flaws.

i tried my best to remain civil throughout your inane rant but no more. I was hoping that your shocking inability to read, to summarize, to logically argue stem from replying too hastily, something that might happen to all of us, but now I see that that is wishful thinking. and even though I foresee the uselessness of saying anything to you at all, i will make one last attempt to answer your stupid charges. First of all the first comment you quote me there isnt my first comment here. I mean how could it possibly be? I was obviously replying to someone else. A person with even the most basic reading skill can see that. and what unfair criticism? well how about this thread and specifically your first reply to me? again, is this something that need to be spell out? secondly, you keep saying i've been negative to you not using MT but provide absolutely no evidence for that whatsoever, and the person here being negative is you. third, you keep saying that im actually agreeing with you but in my lack of integrity, refused to admit so, something that is extreme idiotic to say, given that during our entire conversation, i have only defend my argument against your mocking and you yourself didnt actually say anything about MT, only imply through your criticisms of others that it is worthless. lack in integrity i might be, but at least i have enough of it to honestly admit in my own shortcomings and in that of which i defend. while you assumed you criticize others while not even knowing what that person is saying, claiming victim while being negative to others, and you have the gall to criticize my integrity? this is absolutely hysterical.

[Akka le Vil]

I was on the forums when ME2 hit, and the vitriol around here was as bad and probably worse than towards Inquisition. The game had flaws that were denounced in several places. Just not that much on Metacritic because of the reasons I stated.

 

I was also on the forums when ME2 hit, and it certainly wasn't as much as for DAI by FAR.

Just like I was on the forums when DAO and DA2 hit, and DA2 had MUCH MORE vitriol thrown on it, despite what its defenders said at the time (which is exactly what you said : "I was on DAO forums and it was just as much full of critics as now ![/i], which was of course a mistake at best and a lie at worst, and we certainly now how it turned out in the end).

 

And riddle me this; why was Inquisition a fairly good candidate for Reader's Choice awards on several other websites, Gamespot among them (where it won by a fairly significant margin last time I checked)? Why is there no outrage over the fact that it wins more GOTY awards than any other game this year? Don't say that it has no competition, there were plenty of indie and smaller publicher titles this year that got very good press.

 

Why was DA2 filled with 10/10 and 9/10 reviews and claimed as the new "best RPG of the year" until it exploded mid-flight when it reached the shelves and suddendly some reviews had two points slashed from the score and added sneakily new parts repeating the blames seen on BSN, or downright rewritten ?

 

If you were on the forums at the time, you must remember about it ?

 

I'm not saying the critic reviews or awards are spotless, they sure as hell aren't, if only because they tend to only really pay attention to AAA titles. But there's a fairly massive dissonance between the game's reception on Metacritic and its reception, well, everywhere else including user ratings, and Inquisition is not unique in this regard at all. And a lot of this has to do with the site's very laissez-faire approach to scoring and the reputation it now has for rating bombs big and small.

 

Sorry, but I remember Amazon's reviews of the game to have been pretty low too up to recently, it's not exclusive to Metacritic. And the only reviewer I'm regularly following (a gaming newspaper, one of the only ones I can remember who actually gave bad rating to DA2 before the shitstorm happened) is pretty much agreeing with the controversial opinion of the game ("better than DA2, okayish but pretty underwhelming", and gave it a 7/10).

 

I clearly don't see Metacritic being the single point where DAI is controversial.

 

One could use it to know the flaws in a game, to a degree (assuming they are even posted), but it's not a good representative of how well a game was received at all.

 

Well, facts seem to contradict it. I've yet to see a bombed game that wasn't actually controversial. Law of big numbers and all that.

[robertthebard]

i tried my best to remain civil throughout your inane rant but no more. I was hoping that your shocking inability to read, to summarize, to logically argue stem from replying too hastily, something that might happen to all of us, but now I see that that is wishful thinking. and even though I foresee the uselessness of saying anything to you at all, i will make one last attempt to answer your stupid charges. First of all the first comment you quote me there isnt my first comment here. I mean how could it possibly be? I was obviously replying to someone else. A person with even the most basic reading skill can see that. and what unfair criticism? well how about this thread and specifically your first reply to me? again, is this something that need to be spell out? secondly, you keep saying i've been negative to you not using MT but provide absolutely no evidence for that whatsoever, and the person here being negative is you. third, you keep saying that im actually agreeing with you but in my lack of integrity, refused to admit so, something that is extreme idiotic to say, given that during our entire conversation, i have only defend my argument against your mocking and you yourself didnt actually say anything about MT, only imply through your criticisms of others that it is worthless. lack in integrity i might be, but at least i have enough of it to honestly admit in my own shortcomings and in that of which i defend. while you assumed you criticize others while not even knowing what that person is saying, claiming victim while being negative to others, and you have the gall to criticize my integrity? this is absolutely hysterical.

So even directly quoting you to show where you're doing what you claim you're not doesn't demonstrate what you're doing? It all of a sudden becomes my issue? So you never claimed that the scores should be disregarded, and that one should only read the reviews? Isn't that the premise of the thread, that the scores are a joke? The disconnect here is that you're willing to disregard the scores, the primary reason one goes to a review site, to see how it's scored, to read the reviews, and I, on the other hand, believing that the scores should be disregarded see no point in even going. Yet, somehow, this is my reading comprehension fail? You claim you're here defending the integrity of the site from posters with malicious intent, all the while indicating that the site has low credibility. Isn't that a malicious post about the site? Note here that I'm not going to bother quoting these points again. The last time I did, you didn't bother to read what was presented, but instead just ran on with insulting me for not bowing to your views. The irony? We agree, the scores are worthless. You're willing to look past that to read reviews, I'm not. In fact, I don't use review sites at all because, as a veteran of gaming forums, I know full well that the disenfranchised players are the most vocal on any game forum.

This isn't hard to see, and what's more, it's not hard to understand. The people that are truly happy with the game are too busy playing to come here, especially here, due in large part to posters that will throw out "white knight", "fan boy/girl" and other more derogatory remarks towards people that express satisfaction with the game. You don't have to take my word for it, hop over to the ME 3 forum, and check out what happens when someone has the audacity to say something positive about the game. Hell, there have been threads like it here, where "only retarded people can like this game". So, user review sites like Metacritic, that don't even require one to own the game to post a review, a point I notice you acknowledge, or else why disregard the scores at all, since you seem to really like the site? You claim to not care, using the rage of people that spent 70 bucks on the game, despite the fact that there are likely more than a few "reviews" posted over there written by people that didn't. You claim to not care about the site's integrity, others disagree. If I'm going to use a review site, I want to go in knowing that the reviews are at least honest, and posted by people that actually have more experience with the product than "I watched some videos, and read a couple of reviews". To me, that position reads "I only care about the rage", since it's likely that some of the reviews you're reading were written by people that had plenty of rage, but didn't buy the game.

I've taken the time previously to write reasons why one might write a negative review of the game, and even pointed out that there have been threads here since we learned about this title coming out in support of the claim. How many "the Warden must be in this game" threads have there been? How much rage was generated by "the Warden is an 18 hour War Table mission"? How many of the reviews you read over there point that out as the/a reason for the low score? While I can understand the rage, even though I don't share it, how, exactly, is that an actual experience with this game? We've been told since the beginning that there would be different protagonists throughout the series. What's more, how does that apply to a person that's looking at coming into this series at this stage, that doesn't even know who the HoF is? It seems to me that one that wishes to base their purchase decision on reviews written by people that spent money on the game would be looking at the reviews on Amazon, where one is actually required to purchase the product before they can write a review, instead of looking at a site with the only requirement being an account. I mean, that's only logical, right?

I based my decision on following the information released. I had my deal breaker condition met, MP doesn't tie into SP. I preordered the game, and am glad that I did. Does this mean that now I'm going to be a White Knight or fanboy? I have steadfastly stuck to my belief that 8 skills isn't "tactical". I've been talking against this design choice since it was announced. I also struggled with the PC controls, but already own a controller due to the AC games, plus, it's kinda nice for TW 2. I'd sure love to have some of my issues with it addressed, but even with the issues I have, the game still scores in the 7-7.5 range. I'm sure that that's irrelevant to you, however, not enough rage to be a valid review, right?

[Zu Long]

That's odd, I'm on the PC and apparently I don't appreciate how broken the PC UI is and how much it ruins the game either. I'm enjoying myself quite a bit. The very few serious complaints I have will, no doubt, be patched quite soon. I give it a resounding thumbs up!

Same here. I experienced a couple bugs buying day one, but otherwise, it's been fine. I seem to have not noticed how broken the UI is in my two and a half playthroughs.