350 réponses à ce sujet

[Zu Long]

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").

Reading the ME3 reviews is actually kind of heartbreaking when you see the the ending being mentioned as awful in post after post after post. But it is interesting to see how much people liked the rest of the game.

[vnth]

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. 

yup as i thought still nothing. just fyi i have already answered all these things over and over again but here we go: NO. quoting or summarizing someone makes absolutely no difference when you yourself dont understand the argument. for the last god**** time I never said you should disregard the score. that;s what the OP said. I answered to this by saying ppl should stop taking the score at face value. the mixed user score reflects problems ppl have with the game, which, arbitrary as it is, is still far more useful than the near-perfect critic score. I didnt want to get in too much into the score thing to avoid a whole separate argument of what score DAi actually "deserves," something that is stupid, pointless, and just as arbitrary, so I summed it up shortly as "stop taking the score at face value," something that was misunderstood by no one, agreeing with me or no, except for you.

 

 

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? 

I made complaints of your reading, analyzing, and logic skills, and as much I I feel bad about doing so, you had once again confirm all of these complaints in a single sentence. i suppose this is for the whole "you were in fact agreeing with me all along but too stupid to know" argument? well first of all unfair criticism doesnt equate with malicious intent. for one i dont know or care what is the intent of these criticisms. secondly, the integrity of the site isnt the same thing as the integrity of the reviewers, for if the reviewers' motive is questionable but their complaints are valid, then the site is credible as a whole. thirdly, if the users' opinions are more astute than those of the critics, than regardless of the users and the critics' integrity, the users' opinions are still more credible. 

 

 

We agree, the scores are worthless. 

yea i know youve telling that for quite some time now but do we?

 

 

You're willing to look past that to read reviews

this had been pointed out times beyond counting by not just myself. you look to the reviews because of the score, not in spite of it. 

[robertthebard]

the integrity of the site isnt the same thing as the integrity of the reviewers.

This, right here, is exactly what I've been talking about, the whole entire time. How can a site where the users write the reviews not be judged by the integrity of the reviewers? It is exactly that. A site based on user input is only as reliable as the user input. Whether it has posts you agree with or not is irrelevant, to me, and to anyone else that feels like the site is a waste of bandwidth. Why would I think that? Because I know that a site is only as reliable as it's users. The fact that one isn't even required to own a game to write a review means that it's not worth even looking at. I keep waiting for them to add the Game Owner section here, like they did for ME 3 for the same reason that I don't use Metacritic, or the BSN, to base my buy/don't buy on. The disenfranchised are going to be loud, whether they bought the game or not.

You claim you want to base your decisions on the rage of people that actually spent money on the game, and then site Metacritic? How do you know any of the people you read even bought the game, and aren't basing their "review" on someone else's review? What controls are in place to make sure that a user review is actually written by someone that is actually a user? That's right, none. There are no guarantees that the user review you read isn't just a review of someone else's review.

[Akka le Vil]

Reading the ME3 reviews is actually kind of heartbreaking when you see the the ending being mentioned as awful in post after post after post. But it is interesting to see how much people liked the rest of the game.

 

Ending being seen as awful is pretty normal. What's despairing is seeing people so focused on the terrible endings they forget the rest of the game was also a wreck.

[Elhanan]

Ending being seen as awful is pretty normal. What's despairing is seeing people so focused on the terrible endings they forget the rest of the game was also a wreck.

At least there is a consistency to be seen here. However, I differ on both games, so likely will continue to avoid Meta-critic and those reviewers that champion for it.

[vnth]

How can a site where the users write the reviews not be judged by the integrity of the reviewers? It is exactly that. A site based on user input is only as reliable as the user input. 

ive answered this already, and i dont expect anyone else to agree with me. the whole is more than sum of its parts.

 

 

You claim you want to base your decisions on the rage of people that actually spent money on the game, and then site Metacritic? How do you know any of the people you read even bought the game, and aren't basing their "review" on someone else's review? What controls are in place to make sure that a user review is actually written by someone that is actually a user? That's right, none. There are no guarantees that the user review you read isn't just a review of someone else's review.

for a site that supposedly populated by trolls who havnt play any game, it is absolutely amazing that it can consistently and accurately reveal faults of any major releases before anywhere else, some of which are completely ignored by critics. lets focus back on DAi. Ive been followed MT since day 1 these have been there since day 1: mmo gameplay, fanficy and short storyline, massive fetch quests, crap pc control, console interface. whether or not you agree with these complaints aside, the fact that they have been resonated many times over by many different people who afterward made the same complaints here should sufficiently proves that these are not unfounded. so yes,  MT is clearly devoid of anyone  other than prophetic trolls.

[Elhanan]

ive answered this already, and i dont expect anyone else to agree with me. the whole is more than sum of its parts.
for a site that supposedly populated by trolls who havnt play any game, it is absolutely amazing that it can consistently and accurately reveal faults of any major releases before anywhere else, some of which are completely ignored by critics. let focus back on DAi. Ive been followed MT since day 1 these have been there since day 1: mmo gameplay, fanficy and short storyline, massive fetch quests, crap pc control, console interface. whether or not you agree with these complaints aside, the fact that they have been resonated many times over by many different people who afterward made the same complaints here should sufficiently proves that these are not unfounded. so yes,  MT is clearly devoid of anyone  other than prophetic trolls.

Also has those that scored 10's and praised the games also from Day 1. So many prophets; so many inconsistencies....

[robertthebard]

ive answered this already, and i dont expect anyone else to agree with me. the whole is more than sum of its parts.
for a site that supposedly populated by trolls who havnt play any game, it is absolutely amazing that it can consistently and accurately reveal faults of any major releases before anywhere else, some of which are completely ignored by critics. let focus back on DAi. Ive been followed MT since day 1 these have been there since day 1: mmo gameplay, fanficy and short storyline, massive fetch quests, crap pc control, console interface. whether or not you agree with these complaints aside, the fact that they have been resonated many times over by many different people who afterward made the same complaints here should sufficiently proves that these are not unfounded. so yes,  MT is clearly devoid of anyone  other than prophetic trolls.

This thread would give one all the "ammunition" one needs to post 0/10 reviews for the PC, wouldn't it? It's also not locked behind a Game Owner's forum, so anyone can see it, and post in it. Also, we can do w/out the hyperbole, where did I ever say that that's the only kind of review there? Questioning which are posted by players and which are posted by trolls is the exact distinction I have been trying to point out, but, in my ignorance, and lack of logical thinking, I haven't been able to show you that. Perhaps, closer to the truth is that you're so dead set against a negative opinion of your favorite review site that hyperbole is your best possible defense? Or, as your first sentence here implies, you simply don't care, so long as they maintain the level of rage you feel is appropriate towards the game.

Which brings me back to this major point: You may not care, others of us do. Although, I have to say, with the effort you're making to try to "shout me down" about it, you evidently care a great deal. If I put this much effort into defending the game, I'd be called a white knight, fanboy or BioDrone. Have they coined the Meta-drone title yet?

[vnth]

This thread would give one all the "ammunition" one needs to post 0/10 reviews for the PC, wouldn't it? It's also not locked behind a Game Owner's forum, so anyone can see it, and post in it.  so long as they maintain the level of rage you feel is appropriate towards the game.

honestly i couldnt care less whatever that thread is or what's in there, but if it contains so many accurate information then do me a favor a link me a similar one before every major releases to save me the trouble of reading mt. i assume they will be exactly the same yes? anyway im thinking buying witcher 3 next year. dont forget

 

 

Also, we can do w/out the hyperbole, where did I ever say that that's the only kind of review there?

it's about the message they tried to bring across, not how they worded it. their hyperbole offended you and your perception of what the game should be and so you ignore them completely. well it's your choice. 

 

 

Questioning which are posted by players and which are posted by trolls is the exact distinction I have been trying to point out, but, in my ignorance, and lack of logical thinking, I haven't been able to show you that. 

well if thats the case you dont really need any logical thinking whatsoever. you only need to say it to me like one of the poster here have before. anyways believe that the world is out to get you if you wish.

 

 

 Or, as your first sentence here implies 

nope. if you need any proof that im not being mean, or discourteous, or  trying to "shout you down," when im questioning your reading ability, you need to look no further. you keep insisting that my mid-conversation post is my first and pointing out as much to you changes nothing.

 

 

with the effort you're making to try to "shout me down" 

well if you bother to read or capable of reading at all, you can see that throughout this thread that im more or less civil with everyone including you even after reading your "lol look at this 'hilariously stupid gem'" provocation. unlike you i have mocked and insulted no one except for the critics and their reviews. but as this drags on i grew increasingly annoyed toward your victim attitude and your continuous attempts to misquote my arguments. let just point out some examples of the first part here: you fired the first shot, and immediately cried. we've been both corresponding, but my effort is excessive. you drags this conversation on and forcing me to answer, and therefore im a fanboy. well you know what, before assume to intervene a conversation and attempted to pose a superior attitude, at least know what the other person is talking about.

[Han Master]

This metascore is for the PC version of the game and yet the fan boys want to inflate the realistic score to con PC gamers?

[robertthebard]

This metascore is for the PC version of the game and yet the fan boys want to inflate the realistic score to con PC gamers?

That's the rub, right there. 0/10 and 10/10 day 1 reviews are worthless. They all, however, contribute to the overall score. So what's the point of the site? Unless one is going to read every review posted, and somehow can know that everyone posting a review has actually played it, the site, as presented, is worthless. It's whole point is the Metascore, and yet, we can't rely on it, because it can be artificially inflated and deflated, and it can be "reviewed" by someone that's never even played.

[Akka le Vil]

for a site that supposedly populated by trolls who havnt play any game, it is absolutely amazing that it can consistently and accurately reveal faults of any major releases before anywhere else, some of which are completely ignored by critics.

 

Touché.
 

[keyip]

\for a site that supposedly populated by trolls who havnt play any game, it is absolutely amazing that it can consistently and accurately reveal faults of any major releases before anywhere else, 

 

It doesn't, actually. Yet another blatant falsehood.

 

Ive been followed MT since day 1 these have been there since day 1: mmo gameplay, fanficy and short storyline, massive fetch quests, crap pc control, console interface. 

 

Most of these criticisms were making the rounds BEFORE Metacritic included it. Let's go through them individually.

- Bioware's been accused of MMO gameplay since Origins. This criticism was making the rounds months before the game was released.

- Criticism of Bioware's writing has been doing the rounds for a decade, and whenever youngsters don't like a person's writing they straight away reach for the "fanfic" label. It's old-hat.

- You mean an open-world game is criticised for having a short storyline? Heaven's no. Old news, son.

- Massive fetch quests. Fetch quests have been a constant criticism of Bioware for years, this criticism started popping up minutes after people played the game. 

- Bioware's games have been getting criticised for console interface for years.

- Crap PC controls were doing the rounds literally minutes after people loaded the game.

 

2 points. 1 - A lot of these criticisms are cookie-cutter, generic Bioware criticisms 2 - The ones that weren't appeared on other sites long before Metacritic reviews started going up. If you don't realise this then you're not on the right sites, probably because you're spending too long on Metacritic.

 

Metacritic have unreliable review scores, non-insightful user reviews (some of which from people who don't play the game, and others just repeating in less detail what others have already said,) and a ton of people who complain for reasons other than the game itself (for example, publisher behaviour, and beliefs of the dev.) Once again it's a useless site with hardly any redeemable features. None of the reviews are balanced so they don't give the whole picture, merely part. I see no reasons for anyone other than trolls to visit it.

 

 MT is clearly devoid of anyone  other than prophetic trolls.

 

Nope, they're filled with trolls who rate a game for petty reasons, give non-insightful remarks, or sometimes just don't play the game at all. They're just filled with normal internet trolls.

[keyip]

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.

 

There's so little actual, unique, detailed information on the site it's not worth going. Especially when taking into consideration the worthless scores, the useless trolls, and other people tainting the pool.

 

Once more it's the sewer of the review industry. I'll happily argue this with you all month.

[keyip]

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. 

 

Once more, the offerings by the users are not reviews, and therefore as reviews they fail miserably. You may use it as a repository of criticisms if you wish but I question the value of such an idea.

 

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. 

 

A mean score which has been tainted by hundreds of troll votes, and also hundreds of fanboy votes, somehow makes sense does it.

 

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. 

 

If you think everybody who votes on Metacritic has actually bought the game, then you're naive. The rage may be certain, the cause is not. Considering Bioware is targeted from fans raging at EA, and fans raging at their SJW tendency, I'm surprised you find much use for them at all.

 

That's why you need to look for trends instead of any single one. Why is this new to anyone?

 

It's not new. The trend people see is Metacritic being absolutely useless.

[vnth]

It doesn't, actually. Yet another blatant falsehood.

lol is it? do you want me to play the pc control card again? and why is this so hard to believe? people are free to make complaints, some of them are common enough to become trends. there's nothing extraordinary about that. the same thing could be say about professional critics when there's is no advertisement money involved and they're free to crap on minibudget games.

 

 

Most of these criticisms were making the rounds BEFORE Metacritic included it. Let's go through them individually

if there's any blatant falsehood around, it's this. NO. the mmo and fetch quests  complaints were specific for DAI. as for weak and short storyline, as well as massive dead world, these were actually mentioned in even some 7ish-tier critic reviews, including IGN, thus your justification here is also false. also are you really suggesting that a significant amount of random folks on mt can cherry pick generic complaints about the game even before it come out and post it to exaggerate the game actual problems? lol who's giving mt too much credit now?

 

 

Bioware's games have been getting criticised for console interface for years. 

yup another blatant falsehood. dao and da2 ui were about the same. me2 and me3 had moved away from the rpg inventory long ago. people who complain would complain about that, not the UI.

 

 

Metacritic have unreliable review scores

i will once again stand my round and refuse to get into the whole "objective" score thing. in fact that is is the opposite of my point from the beginning.way too many people use the score to validate their preformed opinion about the game, or even worse, use a single score by someone else to determine the game worth.  to that i will say the same thing ive been saying: whatever the score is doesnt make the game's problems disappear. the score can only suggest if there is any significant fault in the game, not its true worth. this whole forum is full of people who say things along the line of "i dont have any problem with it waht are haters talking about," as well as their opposite, some would say such as me. regardless, being positive is just as vapid as being negative. if the a low score shouldnt discourage people, high score too shouldnt encourage people, which render the score entirely useless. as for the critic score, you could either pick a 7 or an 8 and you'll get 45% chance of being right for any blockbuster so a coin is just about as good. so again, instead of basing your buying decision on some number, watch some gameplay video and look at the complaints is far more useful.

 

 

Nope, they're filled with trolls who rate a game for petty reasons, give non-insightful remarks, or sometimes just don't play the game at all. They're just filled with normal internet trolls.

lol i dont really know what to think when people take my sarcasm for seriously. both critic and mt have their issues. i simply find the critics willingness to ignore and sugarcoat big studios' problems unforgivable. but we not debating which is more useful. we're talking about whther or not mt can be useful at all, which it can by your own admission, just not as a "proper" review. but im gonna say this though. if a proper review doesnt give the basic information that even some random rantings can, only provide abstract opinion that you can get by simply watch a video, then what good is it? as for about the petty reasons and the noninsightful remarks, the same thing could be say about kotaku. 

[robertthebard]

There's so little actual, unique, detailed information on the site it's not worth going. Especially when taking into consideration the worthless scores, the useless trolls, and other people tainting the pool.
 
Once more it's the sewer of the review industry. I'll happily argue this with you all month.

I wouldn't. It's the same circular argument over and over, and people so desperate to defend the site that they latch on to outright lies to do so. To wit: This post, where what I said, and what they said I said are completely different things, and look, it got "Touche" from another rabid Metacritic user. This is the quality of people that use it, people that don't want to be informed about the game, but want to make sure there's a certain base level of rage, even if that rage is about stuff that's completely made up. To whether or not the "reviews" on the site will actually hit on actual issues; if you put a bunch of monkeys in a room with typewriters, they'll eventually churn out the complete works of Shakespeare. Does this mean that the monkeys are literary geniuses, or just lucky?

[keyip]

lol is it? 

 

The quote I mentioned most definitely was. You, however, were talking about something completely different.

 

if there's any blatant falsehood around, it's this. NO. the mmo and fetch quests  complaints were specific for DAI.

 

You really haven't been around the scene very long if you believe this. Allow me to post elements of a Dragon Age Origins review submitted 5 YEARS AGO. And do remember these are parts of a review about ORIGINS.

 

"However, thanks again to the MMOGification of Dragon Age: Origins, there are "optimal builds."

 

"The second reason I do not love DA:O's combat is that Bioware decided to MMOGify it. You see, Bioware must have looked at the massive amount of money World of Warcraft (and other MMO's) were making and then looked at the (rather pathetic) market for single-player RPGs. They then must have thought to themselves, "we should jam as many MMO elements as we can into our single-player RPG to lure in WoW players." Of course, they did not jam in any of the half-way decent elements of MMORPGs, such as, to take a small example, multiplayer-support or a huge, seamless world to explore. No, they mostly included the annoying combat mechanics, mindless quests, and irritating quest markers over people's heads (thankfully those can be turned off). I will talk about the other elements later, but for now I will focus on the MMO combat mechanics. Specifically, I will discuss the concept of aggro. In classic RPGs, the standard party size was six. This meant there were usually plenty of front-line fighters to keep the heat off of the mages and archers. In many MMORPGs, group sizes are smaller than that, so the developers of these games created the concept of aggro."

 

"Another MMORPG features is that, outside of combat, health and stamina/mana regenerate. So, if you can avoid combat for a little while, you can get up to full health for free. Another "simplified" aspect, also seen in Neverwinter Nights 2, is that any party members who were slain (or "injured" as the case may be in this game) will automatically revive after a battle is over, but they will have some kind of injury that creates a slight penalty. However, these penalties add up, so this provides an incentive not to die. These injuries can be treated with Injury Kits or, presumably, by resting at camp (though I never noticed if the injuries went away or not)."

 

"The quests certainly do not make-up for the flaws of the rest of the gameworld. Apart from a few companion-specific sidequests (that are not all that good to begin with), the side-quests in DA:O are some of the most generic fetch/kill quests imaginable. This seems to have clear MMO influence. Each "town" (and I use that word very loosely) has a Chanters Board (where the Chantry has allowed regular people to post various problems), the Mage's Board (where one can do a series of quests for the loose coalition of Mages that exist outside the Circle), and, in a few places, a tavern-owner that will let you do less-savory quests. However, all of them involve "collecting x plants for alchemical ingredients" or "travelling to location y to save some peasants from bandits/darkspawn." In a word, they are generic. "

 

http://www.rpgcodex....tent.php?id=197

 

Metacritic only picking up on these things now? Then it's BEYOND useless.

 

as for weak and short storyline, as well as massive dead world, these were actually mentioned in even some 7ish-tier critic reviews, including IGN, thus your justification here is also false. 

 

You misunderstood my sarcasm.

 

also are you really suggesting that a significant amount of random folks on mt can cherry pick generic complaints about the game even before it come out and post it to exaggerate the game actual problems? lol who's giving mt too much credit now?

 

Yes, it's actually quite easy. I was doing that with the combat system and RPG elements months before DA:I was released. Yes, that's right. I knew the combat and hard-core RPG elements had problems months ago. I must be an absolute, freaking prophet.

 

yup another blatant falsehood. dao and da2 ui were about the same. me2 and me3 had moved away from the rpg inventory long ago. people who complain would complain about that, not the UI.

 

 

Bioware have been criticised regarding their console UI's since KOTOR, which was released a decade ago. Oh, and also DA:2. DA:O was the ONLY game in recent history which wasn't criticised. 

 

Once again if you got OFF Metacritic, you would realise this.

 

i will once again stand my round and refuse to get into the whole "objective" score thing. in fact that is is the opposite of my point from the beginning.way too many people use the score to validate their preformed opinion about the game, or even worse, use a single score by someone else to determine the game worth.  to that i will say the same thing ive been saying: whatever the score is doesnt make the game's problems disappear. the score can only suggest if there is any significant fault in the game, not its true worth. this whole forum is full of people who say things along the line of "i dont have any problem with it waht are haters talking about," as well as their opposite, some would say such as me. regardless, being positive is just as vapid as being negative. if the a low score shouldnt discourage people, high score too shouldnt encourage people, which render the score entirely useless. as for the critic score, you could either pick a 7 or an 8 and you'll get 45% chance of being right for any blockbuster so a coin is just about as good. so again, instead of basing your buying decision on some number, watch some gameplay video and look at the complaints is far more useful.

 

I don't give one whit what you choose to do. The definition of a review is set in stone, the definition of a review score is an extension of that, if you don't conform to that then you are wrong. Simple. If you want to argue that Metacritic review scores hold some use OTHER than being a review score then that's fine, that doesn't change the fact that it is useless AS a review score.

[vnth]

I wouldn't. It's the same circular argument over and over, and people so desperate to defend the site that they latch on to outright lies to do so. To wit: This post, where what I said, and what they said I said are completely different things, and look, it got "Touche" from another rabid Metacritic user. This is the quality of people that use it, people that don't want to be informed about the game, but want to make sure there's a certain base level of rage, even if that rage is about stuff that's completely made up. To whether or not the "reviews" on the site will actually hit on actual issues; if you put a bunch of monkeys in a room with typewriters, they'll eventually churn out the complete works of Shakespeare. Does this mean that the monkeys are literary geniuses, or just lucky? 

lol twice already you have resorted to childish personal insults, only to reveal your own inadequacy. some disgruntled dude sign up for an account and complain about some game is too fantastical for you to believe, and yet sheer luck is more believable? this, if anything, confirm your quality. also, i have for you a better question: if the actual literary geniuses cant point out what monkeys can, does it mean bad luck, or that they are even less than monkeys?

[vnth]

The quote I mentioned most definitely was. You, however, were talking about something completely different.

lol am I? i said mt can point out what's wrong with a game more accurately and faster than the professional reviews. you said that a lie. i said nope just look at the control thing. also im not really exaggerating anything. if there're enough complaints, some are bound to be accurate. just look for trends. is that not so or am i missing something?

 

You really haven't been around the scene very long if you believe this. Allow me to post elements of a Dragon Age Origins review submitted 5 YEARS AGO. And do remember these are parts of a review about ORIGINS.

 

ive been over this before. do you honestly believe people make stock complaints against BW, only to turn out to be accurate, as oppose to simply play the game and hated it? what is the balance of probabilities between the 2?

 

 

Oh, and also DA:2. DA:O was the ONLY game in recent history which wasn't criticised. 

gee I wonder why. it is incredible that these trolls can pick out an obscure criticism from a decade ago to spam the third game even they didnt the previous 2.

 

 

I don't give one whit what you choose to do. The definition of a review is set in stone, the definition of a review score is an extension of that, if you don't conform to that then you are wrong. Simple. If you want to argue that Metacritic review scores hold some use OTHER than being a review score then that's fine, that doesn't change the fact that it is useless AS a review score.

that's strange. the OP said people shouldnt be discouraged about the MT score, and I replied to that. only you bring definition of reviews in here and complaining about how people not conforming to that. obviously you must have cared a great deal.

 

overall it is rather amazing that people are willing to go to great length in conjure up some insane theories about MT instead of simply seeing that among the trolls and the haters and the whatever, there're a great deal of normal people who are too lazy to write a full review so they make some complaints.

[keyip]

lol am I? i said mt can point out what's wrong with a game more accurately and faster than the professional reviews. 

 

No, you said "BEFORE ANYWHERE ELSE." A blatant falsehood.

 

ive been over this before. do you honestly believe people make stock complaints against BW, only to turn out to be accurate, as oppose to simply play the game and hated it? what is the balance of probabilities between the 2?

 

 

Stock criticisms of games are pretty easily applied to any release. Fetch quests can be applied to every single one of the DA games, and every single one of the ME games and could be confidently applied as soon as Bioware mentioned the words "open world." Poor writing is subjective and easily ridiculed no matter how good it is, if you listen to the fans there isn't any example of good writing present in any game anywhere. Short story can be confidently applied as soon as Bioware mentioned "open world." And etc etc. Like I said, I pegged the combat and RPG mechanics months before the game was released. 

 

And considering I've been hanging around the RPG scene for decades, and have seen these stock criticisms applied to Bioware to justify certain sections hatred of EA, SJWs, and story focused gameplay I can fairly confidently call it as I see it. 

 

gee I wonder why. it is incredible that these trolls can pick out an obscure criticism from a decade ago to spam the third game even they didnt the previous 2.

 

 

Obscure criticism? Ahahahaha

 

 

that's strange. the OP said people shouldnt be discouraged about the MT score, and I replied to that. only you bring definition of reviews in here and complaining about how people not conforming to that. obviously you must have cared a great deal.

 

No, the OP said the scores don't reflect user experience which is what a review is supposed to do, and thus it's a joke. It is only you that want to push a pro-Metacritic agenda to such an extent that you say "reviews not being reviews are good things." Because it actually isn't.

 

 

overall it is rather amazing that people are willing to go to great length in conjure up some insane theories about MT instead of simply seeing that among the trolls and the haters and the whatever, there're a great deal of normal people who are too lazy to write a full review so they make some complaints.

 

Keep trying. 

[vnth]

No, you said "BEFORE ANYWHERE ELSE." A blatant falsehood.

yeah and i stand by that. mt is the first thing people turn to to vent their fume. more or less about the same time as the official forum, but not everyone wants to get into wars on forum. 

 

  

Stock criticisms of games are pretty easily applied to any release. Fetch quests can be applied to every single one of the DA games

lol that's it? you stick with the ridiculous stock criticism thing? i was expecting you to conjure up something more entertaining but oh well. just out of curiosity though, is bad ending consider a stock criticism?

 

 

which is what a review is supposed to do, and thus it's a joke. 

lol did that ever actually work? sticking your own argument into other's like that? op simply complained that 5ish doesnt accurately reflects DAI, nor does it reflects the true opinion of all fans. the second bit is all yours. and to think you told me to try harder lol.

 

 

Keep trying. 

lol stick to your paranoia if you must, i care not. you can invent any conspiracy theories you want or you can pester me as long as you want, i will still only say the same thing: mt is not mostly trolls because its complaints are accurate and its complaints are accurate because most of it isnt trolls. it's called self-evident. and unlike the case of you, when logic is on my side, i dont have to try anything.

[keyip]

yeah and i stand by that. 

 

Which is wrong.

 

 

lol that's it? you stick with the ridiculous stock criticism thing?

 

Usually when people have nothing to say, they stop talking. The criticisms from Metacritic are neither insightful, early, or useful as a review service. If you have anything more which justifies this then feel welcome to write about it. I'll continue laughing at your attempts of distraction otherwise.

 

 

lol did that ever actually work? sticking your own argument into other's like that?

 

I like to stick with facts. Metacritic user reviews don't meet the basic requirements of a review, their scores are tainted, thus they're worthless. Very simple.

 

it's called self-evident. and unlike the case of you, when logic is on my side, i dont have to try anything.

 

That's a peculiar brand of logic on your side. "I have nothing more to say, you're wrong because I say so." Interesting.

[Tsunami Chef]

No one should ever use the collective metacritic scores as a baromoter for anything...I only use it as an easy way to access many different reviews at once so I don't see one gamespot or IGN review and impulse buy without seeing the other critic reviews.