350 réponses à ce sujet

[Woskeef]

I have a PC but prefer to play console where I can as im not the most technically minded when it comes to graphics cards etc I always read the Metacritic scores and like others, try to find a balanced review by ignoring the 10's and 0's. Most middle of the road reviews seem to be by people with a head on their shoulders that offer both praise and a few issues they have.

 

However, having had a friend who was the PR manager for a software house, I wouldn't take the pro critic reviews in any more seriousness. He was frequently told he wasn't spending enough on expenses, entertaining journalists.

 

His job was to make the journo feel like his best friend. Often the review would be based on how good a night the journo had. if they didn't get on, the review would largely by a poor one. Sometimes the journo would ask him to write his own review and email it over!!

 

So the only real way to judge a game is to ask a friend, see if you have see it in action, watch some clips on you tube. Don't take a mag review as gospel and even based on the game at all!!

[Farangbaa]

I have a PC but prefer to play console where I can as im not the most technically minded when it comes to graphics cards etc I always read the Metacritic scores and like others, try to find a balanced review by ignoring the 10's and 0's. Most middle of the road reviews seem to be by people with a head on their shoulders that offer both praise and a few issues they have.
 
However, having had a friend who was the PR manager for a software house, I wouldn't take the pro critic reviews in any more seriousness. He was frequently told he wasn't spending enough on expenses, entertaining journalists.
 
His job was to make the journo feel like his best friend. Often the review would be based on how good a night the journo had. if they didn't get on, the review would largely by a poor one. Sometimes the journo would ask him to write his own review and email it over!!
 
So the only real way to judge a game is to ask a friend, see if you have see it in action, watch some clips on you tube. Don't take a mag review as gospel and even based on the game at all!!

This is not the developpers fault though, this is common business practise. If the journalists can't keep their objectivity after a good night partying, he/she's a bad journalist.

Doesn't make the professional reviews any less dodgy, but that's not the game developper's fault. It's just crappy journalism.

[Akka le Vil]

Exactly wrong you mean. If you need to redefine the purpose behind a review score to validate the site knock yourself out, but don't complain when it becomes the laughing stock of the internet.

 

The purpose isn't redefined : a review score is still about helping you make your opinion on the value of a game. It's just about HOW it's helping you make your opinion.

 

"Professionnal" reviewers who always gives a 8-to-10 score to AAA games and systematically fails to highlight actual problems in them are TOTALLY USELESS reviews, providing no information as they just lavishly praise any new gaming blockbuster.

Metacritics actually highlights if a game is controversial or not. That's already far better than the above ; it's useful information.

 

the real question is, why you should read reviews with the opinion of others when you can watch gameplay and make your own? for example da:i controls, some say its unplayable, some say they are clunky but working and some say they are fine. and on top of it the controls are different in different playstyles (tac/action), different in prefered controltype and even how you played former titles of da. so how do you exactly know what fits for you and your personal taste?

Simply watching is pretty uninformative, actually. I'd even say it's worse, as it tends to give "false data". Playing a game is completely different than just watching one, and even something as graphical as an UI can be totally misrepresented as long as you don't actually handle it.

[Elhanan]

The purpose isn't redefined : a review score is still about helping you make your opinion on the value of a game. It's just about HOW it's helping you make your opinion.
 
"Professionnal" reviewers who always gives a 8-to-10 score to AAA games and systematically fails to highlight actual problems in them are TOTALLY USELESS reviews, providing no information as they just lavishly praise any new gaming blockbuster.
Metacritics actually highlights if a game is controversial or not. That's already far better than the above ; it's useful information.
 
Simply watching is pretty uninformative, actually. I'd even say it's worse, as it tends to give "false data". Playing a game is completely different than just watching one, and even something as graphical as an UI can be totally misrepresented as long as you don't actually handle it.

Except the scores on that site are skewed, so the totals cannot be trusted. And as unreliable as watching a vid may be, gathering intel from a site known for being invalid and inaccurate seems even more questionable. Reading the actual reviews may prove informative, but for the insurance that a User truly is a Player of that game, recommend going elsewhere.

[His Majesty Lord Crash]

User Reviews should consider having actual users review the games. Thus, proper creds.

The site, the scores, and the math used are all flawed. Somewhere else is recommended.

 

I would recommend Steam...

 

But wait, I've forgotten that EA hates Steam and there is no respective user review function for Origin. You can't even see whether people own Inquisition here on the Social Network (or am I wrong here?).

 

And after all, Steam or user reviews in general are just as "toxic" as metacritic user reviews. It's not like just because you know that someone actually owns the game all the reviews are magically well written and serious. Sadly, that's not how the internet works.

[Elhanan]

I would recommend Steam...
 
But wait, I've forgotten that EA hates Steam and there is no respective user review function for Origin. You can't even see whether people own Inquisition here on the Social Network (or am I wrong here?).
 
And after all, Steam or user reviews in general are just as "toxic" as metacritic user reviews. It's not like just because you know that someone actually owns the game all the reviews are magically well written and serious. Sadly, that's not how the internet works.

Not a fan of Steam or Origins; dislike DL's and prefer disks.

Personally, I utilize the reader reviews at Amazon; skip the scores and gather info from the details. And one must have purchased the product to review it, so at the least there folks are valid users.

[Akka le Vil]

Except the scores on that site are skewed, so the totals cannot be trusted. And as unreliable as watching a vid may be, gathering intel from a site known for being invalid and inaccurate seems even more questionable. Reading the actual reviews may prove informative, but for the insurance that a User truly is a Player of that game, recommend going elsewhere.

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.

 

So, score "skewed" ? Skewed from what ?

Again (and again, and again, and...) the point is not to focus on the score itself, but on if there is a consensus or not, and analyzing the comments. THAT is informative. Much more informative than the showers of 8-to-10 reviews for any and all AAA games from "professionnal" reviwers (many of them actually feel much less invested in what they are supposed to rate than the average gamer, which is pretty ridiculous to begin with).

[Elhanan]

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.
 
So, score "skewed" ? Skewed from what ?
Again (and again, and again, and...) the point is not to focus on the score itself, but on if there is a consensus or not, and analyzing the comments. THAT is informative. Much more informative than the showers of 8-to-10 reviews for any and all AAA games from "professionnal" reviwers (many of them actually feel much less invested in what they are supposed to rate than the average gamer, which is pretty ridiculous to begin with).

Re-posted from earlier; older article that is a main reason I skip the site:

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

[katokires]

I will try once more...

Why the hell people argue if a game is good or not? It doesn't matter, unless it is the first one. If it is a sequel it matter not if it is good or great or bad or awful whatever, it only matter if it is a sequel. So Inquisition great game, worst sequel ever.

[robertthebard]

1) If you don't want to be "cherry-picked", don't start your post with a tired and retarded cliché.
 
2) Despite the above-mentioned retarded cliché, I actually bothered to read, and it was just a bit of posturing and a long rant about how you missed DA2 because of reviews, and the conclusion being that reviews on a whole are useless. How insightful.
The entire point of reading a review is to get an idea about how the game is through the experience of others. It might fit your own tastes or not, but THAT part is where you use your own opinion (that is, trusting the reviews are relevant enough to guide your decision).
Shouting "I make up my own mind" in a thread about reviews doesn't make you some kind of übermench, it just makes you comically miss the entire point of reviews.
 
 
 
Exactly.

The issue is, you're telling me I'm retarded because I don't believe the reviews there are relevant enough to guide my decision. You see, it's a "User Review". However, there is no requirement for one to be an actual user to write the review, just that you have an account on the site. What about that bolded part gives the site any credibility? That you use it? Come on man, you go straight to Troll 101 to refute a post in your effort to defend the site, how does that give you any credibility? In case you're wondering, I'm referring to cherry picking one sentence out of a post, and then calling the poster retarded for saying it, even though you chose to willfully snip out the part that you didn't understand. The point was: Metacritic, just like the BSN, has 0 credibility where my buy/don't buy decisions are concerned. I don't need websites to think for me, I'm capable of doing that on my own, despite your propensity for calling people retarded when they disagree with you.

TL;DR: I'm not surprised, given your reliance on Metacritic, that you'd call me retarded.

[Akka le Vil]

The issue is, you're telling me I'm retarded because I don't believe the reviews there are relevant enough to guide my decision.

 

No, I told you you used a retarded cliché. Learn to read. Though considering your answers, I might be inclined to actually agree with the fact you're retarded, though for entirely different reasons.

 

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 - which is precisely what has been repeated several time, but then, well, as said above you obviously need to learn to read.

[robertthebard]

No, I told you you used a retarded cliché. Learn to read. Though considering your answers, I might be inclined to actually agree with the fact you're retarded, though for entirely different reasons.
 
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 - which is precisely what has been repeated several time, but then, well, as said above you obviously need to learn to read.

...and, not surprisingly, here we are again. Is "you're retarded" really the best argument you have? I'll give you one reason, right now: "I didn't get to play/see my Warden, so the game sucks". How many of those threads popped up here over the course of development? But here's a better question: How many people did just what you suggest? How many accounts were created to trash ME 3, and then used again to trash DA I? I really have no idea, as I said, they have 0 credibility, since they have 0 controls in place to insure that a "User Review" is actually a "User Review". I don't care if the score is 0/10 or 10/10, the site itself has 0 credibility. You can persist as long as you like calling me retarded for refusing to acknowledge them as a legitimate source of information, you're not having the effect you'd like to have. I'm not getting mad, and I'm not being intimidated by your limited use of the language. If anything, I'm slightly bemused that you sincerely believe that dismissing a site like metacritic is retarded.

[His Majesty Lord Crash]

Not a fan of Steam or Origins; dislike DL's and prefer disks.

Personally, I utilize the reader reviews at Amazon; skip the scores and gather info from the details. And one must have purchased the product to review it, so at the least there folks are valid users.

 

Well, I can't see how you can dislike metacritic user reviews when you like Amazon reviews at the same time. I can't for example count the Amazon user reviews anymore in which people give one star just because the game has a certain form of DRM. And just because somebody owns the game doesn't give you information how much the very same person actually played the game on Amazon. The very same person could have played the game for 100 hours, 10 hours or not at all yet... 

 

But of course everyone can inform himself how he sees fit. If you are capable of reading and if you know how to seperate serious reviews from troll reviews it's pretty much indifferent where to look for them imo.

[Akka le Vil]

...and, not surprisingly, here we are again. Is "you're retarded" really the best argument you have? [...] You can persist as long as you like calling me retarded for refusing to acknowledge them as a legitimate source of information, you're not having the effect you'd like to have. I'm not getting mad, and I'm not being intimidated by your limited use of the language. [...]
 

 

As limited as my language is, you still manage to look unable to read it despite being already called about it, so the problem seems to be on your end.

Regardless, you're wasting my time and my patience, so I'm not going to bother any more with you.

[Elhanan]

Well, I can't see how you can dislike metacritic user reviews when you like Amazon reviews at the same time. I can't for example count the Amazon user reviews anymore in which people give one star just because the game has a certain form of DRM. And just because somebody owns the game doesn't give you information how much the very same person actually played the game on Amazon. The very same person could have played the game for 100 hours, 10 hours or not at all yet... 
 
But of course everyone can inform himself how he sees fit. If you are capable of reading and if you know how to seperate serious reviews from troll reviews it's pretty much indifferent where to look for them imo.

Again, I tend to skip the scores except for grouping of the complaints. Scores of one tend to be emotionally based, and these are often due to issues I can typically avoid. And every review is a purchaser of the product, so even if I disagree, they were willing to put their pocketbooks where they posted.

In this case, the early posts spoke of control issues, by waiting a day I avoided these by re-mapping the Keys. Both Amazon and DAI work well for me. And ironically, Metacritic scores are linked to many products, and yet they are easy to ignore there, too.

[robertthebard]

Well, I can't see how you can dislike metacritic user reviews when you like Amazon reviews at the same time. I can't for example count the Amazon user reviews anymore in which people give one star just because the game has a certain form of DRM. And just because somebody owns the game doesn't give you information how much the very same person actually played the game on Amazon. The very same person could have played the game for 100 hours, 10 hours or not at all yet... 
 
But of course everyone can inform himself how he sees fit. If you are capable of reading and if you know how to seperate serious reviews from troll reviews it's pretty much indifferent where to look for them imo.

It's not hard to figure out, at least people that write "User Reviews" on Amazon are required to actually be users. Then, when one reads the review, one is at least aware that the person is likely to have at least purchased the game. Then number of stars is meaningless, the content of the review is telling. Whether they've got 10 or 100 hours invested in the game, they at least have the game. There were plenty of 1 Star reviews for ME 3 on Amazon when I started looking into the series. They were, in fact, the reason I started looking at it seriously; I figured if it was stirring up that much controversy, it was, at the very least, worth looking in to. So I started at the beginning, with ME, to see if I liked it at all, then got ME 2, then got ME 3, since I did like the previous installments. I wasn't overly disappointed, and after I bought the game, I made my feelings clear about it: It's a great series, so long as you let yourself die at the beam. Shock of shocks, however, I never looked at one Metacritic review. They have no controls in place to insure that a "User Review" is actually a "User Review", thus giving Amazon's reviews, which require, at the very least, that one purchased the game a significant advantage in credibility over Metacritic. I'm not going to spend 50 bucks on a game I don't intend to at least play around with. I give others the benefit of the doubt on that where a purchase is required to post a review.

[rigron]

The game is not bad, neither is great. Dragon Age Inquisition, for the PS4 at least, is a good game, I would rate it around a 7/10.

[Scerene]

The issue is, you're telling me I'm retarded because I don't believe the reviews there are relevant enough to guide my decision. You see, it's a "User Review". However, there is no requirement for one to be an actual user to write the review, just that you have an account on the site. What about that bolded part gives the site any credibility? That you use it? Come on man, you go straight to Troll 101 to refute a post in your effort to defend the site, how does that give you any credibility? In case you're wondering, I'm referring to cherry picking one sentence out of a post, and then calling the poster retarded for saying it, even though you chose to willfully snip out the part that you didn't understand. The point was: Metacritic, just like the BSN, has 0 credibility where my buy/don't buy decisions are concerned. I don't need websites to think for me, I'm capable of doing that on my own, despite your propensity for calling people retarded when they disagree with you.

TL;DR: I'm not surprised, given your reliance on Metacritic, that you'd call me retarded.

is anybody holding a gun to your head -forcing- you or anybody else to take metacritic seriously? It is good that its out there, for those of us who want to hear the raw deal. Its not up to you or anybody else to decide for other people what reviews they should consider garbage or a joke. You like prof reviews, thats great, I personally think professional reviewers are a joke when it comes to AAA titles, and as somebody who has a friend working in the industry mentioned above, their reviews are often based on friendship/business/money more than objective reviewing, but oh look another drone chiming in to make rationalizations for "professional" reviewers- . Some people prefer metacritic user reviews instead because they are raw, its obvious there are no calculations or hidden agendas in them, save venting pent up anger, but what is said is typically what i myself have found to be true in the games ive played. Normally i would go to metacritic before deciding on a game, but i was really looking forward to DAI and wanting to give BW another chance so i Pre-ordered.

Calling other peeps retards? Clearly relying on business venues that have a huge financial stake in the AAA products they review, is the strongest sign of great a mind     pot, please say hi to kettle     you were responding to someone elses retard comment, suggesting they were a retard for relying on meta, but imo, its best to look at a combination of reviews, both positive and less positive from both user and prof reviews.

If you read some of the previews, i think from PC- gamer, after several hours their complaint were the mmo-style grinding and meaningless quests, come review day however, suddenly none of the quests feel meaningless or grindy

[robertthebard]

is anybody holding a gun to your head -forcing- you or anybody else to take metacritic seriously? It is good that its out there, for those of us who want to hear the raw deal. Its not up to you or anybody else to decide for other people what reviews they should consider garbage or a joke. You like prof reviews, thats great, I personally think professional reviewers are a joke when it comes to AAA titles, and as somebody who has a friend working in the industry mentioned above, their reviews are often based on friendship/business/money more than objective reviewing, but oh look another drone chiming in to make rationalizations for "professional" reviewers- . Some people prefer metacritic user reviews instead because they are raw, its obvious there are no calculations or hidden agendas in them, save venting pent up anger, but what is said is typically what i myself have found to be true in the games ive played. Normally i would go to metacritic before deciding on a game, but i was really looking forward to DAI and wanting to give BW another chance so i Pre-ordered.
Calling other peeps retards? Clearly relying on business venues that have a huge financial stake in the AAA products they review, is the strongest sign of great a mind     pot, please say hi to kettle 
If you read some of the previews, i think from PC- gamer, after several hours their complaint were the mmo-style grinding and meaningless quests, come review day however, suddenly none of the quests feel meaningless or grindy

Apparently I have people just like you trying to do just that, or else why bother quoting me to try and prove how "wrong" I am about it?

[Scerene]

Apparently I have people just like you trying to do just that, or else why bother quoting me to try and prove how "wrong" I am about it?

youre not wrong, you just have a different preference, i read prof reviews too, but the thread title suggests that its best to not listen to what meta people say -at all-, even when many people bring up the same issues, that are valid. Sure people go overboard with the numbers, perhaps they should get rid of them altogether, but the actual content in many of the reviews is pretty well-written and elaborated upon.

[robertthebard]

youre not wrong, you just have a different preference, i read prof reviews too, but the thread title suggests that its best to not listen to what meta people say -at all-, even when many people bring up the same issues, that are valid. Sure people go overboard with the numbers, perhaps they should get rid of them altogether, but the actual content in many of the reviews is pretty well-written and elaborated upon.

Isn't this a bit ironic? I say they have 0 credibility, you say I'm not wrong, and then proceed to present reasons why I am wrong.

[Cultist]

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

[MKfighter89]

Its all a matter of opinion simply put, also if most of these reviews are truly real then their just a laugh. Most contradict themselves ten times over, others make you wonder if they really played the game and just knock games for fun like most on the site. Of course some reviews on other sites like one on kotaku left me wondering why play it then. He says the game left his time wasted, he felt for a open world their was to many filler side quest (every open world game I ever played has this) and got bored exploring and wanted to do just the main quest line, which he finished after 64 hours. That's why Bioware allowed the player to do either main story, pick and choose, or 100% completion. After that his argument becomes null and void. He goes on about how hated skyrim and just felt like all he did was wasted and the RPG elements don't cater to him etc. His final closure was that it had to many MMOish feels to it, but goes later into how he doesn't like MMOs he could never get into them. Finally one guy in the comments asked: your right to your opinion, but why waste your time with this game if you don't like any games like this. So far I think its a great game, I love Bioware games yes some are better then others, but that's how this business works. In the end if you go by the reviews their are just as many or more people who praise the game then the ones so said hating.

[Lewie]

I have never took a score from any website as proof to say a game is bad or not. Watch a few gameplay videos, ask people you know or are friends with online, basically do your own research. Someone I know has started playing recently, so I told them of all of the things people are complaining about, also the things I felt were good additions. They are an adult and can make an informed choice that way. 

 

So if: 

1. 8 spell slots are game breaking.

2. The pc controls being completely borked (which I have yet to understand after 200+ hours on pc, also the same controls used in the previous games go figure).

3. You absolutely cannot live without a cutscene for every quest.

4. You do not like rpg quests in general, doing helpful things for npcs or collection quests which are optional.

 

Then this game isn't for you.

 

Frankly the things people complain about are not enough for me to not play and like the game, I have just started my 3rd playthrough, and bugs and fixes always come after release anyway but everyone wants things fixed 5 minutes ago. I have had a few crashes but I have had that with pretty much every game so no biggie. Part of the problem is what people are used to, someone said it was strange that they couldn't use both mouse buttons to run and I was like huh?.. so things might feel different especially if you are new to Dragon Age games or have been playing other games with different set ups. 

 

If I was to give this game a score it would be 8 out of 10. Great game with room for improvement. 

[keyip]

The purpose isn't redefined : a review score is still about helping you make your opinion on the value of a game. It's just about HOW it's helping you make your opinion.

 

 

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.