89 réponses à ce sujet

[mickey111]

Because the user reviews can't be trusted to give responsible and honest opinion on the 10 point scale. 

[Coyote X Starrk]

Agreed. 

 

Between the childish people who cannot help but troll and the idiots that can't seem to understand what a rating system is and how it works Metacritic user scores cannot be trusted at all on any level. 

[taranoire]

I'm pretty sure that there's an algorithm in place to prevent this on most websites with user ratings. 1/10 and 10/10 ratings aren't weighted as heavily as more "realistic" ratings. So, to balance out the negativity, it'd be best for all DA:I fans to rate it 8 or 9. 

[SadisticChunkyDwarf]

Reasonable people should just ignore metacritic user scores, full stop. Problem solved.

[mickey111]

I firmly believe that 0/10 ratings should only be given out to games that have literally killed my dog. Thankfully this has not happened yet. 

[KneeTheCap]

Reasonable people should just ignore metacritic user scores, full stop. Problem solved.

 

Sadly there are people who take those metacritics as "fact". For instance, one of my friends always refers to game's "user meta score" to determine if the game is any good, not taking anything else into account. So sad, really.

 

Why user score? Because, and I quote now, "they're more reliable than paid reviews"

[Navasha]

Metacritic is a subjective scoring system.    Ideally, they would allow you to rate the game it a couple different ways rather than just a single score.    I personally would rate the game a 9/10 for 90% of the game.    However, the lack of just basic PC controls like mouse button remapping and cursor edge scrolling with the tac cam, I would rate the interface as maybe a 2/10.  

 

That doesn't necessarily "average" out either to just a lower point score.    I thought the game would at least play like the previous DA titles.   It doesn't.   It plays like an MMO or Witcher 2 game.    For me, that's alright, I am adaptable.    For others, it completely destroys their game.   Hence, I am actually okay if those people rate the game a 0 as long as they are descriptive about why the game is trash for them.  

 

Its a subjective score.   You don't have to 'agree' or 'disagree' with it.    I rate hockey a 10...  basketball/baseball/football a 0.    Just opinion.

[DrBlingzle]

Well no, I disagree.

 

Because, while many of these people are trolls, there are people who genuinely really dislike the game enough to give it a very low score, an opinion they are entitled to. You can't just ignore peoples opinions just because they don't conform to what the majority of other people think. 

[Klory]

Agreed. 

 

Between the childish people who cannot help but troll and the idiots that can't seem to understand what a rating system is and how it works Metacritic user scores cannot be trusted at all on any level. 

What's important is not the score but the opinion itself. Many people on metactitic vote 10/10 I loved it or 0/10 the game didn't work for me. Therefore if some users got endless DX11 errors in DA:I and struggled to play the game they might rate it 0.Its entirely based on enjoyment and is not objective in any way. If you read the comments and then decide the game isn't for you then that's better than just looking at a number

On that same note if you have a problem with skewed subjective views then I wouldn't trust "professional" reviews either. There are still many ethical issues regarding money and gaming that are unresolved. In any event how is a professional review any less subjective, especially in an era when they don't for the most part even break the score down into sections like sound,story,gameplay etc.

[mikeymoonshine]

There is so little trust in gaming these days, everyone has some kind of bias and so many people have ulterior motives. If professionals cannot be trusted to treat a game fairly I don't know why we expect gamers to be fair either. There are so many people out there who just hate Bioware/EA and want to see them fail. 

[DAOfanado]

I agree, every score that does not reflect my opinion should not count because my opinion is the only true one.

[Darkly Tranquil]

I firmly believe that 0/10 ratings should only be given out to games that have literally killed my dog. Thankfully this has not happened yet.

I'm pretty sure SecuRom killed my dog. He died a couple of days after I installed Mass Effect. It could be circumstantial, but I remain suspicious.

[BammBamm]

Because the user reviews can't be trusted to give responsible and honest opinion on the 10 point scale. 

 

just ignore the numbers of metacritic and READ reviews that talk about a game, you will know whats the pros and cons are and how important they are for you as an individual. just dont care about metacritic, the system is broken because of the people in the internet and nothing will save this

[Aurok]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're joking.

[Darkly Tranquil]

When people rate a game zero, they're not objectively rating the technical merits of the game, they're rating their experience playing it; zero means they personally hated it. Most people don't do objectivity well and respond to things emotionally, so that is what those scores are - emotional responses of anger, disappointment and frustration. In that context they make perfect sense.

[adembroski]

Because the user reviews can't be trusted to give responsible and honest opinion on the 10 point scale. 

I disagree with this on the basis that user scores for DA2 are for more indicative of the actual quality of the game than the review scores.

The way I'd change it is to create a 3 point scale for users. Users can say it's bad, average, or good. That's it. Similar to Steam ratings, we'd get "Mostly Unfavorable" and "Mostly Favorable" types of scores. Someone who doesn't like the game will rate it a 1, whether they're prone to hyperbole or not.

[Han Master]

That's assuming the critics scores are even non bias as in no one is paying them to write something good about the game and ignoring the defects.

[BammBamm]

I disagree with this on the basis that user scores for DA2 are for more indicative of the actual quality of the game than the review scores.

The way I'd change it is to create a 3 point scale for users. Users can say it's bad, average, or good. That's it. Similar to Steam ratings, we'd get "Mostly Unfavorable" and "Mostly Favorable" types of scores. Someone who doesn't like the game will rate it a 1, whether they're prone to hyperbole or not.

 

dont trust SCORES, they dont say anything about your personal enjoyment of the game

[Lebanese Dude]

Well no, I disagree.

Because, while many of these people are trolls, there are people who genuinely really dislike the game enough to give it a very low score, an opinion they are entitled to. You can't just ignore peoples opinions just because they don't conform to what the majority of other people think.

Anyone who enjoys RPGs would NEVER give DAI any score below 5 because despite the number of things it may have done "wrong" there's a lot of other stuff that was done right.

Anyine who truly dislikes the game shouldn't have bought the game on release and rated it to begin with. It's like me going out and rating FIFA 2015 a 0 when I hate football games. I totally would if I rated it subjectively and I'm entitled to that opinion. Doesn't make it a fair representation of the game.

That's the problem. People can't be objective enough to properly give weight to their scores.

User scores will always be a joke.
-----

Still I don't think the OPs suggestion is good either.

A better score system involves internally or externally splitting the rating into several predetermined criteria (according to genre ) and displaying an aggregate average of the scores.

That way you know someone who posted a 0 is indeed a troll rather than an emotional impulsive furious customer.

[DrBlingzle]

Anyone who enjoys RPGs would NEVER give DAI any score below 5 because despite the number of things it may have done "wrong" there's a lot of other stuff that was done right.

In your opinion.

 

Neither me, you or anyone gets to decide what fans of a particular genre must like or dislike. Hell, I know a sci-fi fan IRL who doesn't like the original star wars trilogy.  

[Lebanese Dude]

In your opinion.

 

Neither me, you or anyone gets to decide what fans of a particular genre must like or dislike. Hell, I know a sci-fi fan IRL who doesn't like the original star wars trilogy.  

 

Would he rate the original star wars trilogy a zero?

 

Probably not..he probably liked a couple of things in it like the ...sci-fi.  He probably hated the story but liked something else. We both can't know.

 

If not, it's different liking a current iteration of a product and disliking its predecessors as opposed to the opposite. 

I love RPGs but I can't play BG2, despite it being called the best game ever made, because I can't handle the interface and the visuals distract me from the experience that I would have enjoyed had I not known better alternatives like the current ones.

 

I wouldn't rate BG2 a zero because I hate the graphics. I wouldn't play it to begin with knowing full well what it's like after proper research and knowing what I like.

 

Similarly, your friend could have found the hilariously out-dated special effects and microphone-style voice recording to be annoying enough to turn him off from the movie.

 

People who pre-order most likely do so because they enjoy the Dragon Age series. To say the game has no redeeming qualities is an outright lie, considering that most aspects have been retained and then reduced or improved in scope.

 

Opinions are nice. They are also highly susceptible to being illogical and unfounded. 

Modifié par Lebanese Dude, 29 novembre 2014 - 03:58 .

[Swordfishtrombone]

I think many of the 0-3 scores with minimal commentary are probably people who are frustrated with one or two aspects of the game, and before really giving themselves a chance to get better acquainted with the game, they angrily post a 0 rating.

 

The controls for PC are far from optimal, and the tactical mode sucks, but I'm far less bothered by the controls now, after 50 hours or so of playing, than I was in the beginning. The game itself was good enough to keep me playing long enough to familiarize myself with the controls well enough that they stopped bothering me so much.

 

The tactical mode still sucks though, and needs some work - I still use it as little as possible, because I find it so cumbersome.

 

But I also recognize - when criticizing control schemes - that I'm not very manually dexterous, to the point that I avoid games which are real time controlled without a proper pause, and which rely on executing key combination commands in a timely fashion.

 

I got the witcher 2, played around with the tutorial and a bit of the early game, and stopped there - I simply could not manage the combat well enough to enjoy the game. I still did not go on metacritic to post a "0" for the witcher 2, because of controls I did not like, but rather put it down to a failed experiment on my side, to see if I could handle a game with controls like that. I probably could, if I were to be willing to spend enough time practicing, but I'm not.

 

But the more I play DA:I, the more I like it. It's an excellent game, despite some annoying flaws.

[Lebanese Dude]

 

*snip*

 

Nailed it.

[Han Master]

Witcher 2 doesn't have false advertising.

[CrazyRah]

Going with ignoring metacritic altogether as the best option