89 réponses à ce sujet

[mickey111]

since I got my eyes opened by several scandals like gamergate (if you dont know what Im talking about and you are a genuine gamer who cares about gaming quality and values reviews and previews in his community you should def. google it and check it out) I have close to zero respect for mainstream gaming journalism.

I get my information from reputable independent youtubers and bloggers mostly, favorite among them Total Biscuit in youtube.

 

as to the scale being varied, I also believe that people should be given leeway, because the 1-10 scale is mostly arbitrary in what is actually being evaluated, and while like a poster suggested personal fun is a factor in the scale, I think it is actually a counter-factor for the scale and something actual objective critics try to avoid in their reviews (even if impossible to be completely unbiased by personal tastes and perceptions ofc)

but some people give lets say 1-5 points to gameplay alone, and the remaining 5 distributed to factors like story, animations music, aesthetics, effects, controls etc, while others give much less weight to gameplay and more to others, for example while some games have good or even rich gameplay, bioware usually atracts the more story oriented crowd, so you will see alot of 9+ reviews to games like mass effect that really dont have much in terms of gameplay in their favour, but do have alot on other aspects, while you will get 9+ scores to games like Skyrim who have alot in gameplay but much less in the other aspects.

 

personally I trust reviews that vary 3 points or even more to the "average" than I do reviews that just "follow the hype crowd".

the actual review article where things are explained or compared to other games, is where I pass judgment on if a review is good or bad, the score is just a guideline to how good or bad the reviewer considered the game based on his perspective of what makes a good game (and that is what usually varies the most, or is supposed to)

 

youtubers and bloggers are not immune to bribery, and the big ones get millions of views per game, and the biggest of pewdiepie, the most popular person on youtube, so I don't understand your thinking on the matter at all.

[Lebanese Dude]

youtubers and bloggers are not immune to bribery, and the big ones get millions of views per game, and the biggest of pewdiepie, the most popular person on youtube, so I don't understand your thinking on the matter at all.

 

Meanwhile user reviews are very susceptible to illogical, ill-formed, and volatile rationale while any decent professional reviewer has to at least attempt to discuss both positive and negatives in an articulate and fair way.

 

The "bribed" ones obviously highlight the positive aspects, but don't often conveniently dismiss the negative... while users have no problems doing the opposite.

[Aaleel]

Ignoring the fact that people have a right to their opinion and there are people who legitimately think the game deserves a low score, maybe not zero but a low score it's a bad idea for one main reason.

 

The critic scale for major releases is pretty much 7 - 10, so no high scores would ever get thrown out.  If I see a critic score of 70 I think that's a bad score, 80 average, 90 good, 93/94 and up excellent.  A critic giving a game a 100 is just as bad as a user giving a zero in my opinion. 

 

This is why I read the middle of the road reviews, those are usually the most honest.  But at the end of the day, my friends reviews are the ones I really take into consideration.  My best friend told me to wait and get this game on sale, because by then they may have the PC version packed.  Said even without the PC issues it wasn't worth me running out and buying it at full price if I didn't feel the need to pre-order.

[RDOT]

Bingo Aaleel, the critics that give 100 are just as bad as the 0/10 scores. Totally agree.

[SadisticChunkyDwarf]

This was meant to be "objectively" right?

 

Correct. Remind me to fire my editor.

[HozzMidnight]

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

 

Or, even better, they should ignore critic scores if they aren't within 3 points of the user scores.  I like that better.  None of them noticed the fact that the KB+Mouse control was dogshit in this game?  Or that the tac cam does not zoom out to display the entire battlefield?

 

The console versions of DAI are doing fine on Metacritic.  The PC version is getting ****, and rightly so.  Bioware lied to their oldest fanbase, the PC folks.  This is not a game made by PC Gamers for PC Gamers.  It is an EA game designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the console audience and then ported to the PC.  So you have some PC gamers that feel mislead, and then others that are having technical issues.  This is why the game is running about 3 points behind the critics.

[Avilan II]

I find it hilarious that some people actually think there is such a thing as an objective critic, or that reviews should be objective.

 

A REVIEW is PER DEFINITION subjective. That is what a review IS. Seriously. If a critic claims to be objective, he or she is lying, or isn't actually doing his job.

I mean apart from the fact that you cannot review something like music or computer games objectively since it all comes down to taste anyway, a review is, and should be, subjective.

 

As for the OP's point: No. Because of the above.

[DAOfanado]

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.

 

1) You cant reate a game "objectively"

(especially user reviews are about a subjective opinion - its not a gmers job to analyze a game i dislike - this should be what critiques do - but as we all know gaming-press pretty much pointless (magazines whos main source of money are the companies whose products they review ))

2) You dont have to rate a game objectively - you either like it - or dont like it - you probably also dont do hobbys that are 50% fun?

 

0 simply means they didnt enjoy the game at all for different reasons - that will depend on the person - as i stated before what is a 0 for me may be a 10 for you.

 

Still user-ratings are great - if they include reasons. If someone gives a game a 0 - and writes why. I can read those lines and find out if the person is similar to me. Same goes for reviews with a 10.

 

Many people probably also rate 0 if a game just fails completely due to technical problems (for example sim city) - which is perfectly reasonable to me. Especially when a companie treats its consumers like EA (ble bleh we need the cloud because of super AI - game can not be offline etc.)

 

 

Last but not least:

Its amusing when people talking about users not using the score-system in the right way when most magazines probably rate all of their games within 75 to 95.

[SadisticChunkyDwarf]

I find it hilarious that some people actually think there is such a thing as an objective critic, or that reviews should be objective.

 

A REVIEW is PER DEFINITION subjective. That is what a review IS. Seriously. If a critic claims to be objective, he or she is lying, or isn't actually doing his job.

I mean apart from the fact that you cannot review something like music or computer games objectively since it all comes down to taste anyway, a review is, and should be, subjective.

 

As for the OP's point: No. Because of the above.

 

That's 100% incorrect. I hate the AC franchise for a number of reasons. I don't care or feel I need to care what is happening in present day scenario, Miles is an extremely annoying character, the gameplay is repetitive to me and more than half the content is tacked on collectibles. The plot is incoherent and attempts (and poorly succeeds) in jamming as many vague references to ancient civilizations and conspiracy theories into the plot without a hint of relevancy.

 

On a level of personal enjoyment of the game I would give a big fat 1 or maybe 2 out of 10, the combat is fun for about 15 minutes and that's the only saving grace for me. But when I actually break down and rate the individual aspects of the game and compare them to their contemporaries, I'd get a score closer to 7/10. You can not eliminate personal preference entirely, if I liked the game I'd probably give it closer to 8/10, but it still earns either score regardless. Rating different aspects of the game like graphics, gameplay, replayability, and rating them independently and regardless of ones personal taste is what professional reviewers generally do.

 

To believe one incapable of shelving their personal biases for the sake of writing an honest review is more of a critique of ones own personal ability to do so rather than any reviewer at large. There are people that are quite capable of it, even if you yourself are not.

[Avilan II]

That's 100% incorrect. 

 

You might need to read up on what the definition of a review is.

 

 

 

On a level of personal enjoyment of the game I would give a big fat 1 or maybe 2 out of 10, the combat is fun for about 15 minutes and that's the only saving grace for me. But when I actually break down and rate the individual aspects of the game and compare them to their contemporaries, I'd get a score closer to 7/10. You can not eliminate personal preference entirely, if I liked the game I'd probably give it closer to 8/10, but it still earns either score regardless. Rating different aspects of the game like graphics, gameplay, replayability, and rating them independently and regardless of ones personal taste is what professional reviewers generally do.

 

 

You confuse admitted bias and personal taste and preference. Not the same thing.

Or to put it another way: Why do you think Rotten Tomatoes have several Rotten reviews among Fresh ones? Even for movies that are universally loved? If they were all objective, they would all get to the same conclusion.

[SadisticChunkyDwarf]

You might need to read up on what the definition of a review is.

 

 

You confuse admitted bias and personal taste and preference. Not the same thing.

Or to put it another way: Why do you think Rotten Tomatoes have several Rotten reviews among Fresh ones? Even for movies that are universally loved? If they were all objective, they would all get to the same conclusion.

 

I'm not confusing anything. "Admitted bias and personal preference are not the same thing" is splitting hairs just a bit for the sake of having an argument, and shows a misunderstanding of the context. Bias is a barrier for impartial judgement, preference acts in the exact fashion when it is used as a perceived measure of quality.

 

I play guitar and exclusively use heavy grade guitar strings. I like them because my fingers are strong, they don't break easily, they produce a deeper tone, and I play on stock guitars so I'm not concerned with tension on the neck.

 

These are all perfectly valid reasons why one would choose a heavy gauge guitar strings. Lighter gauge are more for finesse players or novices who don't have the chops for something heavy. This doesn't disqualify me from reviewing lighter gauge strings, even though I would never actually play with them, provided that I do so with a level of expertise and understanding of what lighter gauge strings are meant to facilitate for the guitarist. I could rate them highly based on my knowledge even if I don't like them.

 

When one gives something a bad rating because it's not their preference, they're not a professional at what they're doing. To suggest that people can not be professional and can not provide objective feedback on something they personally don't like, is 100% false.

[Panda]

No, because of different systems game plays differently. I'm sure PS4 players have average over 3 points higher than PS3 players.

[Jackal19851111]

From my perspective, having gone through the horrible first impression within my first 10 hours of the PC version (I rated it as low as 5, and that hurt me considerably considering I want this game to succeed and Bioware to get its act together - I fear its demise since its founders left after ME3), I've come to the conclusion that Bioware made a rather big mistake in game pacing.

 

For long-time RPG fans and completionists it is a habit to clear out a map before heading out. However, in hinterlands even though you actually can't, but you still want to because hey - you're a completionist. Despite the nagging quests to "go back to the war room", level 12 mobs insta-killing your party, restricted access to redcliffe you persist in grinding and collecting herbs!

 

But after the hinterlands and especially after Haven, a whole new world opens up and starts feeling like a story-driven Bioware game. The game has simply failed to grip players within the 10 hour window due to this change in gameplay style (which doesn't reward a completionist's habit)

 

For me the game is now a solid 8/10, much better than DA2, though still not as great as DAO. Bioware still has my wallet, unless they refuse to fix the issues in PC which is breaking me out of the game and ending up with me on this forum.

[Salaya]

As if critics had some kind of authority for giving their opinions. If anything, they are even more dubious than users when it comes to write down their feelings about a videogame. 

 

But yes, metacritic has a little problem with this. Not because those opinions are invalid but because some of them are product of fraudulent use.

[Corto81]

There's a reason the average score tends to even out in the end.

Anyone who rates this game a zero is just doing that so their score matters more.

This game is in no way a 0 or a 1 anymore than it is a 9 or a 10.

 

I'd rate it as 7.5/10, and at that, it's a much better GAME than it is an ROLE-PLAYING game.

 

...

 

In the end, after a fair number of reviews, the fanboys and the trolls cancel each other out.

I tend to put much more faith into user reviews than professional reviews.

Too many AAA games get hyped and are reviewed as OH-EM-GEE 100/100 best ever when in reality they should probably be a 70/80 at best.

[AlexMBrennan]

Then why bother with user scores at all if you're only gonna count those that agree with "professional" critic opinion?

If you hate the game because it keeps crashing on your computer then you are obviously a troll because the critic who was able to play it liked the game.

[JCAP]

They could make a system based on upvotes.

For example, I make a review and give it a 9. Other people see my review and upvote or downvote.
Of all reviews, the top (1/2*total) reviews with better upvote ratio are used in the average score.

That way, we can filter most of the troll/hater/fanboy reviews. This system is not perfect though (just look at Steam review system, some of the reviews with more upvotes are a joke), but I think this is a lot better than the current algorythm.

[Jackal19851111]

Or they can just implement a system to prevent multiple-account trolls as well as those who "reviewed" the game after the first few hours and decided it was bad. Not to mention these reviews; "This game is bad 10/10", "this game is great 0/10"... I mean come on!

[keyip]

Unfortunately Metacritic was bombarded with people who had an agenda against EA, and the seeming spread of "SJW" Bioware was inflicting everyone. Hence the mountain of 0 votes. It's very unprofessional behaviour but that's the other side of the coin, if you want user reviews you have to be aware that people have prejudices and agendas, if you want to use professional reviews you have to understand that they are a business.

 

At the end of the day I find neither group to be trustworthy. After the Oblivion debacle I found a couple of groups of gamers who's beliefs align with my own and just use them.

[mickey111]

personally I believe that the 10.0 score system is deeply flawed simply because it's impossible to distinguish fractions of a point out of 10.0. Some scoring system without decimal places where everything is a 1, 2,3 or 4 would be much better. 3 would mean a game is good for what it is, 4 would mean it's shining example that other games are likely to be influenced by, 2 means it's okay, 1 is not okay at all and is likely to be an example of what other games should not do. 

[Fidite Nemini]

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

 

Conversely: reviewers can be trusted to give responsible and honest opinions (on whatever a scale they use) ?

 

 

 

Why don't we go through the middle and just say: don't trust metacritic? Any website that claims to offer comrehensive ratings yet allows completely open input without requiring credences or a minimum amount of sophistication in their thought/argument structures that isn't "dis game SUCKZ, derrrp" isn't worth referencing. I can get similarily trsutworthy data by asking random people on the street, with the added bonus of those that have no idea what I'm asking them about would either tell me so and not rate, or would rate falsely because they didn't know better as opposed to just being trolls who want to see a score plummet.

[brzoz]

I disagree. I'd say user metascore fits my tastes and professional reviews usually don't. For this very reason I don't care for professional ones.

Thief has way too high critic metascore, but I'm ok with user rating, D:OS has similar scores and I think that's pretty valid for an indie game, Civilization: BE - same as Thief.

 

I haven't played DAI yet, still waiting for that patch, but from what I've seen so far, its MC users score is as it should be.

[JCAP]

I disagree. I'd say user metascore fits my tastes and professional reviews usually don't. For this very reason I don't care for professional ones.

Thief has way too high critic metascore, but I'm ok with user rating, D:OS has similar scores and I think that's pretty valid for an indie game, Civilization: BE - same as Thief.

 

I haven't played DAI yet, still waiting for that patch, but from what I've seen so far, its MC users score is as it should be.

DA:I PC yesterday had 288 positive reviews, 62 mixed, 290 negative. Sorry, but this is a joke.

There's also Watch Dogs who has negative score. Sure, the game is a disappointment, but it's not bad.

[keyip]

Would love to hear you defend the User Reviews for Call of Duty - Modern Warfare 2, brzoz. The game which sold 22 million copies but has a user score of 4 because people like "TylerH" believes giving the game a reasonable score would "acknowledge Activision/Infinity Ward created a product you want" *Rolls eyes*