@JCAP: never played it, 4 is not bad, it's below average. i think, i'll try it... someday. Maybe. if I get bored. I think.
@keyip: is this some kind of fps? O_o
Really? In the DAI forum? If it's not strange to mention a fps on a rpg game forum, then I already know what my initial reaction to DAI is...
CoD: Never played it, never will. Sales numbers don't matter. And statistics is the biggest lie in the verse.
Reasonable people should just ignore metacritic user scores, full stop. Problem solved.
That's correct, but there are STILL people out there who think user reviews mean something, unaware of how incredibly biased those things are. Probably the same kind of people who think online polls mean anything (which is basically what user reviews are).
They are subject to a massive self-selecting bias, which directly translates into people with a bone to pick, meaning the bias is usually overwhelmingly negative (despite some people counter-reviewing when they see the ludicrously biased low reviews, which ultimately just adds to the unreliability of the data).
And that's not counting how easily "doctored" the results are through review bombing campaigns. For example, DAI could easily have pissed off an MRA lobby group, which then decides to flood the user reviews with negative scores to harm the game's success (and they don't even have to be honest about why they're down reviewing).
Ultimately, what this means is that if metacritic had any ounce of sense or care, they would outright disable user reviews. They're meaningless, they're terribly easy to manipulate, and bear no reflection on the product being reviewed. At most it can tell you that some people are angry about it, which applies to everything in existence.
@JCAP: never played it, 4 is not bad, it's below average. i think, i'll try it... someday. Maybe. if I get bored. I think.
@keyip: is this some kind of fps? O_o
Really? In the DAI forum? If it's not strange to mention a fps on a rpg game forum, then I already know what my initial reaction to DAI is...
CoD: Never played it, never will. Sales numbers don't matter. And statistics is the biggest lie in the verse.
4 is a bad score. WD deserves at least 7.
Ultimately, what this means is that if metacritic had any ounce of sense or care, they would outright disable user reviews. They're meaningless, they're terribly easy to manipulate, and bear no reflection on the product being reviewed. At most it can tell you that some people are angry about it, which applies to everything in existence.
Pretty much this. Even Witcher 3 might be affected by this.
You would think that general public thinks CDPR is a good developer or that Witcher is a good franchise. Well, just go to Steam forums and see for yourself. People b*tch about anything, literally (full price [despite the discount if you have previous titles], Xbox One exclusive trinkets [not in-game trinkets], pre-purchase, even those guys that risked buying RU version are b*tching because there is a possibility they might get region locked or russian language only [well duh, what the hell were they thinking?])
Unfortunatly, today Internet community is not worth much. The only places I can have a serious conversation about anything are small forums where each user knows each other.
People should do like me, find an independent reviewer that has similar tastes to us (in my case, Angry Joe and Zangado) and build their opinion about a game by watching their reviews and gameplay.
I think we would see a lot less of this phenomena of very low scores, if there was a 48 hour delay between the time the game was launched, and when user reviews would be accepted.
That would allow the impulsive gamers who see the first thing they find annoying in a game - like changed and not very good PC controls - and rush off to give that 0 rating for the game, almost as a knee jerk reaction; an expression of their frustration.
If you gave them 48 hours - a little more time to get accustomed to the system, enough time to see more of the game, and to sleep on it, sure, you'd still get some people who wouldn't have gotten over their initial bad impression, but I suspect you'd see a lot fewer 0 - 3 user reviews.
Ultimately, what this means is that if metacritic had any ounce of sense or care, they would outright disable user reviews. They're meaningless, they're terribly easy to manipulate, and bear no reflection on the product being reviewed. At most it can tell you that some people are angry about it, which applies to everything in existence.
But there are plenty of games whose critic scores and user scores match up? How do you explain that if people are angry about everything? In fact, all of Bioware's games used to be matching. Guess when that stopped? DA2. ME3. Now DAI. You think its the customers that changed? Nope. Its Bioware that has changed.
Anyone who enjoys RPGs would NEVER give DAI any score below 5
Why would anybody who enjoys RPGs not give and action game like DA:I a score lower than 5?
Why would anybody who enjoys RPGs not give and action game like DA:I a score lower than 5?
Because it's a good Action-RPG.
Because it's a good Action-RPG.
Well, I love RPGs (even stuff like Shadowrun Returns, Wasteland 2, Divinity: Original Sin...) and gave the game a 4 on Metacritic. I would have given it a 5 if the PC version wasn't a terrible console port.
In it present state I would rate Inquisition at a maximum of 6 out of 10, but I would not hesitate to give it a big fat zero out of principal and to protect the innocent.
Because it's a good Action-RPG.
Heck, it's only an action RPG if you want it to be. Bump up the difficulty and you better play it like an RPG (barring exploits, I guess).
Either way, it's still an RPG. Calling it an action game is silly and downright dishonest. That it has an action mode doesn't make it any less an RPG than Mass Effect (and it's far deeper RPG elements than ME or Jade Empire, for example).
Heck, it's only an action RPG if you want it to be. Bump up the difficulty and you better play it like an RPG (barring exploits, I guess).
Either way, it's still an RPG. Calling it an action game is silly and downright dishonest. That it has an action mode doesn't make it any less an RPG than Mass Effect (and it's far deeper RPG elements than ME or Jade Empire, for example).
Compared with Origins, it's more action oriented.
And well, although I don't totally agree with your second paragraph, I know some people who would love to destroy you and disagree with all their passion right now if they read that.
In it present state I would rate Inquisition at a maximum of 6 out of 10, but I would not hesitate to give it a big fat zero out of principal and to protect the innocent.
A prime example of why user reviews are untrustworthy.
Yeah but a lot of people distrust critics.
Some (few) critics are legit while others...
IGN for example, in one of their Pokemon reviews:
Retour en haut