456 réponses à ce sujet

[evgenija28]

I think there's a thread already on here that discusses the viability of Metacritic.

You don't even have to have an account/play the game to offer a review.  So, it's tough getting any kind of accurate, objective, stats.

 

No it doesn't. Metacritic is well known as a protest site, which is why nobody listens to them. 930 protest votes out of millions of copies sold is actually extremely low.

 

As I said before, most other sites rate Inquisition highly. It's won more READER'S CHOICE awards than any other game this year. Metacritic is the anomaly like always, and like always nobody listens to what they say.

 

Well, I didn't know that. People often talk about Metacritic score, they talked about how DA2 had low marks and then it was relevant but not now? 

Anyway, what websites have user reviews and rate the game highly, if you can give me links? I would like to read them, no sarcasam whatsover. 

[Fire Snake]

didnt know larian works on an overhaul so forgive me that. the last i've seen on steam forums was the announcement of a new difficulty, but thats been a while. maybe the better term would have been, they abandoned the steam forums for a while

 

Of course, and I in turn didn't know that they had neglected the Steam forums   . They put out awesome updates but it's probably a mistake to assume everyone would get to hear about the latest. Not even all backers will have the time (or interest) to read/watch every update.

[keyip]

Well, I didn't know that. People often talk about Metacritic score, they talked about how DA2 had low marks and then it was relevant but not now? 

 

The only people who talk about Metacritic being relevant are people who love to protest vote. Even Reddit considers Metacritic to be the sewer the review world

 

Anyway, what websites have user reviews and rate the game highly, if you can give me links? I would like to read them, no sarcasam whatsover. 

 

No offense, but I've posted the info about 4 or 5 times now. You don't mind if I link one of my previous statements?

 

http://forum.bioware...-up/?p=18114667

 

Also, I'll post something else. Take a wild stab in the dark at the year Metacritic started to be flooded with whingers. Also take a note of the consistency of professional reviews compared with the ever changing standard of user reviews.

 

[snigiro]

7/10 for me

Angry Joe is cool, but i wouldnt call DAI game of the year... so many major issues with the game.

Tacky tactical camera (so fail)
Horrible AI to the point it realy effected my gameplay. (worst AI ever created in a game?)
Tacky Multiplayer. (ew...)
Clunky Combat (targeting is bad)
Controls are bad (for PC can't even use modifiers or map keys to gaming a mouse, WTF this is PC! rly, SRSLY!?)

However, story realy does immerse you as well as the graphics. Huge maps to explore. War talbe thing is cool..

[schall_und_rauch]

i never mentioned DAO, and ive never been deluded about its flaws. My thoughts on this idiot are not based on this alone, after having watched him embarrass himself countless times in his vids. In the past i thought him sincere, albeit sad and foolish, and watched his vids for the laughs, but now, based on the changes in his tone, its not difficult to deduct. Where do you see anyone here suggesting the game should be in the trash-bin? People keep saying its a great game, but more flawed than its made out to be, by "professional reviewers", which is true. How do you explain that practically -none- of them mention the absolutely horrendous controls on the pc, something that is inescapably obvious if you attempt to play a melee char? How do you explain that none of them mentioned the terrible performance and glitches or how the game hogs up to 70% and higher  of your cpu's resources, and all of your gpu, and a huge portion of your memory? While offering terrible performance on high end rigs? Its a great but very flawed game. Games with better graphics, and more demanding specs run far better with far less resource hog

AJ explicitly mentions how sucky KB+M controls are and deducts one point for the PC version, calling it a crappy console port. Watch thr original review.

As for performance, it's very likely the reviewer played the PC version on on,y one rig where it ran fine. It runs fine on mine at Ultra level and I certainly don't have a high end rig.

[keyip]

I should also point out that 1400 people voted Inquisition to be GOTY on the Escapist forums. Inquisition got 4 times as many votes as its nearest competitor over at Gamespot, and twice more votes than Divinity for best PC game. You could mention the overlap of voters in the english speaking world and I'd point to the many people who voted for Inquisition for GOTY on sites not written in English, like this one - http://www.eurogamer...gamer-pl?page=2

 

Ignoring the majority of sites on the web and holding Metacritic up as the one true bastion for true reviews is ridiculous. The far more sensible answer is Metacritic is out of kilter with the majority of gamers. The reasons why this occurs should be fairly obvious.

[Fire Snake]

No it doesn't. Metacritic is well known as a protest site, which is why nobody listens to them. 930 protest votes out of millions of copies sold is actually extremely low.

 

As I said before, most other sites rate Inquisition highly. It's won more READER'S CHOICE awards than any other game this year. Metacritic is the anomaly like always, and like always nobody listens to what they say.

 

Err, well I listen to what Metacritic has to say. Or more specifically, I will look to both professional and user review averages to see if there is much disparity, in which case I will read a selection of the actual reviews (which I would do anyway, from 10s to 0s and everything in between) to determine what the main grievances users might have with the game and if these are likely to matter to me personally. Of course I would compare my findings with all the other reviews, marketing and assorted information I have seen about the game to come to an informed opinion. I would not ignore Metacritic as worthless, far from it. It merely needs to be viewed with a critical mind the same as with any review you would come across anywhere.

 

I will concede that you have to sort through quite a lot of chaff in Metacritic's user reviews, however I would say the same of the 'professional' reviews.

 

Btw, protest is not inherently bad either so I do not understand why even assuming as true that Metacritic is often used as a protest site, how this would somehow be grounds to dismiss the validity of that protest and what people have to say about a game.

 

I am far more interested in what people have to say about a game than I am in a numerical score or what the majority may or may not think.

[Fire Snake]

 

 

Ignoring the majority of sites on the web and holding Metacritic up as the one true bastion for true reviews is ridiculous. 

 

I definitely agree with this. However the opposite is also ridiculous.

[keyip]

Err, well I listen to what Metacritic has to say. Or more specifically, I will look to both professional and user review averages to see if there is much disparity, in which case I will read a selection of the actual reviews (which I would do anyway, from 10s to 0s and everything in between) to determine what the main grievances users might have with the game and if these are likely to matter to me personally. Of course I would compare my findings with all the other reviews, marketing and assorted information I have seen about the game to come to an informed opinion. I would not ignore Metacritic as worthless, far from it. It merely needs to be viewed with a critical mind the same as with any review you would come across anywhere.

 

 

Most of the reviews there are newsbyte versions of the stuff you can get from reddit or elsewhere. And that's the stuff that aren't from the people who never play the game, slam in a '0' and a criticism they picked up from google.

 

 

I will concede that you have to sort through quite a lot of chaff in Metacritic's user reviews, however I would say the same of the 'professional' reviews.

 

The difference being the 'chaff' in professional reviews actually have to meet a certain standard, whereas the 'chaff' from user reviews delve into depths of stupidity you had no idea existed.

 

Btw, protest is not inherently bad either so I do not understand why even assuming as true that Metacritic is often used as a protest site, how this would somehow be grounds to dismiss the validity of that protest and what people have to say about a game.

 

 

Protests, while not inherently bad, are worthless as reviews. These are 2 very different things. A review is suppose to give you an impression of the game, whereas much of the protest on Metacritic being anger aimed at business practices by EA and Acti, or anger aimed at the SJW nature of Bioware, or anger at the change in philosophy of the game. Basically worthless for review purposes.

[bEVEsthda]

I like the game. Pretty much everybody, who's opinion I respect, Sylvius the Mad, Remmirath, Elhanan, Alan C9, even In Exile,.. like this game, regardless what we thought about DA2. So Angry Joe likes the game. Figures. He's basically all the reviewers I bother with. Even when he likes a game I won't like, I understand him and understand why I won't like it.

 

Now try to call me a Bioware fanboy. There should be at least some DA2 fans around here, who remembers enough to dismiss that notion.

 

When FO3 came along, there was a lot of griping from a small core of FO-fans because it wasn't the game they would have wanted. They suffered a black, mental block that made them unable to see that FO3 was a great game. I always thought that was so unreasonable, due to the amount of time that had passed. The interval is shorter this time, but my take on it, is that it's a similar situation. There is a small core that can't get over that it's not DA:O.

Wouldn't it have been better if it had been a DA:O type of game?  Maybe. But I don't think the current Bioware team is able to do a DA:O type of game and make it good. If they don't understand why and how DA:O is better, they can't make it.

As for the end judgement on this game, I think even the Meta-critic figures will creep up into the 80'es, eventually.

[keyip]

 

When FO3 came along, there was a lot of griping from a small core of FO-fans because it wasn't the game they would have wanted. They suffered a black, mental 

 

There's still a lot of griping, you just have to know where to go

[Vox Draco]

Trust ONLY user reviews, the rest are bull.

 

Many years ago I may have agreed to that but ... as many "users" for example seem to be unable to adjust to controls of a game or remap the keyboard...or criticize the most nitpicking little things and consider their own biased opinions as "facts", I have trouble to trust those as well...On the BS alone there is too much "bull" posted, its ridiculous ...

 

And to this very subjective reviews throw in the usual mix of hate on the evil "system of modern game-designing" and publishers (whose money allow games with amzing voice-acting and cinematics to be made) and you have a user-review I couldn't take less serious ...oh, forgot: evil console-ports!!!

 

In the end, I only trust ONE Reviewer on this planet ... that's me (whoa, nobody saw THAT coming, eh? )

[Elhanan]

I like the game. Pretty much everybody, who's opinion I respect, Sylvius the Mad, Remmirath, Elhanan, Alan C9, even In Exile,.. like this game, regardless what we thought about DA2. So Angry Joe likes the game. Figures. He's basically all the reviewers I bother with. Even when he likes a game I won't like, I understand him and understand why I won't like it.
 
Now try to call me a Bioware fanboy. There should be at least some DA2 fans around here, who remembers enough to dismiss that notion....

Not exactly the assembled group most would have guessed, is it?

[Farangbaa]

I definitely agree with this. However the opposite is also ridiculous.

Lol. So you mean that looking at all other websites except Metacritic is the same as ignoring all other websites and only using Metacritic?

Right.

[Fire Snake]

Most of the reviews there are newsbyte versions of the stuff you can get from reddit or elsewhere. And that's the stuff that aren't from the people who never play the game, slam in a '0' and a criticism they picked up from google.

 

 

The difference being the 'chaff' in professional reviews actually have to meet a certain standard, whereas the 'chaff' from user reviews delve into depths of stupidity you had no idea existed.

 

 

 

Sure, however to extend the analogy, the seeds of truth remain in both cases once the chaff is removed. I notice you say "most of the reviews there" which implies you concede there are user reviews on metacritic of greater worth than what you deride as 'newsbyte' stuff. I don't object to your general criticism of metacritic, I welcome it as a caution to all to peruse it with a critical mind. I am only objecting to your summary dismissal of metacritic as worthless and of the contrary opinions posted there as unhelpful.

 

 

 

Protests, while not inherently bad, are worthless as reviews. These are 2 very different things. A review is suppose to give you an impression of the game, whereas much of the protest on Metacritic being anger aimed at business practices by EA and Acti, or anger aimed at the SJW nature of Bioware, or anger at the change in philosophy of the game. Basically worthless for review purposes.

 

I strongly disagree that protest reviews are worthless. They are certainly not worthless in helping me form an impression of a game and decide whether I will buy it, regardless of whether I end up agreeing with what that protest claims or not. One cannot dismiss someone's claims merely by attributing them to anger or consumer backlash. One needs to engage with the substance of criticisms to refute them.

 

Protest reviews are worth less than a more thorough review (though obviously protest and praise can and often do coexist in the one review) assuming they are narrowly focussed, however they are not worthless.

[outlaw1109]

Well, I didn't know that. People often talk about Metacritic score, they talked about how DA2 had low marks and then it was relevant but not now? 

Anyway, what websites have user reviews and rate the game highly, if you can give me links? I would like to read them, no sarcasam whatsover. 

Actually, I can't.  Most of the reviews I, personally, found were negative.

I only bought DAI on the insistence of a friend that said he would refund my money if I didn't like it.

I can only actually say that Metacritic isn't exactly a trustworthy source of data points.

[Fire Snake]

Lol. So you mean that looking at all other websites except Metacritic is the same as ignoring all other websites and only using Metacritic?

Right.

 

No, not that it's the same. Just that it's also ridiculous to ignore what Metacritic might have to say about a game, while holding the majority opinion as truth simply because it is the majority.

[Natureguy85]

me too. not especially by angry joe because in my opinion he is entertaining (not his streams just the reviews) but a bit superficial. what surprised me most was the "review" from total biscuit because he focus mainly on comperable things like technic stuff and controls, and while he mentioned these things that are not really good he skip them pretty fast. when you look at the far cry 4 video he criticize it massivly because of a view framerate drops while in da:I the controls and ui are just mentioned alongside. a bit weird, especially because in my opinion TB is way more trustworthy than angry joe (at least after AJ's copyright strike problems)

 

Are you referring to TB's "Port Report"? That's where I remember him talking more about the framerates. Those videos are not reviews and focus on technical aspects. I don't think I watched the "WTF is" if you're referring to that.

[Elhanan]

Err, well I listen to what Metacritic has to say. Or more specifically, I will look to both professional and user review averages to see if there is much disparity, in which case I will read a selection of the actual reviews (which I would do anyway, from 10s to 0s and everything in between) to determine what the main grievances users might have with the game and if these are likely to matter to me personally. Of course I would compare my findings with all the other reviews, marketing and assorted information I have seen about the game to come to an informed opinion. I would not ignore Metacritic as worthless, far from it. It merely needs to be viewed with a critical mind the same as with any review you would come across anywhere.
 
I will concede that you have to sort through quite a lot of chaff in Metacritic's user reviews, however I would say the same of the 'professional' reviews.
 
Btw, protest is not inherently bad either so I do not understand why even assuming as true that Metacritic is often used as a protest site, how this would somehow be grounds to dismiss the validity of that protest and what people have to say about a game.
 
I am far more interested in what people have to say about a game than I am in a numerical score or what the majority may or may not think.

But user reviews are quite possibly made by non-users. This invalidates whatever process is used. Scores both pro & con are made soon after release, and sometimes before. And flawed math is used to convert scores, as well as finding the so-called average.

There are better places to get consumer info than meta-critic.

[bEVEsthda]

There's still a lot of griping, you just have to know where to go

 

  Well, it's one thing to champion good gaming features, it's another to think one is best championing those things by bad-mouthing a magnificent, different game. So excuse me, while I don't have the time and energy to pity them, as they stand there, all alone, in the desert, screaming. 

[Fire Snake]

I like the game. Pretty much everybody, who's opinion I respect, Sylvius the Mad, Remmirath, Elhanan, Alan C9, even In Exile,.. like this game, regardless what we thought about DA2. So Angry Joe likes the game. Figures. He's basically all the reviewers I bother with. Even when he likes a game I won't like, I understand him and understand why I won't like it.

 

 

 

That Sylvius considers the dialogue system much improved gives me great hope I too will like the game more than DA2, I haven't played it yet. My main reservations are to do with combat and I'm waiting to see the extent to which Bioware will patch the game. The opinions I respect are divided and as yet I'm not sure if I would like it enough to lay down full price.

[Vox Draco]

But user reviews are quite possibly made by non-users. This invalidates whatever process is used. Scores both pro & con are made soon after release, and sometimes before. And flawed math is used to convert scores, as well as finding the so-called average.

There are better places to get consumer info than meta-critic.

 

That's why I like to read the reviews on Steam before I purchase. There you can see how much hours people have played. Sure, not perfect either (does offline-play go into that?), but when I read a longer review from someone who seems to have played the game for more than just half an hour I tend to trust that review a bit more than, well, just 1 hour played and one sentence-review "This game is utter criap!!" ...

 

Metacritic? It's good for the laughs I guess...

[Zwingtanz]

Metacritic is just ridiculous at this point, at best useful for games that came out 10+ years ago.

[Little Princess Peach]

2014 had really weak games there was not much competion