Guest_Lathrim_*
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...
I am pretty sure it does not.
Though 2014 was a pretty disappointing year for games, so not much competition.
There was plenty of competition, but so many of the anticipated AAA titles mucked up...
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...
Steam reviews are great source of information, many times it decided whether I will purchase it or not. If only Origin had such a feature.
Reviews are more consistent when it comes to the professional reviewers (if there ever was such a thing?) but if you look at how badly ported some of the games were in the recent days, bugs, craches, DRM, that is more common today than it ever was before. Maybe it just points out the anger from the customers in that part? Assassin's Creed Unity could've been a great game if only they didn't force Uplay on us, as well as mobile apps for mini quests, many crashes, bugs.. Of course people are going to give a low mark even though below all of that there is a good game hiding.
I've read some of the reviews that are negative on Metacritic, and many of them have fair points that pretty much come down to technical issues and gameplay on the PC version. I haven't come across much trolls so far.
I'm surprised with the comments saying liking the game = Bioware fanboy. Because how does that make sense? Top 10 lists on Youtube are personal lists - it isn't the same as saying it is faultless (in the AJ review, he said the game was worse on PC - and hey, that is true). If he'd given it a 10/10, then yeah - I'd be suspicious. But again - its personal opinion.
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.
Sure, which is why I place far more importance on what people are actually saying and use scores merely as a general indicator that a game may be good (or may have an aspect to it some find objectionable - which I may or may not share) rather than some definitive quantification of quality. If I see that a game (such as DA2) has a significantly lower user score I will attempt to find out what the cause of this is. I may decide that the user reviews are full of ship, or I may conclude that I agree with them, or something in between where I decide the criticisms aren't a big deal to me.
There are better places to get consumer info than meta-critic.
I agree in general, except to note that I have often come across user reviews on metacritic which I have found to give me some nugget of insight into how the game plays, or helped me determine what the main flaws (for me) of a game are, or if I'll like it, or so on. I am really just voicing my surprise and concern that anyone would want to outright ignore metacritic as a source of information. That seems unwise. That said, by all means you don't have to bother with metacritic if you don't want to obviously, there are many resources available online to help you research a game. I'm just trying to explain why metacritic is valuable, which I really don't think should be contentious.
But anywho, wrong thread for metacritic stuff.
Angry Joe can list DA:I as his GOTY All Time Greatest Bestest Ever and it won't much bother me or influence my own opinion of the game. I'm far more interested in what he has to say, and doesn't say, in the content of his review (which his Top Ten doesn't really do in detail anyway, it's more a feel-good celebration type thing). I wouldn't dismiss him as not worth listening to even though he obviously has very different tastes than me or because he might say something I disagree with. I try to treat each claim/argument/opinion on its own merits and I treat metacritic the same way. I don't think Angry Joe has been bought out or anything like that though I do try to keep in mind the potential bias of depending upon good relations with developers/publishers for his livelihood. However, that hasn't stopped him from getting stuck into companies when he feels they deserve it. I think he just genuinely really likes DA:I (which he played on controller) and fair enough.
Angry Joe is either a fanboy of Bioware or he is being paid, he likes to say how he made a "mistake" with DA2 score yet he REPEATED that "mistake" in his DA:I review.
Check my signature btw.
Well seeing as how DA;I has got more than 40 GOTY's, either EA are spending all of the games profits on paying off reviewers or the majority of people out their think this game is brilliant. When DA:I won it's first GOTY it was feasible to say that the reviewer was a fanboy or had been brought. Now that it has picked up the majority of the awards it just sounds silly.
Now the OP's I don't agree is fine that is their opinion but the idea that the whole games review industry is under the employ of EA is far fetched.
I'd say its a good game if you can ignore or bypass the bugs and glitches [and obvious shortcuts the dev team made] but I can't agree giving DA:I GOTY or n.1 spot. I base that on its release fiasco, ongoing PC issues, issues in general but really it's the combat bugs stand out and spoil what would otherwise be a worthy goty/n1 contender. Playing my second playthrough[so I at least find it playable!] as a dwarf DW rogue is very bittersweet. A damn shame (in my eyes) since I can see a DLC/expansion fixing all this and making DA:I what it should've been released as (and a recommended purchase).
But for a Dragon Age game if you can play it maxed out on the PC at UHd+ resolution it simply looks stunning, I guess that works in its favour rather than looking dated before its even released.
Cheers!
I'd say its a good game if you can ignore or bypass the bugs and glitches [and obvious shortcuts the dev team made] but I can't agree giving DA:I GOTY or n.1 spot. I base that on its release fiasco, ongoing PC issues, issues in general but really it's the combat bugs stand out and spoil what would otherwise be a worthy goty/n1 contender. Playing my second playthrough[so I at least find it playable!] as a dwarf DW rogue is very bittersweet. A damn shame (in my eyes) since I can see a DLC/expansion fixing all this and making DA:I what it should've been released as (and a recommended purchase).
But for a Dragon Age game if you can play it maxed out on the PC at UHd+ resolution it simply looks stunning, I guess that works in its favour rather than looking dated before its even released.
Cheers!
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.
as far as i know for both games exists only port reports from tb. normally he really hates ports with not opimized controls (which is a technical aspect too). but because this is a new thing maybe he really just judge the performance which would be a little useless because performance is highly dependend on your system and a test with one or two set ups show next to nothing. i mean one of the biggest issues from ports are the controls and the ui and that would be judgeable independent from the own system.
I feel that negativity aimed at Angry Joe is because some people listen to him. Many of the naysayers are afraid that AJ will influence people to go out and buy DAI. The naysayers are afraid if enough people buy the game that will validate Bioware's direction concerning DA. Therefore those naysayers feel that Bioware will not revert back to what they feel made DAO successful. IMHO
The top ten list by Angry Joe is his opinion based on the games he played. He cannot comment on games he has not played. It would really be suspect if he listed games in the top ten that he never played.
Also in his review of DAI he talks about the PC controls and downgrades that version accordingly. The PC version using keyboard and mouse is rated at 8. Playing with the controller he rated the game at 9.
It is one person's opinion. What some people are afraid of is the influence that opinion can have.
Naming calling and personal attacks do not make for good discussion or debate.
Modifié par Realmzmaster, 02 janvier 2015 - 04:44 .
I'm surprised with the comments saying liking the game = Bioware fanboy. Because how does that make sense?
It deserves it. Tell me one game that came out this year that deserves GOTY over it. There are none. The only games that somewhat compete with it are Shadow of Mordor, and two remasters (which dont count), being Halo MCC and Metro Redux
It deserves it. Tell me one game that came out this year that deserves GOTY over it. There are none. The only games that somewhat compete with it are Shadow of Mordor, and two remasters (which dont count), being Halo MCC and Metro Redux
alien isolation would be another good AAA title (and as far as i know with nearly no release problems) and maybe stick of truth
but last year was more a success for small studios and indi titles (dos, this war of mine, transistor, age of wonders 3 etc all of threm were great games, polished and some with fresh ideas), which is not a bad thing. sadly aaa titles still sell better because of this stupid hype
I have no interest in indie titles. The majority of the ones I played are worth no more than $5, and are priced much higher.
I have no interest in indie titles. The majority of the ones I played are worth no more than $5, and are priced much higher.
yeah you have to inform yourself really good at indi titles, a lot of stupid things are outthere. but there are really gems outthere with better gameplay mechanics as most aaa titles. for example transistor has one of the best skill combination systems i've ever seen, this war of mine manage to let you feel really emotional guilty because of forced hard decisions and age of wonders 3 have the best support after release i've seen for a long time while it is the best 4x game outthere when you are not so much in empire building and more tactical combat, at least much better as endless legend (but that one is not indi just a small studio)
Again, this is ANGRY JOE'S top ten. These are the top ten games HE enjoys the best. If he likes DA:I (which according to his review, he does), it is simply a fact that it would be in the top 2.
The OP asked for opinions on AJ's top 10. I gave my opinion. I wasn't slamming or dismissing AJ's list so I don't understand you responding in such a manner. In his video he clearly states why and I can accept his reasoning as they're all valid. I just weigh certain factors above others as he does and they just so happen to differ in my case. The joys of diversity... and top 10's 
Steam reviews are great source of information, many times it decided whether I will purchase it or not. If only Origin had such a feature.
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.
Reviews are more consistent when it comes to the professional reviewers (if there ever was such a thing?) but if you look at how badly ported some of the games were in the recent days, bugs, craches, DRM, that is more common today than it ever was before. Maybe it just points out the anger from the customers in that part? Assassin's Creed Unity could've been a great game if only they didn't force Uplay on us, as well as mobile apps for mini quests, many crashes, bugs.. Of course people are going to give a low mark even though below all of that there is a good game hiding.
I've read some of the reviews that are negative on Metacritic, and many of them have fair points that pretty much come down to technical issues and gameplay on the PC version. I haven't come across much trolls so far.
That's because most of the folks reviewing as users are just as bad at it, or incredibly biased.
I get people want to trash reviewers for their writing, and honestly they should because a majority of reviewers can't write a good review. But on the flipside, most users and entertainers forget the golden rule of subjectivity.
See, the biggest problem with games journalism is really the lack of rigor in the writing. There is no communication of ideas, few, if any, comparisons to genres, the use of slang and adjectives to describe everything without really talking about it. It is frankly a chore to sit through.
An example this is the opening Paragraph fro Joystiq's review by Alex Swilinski.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is an immense fantasy epic, a sprawling adventure across the many landscapes of Thedas, unapologetically mature in its exploration of politics and brazen in its combat. Inquisition is also developer BioWare's redemption song. It's everything that a sequel to Dragon Age: Origins should have been, and time will slip by as players enjoy the hundred hours of escapades it delivers.
Off the bat, it is nothing but praise, little substance as a lead in, throwing in a dig at Dragon Age II and at BioWare (conveying a specific narrative) and really telling us nothing of the experience. The words used, "unapologetically mature" "brazen in it's combat" are nothing more but buzz phrases. There is not analysis here, which is the problem.
That may be the first paragraph, let's go deeper.
But now here is the problem with users: they focus too much on the objective nature of things in a subjective medium. Basically, the only games that are "objectively bad" are things like Big Rigs or Ride to Hell, the truly broken experiences that never work or are half-assed as a result. Most fans tend to make bulletpoint lists off a rubric sheet to justify a score. You see it in big reviews too, almost in the motions checking off boxes until you hit an imaginary criteria that each game has to have.
Then throw in the axe-grinders, the guys who want to ****** on the game because of some actor in it, or some company made it. EA is the perfect example honestly, it gets hate for no ****** reason sometimes, and other times it's due to old grudges from 2002 that people need to get over already. People chastize Nintendo for being too "gimmicky" and pushing out the "same games", people tear down Ubisoft for pumping out sequels every year, or make fun of NIS America for their quirky pandering games. There are legit concerns in those practices, but the game itself should be separate from personal feelings of the practice.
Simply put, users are terrible reviewers because of a warped point of view and a magical quota they need to hit, while professionals need to learn how to simply write better, to provide a more meaningful, nuanced review. Even guys like Joe, who I don't consider a reviewer at all, need to learn this lesson if you ask me if they really want to be taken more seriously.
That's because most of the folks reviewing as users are just as bad at it, or incredibly biased.
I get people want to trash reviewers for their writing, and honestly they should because a majority of reviewers can't write a good review. But on the flipside, most users and entertainers forget the golden rule of subjectivity.
See, the biggest problem with games journalism is really the lack of rigor in the writing. There is no communication of ideas, few, if any, comparisons to genres, the use of slang and adjectives to describe everything without really talking about it. It is frankly a chore to sit through.
An example this is the opening Paragraph fro Joystiq's review by Alex Swilinski.
Off the bat, it is nothing but praise, little substance as a lead in, throwing in a dig at Dragon Age II and at BioWare (conveying a specific narrative) and really telling us nothing of the experience. The words used, "unapologetically mature" "brazen in it's combat" are nothing more but buzz phrases. There is not analysis here, which is the problem.
That may be the first paragraph, let's go deeper.
But now here is the problem with users: they focus too much on the objective nature of things in a subjective medium. Basically, the only games that are "objectively bad" are things like Big Rigs or Ride to Hell, the truly broken experiences that never work or are half-assed as a result. Most fans tend to make bulletpoint lists off a rubric sheet to justify a score. You see it in big reviews too, almost in the motions checking off boxes until you hit an imaginary criteria that each game has to have.
Then throw in the axe-grinders, the guys who want to ****** on the game because of some actor in it, or some company made it. EA is the perfect example honestly, it gets hate for no ****** reason sometimes, and other times it's due to old grudges from 2002 that people need to get over already. People chastize Nintendo for being too "gimmicky" and pushing out the "same games", people tear down Ubisoft for pumping out sequels every year, or make fun of NIS America for their quirky pandering games. There are legit concerns in those practices, but the game itself should be separate from personal feelings of the practice.
Simply put, users are terrible reviewers because of a warped point of view and a magical quota they need to hit, while professionals need to learn how to simply write better, to provide a more meaningful, nuanced review. Even guys like Joe, who I don't consider a reviewer at all, need to learn this lesson if you ask me if they really want to be taken more seriously.
I tend to agree with what you have said, but in order to get a good review we would have to eliminate the human factor basically, because no matter how hard people try, their reviews are based on their own experience, and they cannot ignore it. When you play a game you play it, no one else. It is always subjective. Whether they are paid for it like the professional reviewers or not, they will be biased, but the first will be less so because it is their job and they have to at least try.
I sense there is a problem with the gaming industry because unlike the music and movie industry it is quite young, and from all of the reviews I've read that are made by IGN, Gamespot, etc. they offered little indication as to what the experience is like, because they try so hard not to be biased but as I said before I think that is impossible. Not to mention they are very... simple? (your underlined part) I don't know, I'm trying to express myself in the right way but I fail to do that - English is still a second language to me.
All in all, I always appreciate user reviews more, it offers more substance to me - the basic information that is basically 30% of the reviews by magazines is what I already know, I want to hear personal experience, subjective point. That is what helps me.
And I think that I am capable of detecting when someone is thrashing the game because it is from the "Evil Arts", or because they are trolling, etc. At least for the time being.
I feel that negativity aimed at Angry Joe is because some people listen to him. Many of the naysayers are afraid that AJ will influence people to go out and buy DAI. The naysayers are afraid if enough people buy the game that will validate Bioware's direction concerning DA. Therefore those naysayers feel that Bioware will not revert back to what they feel made DAO successful. IMHO
Angry Joe as an Opinion Leader is a dangerous thing, because he is not aware of his own bias.
I may agree with him on Inquisition (it is the best game of the year for me.) but what I disagree is how he presents it, just like how he presents other games in his web series. The problem is people take listen too intently due to popularity, not due to analysis.
This is all a part of the Diffusion of Innovation Theory; what makes some technology popular vs. what doesn't? The answer in the end is not the product itself or what it can do, but the word of mouth the product receives; basically, the more early adopters out of opinion leaders, or person's people look up to, the more likely the innovation of the product will be passed if the opinion leader approves of it. Any innovations need to be adopted to be sustained, so for example, Apple Ipads were hugely popular because tons of tech analysts were early adopters to the product, leading to the crazes we see now despite the lack of innovation in the said product that many critics have, or the fact that Microsoft made that same product a few years earlier.
So take Joe as the example again, he has a lot of fans, but in his show how much of it is analysis vs. excitement? His Skyrim review I maintain is a poor example of Joe's "reviewing", because it was borderline orgasmic praise for the game without much analysis of what is going on. It was just fun, cool stuff.
Joe is not alone either. Jim Sterling, Ben Kuchera, Leigh Alexander, Shaun Kronenfeld, all of these people have similar problems to different degrees. The only two I would argue that have been relatively good at checking their bias (at least making it known and giving credit where it's due) is John Bain and Ben Croshaw, but even then they sometimes go into tirades for comedy, and people take it too seriously.
That to me is a bigger concern I guess. He may be right about some games, but how he present's it is more important.
I am pretty sure it does not.
I Play darksouls 2 offline and my hrs are totaled there:
http://steamcommunit...ommended/236430
It deserves it. Tell me one game that came out this year that deserves GOTY over it. There are none. The only games that somewhat compete with it are Shadow of Mordor, and two remasters (which dont count), being Halo MCC and Metro Redux
Dark souls 2.
I love DAI and it's great, I'm not a hater at all, but man DS2 was epic. 
I tend to agree with what you have said, but in order to get a good review we would have to eliminate the human factor basically, because no matter how hard people try, their reviews are based on their own experience, and they cannot ignore it. When you play a game you play it, no one else. It is always subjective. Whether they are paid for it like the professional reviewers or not, they will be biased, but the first will be less so because it is their job and they have to at least try.
I sense there is a problem with the gaming industry because unlike the music and movie industry it is quite young, and from all of the reviews I've read that are made by IGN, Gamespot, etc. they offered little indication as to what the experience is like, because they try so hard not to be biased but as I said before I think that is impossible. Not to mention they are very... simple? (your underlined part) I don't know, I'm trying to express myself in the right way but I fail to do that - English is still a second language to me.
All in all, I always appreciate user reviews more, it offers more substance to me - the basic information that is basically 30% of the reviews by magazines is what I already know, I want to hear personal experience, subjective point. That is what helps me.
And I think that I am capable of detecting when someone is thrashing the game because it is from the "Evil Arts", or because they are trolling, etc. At least for the time being.
Well, I would argue that a good reviewer makes their bias known.
Impartiality is impossible in any subjective medium, I agree on that fact. The best critics and reviewers out there, the Roger Ebert's and Robert Christgau's of the world, are unapologetic when it comes to personal taste. Yet they also recognize, and convey it in their works, when something outside of their personal standards is good. That is what makes them great at their job of course; they recognize their limitations of what they enjoy, but can still analyze what they see and play. Even I struggled with it when I did reviews for a while, but after a point I just didn't care; people reading them in the end would pretty much make up their minds before or after the review is read anyway, or they just shoot to the scores on the bottom (something that should be removed as well...)
It is impossible to be unbiased, reviewers need to embrace it correctly, because the flipside is then the user review market, which is the opposite of any analysis vs. popular opinion. We may be capable of sniffing out the difference in terms of user reviews, but the sheer number of them sways the narrative of opinions too much.
Well, I would argue that a good reviewer makes their bias known.
Impartiality is impossible in any subjective medium, I agree on that fact. The best critics and reviewers out there, the Roger Ebert's and Robert Christgau's of the world, are unapologetic when it comes to personal taste. Yet they also recognize, and convey it in their works, when something outside of their personal standards is good. That is what makes them great at their job of course; they recognize their limitations of what they enjoy, but can still analyze what they see and play. Even I struggled with it when I did reviews for a while, but after a point I just didn't care; people reading them in the end would pretty much make up their minds before or after the review is read anyway, or they just shoot to the scores on the bottom (something that should be removed as well...)
It is impossible to be unbiased, reviewers need to embrace it correctly, because the flipside is then the user review market, which is the opposite of any analysis vs. popular opinion. We may be capable of sniffing out the difference in terms of user reviews, but the sheer number of them sways the narrative of opinions too much.
Yes, I agree with you. To conclude, bias is impossible to remove, but it should also be known to the reader, and most importantly, to the reviewer himself/herself. Only then the review should be taken into consideration.
Retour en haut