586 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

Maybe there is a god and he refuses to lock the thread because he thinks DA:I is a bad game.

 

Just a thought.

I'm not even religious and I think this is f**king stupid.

[dlux]

That's hilarious, since the site you claim as the holy grail of reviews disagrees with you:

http://abload.de/img/2upuy2.png

Oh, wait, you probably don't want me using your evidence for DA 2 being a better game used in this context, do you?

Uh, what?
 
Anyway, feel free to post that everywhere so everybody can see that DA2, ME3 and DA:I all got bad user scores because they are bad games.
 

I'm not even religious and I think this is f**king stupid.

Hey, you started with the god thing. Remember?

[o Ventus]

Uh, what?
 
Anyway, feel free to post that everywhere so everybody can see that DA2, ME3 and DA:I all got bad user scores because they are bad games.
 

Hey, you started with the god thing. Remember?

Yeah, I meant it as a joke. I can plainly tell that you were serious.

 

Also, user reviews are much more reliable than critic scores, because a game that would average a 7 or an 8 on any reasonable person's radar is totally deserving of a 1 or a 10.

[robertthebard]

Yeah, I meant it as a joke. I can plainly tell that you were serious.
 
Also, user reviews are much more reliable than critic scores, because a game that would average a 7 or an 8 on any reasonable person's radar is totally deserving of a 1 or a 10.

Heh, it's really funny both in the thread where he's ranting on and on about how DA 2 was better than DA I, and how MetaCritic is such a reliable source of information. He then proceeds to link to data that shows that both ME 3 and DA I outperformed DA 2 on his Holy Grail review site.

[dlux]

Also, user reviews are much more reliable than critic scores, because a game that would average a 7 or an 8 on any reasonable person's radar is totally deserving of a 1 or a 10.

DA:I is a pretty bad game IMO, i'd only give it a 5/10 tops. DA2 gets a 6/10 from me.

 

Anyway, maybe Bioware should start making good games again, then they will also get good user ratings on Metacritic.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Yes, recently released good games still get good user ratings on Metacritic.

 

Spoiler

[dlux]

Heh, it's really funny both in the thread where he's ranting on and on about how DA 2 was better than DA I, and how MetaCritic is such a reliable source of information. He then proceeds to link to data that shows that both ME 3 and DA I outperformed DA 2 on his Holy Grail review site.

Well, DA2 is better than DA:I in my opinion. 

 

Anyway, the Metacritic user score show that both games suck. So I dunno what your problem is.

[Phoe77]

When did we come up with an objective way of measuring a video game's quality.  That's almost as impressive as them finding a way to make that measurement universally applicable!

 

In other words, I believe that reviews, whether from critics or players, are subjective and based on individual criteria.  Therefore, I'm not going to let a number tell me whether or not it's okay to enjoy a game or say that I think it's good.

[In Exile]

When did we come up with an objective way of measuring a video game's quality.  That's almost as impressive as them finding a way to make that measurement universally applicable!

 

In other words, I believe that reviews, whether from critics or players, are subjective and based on individual criteria.  Therefore, I'm not going to let a number tell me whether or not it's okay to enjoy a game or say that I think it's good.

 

It was in 2001, after the Joint Committee On Objectifying Subjective Tastes convened the Subcommittee on Video Games and Other Electronic Media. This is what you get for not reading the newsletter. 

[o Ventus]

Heh, it's really funny both in the thread where he's ranting on and on about how DA 2 was better than DA I, and how MetaCritic is such a reliable source of information. He then proceeds to link to data that shows that both ME 3 and DA I outperformed DA 2 on his Holy Grail review site.

But wouldn't that mean that DAI is, objectively from his weird and idiotic point of view, better than DA2?

 

You're not allowed to point and say "well, user scores are the end-all be-all" and "DA2 is better than DAI" when the user scores for DA2 are abysmally low compared to DAI.

[xkg]

a game that would average a 7 or an 8 on any reasonable person's radar is totally deserving of a 1 or a 10.

 

I love how you narrowed it to your(probably) personal score and claimed it as the only "reasonable" scoring.

[MadDemiurg]

...

 

.......

 

...........

 

What?

What I said. It even has green explosions and stuff.

[robertthebard]

Well, DA2 is better than DA:I in my opinion. 
 
Anyway, the Metacritic user score show that both games suck. So I dunno what your problem is.

You're entitled to your opinion, that's certainly true, despite how people very much like you want to deny people with positive opinions their own right to one. The irony here, to me, is that you wanted to demonstrate some kind of point about metacritic's reliability, and how DA 2 was a better game, and yet, it scores below both ME 3 and DA I. So, either the site is flawed for your purpose, or DA 2 wasn't a better game than either of the games that you chose to compare it to. If I'm going to take you at your word that Metacritic is reliable, then DA 2 isn't a better game.

In context with the topic, allow me to use your own site to answer your premise here: Since it outscored DA 2 by a full point, then no, the series shouldn't be done. After all, outscoring it by a full point means that improvements were made since the last installment, and the next game can only be better, based on this two game trend. I am, however, curious to see which position you decide to waffle on now.

[dlux]

In other words, I believe that reviews, whether from critics or players, are subjective and based on individual criteria.  Therefore, I'm not going to let a number tell me whether or not it's okay to enjoy a game or say that I think it's good.

 

Did anybody say you are not allowed to enjoy a game if a substantial amount of players don't like it? Nope.

 

Enjoy DA:I all you want if you like it. Worship it as the best game ever made for all I care.

[robertthebard]

But wouldn't that mean that DAI is, objectively from his weird and idiotic point of view, better than DA2?
 
You're not allowed to point and say "well, user scores are the end-all be-all" and "DA2 is better than DAI" when the user scores for DA2 are abysmally low compared to DAI.

I'm afraid so. It will be interesting to see which opinion he waffles on, however.

[Phoe77]

It's not stated that I'm not allowed to, but it's certainly clear that people think I'm wrong for doing so.  

[MadDemiurg]

It's not stated that I'm not allowed to, but it's certainly clear that people think I'm wrong for doing so.  

Why should you care ?

[dlux]

But wouldn't that mean that DAI is, objectively from his weird and idiotic point of view, better than DA2?

People who dislike DA:I are now idiots?

[Phoe77]

Wow, I feel like I stole the spotlight here.

 

I care because I dislike that mindset.  I'll continue to enjoy the game regardless of what people on the internet tell me.  It doesn't bother me much if people don't care for the game, but it does bother me when they insinuate that people who disagree are delusional or incapable of recognizing quality.  

[o Ventus]

I love how you narrowed it to your(probably) personal score and claimed it as the only "reasonable" scoring.

...

 

......

 

What? Boy, either sit down or read the actual post and think about what I said before responding. I wasn't rating anything. See, what I did was called "propose a hypothetical", wherein I post an otherwise fictional account of something to determine a potential outcome. In this case, I mention "a game" (literally any game, it doesn't matter what the game is). This game would register a 7 or 8 to most reasonable people (read: the overwhelming majority of people who play it), but the Metacritic user scores are painted largely with either 1's or 10's, thus skewing the user score to be either far higher or far lower than what it mathematically should be.

 

Do you understand it yet or do I need to spoon-feed the rest to you?

[o Ventus]

People who dislike DA:I are now idiots?
 

Yeah, sure, because that's totally what I said and not at all you reaching for a counter-point.

 

You have to be either stupid or desperate to twist words as badly as you just did, when the words are literally in front of you to look at.

[dlux]

You're entitled to your opinion, that's certainly true, despite how people very much like you want to deny people with positive opinions their own right to one.

Like I wrote, like the game all you want. Create a shrine and worship DA:I as the best game ever made for all I care. Good for you if you like the game.

The irony here, to me, is that you wanted to demonstrate some kind of point about metacritic's reliability, and how DA 2 was a better game, and yet, it scores below both ME 3 and DA I. So, either the site is flawed for your purpose, or DA 2 wasn't a better game than either of the games that you chose to compare it to. If I'm going to take you at your word that Metacritic is reliable, then DA 2 isn't a better game.

I was "demonstrating" that DA2, ME3 and DA:I are all bad/lackluster games according to general consensus.

In context with the topic, allow me to use your own site to answer your premise here: Since it outscored DA 2 by a full point, then no, the series shouldn't be done. After all, outscoring it by a full point means that improvements were made since the last installment, and the next game can only be better, based on this two game trend. I am, however, curious to see which position you decide to waffle on now.

Um, well, neither DA2 nor DA:I improved upon Dragon Age: Origins. The Metacritic user score reflects upon this too.

[xkg]

...

 

......

 

What? Boy, either sit down or read the actual post and think about what I said before responding. I wasn't rating anything. See, what I did was called "propose a hypothetical", wherein I post an otherwise fictional account of something to determine a potential outcome. In this case, I mention "a game" (literally any game, it doesn't matter what the game is). This game would register a 7 or 8 to most reasonable people (read: the overwhelming majority of people who play it), but the Metacritic user scores are painted largely with either 1's or 10's, thus skewing the user score to be either far higher or far lower than what it mathematically should be.

 

Do you understand it yet or do I need to spoon-feed the rest to you?

 

Majority =\= automatically reasonable, that's the first thing.

Second. Even if it was, how can you tell that this hypothetical game "would register a 7 or 8 to overwhelming majority of people who play it". Do you have any source to some polls or data to claim that as a fact or ... or is it just your guess ?

[dlux]

Yeah, sure, because that's totally what I said and not at all you reaching for a counter-point.
 
You have to be either stupid or desperate to twist words as badly as you just did, when the words are literally in front of you to look at.

Oh ho ho, and now I am "possibly stupid".

 

Temper, temper. Don't throw a tantrum now. 

[Paragonslustre]

Should Dragon Age be done?  No, no, no.  I'm comfortable with the history and like the feeling of knowing what the hell I'm doing most of the time.  It's not perfect, nope but I'm drooling with anticipation for the DLC.  Maybe I'm too easily pleased but I had FUN with it.  I've never played Mass Effect so can't make any comparisons with it.

[robertthebard]

Majority =\= automatically reasonable, that's the first thing.
Second. Even if it was, how can you tell that this hypothetical game "would register a 7 or 8 to 

overwhelming majority of people who play it". Do you have any source to some polls or data to claim that as a fact or ... or is it just your guess ?

Can we have something a bit more reliable that sites that allow things like what's mentioned here? Specifically, I'm referring to the end of the linked post:

Something is always wrong when the user and critic scores deviate so far from each other. Don't ever trust critic reviews when that happens, because this usually means that a game is utter crap or at least very, very buggy.

Spoiler

I also seriously can't blame some people for giving the game 0 points. The score needs to be balanced out because of all of the fake perfect 10 reviews from EA drones.

Emphasis mine.