222 réponses à ce sujet

[keyip]

I disagree that because it won awards that it means the game is "good." And I again point you to the "lesser of two evils" phenomena which could suggest Inquisition was just better than what was on offer (in a year that many of the same outlets would agree was not great for gaming--especially in AAA), but that doesn't necessarily make Inquisition a good game.

 

Good is a subjective quality that cannot be measured due to people's different definition of the word. Generally though, if a game wins more consumer opinion awards than any other game, and is held in high regard in the majority of places on the internet, it's generally considered that the consumers believe it's (Inquisition is) a good game.

[NextGenCowboy]

It's a good game, but I doubt it would win much of anything if it released 2 months later than it did.

Is that really a fair statement though? Look at the Game of the Year winners in the past. If some of those were stacked up against some other winners, then they wouldn't have won. Knight of the Old Republic likely wouldn't beat something like Half Life, and Walking Dead, breaking the trend as an Adventure Game, likely would have been slaughtered by The Last of Us (along with most everything else).

[dreamgazer]

I disagree that because it won awards that it means the game is "good." And I again point you to the "lesser of two evils" phenomena which could suggest Inquisition was just better than what was on offer (in a year that many of the same outlets would agree was not great for gaming--especially in AAA), but that doesn't necessarily make Inquisition a good game.

What are these "evils" you're referring to here? An anti-Bayonetta agenda? An anti-Mordor agenda? Rabid hatred for Divinity?

If anything would have an agenda against it, wouldn't it be the latest RPG from the EA-owned BioWare?

[Dreamer]

Good is a subjective quality that cannot be measured due to people's different definition of the word. Generally though, if a game wins more consumer opinion awards than any other game, and is held in high regard in the majority of places on the internet, it's generally considered that the consumers believe it's (Inquisition is) a good game.

 

That may be the prevailing wisdom, but that doesn't make it true. It makes something popular, but popular says nothing about a thing's quality or goodness.

 

Inquisition winning popularity awards only tells us one thing: "Hey a bunch of people on the internet voted for this game!" That's it. Anything more read into the results is doing so on the basis of assumption--but more likely confirmation bias.

 

What are these "evils" you're referring to here? An anti-Bayonetta agenda? An anti-Mordor agenda? Rabid hatred for Divinity?

If anything would have an agenda against it, wouldn't it be the latest RPG from the EA-owned BioWare?

 

Could be any of those! We don't know.

[SofaJockey]

GOTY pedigree looks pretty solid:

 

• 2013 (1) The Last of Us
• 2012 (1) The Walking Dead
• 2011 (1) Skyrim
• 2010 (1) Red Dead Redemption
• 2009 (1) Uncharted 2

I'm curious why so much of this thread is arguing the statistics and motivations of these GOTY decisions?

On a forum for people who have an interest in and who follow Dragon Age.

 

Seeking to assert, these awards (this year) are meaningless / other games are better / DAI is sh*t.

 

I remember the Lord of the Rings forum when Return of the King won a load of Oscars and they were delighted,

not, 'actually the film is sh*t, something else should have won.'

 

GOTY's from both critics and public are determined in different ways, some more credibly than others, 

but when DAI has 3 times as many of these awards now than the 2nd most GOTY'd game then it's pretty clear

that this is a hugely popular game and a critical success.

 

That's good surely, because it means EA/BioWare have an added impetus to make more.

[dreamgazer]

Could be any of those! We don't know.

Yeah, but ... none of those things exist.

[keyip]

That may be the prevailing wisdom, but that doesn't make it true. It makes something popular, but popular says nothing about a thing's quality or goodness.

 

 

On the contrary, popularity says plenty on whether Inquisition's is a good game for them. Which is far more important than any objecting characterisation on what qualifies as good or not.

 

Inquisition winning popularity awards only tells us one thing: "Hey a bunch of people on the internet voted for this game!" That's it. Anything more read into the results is doing so on the basis of assumption--but more likely confirmation bias.

 

 

You can reliably combine this with Inquisition's averaging 8 or higher on every user based review site on the internet (other than Metacritic) to build a profile that people are voting for it because they like it. Hanging around on the forums of these sites paints a similar picture.

[Dreamer]

GOTY pedigree looks pretty solid:

 

• 2013 (1) The Last of Us
• 2012 (1) The Walking Dead
• 2011 (1) Skyrim
• 2010 (1) Red Dead Redemption
• 2009 (1) Uncharted 2

I'm curious why so much of this thread is arguing the statistics and motivations of these GOTY decisions?

On a forum for people who have an interest in and who follow Dragon Age.

 

Seeking to assert, these awards (this year) are meaningless / other games are better / DAI is sh*t.

 

I remember the Lord of the Rings forum when Return of the King won a load of Oscars and they were delighted,

not, 'actually the film is sh*t, something else should have won.'

 

GOTY's from both critics and public are determined in different ways, some more credibly than others, 

but when DAI has 3 times as many of these awards now than the 2nd most GOTY'd game then it's pretty clear

that this is a hugely popular game and a critical success.

 

That's good surely, because it means EA/BioWare have an added impetus to make more.

 

Would you say 2014 was a good year for the game industry?

 

Just poking.

 

My assertion that the awards are meaningless is to remind people that it really doesn't tell us much of anything. Results like these are also too-frequently used to dismiss the opinions of people who are not happy with a game, hiding under the mentality that "hey, all these people liked it so your opinion is invalid in the face of all this support." That's where I take issue and that's why I'm involved in the discussion.

 

I love Inquisition. I've been playing since the 16th of November (using a nifty trick to get in early during Asia's launch) and happily upgraded to deluxe when the option was finally offered. I also asked for, and received, the soundtrack for Christmas. I'm a big fan.

 

I still disagree that it winning X number of Game of the Year awards means anything significant.

[Dreamer]

Yeah, but ... none of those things exist.

 

Excusing the fact that you're using "anti" to exaggerate and therefore nullify any perceived dislike of a title..

 

No? Are you sure those things don't exist?

[Lebanese Dude]

I still disagree that it winning X number of Game of the Year awards means anything significant.

 

It does for game developers.

[keyip]

It does for game developers.

 

Does for marketing peeps also.

[Lebanese Dude]

Does for marketing peeps also.

 

That too >.>

[Dreamer]

It does for game developers.

 

In the sense that publishers (and therefore investors) delude themselves into believing these things are significant, and therefore developers have a stake in targeting their game for these sorts of awards by appealing to increasingly-broader audiences, sure.

[Lebanese Dude]

In the sense that publishers (and therefore investors) delude themselves into believing these things are significant, and therefore developers have a stake in targeting their game for these sorts of awards by appealing to increasingly-broader audiences, sure.

 

Sure I guess.

 

They could also like receiving recognition for a project they spent a significant portion of their life on.

[keyip]

In the sense that publishers (and therefore investors) delude themselves into believing these things are significant, and therefore developers have a stake in targeting their game for these sorts of awards by appealing to increasingly-broader audiences, sure.

 

Developers appeal to increasingly broad audiences to increase the amount of people willing to buy their game and the amount of revenue they can generate. It's a direct consequence of the increase in the cost of game development, and it's not because developers are out hunting awards.

[Dreamer]

Sure I guess.

 

They could also like receiving recognition for a project they spent a significant portion of their life on.

 

Four years could hardly be classified as significant, but I do take that point. Still, I'd consider my paycheck and the fact that I still have a job in one of the most competitive and volatile industries to be recognition enough that my work was valid.

 

Developers appeal to increasingly broad audiences to increase the amount of people willing to buy their game and the amount of revenue they can generate. It's a direct consequence of the increase in the cost of game development, and it's not because developers are out hunting awards.

 

That's not true. Big-budget publishers thank you for continuing to perpetuate the myth, however.

 

Also this:

 

[Phonantiphon]

 

You mean patronizing like this?

Exactly, like that.

 

Now you're getting the idea.

[Lebanese Dude]

Four years could hardly be classified as significant.

What?

[dreamgazer]

Excusing the fact that you're using "anti" to exaggerate and therefore nullify any perceived dislike of a title..
 
No? Are you sure those things don't exist?

Pretty sure, yeah. You can find posts like that for nearly every single game in existence, especially popular ones.

 

Aside from the Bayonetta boycott, which should be dwarfed by the Internet's hatred of all things EA, that doesn't entail an award-skewing agenda.

[Cyonan]

Would you say 2014 was a good year for the game industry?

 

Just poking.

 

My assertion that the awards are meaningless is to remind people that it really doesn't tell us much of anything. Results like these are also too-frequently used to dismiss the opinions of people who are not happy with a game, hiding under the mentality that "hey, all these people liked it so your opinion is invalid in the face of all this support." That's where I take issue and that's why I'm involved in the discussion.

 

I love Inquisition. I've been playing since the 16th of November (using a nifty trick to get in early during Asia's launch) and happily upgraded to deluxe when the option was finally offered. I also asked for, and received, the soundtrack for Christmas. I'm a big fan.

 

I still disagree that it winning X number of Game of the Year awards means anything significant.

 

It means a lot of people on the internet voted it as the best game of 2014, which may or may not be significant depending on your personal views.

 

Technically somebody who says Inquisition is a good game isn't wrong. They aren't right either, but they still aren't wrong because it's all their opinion.

 

It all seems a bit silly to be arguing about it.

[ElitePinecone]

Still, I'd consider my paycheck and the fact that I still have a job in one of the most competitive and volatile industries to be recognition enough that my work is valid.

 

Fun fact: most of Bioware's game developers aren't you, and most of them seem pretty pleased with external recognition of their work.

 

That is, I guess, kinda the entire point of awards.

[Morroian]

Surveys always sample a proportion of the population.

That's how they work, and as long as the surveyed group are statistically significant and valid then it's meaningful.

 

A self selected poll is never meaningful in a statistical sense.

[Phonantiphon]

people like you

 

Citation needed for these claims: "And I did also point out that people who like something tend not to be overtly vocal about it and in general don't really vote for stuff. It's the people who don't like a thing who are more vocal and more likely to vote."

 

Sounds anecdotal to me...

"people like me"

 

Actually it's not anecdotal, I was paraphrasing a statistic that was drummed into me when I worked for a call centre. For every 1 person who gives positive feedback, 9 will give negative.

That is a statistical fact, it may not have originally been related to games, but it nevertheless holds true, you only have to check through the pages of this forum to see the apparent ratio of dislikes to likes - (or are there more likes but the dislikes are louder because they have something to prove)?

[Dreamer]

Fun fact: most of Bioware's game developers aren't you, and most of them seem pretty pleased with external recognition of their work.

 

That is, I guess, kinda the entire point of awards.

 

I take it neither are you?

[Phonantiphon]

It all seems a bit silly to be arguing about it.

And actually this.

This thread is getting a bit circular, as threads like this do...