Remember, there is always this place which allows us to compare our opinions with those of both paid/unpaid critic types. Like or not, either way we should all be putting our two cents in for our fellow gamers. Not everyone will scope out the BioWare forums, it's a bit more niche here. Steam actually links up to it for each game.
http://www.metacriti...age-inquisition
I keep forgetting to write in my review over there.
Metacritic is bias as and usually paid to be
Metacritic is bias as and usually paid to be
What a total nonsense 
Everywhere has its biases...the people who speak regularly on the forums (or those who seem to be the most heard) tend to belong to the most vocal group, regardless of the actual size. Metacritic probably leans the other way, discussing the good things in more detail than the bad. I suspect Bioware takes into account both sets of general opinions when they make their decisions for what worked and what didn't.
I just don't get. We are intelligent people, are we?
Critics need to pay their bills, so their job is to review games... which need to be sold.
So the publisher is interested in good reviews.
So the publisher is interested in paying reviewers to get good reviews.
Did you see 'Game of the Year' awards that DA:I had won?
Well, those took the EA money for sure as it's not a GOTY game... Not yet and likely never.
Everywhere has its biases...the people who speak regularly on the forums (or those who seem to be the most heard) tend to belong to the most vocal group, regardless of the actual size. Metacritic probably leans the other way, discussing the good things in more detail than the bad. I suspect Bioware takes into account both sets of general opinions when they make their decisions for what worked and what didn't.
Dear Winged Silver!
What I could agree on is that more positive critics are posted on metacritic. But that has nothing to do with being payed for it! Everyone has the right to post there and when the happy folks do it more regularly - so be it. I could not care less ... But the user-reviews are mostly or at least to a very great amount not paid for. I never get the feeling to read paid user-reviews there.
Metacritic is bias as and usually paid to be
You want Bias? Go to Amazon. You'll see lots of paid reviews 
I just don't get. We are intelligent people, are we?
Critics need to pay their bills, so their job is to review games... which need to be sold.
So the publisher is interested in good reviews.
So the publisher is interested in paying reviewers to get good reviews.
Did you see 'Game of the Year' awards that DA:I had won?
Well, those took the EA money for sure as it's not a GOTY game... Not yet and likely never.
While I can respect the critics desire to pay their bills and all... I do not accept their opinions as facts, I especially do not view their opinions to be far more superior than the average person (We as the consumer) who writes a review for free. In fact I only read the users section of the reviews, and not the critics.
According to metacritic Dragon Age: Inquisition is a 5.8 rated game, and I agree with it. I do not agree with critics ratings. IMO the game certainly does not deserve to have a 85.
Why do we always have to accuse everyone of bribery?
Yes, there is corruption in the reviewing business but just like some negative reviews are based on reasonable criticism, some of the positive reviews are likewise based on people finding this game enjoyable.
Why do we always have to accuse everyone of bribery?
Yes, there is corruption in the reviewing business but just like some negative reviews are based on reasonable criticism, some of the positive reviews are likewise based on people finding this game enjoyable.
Because EA has been caught doing that crap plenty of times.
Why do we always have to accuse everyone of bribery?
Yes, there is corruption in the reviewing business but just like some negative reviews are based on reasonable criticism, some of the positive reviews are likewise based on people finding this game enjoyable.
Because it's either admit that critics get paid or admit that a lot of them completely gone nuts. I have more faith in humanity than you do so i say - bribery is there.
So I liked the game. I would give it a pretty high score if I were to review it.
Does that mean EA paid me too?
No, it doesn't.
"There are A that do B" does not equate to "everybody that does B is A". Simple logic.
PS/Edit: But you can be forgiven for your awesome choice of avatar.
Hmm...someone voted the extreme at the opposite end I believe it should be.
Rather than write an honest review - I'll just tag the extreme opposite they did and start my review with "Voting this extreme number to counter...."
That totally will make everything all right.
I just don't get. We are intelligent people, are we?
Critics need to pay their bills, so their job is to review games... which need to be sold.
So the publisher is interested in good reviews.
So the publisher is interested in paying reviewers to get good reviews.
Did you see 'Game of the Year' awards that DA:I had won?
Well, those took the EA money for sure as it's not a GOTY game... Not yet and likely never.
To be fair though, even the best games last year were not as good as many games as previous years.
Even games that were released that I hold up as shining beacons of a gaming industry on the path up are still far from the quality we've had in recent years.
People, please!
The OP had a reason why she opened up this thread!
Ursulawinn wanted to remind us - at least as I understand it - that we all have the chance to make our voices heard by writing reviews all over the internet, including here on the forum! That is not so hard to respect - or is it?
I mean, when people who are honest enough to critizise corruption - which needs to be pointed out, okay ... - write a review that would be a good thing! Or would it not ??? I would certainly like to read it. For f*ucks sake, man! Could we discuss the topic of this thread instead of devolve it's intended content into something utterly negative? I mean this thread was supposed to be about "freedom of speech" and about "making our voices heard" and so on to FIGHT DISHONESTY and so on in the first place ...
Truly, my dear forumites, you could give this thread a chance ...
i support this thread, i made my feedback i know is in some place well i dont remember 
Because EA has been caught doing that crap plenty of times.
It isn't just EA... is every other gaming company out there.
Metacritic is a popularity contest, nothing else.
I was an Xbox Gold member for over two years before the first time I saw a game listed there for purchase that had less than three stars in its review slot.
Just for the sake of comparing... 
So I liked the game. I would give it a pretty high score if I were to review it.
Does that mean EA paid me too?
My perspective, when you say you like the game is akin to someone calling the help desk and saying "My monitor is not working, please help me."
I would like to see some contexual information to put a baseline on "you liked the game".
For example:
I personally enjoy playing this awesome game on my PS4, better than DA2
I liked DAI on the XB1 and the controls are good
I really find DAI wonderful to play using my PS4... better that DA2 or DA:O
Then I can say, Ok... it works on a console platform, but the PC game controls are just awful.
Bottom line, It's good for you but not so for me.... and we know why.
Metacritic is a popularity contest, nothing else.
Well, what else are review-sites?
There is no such thing as a 100% objective review!
Remember, there is always this place which allows us to compare our opinions with those of both paid/unpaid critic types. Like or not, either way we should all be putting our two cents in for our fellow gamers. Not everyone will scope out the BioWare forums, it's a bit more niche here. Steam actually links up to it for each game.
indeed, and this score doesn't lie at all. This game doesn't deserve anything above 6.0 imho. It's a freakin beta on pc.
It is funny how Origins, first two Mass Effects and both Witcher games got user scores close to critic scores whch are high, but DA2, DAI and ME3 user scores are much lower than critic scores.
ME3 is obviously hit by the ending controversy. DA2 was a giant step backwards in many aspects of the game - see a pattern here?
Looks like on average DAI is just bad, slightly better than DA2, but still pretty damn bad. Number of "Game of the year" titles given to DAI is just ridiculous. It is not a GOT material and will never be. The game failed at the very start of development by terrible design decisions. I doubt that EA overlords are happy with the amount of GOT titles, paid comments and reviews that they have to spend their precious money on to keep the sales.
Retour en haut