Not only Haters post on Metacritic, but those of the polar extreme also post there, too
Just finished The Witcher 3 last night. All I can say is, "More please."
I am going back and playing The Witcher and The Witcher 2 since I did not play either of those.
Once they are completed I am going to load up W3 again.
I will say this, I am missing my Gwent game already. Gosh that is addicting.
Oh and if any of you have time, I highly recommend watching AngryJoe's W3 review on YouTube - its hysterical.
I don't love the witcher 1, but 2 and 3 are almost standalone and both are just amazing.
If you discover you don't like it, you'll still be blown away by 2.
Yeah, Witcher 1 is just okay. Pretty good for a first effort but the improvements in 2 and 3 are massive.
True but are you saying TW3 has no haters at all that's why critic and users scores are THAT close? Or DAO for that matter. Every game has haters and trolls you know.
Am saying that I refuse to utilize Metacritic as a valid source of info, as it is severely busticated. And the only valid vote of which I am aware is that of '1' given by a member of these forums; one that also was less than thrilled with DAI.
Anywhere as long as there's no negative criticism is the only valid opinion you'll accept right? Cuz that sure as heck what I got scouring through your post on this thread.
Anyway, let's drop this, cuz its getting rediculous.
IMO the Metacritic scores on both extremes (the 1's and the 10's) end up cancelling each other out anyway so it isn't any more or less valid than, say, an IMDB rating system.
IMO the Metacritic scores on both extremes (the 1's and the 10's) end up cancelling each other out anyway so it isn't any more or less valid than, say, an IMDB rating system.
IMO the Metacritic scores on both extremes (the 1's and the 10's) end up cancelling each other out anyway so it isn't any more or less valid than, say, an IMDB rating system.
Barring instances where its obvious some portion of the marketshare has a vendetta against a game, comparing Metacritic scores between two games, particularly if they are released in a similar time frame, seems valid.
Im opposite. I really loved it on my first then totally got stale on the second. Not even the prospect of meeting grey warden Alistair ( squee!) ws on my third gave me the will to go on.
Having said that, I did not delete the game from my pcs because I still have hope ( if it kills me) that we will be seeing better dlc stories in the future. Jaws of hakkon was alright though. But im not feking buying that money grab dlc called spoils of war. By the name of that dlc, it should have been free. Disgusting.
I blame myself for being a completionist on my first run and also picking a qunari shield & sword warrior. Literally picked up every shard & did every astarium, closed every rift, picked up every piece of junk, did every fetch quest, killed every dragon, etc. didn't realize you could continue playing after finishing the campaign either. Every battle was a slog and on top of that I hadn't touched anything DA since 2011 so I had forgotten all of the lore and knew nothing about Coryfish, also didn't do any of the romances and didn't do any of the companion side quests and didn't gain any specialization or craft anything. Also played without any import as well and skipped reading every note or codex. So effectively I had the worst possible first run you can imagine - my second run was with a dalish elf dw rogue assassin, crafted the best gear, didn't touch any of the collectibles and didn't bother with the dragons until after I finished, did all of the companion quests and did one of the romances.
So yeah I had only one way to go and it was up. 
IMO the Metacritic scores on both extremes (the 1's and the 10's) end up cancelling each other out anyway so it isn't any more or less valid than, say, an IMDB rating system.
That would be the case if Metacritic used a straight average, but it does not. The information I have gleamed on its mathematical formula is that on the professional reviewer side more weight is given to certain websites and publications than other websites and publications. Here is information on study done by Full Sail University:
http://www.gamenguid...la-revealed.htm
So no the reviews are not treated equally. I can only assume that Metacritic uses a mathematical formula to determine user reviews and scores. So the 1s and 10s may not be treated equally. Also Metacritic does not require that the user reviewer actually own the product.
Take this information as you wish.
That would be the case if Metacritic used a straight average, but it does not. The information I have gleamed on its mathematical formula is that on the professional reviewer side more weight is given to certain websites and publications than other websites and publications. Here is information on study done by Full Sail University:
http://www.gamenguid...la-revealed.htm
So no the reviews are not treated equally. I can only assume that Metacritic uses a mathematical formula to determine user reviews and scores. So the 1s and 10s may not be treated equally. Also Metacritic does not require that the user reviewer actually own the product.
Take this information as you wish.
If that's the case then it's unfortunate, especially the hierarchy for professional reviews.
Lol! Sorry, Elhanan, but that is just hilarious. Pot? Meet kettle.
Again, I love pizza; hate anchovies. If I know that anchovies are going to be on a certain pie, I do not have to order and try it to be aware that it will not be enjoyed. Too many anchovies in TW3 for me; no Pause either.
Just out of curiosity, what about the story didn't you find to make sense?
I found the story boring and the characters boring as hell.
Do you sit down in the pizza place and tell every customer who orders anchovies how much you dislike them and how you'll never eat them and how the pizza topping of your choice is better because it doesn't taste like anchovies?
Anchovies are the worst, I objectively know it to be the worst because professional reviewests...!!! say that it's bad.
Pineapples are better because professional reviews have arbitrary reasons for why and it's well known!
It's like subjectivity shares the same meaning with objectivity...
Do you sit down in the pizza place and tell every customer who orders anchovies how much you dislike them and how you'll never eat them and how the pizza topping of your choice is better because it doesn't taste like anchovies?
I don't know why this is a problem honestly.
It indirectly justifies your stance that TW3 isn't a great game. Because it isn't a great game -for you-. We all have choice in saying what's a great game and isn't a great game.
No, but asked what I do not like from other pizzas, I oft think of anchovies; don't want the pies I do enjoy to be more like them.
Who was it that asked you again? And again? And again? And again? And again? And again? And again? And again? And again? And again...
Who was it that asked you again? And again? And again? And again? And again? And again? And again? And again? And again? And again...
da:o was my favourite game of all time (well overtw2) so nobody can call mea fanboy. I loved DA universe.
I will, however, never play DA again based on da2 ad dai. just going down hill. TW3 is the EPITOME of open world story driven games. It is a MASTERPIECE. each quests has cutscenes and story. each character, you fall in love with.
DA:I is absolutely trash and I will never listen to critics again (giving da:i a 9.. get the **** out of here. it is a 7, generously.)
Bioware, please look at the mass effect and kotor series, and look at TW3. TW3 is the best open world STORY-BASED game ever made. Learn from it. Learn from its side content. Learn from how it shows you what is going on in the world. Learn emotion.
ME and KOTOR are some of the best character driven games. learn from them. re-learn how to make me fall in love with characters. marry it with ehat you learn from tw3.
THAT will be a game worthy of the millions of dollars you WASTE on da:i.
Now, for more calm suggestions:
1) side quests are main quests. not side quests, not mmo quests. (take this from tw3- every side quest has a story and gives you feels. look at the fyke isle quest.) make side quests as if they are part of the main quest.
2) make companion quests more like tw3
3) bring back cutscenes
4) needs more soul. make me love my companions. I didn't care about anybody in da:i. not even varric. and i loved him in da2 as hawke.
5) the inquisitor sucked. give him more of a personality. da2 had its flaws, but hawke was a person. even in DA:O, the unvoiced warden had a personality (the one i gave him via dialogue) and he loved every companion he had. the inquisitor was jut a friggin emotionless, opininionless, robot.
6) pace companion and character building better. make me love them over days, not minutes.
7) just make me CARE. the hunt was a very real threat to me andciri- I could lose. I could fail my loved ones. In da:i, I don't give 2 poopies about corypheus or my companions.
I think I'm one of the few that enjoyed DA:I on subsequent playthroughs of the game. There was enough problems before Patch 2 that it hampered my enjoyment of the game greatly. Now with little additions like having loot show up on the minimap, it's made it more fun. It also helps that I've finally gotten the hang of the star puzzles. I'm good at making my questing linear even in an open-world setting, and I'm skipping the majority of requisitions, so it goes along much quicker. I'm also catching little details that I never have before.
Some of the devs have said that they are playing TW3. They may be game developers, but most of them still play a lot of games. I'm sure they've been taking mental notes about what TW3 did to improve future BioWare games. More than anything else, they seem to play TW3 for the same reason why players do: It's a fun game for them. Demanding that they be like a game from 12 years ago, and then demanding that they be like a completely genre from 3 years ago is not a good idea. If the ME forums are anything to go by at the moment, then DA should not be like ME.
I know most of the posters in this thread aren't like this, but I wish that some folks would stop with these objective statements. DA:I is not an objectively bad game. I know that a lot of folks didn't have a good time, but c'mon on. One of the few games I would dare call objectively bad is Ride to Hell. That game is objectively bad, because of issues like poor aiming, broken roads (have fun falling through the terrain!) and a mix of incoherent game modes. What makes it subjectively bad is the awful "sex scenes" and women as quest rewards. Neither of which TW3 nor DA:I does, thankfully.
I think I'm one of the few that enjoyed DA:I on subsequent playthroughs of the game. There was enough problems before Patch 2 that it hampered my enjoyment of the game greatly. Now with little additions like having loot show up on the minimap, it's made it more fun. It also helps that I've finally gotten the hang of the star puzzles. I'm good at making my questing linear even in an open-world setting, and I'm skipping the majority of requisitions, so it goes along much quicker. I'm also catching little details that I never have before.
The devs have said that they are playing TW3. They may be game developers, but most of them still play a lot of games. I'm sure they've been taking mental notes about what TW3 did to improve future BioWare games. More than anything else, they seem to play TW3 for the same reason why players do: It's a fun game for them. Demanding that they be like a game from 12 years ago, and then demanding that they be like a completely genre from 3 years ago is not a good idea. If the ME forums are anything to go by at the moment, then DA should not be like ME.
I know most of the posters in this thread aren't like this, but I wish that some folks would stop with these objective statements. DA:I is not an objectively bad game. I know that a lot of folks didn't have a good time, but c'mon on. One of the few games I would dare call objectively bad is Ride to Hell. That game is objectively bad, because of issues like poor aiming, broken roads (have fun falling through the terrain!) and a mix of incoherent game modes. What makes it subjectively bad is the awful "sex scenes" and women as quest rewards. Neither of which TW3 nor DA:I does, thankfully.
I don't believe in objectively good or bad games myself. It's on the user to determine a games worth.
I don't believe in objectively bad games myself. It's on the user to determine a games worth.
I do, if the game is so broken mechanically that is it almost literally unplayable. Not, "Too many fetch quests," or "lame puzzles," but to the point where you can't even play the game at all as intended.
Retour en haut
