179 réponses à ce sujet

[Gwydden]

To further illustrate my point, I'll say that if we're going to submit to popular opinion, we should at least judge games by the people who played them as opposed to those that didn't. So here is the average grade of Bioware games on the list based on user reviews on Metacritic:

 

Mass Effect 1: 83 (40%)

Mass Effect 2: 87 (56%)

Mass Effect 3: 55 (42%)

 

Dragon Age Origins: 86 (36%)

Dragon Age 2: 45 (41%)

 

Yeah, yeah, I know, Metacritic is full of trolls. It's also full of fanboys, so I imagine they even each other out. Now, you can see ME2 is in fact rated as the highest. But almost tying it in second place is DAO, the game with the smallest completion rate of them all. And DA2, which was completed more than ME1 and DAO and almost as much as ME3? It's rated the lowest by a wide margin.

 

I would also like to point out that older Bioware games tend to be rated higher, sometimes even more than ME2.

[AlanC9]

Yeah, yeah, I know, Metacritic is full of trolls. It's also full of fanboys, so I imagine they even each other out.

Wait a second. You can't simultaneously argue against drawing unwarranted conclusions from statistics and play something this sloppy.

I agree that comparing Origin and Steam data isn't all that great a method, though we can do a straight-up Steam-to-Steam comparison for ME2 and the other Steam games.

[Gwydden]

Wait a second. You can't simultaneously argue against drawing unwarranted conclusions from statistics and play something this sloppy.

Maybe the irony was lost through text. My bad, allow me to clarify what I meant by:

 

To further illustrate my point, I'll say that if we're going to submit to popular opinion...

The OP's point is that because more people chose to complete ME2 than any other game, it must be the best. That's an appeal to popularity if there was ever one. You might as well say "the most people who've been hooked by a TV show, the better the show is" or "the most people who've read a certain book the highest its quality."

 

So I produced a tongue in cheek response by looking at what people who've played these games purport to think about them, and I came up with this fancy little list that diverges a hell of a lot from the chart in the OP. No, I don't think it's even remotely reliable either. There are trolls who'll give a game a zero just cause and fans who will give it a ten for the same reason. Not to mention not all of those games have been rated by the same amount of people and most certainly not by the exact same people, and that fans of a game are more likely to rate it at all than people who didn't like it, and a thousand other issues that make Metacritic just as poor a choice to measure quality or popular opinion.

 

Which is my point. We have no reliable way to measure what people thought about these games, and even if we did, the difference between user ratings in Metacritic and completion rates as given by EA/Bioware go to show that popular opinion means jack.

[Silvery]

With BioWare games they have a feedback system baked into the game itself and unless you turn it off you are sending all kinds of metrics to BioWare.

 

Edit:

 

I remember reading just before Mass Effect 3's release there was a surge with Mass Effect 2 completions and the thinking was there were more people interesting with importing into Mass Effect 3.

 

Regarding Dragon Age: Inquisition, unlike a lot of previous games BioWare hasn't released any metrics as far as I can tell, which is where the numbers for their other games.  I do think it would be lower since it was more an open world game and would expect it to be in the 20-30% range.

 

I should have specified, I was talking about the stats for the non-Bioware games and how they got them. 

 

I wonder if multiplayer wasn't available for ME3, would the completion number be higher? I'm sure a lot of folks bought the game only for the multiplayer portion. I wouldn't be surprised if the same happens with Andromeda where people only buy the game for the multiplayer and not the campaign

 

This thought makes nauseous, I just can't see how someone could go out and buy the third game in a series they have never played and is a story driven RPG, just to play the multiplayer. 

[Laughing_Man]

Metacritic user score is very useful, even if not always entirely accurate.

It provides a good indication for when the opinion of the average gamer is different than the opinion of the average gaming journalist.

(which tends to happen more than it should)

 

It's a good early warning system if nothing else, and at times the scores are actually justified.

(users on metacritic don't need to fear sanctions from game developers if they don't like the rating or something...)

 

Steam reviews are also useful, assuming you take the time to read between the lines.

 

Overall, that's the unfortunate reality when you have generally unreliable and patronizing "gaming media" that prefers to engage in moralizing

rather than provide fair and accurate technical assessments of the merits and flaws of video games.

(not to mention easily pressured and manipulated by video game developers)

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Some of it could be the sheer amount of dialogue. Lets be honest ME1 is basically a massive exposition dump most of the dialogue with every character on the ship is about their culture, history, backstory, how the ship works, how the Council works, how the Alliance works, and so on. ME2 doesn't have a lot of long dialogue exchanges. ME3 has points like after coup if you talk to everybody on the Citadel and the ship it takes close to an hour. 

[themikefest]

This thought makes nauseous, I just can't see how someone could go out and buy the third game in a series they have never played and is a story driven RPG, just to play the multiplayer. 

I talked with a guy at the gamestore, however long ago, who told me that he only buys games that have multiplayer. He mentioned he knows others that do the same. He didn't care about the game itself. He knew the name Shepard, but no more.

[Laughing_Man]

I talked with a guy at the gamestore, however long ago, who told me that he only buys games that have multiplayer. He mentioned he knows others that do the same. He didn't care about the game itself. He knew the name Shepard, but no more.

 

Yeah, there's certainly a demographic that cares only about MP.

[Gwydden]

Some of it could be the sheer amount of dialogue. Lets be honest ME1 is basically a massive exposition dump most of the dialogue with every character on the ship is about their culture, history, backstory, how the ship works, how the Council works, how the Alliance works, and so on. ME2 doesn't have a lot of long dialogue exchanges. ME3 has points like after coup if you talk to everybody on the Citadel and the ship it takes close to an hour. 

I actually liked the approach to followers in DAO and ME1 better. I prefer to have interesting conversations with them rather than going out on quests. Not to say some squadmates in ME1 didn't suffer from excessive exposition (Tali was particularly egregious; her character was almost entirely exposition) but others not so much.

 

Yeah, there's certainly a demographic that cares only about MP.

That's an understatement 

[In Exile]

Maybe the irony was lost through text. My bad, allow me to clarify what I meant by:

 

The OP's point is that because more people chose to complete ME2 than any other game, it must be the best. That's an appeal to popularity if there was ever one. You might as well say "the most people who've been hooked by a TV show, the better the show is" or "the most people who've read a certain book the highest its quality."

 

So I produced a tongue in cheek response by looking at what people who've played these games purport to think about them, and I came up with this fancy little list that diverges a hell of a lot from the chart in the OP. No, I don't think it's even remotely reliable either. There are trolls who'll give a game a zero just cause and fans who will give it a ten for the same reason. Not to mention not all of those games have been rated by the same amount of people and most certainly not by the exact same people, and that fans of a game are more likely to rate it at all than people who didn't like it, and a thousand other issues that make Metacritic just as poor a choice to measure quality or popular opinion.

 

Which is my point. We have no reliable way to measure what people thought about these games, and even if we did, the difference between user ratings in Metacritic and completion rates as given by EA/Bioware go to show that popular opinion means jack.

 

I actually don't think that's true. I would imagine the people who rate things have to have some level of strong emotion or be somehow independently interested in reviewing. I've never reviewed a product, for example, because it's too much work to write anything decent re: my views. 

[Big Bad]

These days, I have a harder time getting through ME2 than either ME1 or ME3.  Mostly it's because when I play ME2, I long for ME3's superior combat (ME1's is so different that I don't have a problem).  Also, I'm really, really sick of many of the loyalty missions.  If I do a new trilogy playthrough, ME2 is a bit of a chore for me. 

[Gwydden]

I actually don't think that's true. I would imagine the people who rate things have to have some level of strong emotion or be somehow independently interested in reviewing. I've never reviewed a product, for example, because it's too much work to write anything decent re: my views. 

I think it's more of a case that someone who played ME1 and didn't like it is unlikely to play ME2 and ME3. So you might get his review for the first game, but not for the other ones. On the other hand, someone who liked ME1 is very likely to play and review ME2, and if they liked that one as well they'll do the same with ME3.

 

Not to mention obscure games most people don't care about but which have a niche audience. People who tried Planescape: Torment but didn't like the combat or gave up after the first dungeon do not strike me as the sort that's going to rant about it.

[In Exile]

I think it's more of a case that someone who played ME1 and didn't like it is unlikely to play ME2 and ME3. So you might get his review for the first game, but not for the other ones. On the other hand, someone who liked ME1 is very likely to play and review ME2, and if they liked that one as well they'll do the same with ME3.

 

Not to mention obscure games most people don't care about but which have a niche audience. People who tried Planescape: Torment but didn't like the combat or gave up after the first dungeon do not strike me as the sort that's going to rant about it.

 

Sure, I don't necessarily disagree with that logic. My point is more that even if we take a single game - say ME1 - we can't per se know if the people more likely to review it are those who liked it vs. those who didn't like it versus those who hated it. Put another way, OK games that don't really upset people might be overtly well-rated because they have a large distribution of people indifferent to it, a small contingent of people passionate about it, versus a game that has really strong and binary reactions (which I think you often see with games rated in the 40s to 60s, i.e., few people rating them in the 4-6 range and lots of 0s or 10s). People are obsessed with an average rating without caring about the curve, which is just bad statistics. 

[Zindawg]

These days, I have a harder time getting through ME2 than either ME1 or ME3.  Mostly it's because when I play ME2, I long for ME3's superior combat (ME1's is so different that I don't have a problem).  Also, I'm really, really sick of many of the loyalty missions.  If I do a new trilogy playthrough, ME2 is a bit of a chore for me. 

I completely agree with this. I remember the first time I played ME2 I absolutely loved it and thought it was way better than ME1. Now when I go through the trilogy again ME2 is by far the weakest entry for me. It's strange, I prefer ME1's combat to ME2's combat (by far), but then I prefer ME3's combat to ME1, even though it is more similar to ME2.

I hope that kinda makes sense :\

[Big Bad]

I completely agree with this. I remember the first time I played ME2 I absolutely loved it and thought it was way better than ME1. Now when I go through the trilogy again ME2 is by far the weakest entry for me. It's strange, I prefer ME1's combat to ME2's combat (by far), but then I prefer ME3's combat to ME1, even though it is more similar to ME2.

I hope that kinda makes sense :\

Yup.  Exactly how I feel as well.

[Big Bad]

It's also interesting to note that Fallout 4, which isn't exactly known for it's quality writing, has a higher completion rate than The Witcher 3 despite being released about 6 months later. 

To be fair, The Witcher 3 main questline is really, really long.  The main FO4 story can be completed relatively quickly in comparison. 

[Monk]

I completely agree with this. I remember the first time I played ME2 I absolutely loved it and thought it was way better than ME1. Now when I go through the trilogy again ME2 is by far the weakest entry for me. It's strange, I prefer ME1's combat to ME2's combat (by far), but then I prefer ME3's combat to ME1, even though it is more similar to ME2.

I hope that kinda makes sense :\

 

I think the strangest thing that saved playability for me in ME3, besides EDI and Kasumi, was the ability to slide/jump over cover. It always happened to entertain me whenever it was an option and so much that if i mess up, i walk back around to attempt it again.

[wyrdx]

Well, would you look at that? The Witcher has lower completion rates than Bioware games!

 

I now have objective proof to support my belief that Bioware kicks CDPR's ass! 

 

That's right. I said it. 

 

 

It's worth repeating.

[Gwydden]

It's worth repeating.

Err... I must say I find the compulsive need to "prove" one game is better than the other rather silly no matter who's doing it. I mean, I know which one I think it's better, but what's the big deal if other people disagree? Not to mention I also have the astoundingly impressive ability of liking more than one thing at the same time 

[Seboist]

I completely agree with this. I remember the first time I played ME2 I absolutely loved it and thought it was way better than ME1. Now when I go through the trilogy again ME2 is by far the weakest entry for me. It's strange, I prefer ME1's combat to ME2's combat (by far), but then I prefer ME3's combat to ME1, even though it is more similar to ME2.

I hope that kinda makes sense :\

It's not strange, ME3 is ME2 combat without the big flaws(lack of rolling or cover to cover) and more in-depth customization.

 

Now, if we can only get ME3 combat(that's further refined) with ME1's atmosphere, exploration,etc, then we'll be on the right track for a proper ME experience.

[straykat]

Hmmm. I doubt the accuracy of these stats. How can they know how much completion of a game takes place off line? 

 

Who buys Steam games and stays indefinitely offline? Sounds like an outlier to me. Eventually, most would get online and the achievements would upload.

[Gwydden]

Who buys Steam games and stays indefinitely offline? Sounds like an outlier to me. Eventually, most would get online and the achievements would upload.

Back in the third world, games that required Steam to be played irritated me because I had a crap connection. Check your privilege! 

[straykat]

Back in the third world, games that required Steam to be played irritated me because I had a crap connection. Check your privilege! 

 

Fine, fine. I forgot someone is still using 56k... somewhere.

[wyrdx]

Err... I must say I find the compulsive need to "prove" one game is better than the other rather silly no matter who's doing it. I mean, I know which one I think it's better, but what's the big deal if other people disagree? Not to mention I also have the astoundingly impressive ability of liking more than one thing at the same time 

 

Nothing wrong with having a different opinion. The only thing these stats hint at to me in this context is that it appears to counter the vociferous and repetitious claims of some as to the extent of appeal related to the broad enjoyment and the compelling elements of games from particular companies. An important consideration when if BioWare is thinking of taking suggestions related to other games.

Reading the rationalizations has been wonderful too.

[Gwydden]

Nothing wrong with having a different opinion. The only thing these stats hint at to me in this context is that it appears to counter the vociferous and repetitious claims of some as to the extent of appeal related to the broad enjoyment and the compelling elements of games from particular companies. An important consideration when if BioWare is thinking of taking suggestions related to other games.

Reading the rationalizations has been wonderful too.

I certainly don't think Bioware or anyone should do anything just because it's popular... but I fear they will anyway