![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Dragon Age 2 receives 94% score from PC Gamer
- Thread starter WabeWalker
- Start date
I speak whats on my mind, even if not "PC". Its an argument I've had too many times and I hate seeing it brought up. People like him want to completely destroy the review process and basically kill something I enjoy doing and would love to get paid to do. Reviews have been opinions since the early days of the review process, not just games, but movies, music, books, food, etc. Its all about opinion and personal taste. The whole point of a critic is to have an opinion on something and to speak about it. Not only does he want to go against how things have been done for a very long time, but also to go completely against human nature.
If an admin or mod tells me to tone it down a bit, I will do so. Until then I have no real reason to and I'd rather speak my mind and not censor myself. Words are words, you put too much meaning behind "strong" language.
Parmenides
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,578
metacritic is the king because it sums all the opinions.
Just messing with you Derangel. Yeah, Metacritic is pretty meaningless (if not worse). It appeal to people who do not like reading paragraphs, but it does not really inform them.
Just messing with you Derangel. Yeah, Metacritic is pretty meaningless (if not worse). It appeal to people who do not like reading paragraphs, but it does not really inform them.
I liked Gamerankings and Metacritic early on. I thought they could be great resources for people to find multiple reviews and to read them. When people and the industry itself started using Metacritic as the end-all be-all of reviews then it became a problem and then it hurt the review process greatly.
WabeWalker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,508
The Metacritic score has been surprisingly accurate for me in the past.
I've visited that site many times before buying an older title to see how well the game scored. Games that scored around 60 turned out, almost always, to be mediocre at best, whereas titles that scored in the 90's were usually quality titles.
There are the exceptions, of course.
The score itself doesn't inform you of the game (which is why the site provides links to the actual reviews) but it's not something I would want to dismiss either. It is relevant.
bigdogchris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 18,707
I see DA II has some DRM that links the game key to your account, preventing me from selling it when I'm d one. There's a lost sale for them.
Its relevant when you use the score in conjunction with the reviews given. When you just look at the number it is pretty meaningless. There is no context behind the number. There is nothing to tells you why the number is like it is, nothing that gives you details about the pros and cons of the game. It might as well be a number made up on the fly.
As for it being correct: As long as you are aware of your tastes yes it can be correct. That said whether or not the scores are correct is still an entirely personally opinion based on taste. Personally I wouldn't rate any COD title high. I'm not a fan of the series. The games are generally well put together, but they do nothing for me. If I had to review one I would need to force myself through the game and force myself to play more of the MP than I would ever care to and that would effect my opinion on them. I could dig around and provide an example of a low scoring game I'd rate higher but I think that one example is good enough. There is more to using a site like Metacritic than just looking at one number.
Parmenides
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,578
from my experience of comparing the score to my gameplay, the number seems to rate how much polish the game has. When you sum up all opinions the 'polish' rating seems to have the most uniformity. Opinions on most anything else is very diverse. If your opinion of a game is based upon how polished the game feels, then metacritic might be a somewhat good estimate for you.
But to someone like me who looks for other qualities in a game, the number becomes meaningless. I loved Mount & Blade. The combat mechanics where awesome, but the graphics are not of its time. Metacritic won't pick up on that.
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
No, I know perfectly well what I'm talking about, you're being emotional and irrational and that has lead you to completely misunderstand what I've said. My claim was that reviews were not good ways of measuring the quality of a game precisely because they are opinion. I acknowledged that this is the reason why review scores differ so much and thus why reviews themselves are more or less useless.
So someone gives a game 70% and another person gives it 90%, how do I know which score is closer to the truth? I don't want to hear someones opinion on the matter because they're probably bias in one way or another, I want to hear details about the game that inform me of how good the game is. And yes there are plenty of ways to objectively measure how good a game is.
A quick glance shows that it's a bad review, not a review of a bad game, but a badly written review, any journalist would tear that review apart on it's unimaginative portrayal of the facts. The job of a reviewer is to give us a good idea of the game but remain interesting so that the review itself is good, some reviewers are way better at it than others.
More to the point you can make objective assessment of things like graphics and sound, the quality of the audio, the variety of the music, the types of graphics used, do they use normal mapping to enhance character quality, do they apply dynamic lights so that light and object movement in game cast accurate shadows.
That tells me far more about the game than a reviewer A telling me that in their opinion the game looks pretty and graphics get a 10/10 and reviewer B telling me that in their opinion the graphics look dated and get a 7/10.
No, and if you'd read my post you'd know this is just flat out wrong. Some people think that reading a review, or even several reviews is not a good picture of what the game is like and the only way you can salvage anything useful from that broken system is by averaging the scores to get statistically the most balanced review.
That's a shame, I find it's statistical analysis of many different reviews very helpful, it also gives average user reviews vs average paid reviews and reveals disturbing trends like users giving games lower scores than reviewers do. This is something I happen to agree with, too many mainstream games are getting released that automatically get "OMFG IT'S SUPER COOL" from reviewers but gamers when they get down to it, tear the game apart on it's technical failing.
You would never read a reviewer saying something like "it has a low FOV", or that it forces mouse acceleration, you might get a glimpse at this when a reviewer says "it handle badly" or "it makes me sick after 20 minutes". But that's all subjective so who can say if that will affect me or not. I happen to know that mouse acceleration pisses me off and that low FOV feels uncomfortable to play with, and reviewers are completely useless because they completely fail to these facts. Gamers on forums are quick to point them out though which is why actual gamer feedback is infinitely more helpful than opinionated reviews.
Sorry I just don't care what someone else's opinion on the game is, and I certainly wouldn't pay or subscription fee to a magazine to find out!
I never said that metacritic was objective and reviewers weren't, I said reviewers were giving opinions on the quality of the game and not objective assessment and that reviewers opinions were wildly different in many cases and that an average would provide a more accurate picture of the quality of the game.
You'll see that before that post (and in many other threads) I have posted that the better way to asses games is to hear from the gamers directly on forums, the guys here on HardOCP are going to be posting if a game has mouse acceleration forced on, and how to disable in the ini file, and how to set the FOV to something that doesn't cause motion sickness.
Better yet these gamers have no reason to be bias and provide their help for free, obviously you have to wade through your fair share of opinion to get to the truth sometimes, but it's there, somewhere.
WabeWalker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,508
Yes, that's true, the score is a kind of polish rating, isn't it. That said, sometimes you just want polish.
Also, I buy a lot of titles, and if a game is selling for five dollars at Steam, I'll sometimes buy that game simply because of its high Metacritic score. If a game is selling for five dollars, and it scored, say, a 94, I'll buy it just to see why it scored so high. Sometimes it's fun just to tinker with a game and see what it's all about.
I'll do that for games that score high at Metacritic, but not for the ones that score poorly - so I guess in that situation I am influenced by the score.
I don't think that anybody really makes a decision to buy a brand new title costing fifty dollars based on the Metacritic score alone though - if they do, then they're in the minority. Ah well, scoring will always be an issue, won't it.
Where's the title that scored 100 out of 100 though? You see 10 out of 10 scores sometimes, but you never see one scoring 100 out of 100.
S
SpeedRunner
Guest
I remember buying Dragon Age. I fired it up for like 10-15 mins, got absolutely bored to death by the dialog. Turned it off. It's been collecting dust every since, I tried to sell it but there were no takers *_*
The review system isn't broken (yet, but thats another argument), you're telling reviews to do something that isn't a review. Reviews ARE a good way to tell if you will or won't enjoy a game. You just have to put the time and effort into understanding the reviewers tastes and opinions. That is part of being a good and informed consumer. Yes there are elements that can be looked at objectively (bugs and the like and to a lesser extent graphics and controls), but the glue that holds a review together and makes it worth reading it the subjective part of it. If all you want are details read Wikipedia or read previews. You don't need a review to find details.
Of course Jim's review is terrible, that was the point. It also removed any point of opinion and simply told you about the game. It was boring, pointless, and told you literally nothing. This was his entire point in writing it. A review with no opinion behind it is utterly worthless because all it is is a listing of features. The whole point of a review is and has been since reviewing first started to provide the point of view of the person reviewing. Do you bitch because Roger Ebert gives his opinion on a movie? Pure information is great, but that is against what reviews are for. If you don't like that, don't read reviews. Simple as that. But don't act like you know how they should be. Many reviewers put a lot of effort and pride into their work. You're basically telling everyone of us (including all of the reviews on this site) that we're doing a bad job and that we shouldn't have the jobs we do. How would you like it if someone came and tried to tell you what you enjoy doing and have a passion about is wrong and that you should go against human nature and all conceivable logic and do it different? I get the feeling you, like most people, would tell them to piss off in some form or another.
Like I said in another post: Metacritic has its uses when people use it as a tool and not the be-all end-all. Its something to look at in addition to looking at reviews and looking at other information. The PC gaming standards site is yours right? I think the idea behind that is great. Its a wonderful tool for looking up information and seeing how aspects of one game compare to another. Something like that would be great not just for PC gaming, but gaming in general. Another tool to allow people to be informed consumers. Reading reviews, looking at user opinions (if you're not buying the game day one), looking at previews, glancing at Wiki or official sources, glancing at Metacritic to get an idea of review trends, and something like your site all of them should be tools people use. However, using a single one of them as an end-all be-all source for games is what breaks the system. That is why I say Metacritic is hurting the industry. Publishers are placing way to much stock in Meta scores and so are a lot of reviewers. There has always been a problem with reviews who score close to the average just to make themselves look "correct" and ones who score way off to be different, but Metacritic has made it worse. Game reviews have never been a bastion of great writing, but since Metacritic got so popular it seems to have gotten worse. Part of this is also due to the "page hit" style of reviewing that is so popular, but that is not a rant for this moment.
PS: I don't really like review scores in the first place, so that colors my opinion of Metacritic quite a bit.
krameriffic
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,214
It is entirely possible for a majority to be wrong, a notion that clearly escapes you. The opinion of the general populace of PC gaming was that the game was a giant turd. This opinion was built on a purely emotional and utterly irrational response to what was, admittedly, a huge fuckup on IW's part. But a 3.6 is the type of score I would reserve only for completely dysfunctional games like Gothic 3. MW2 was not a 3.6 game. Its user rating on Metacritic was derived from a whole lot of whiny little bitches who probably made accounts on that website for the exclusive purpose of downrating the game.
PC gamers are nothing if not immature douchebags. We are a very touchy, spiteful bunch, overly proud and elitist and a whole lot of other attributes that don't make a whole lot of sense. I mean, there exists a website called knowyourmeme.com essentially dedicated to the ridiculous methods we conjure up to communicate just how immature we are.
umadbro? comeatme! pondering retard etc. etc.
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
Ugh Derangel I don't think addressing your points directly is really going to be constructive here, let me re-phrase.
What I'm after is information on the game, how tight are the controls, how good are the graphics, how varied is the audio, how generic is the storyline etc, reviewers when they give their opinion are being subjective, no opinion is wrong or right so how is that helpful to me? What I want is information about the game, in a concise format, all in one place, and preferably in a format which is pleasant to read. And no, wikipedia doesn't provide that, wikipedia is more meta information about the studio that made the game, launch price/date and a whole bunch of stuff I'm not interested in.
The more opinion is added the more room for error, when I have one reviewer telling me 90% score and another telling me 70% score, and one telling me good graphics and one telling me mediocre graphics, how do I resolve this conflict in opinions?
I'm sure you like to read reviews to hear people opinions and maybe that interests you and some other people, but as a guide for which games to buy or not, it's actually not very helpful at all, and metacritic are essentially trying to help fix that flaw in the system of reviewing games by doing an average for you.
Don't get me wrong I don't think metacritic are the be-all and end-all of reviewing, as far as I'm concerned they're patching a broken system, what we need is a system that isn't broken to start with.
Krameriffic, I am perfectly aware of the idea that the majority are often wrong, I stand by that line of thinking plenty enough myself, almost everything that is hugely popular is actually sub par, and has been promoted through advertising. Games like Halo are perfect examples of this.
Sure some people may have made accounts just so they can down rate the game, and PC gamers are bitchy when it comes to their beloved platform, but as I said before these are things triggered by a bad game. Not all games get 3.6, it is possible to get a good metacritic score, the only difference is you have to actually make a good game.
IW's fuck up was too monumental to be forgiveable and the community reacted, the severity of the fuck up was mirrored in the score, partly to warn other gamers not to get it, but also to warn other developers that we won't stand for shit like this.
Either way the score is fair, it's a natural reaction of gamers to a bad game to give it a bad score, there are no external influences, peoples score is based on the game and the game alone, there's no reason to single out one bad game and suggest some kind of mass conspiracy where loads of gamers get together to down rate a game more than they think is fair.
What I'm after is information on the game, how tight are the controls, how good are the graphics, how varied is the audio, how generic is the storyline etc, reviewers when they give their opinion are being subjective, no opinion is wrong or right so how is that helpful to me? What I want is information about the game, in a concise format, all in one place, and preferably in a format which is pleasant to read. And no, wikipedia doesn't provide that, wikipedia is more meta information about the studio that made the game, launch price/date and a whole bunch of stuff I'm not interested in.
The more opinion is added the more room for error, when I have one reviewer telling me 90% score and another telling me 70% score, and one telling me good graphics and one telling me mediocre graphics, how do I resolve this conflict in opinions?
I'm sure you like to read reviews to hear people opinions and maybe that interests you and some other people, but as a guide for which games to buy or not, it's actually not very helpful at all, and metacritic are essentially trying to help fix that flaw in the system of reviewing games by doing an average for you.
Don't get me wrong I don't think metacritic are the be-all and end-all of reviewing, as far as I'm concerned they're patching a broken system, what we need is a system that isn't broken to start with.
Krameriffic, I am perfectly aware of the idea that the majority are often wrong, I stand by that line of thinking plenty enough myself, almost everything that is hugely popular is actually sub par, and has been promoted through advertising. Games like Halo are perfect examples of this.
Sure some people may have made accounts just so they can down rate the game, and PC gamers are bitchy when it comes to their beloved platform, but as I said before these are things triggered by a bad game. Not all games get 3.6, it is possible to get a good metacritic score, the only difference is you have to actually make a good game.
IW's fuck up was too monumental to be forgiveable and the community reacted, the severity of the fuck up was mirrored in the score, partly to warn other gamers not to get it, but also to warn other developers that we won't stand for shit like this.
Either way the score is fair, it's a natural reaction of gamers to a bad game to give it a bad score, there are no external influences, peoples score is based on the game and the game alone, there's no reason to single out one bad game and suggest some kind of mass conspiracy where loads of gamers get together to down rate a game more than they think is fair.
So basically more detail to the review? More depth and knowledge provided with the reviewers thoughts? Something to say offset how much the end score is weighted by pure emotion? Or perhaps something like what PC Gaming Standards is doing, but in the form of a written article that goes into full detail?
To touch a little on the other discussion you have going on: People's reactions to MW2 ranged from rightfully angry to pretty extreme and irrational. I don't disagree with gamers giving a low rating to sent a message though. Hurting the user average on Metacritic might be a way to deliver a a message to publishers who put so much stock in those numbers. Sadly most people just do it because they're fanboys or just bitching and moaning about something stupid.
WabeWalker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,508
Where did you read this?
I would say that I don't finish about 85 percent of the titles I buy, although I get pretty close with a lot of them. Surprisingly, I did finish DA.
WabeWalker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,508
Is the demo going to be available on Steam - if so, when?
The debate about this somewhat controversial title is only just beginning though. The demo won't end the arguing... it will only intensify it. And wait until the game itself gets released.
If it does appear on Steam I'd assume it'll be up around the same time as the demo goes out on their official site.
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
Sure, I mean I'd expect from a good review that it covered a lot of the technicals like FOV, mouse accleration, Vsync, proper resolution support etc. Even if all the reviewer was saying was "another game running typically low FOV which might upset some people" or "the handling is sub par because there is mouse acceleration applied which you cannot remove".
I agree to some extent but you can't drag a 5000 strong review score from high (in the 90s) to 3.6 without an overwhelming majority of people voting feeling strongly about it. This doesn't happen to every game so it's safe to assume that it was something specific to MW2 that caused people to vote that way.
And in that respect the votes have meaning, people felt strongly about the game and voted that way, I certainly didn't buy the title, I personally think leaving out dedicated servers on a PC game which is primarily multiplayer is game breaking mistake, this is likely what is reflected through the reviews.
Last edited:
I've seen it happen here and there, but sadly no one reads those types of reviews. There have been sites in the past that specialized in long detailed reviews that were intelligent and went into a lot of things not covered in normal reviews. Of course those sites tend to die due to there not being enough people around to support them. I will admit to being guilty of not always talking about that stuff in my own reviews due to the style of review we do now. We used to do long multi-page reviews, but no one read them so we switch to a small style that is quicker to read. I would love to be able to go back to a more detail oriented style of review.
I'm not sure if you do it yet or not, but maybe that would be a good addition to PC Gaming Standards. Get a couple good writers together to write some reviews of games following those ideas. Though also make sure to get an editor or two on staff to look over the articles before they go up. I can't tell you how annoying it is to read an article with a lot of grammatical errors or just with an iffy structure.
Yeah. I'm sure there was some level of jerkry going on with some people, but I'm sure there were a lot of people angry that voted it down because of that. Now if only all the people part of the Steam boycott group had actually stuck to it....Really gives a bad impression of the community when something like that goes so poorly. One step at a time though.
Vagrant_Zero
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 179
If you sell your bridge where will you sleep? You haven't thought this through.
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
Well exactly, there's a lot of competition for reviewers and generally speaking you're pressured by your audience to review one way or another to keep cash coming in etc. It may not even be financially viable to write reviews like that, which is probably why I find it hard to find any reviews that I'm happy with, oh well...
I need to work on PCGamingStandards some more, it's a project that's unfortunately at the bottom of my list right now, I have other things I'm working on and real life work is eating into most of my spare time. But it's a good suggestion, the problem again is money and paying people to do it and then needing to make money to compensate, the site isn't going to go commercial by design, it's just a personal project to give back to the gaming community that has helped me so many times, I just need to find time to update it.
The whole steam boycott was blown out of proportion, there was screenshots posted to show that most people who boycott also bought but the way steam arranges it's list of online/offline players meant that it looked like most of the boycotter's had bought the game when In reality we don't know what that percentage is (or does someone know, for sure?)
My stats were completely made up out of thin air, much like the 94% score for DA II from PCG.
Well exactly, there's a lot of competition for reviewers and generally speaking you're pressured by your audience to review one way or another to keep cash coming in etc. It may not even be financially viable to write reviews like that, which is probably why I find it hard to find any reviews that I'm happy with, oh well...
I need to work on PCGamingStandards some more, it's a project that's unfortunately at the bottom of my list right now, I have other things I'm working on and real life work is eating into most of my spare time. But it's a good suggestion, the problem again is money and paying people to do it and then needing to make money to compensate, the site isn't going to go commercial by design, it's just a personal project to give back to the gaming community that has helped me so many times, I just need to find time to update it
Most of the reviewers I've liked over the years no long write reviews. I grew up during the hayday of gaming magazines, during the era where EGM had like 15-20 reviewers and freelancers on stuff or when Computer Gaming World was around and PC Gamer US was good. Most of the good writers from those days either took jobs making games or just quit writing reviews all together. A few of them are still around, but they're tied down doing a-typical reviews.
I know how that goes, all to well. I'd love to have more time to devote to what I like doing. As for paying people, yeah that is a big problem. If you can get reliable volunteers it might help, but it is best left until you have time to devote a lot of time into working out all of the details. Trust me, going into something like that blind with only half the details worked out is not fun and is one of the most frustrating experiences you will ever find.
Vagrant_Zero
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 179
If scoring a game based off playing and finishing it is the equivalent of "made up out of thin air" I think you haven't the foggiest on what precisely made up out of thin air actually means. Don't bother replying to me, you're going to need to conserve all your bile and vitriol when the internet lights up with similar scores. I image you're going to be quite busy then.
Saw the reviews and read the forums on Hardocp about how awesome the first game was. Bought it. Fooking hated it. Utter generic bore-fest. Was suprised as i LOVED Mass Effect 2.
Will i buy DA2? no chance. Not until the Steam sale in a couple of years time
Will i buy DA2? no chance. Not until the Steam sale in a couple of years time
There's several problems with metacritic, for one thing, and it was the same with COD:BO. Most of those positive reviews were actually reviewed on the console version if you actually look at the reviews, but since many review sites lists all the systems a game is on without pointing out which specific system was reviewed, metacritic will also apply a large amount of those reviews to the PC list, even if they weren't. And something I noticed, at least with COD BLOPS, was the amount of glowing reviews published the very day the game was released. That along with the nice article mentioned a while back in another thread about the special treatment the early reviewers got, well, that's just another reason why review scores can't be trusted.
A lot of reviewers get review copies early. Sometimes weeks early. 90% of the time the review builds are gold or retail builds of the game. Embargoes are set and the reviewer has until then to play the game, write a review, and get it approved by their editor. The sketchy part isn't people sticking to embargo, its the ones that don't. Sometimes its just due to them not wanting to wait and get the jump on others (happens with previews and videos more often than reviews) and other times its due to special permission given to the reviewer by the PR agency handling the game. Eidos' PR people were pretty infamous with this for Batman: Arkham Asylum. Ubisoft did it with the original Assassin's Creed (going so far as to say 'if you give the game a 9 or above your can publish your review early'). Konami did something a little different with MGS4 by setting two embargo dates. The first date was only for people who agreed to follow a very detailed set of guidelines that stated what the reviewer could and could not talk about. The second embargo was set after the game's release and allowed the review to say what they wanted. I'm sure there are more cases of stuff like that happening, but those three were off the top of my head. Review guidelines are not uncommon, but they're generally just tips and notes for reviewers and sometimes they're full on guides. With sites relying so much on page clicks to earn money getting an exclusive first review is a big thing and passing it up means throwing away a lot of money. Not that I'm defending sites that accept those bribes I'm big on journalistic integrity, but I don't blame them for considering it especially if those extra few thousand clicks means saving jobs.
Stereophile
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,116
Just providing some context since the thread title seemed to be hyping up the game.
Oooo PC gamer gave DA2 a 94 !
WabeWalker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,508
Are you saying that a score of 94, from a reputable magazine, that awarded the original game with a 94, isn't worth an exclamation mark?
The score is particularly relevant for two reasons. One, because this is the first review score we've seen for DA2, and since it's a 94 it's the first indication that DA2 isn't a disaster (sequels often are). And two, because the review was apparently written by the same person who wrote the original review (Desslock) and so we now have a reliable point of comparison - he gave the first game a 94 and he's giving the second a 94.
You read a lot into a an exclamation mark. I wasn't hyping the game. I just thought it was good news, especially for all the Dragon Age lovers.
If I had wanted to hype the game, then my thread title would have been as follows: "Guys! Holy mother of God! You'll never guess what has happened! DA2 has been awarded a score of 94! This is the best day of my life!"
I might have capitalized the whole thing for effect, and instead of using just one exclamation mark I might've used three or four.
Why this is a surpise to anyone is beyond me. The first game was very well received, and this one seems to build on that, and is even better. Why wouldnt it score about what the last one did in the same magazine with the same reviewer. The same thing basically happened with Mass Effect 2. In fact, DA2 uses its story telling gameplay.
Dont be so ignorant. There are lots of "Big Budget" games that got poor reviews.
Maybe for you they are, for lots of other people they are not.
And a point on metacritic, there are tons of 0's that people gave the game. And a lot of 1-4's too. Obviously it doesnt rate a 0, take out them, and the score goes up drastically. Generally you take out the top 10% and bottom 10% of scores given to get rid of the fan boys who post with another agenda. Im far too lazy to do that however.
And no I'm not a Dragons Age fanboy. I bought it, but havent even come close to finishing it. I dont normally play these kinds of games, and I suck at it. I cant control everyone, and die no matter what I do when those things come down the hill in the first battle. Havent played since in over a year. I got it because of all the post and reviews about it saying it was so good. But Im a newb when it comes to these types of games.
Dont be so ignorant. There are lots of "Big Budget" games that got poor reviews.
Maybe for you they are, for lots of other people they are not.
And a point on metacritic, there are tons of 0's that people gave the game. And a lot of 1-4's too. Obviously it doesnt rate a 0, take out them, and the score goes up drastically. Generally you take out the top 10% and bottom 10% of scores given to get rid of the fan boys who post with another agenda. Im far too lazy to do that however.
And no I'm not a Dragons Age fanboy. I bought it, but havent even come close to finishing it. I dont normally play these kinds of games, and I suck at it. I cant control everyone, and die no matter what I do when those things come down the hill in the first battle. Havent played since in over a year. I got it because of all the post and reviews about it saying it was so good. But Im a newb when it comes to these types of games.
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
The top and bottom 10% of votes don't turn a good game (say 8+) into a 3.6 game, we are talking about an overwhelming number of overall negative votes to achieve that.
So true; but then there's guys like me who have this bad habit of buying games because it looks like it'd be fun, but never get around to playing them.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
Spectrum17
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2006
- Messages
- 742
I trust and respect Desslock, regardless of anything else. I don't have any doubts that this is a good and possibly even a very good game on its own merits.
Take the name Dragon Age out of it and I think that'll make a lot of people feel better. I liked that post someone put in the DA 2 thread where the developers admitted this game was really some side project/spinoff concept that got bumped up the ladder and they slapped the name "DA 2" on it.
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1036827573&postcount=66
^^
That information pretty much removed any doubts in mind about approaching this thing as something else and not the "true sequel" to DA. That says it all.
I know this will be heresy to some here, but I'm betting I'm going to personally like the gameplay in this better, at least in some ways, than I did in DA. *puts flame suit on*
That's actually a pretty good point.
It may not play like DA or be really like DA2, but that doesn't mean that it will necessarily be a bad game. As long as it is judged on it's own merits and not just as a sequel, it may do fine.
An example is DoW2, which was nothing like the original DoW. Basically, they took an RTS and turned it into an action game. People bitched, but both games were very fun, and IMO both were worth the money. Better yet, Retribution, due in only a couple of weeks, looks like a great combination of both, so maybe the devs listened for once.
My niggle is that DA2 costs $60. The original was already RPG lite, so if you remove the remaining elements, you have, what, a linear action Diabloesque clone with some dialogue windows?
Maybe I'll wait for a Steam sale.
Its already at 84%. So I dont know what you're trying to say. As I said there are a lot of 0's by idiots just trying to drag the score down.
Maybe all he does is give out 94 scores. Or perhaps he was paid to give the game a particular score (94).
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
I was actually talking about the tangent in this thread where someone mentioned MW2 having a 3.6 user rating as an example of why metacritic is bad.