By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Metacritic's next victim

Wonktonodi said:
leatherhat said:
AussieGecko said:
leatherhat said:

It makes much more sense that this game is just objectively bad. Occams razor folks.


mhmm explain the halo reviews and 99 percent of exclusive games, FFXIII was one of the major ones before it was released. Some people have an agenda for no reason but to slam a game. 

The most obvious reason in this case is people are bitching. Its metacritic.


But what drove those people to bitch? Probably the fact that its not a very good game and a huge step down from origins. 


What he's saying is the biggest thing that drove people to bitch is that it's exclusive. So people who don't own a system giving it bad reviews just because it's on a system that they don't own not because of the quality of the game itself.

Wat

That doesn't make any sense- dragon age is very much multiplatform



ǝןdɯıs ʇı dǝǝʞ oʇ ǝʞıן ı ʍouʞ noʎ 

Ask me about being an elitist jerk

Time for hype

Around the Network
Slimebeast said:
vlad321 said:
Slimebeast said:
vlad321 said:

It's not a victim, the game genuinely deserves those scores. Though to be fair, it should be a 5 not a 4.

What do u mean it should be a 5 not a 4?

And welcome back.


I mean it's an average game, not a bad one.

5? 4? Out of 5? Or out of 10? Or out of 100%?


The OP is talking about the 10 point scale.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

leatherhat said:
Wonktonodi said:
leatherhat said:
AussieGecko said:
leatherhat said:

It makes much more sense that this game is just objectively bad. Occams razor folks.


mhmm explain the halo reviews and 99 percent of exclusive games, FFXIII was one of the major ones before it was released. Some people have an agenda for no reason but to slam a game. 

The most obvious reason in this case is people are bitching. Its metacritic.


But what drove those people to bitch? Probably the fact that its not a very good game and a huge step down from origins. 


What he's saying is the biggest thing that drove people to bitch is that it's exclusive. So people who don't own a system giving it bad reviews just because it's on a system that they don't own not because of the quality of the game itself.

Wat

That doesn't make any sense- dragon age is very much multiplatform


His point was to show that people do bad reviews when they have an agenda not just on the quality of the game. It doesn't only happen with the exclusives but it's more noticable. All that to point out that usein ocums razor to say it's bad instead of saying that early user reviews are flaming the game is a bad conclusion. 

Wait until the game has been out for a year and see how the user reviews and critic reviews compair it won't be such a huge difference there.



it's crap like this that makes me wish Metacritic would just disable user scores; if people are going to throw tantrums like this they don't deserve to have their opinions heard



silicon said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
JWS said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
noname2200 said:
Galaki said:


We'll see if they dumb down Diablo3...

What's to dumb down?!

Just thinking the same!    If they think console gamers need it dumbed down, then either they wildly underestimate their average IQ, or, if they are right, something horrible must have happened to 200 million brains...  =8-O   

I don't think its dumbed down for the console gamers. I think it's dumbed down for the FPS players. Fps are huge casual market sellers. So bioware whating to tap into the casual market made a game with lots of action,easy learning curve, no complex menus or complex leveling and a short game so the casuals don't lose intrest. I am surprised they didnt try to tack on some online or co-op to the game.

 

Also, who is to blame for this? Is it bioware or is EA forcing this on them?

It makes sense. After all, consoles have, and had particularly in the past, also complex and/or deep games, they managed to have them since they gained the ability to save games or resume them from checkpoints. But do devs and publishers always forget they tried this wannabe smart trick countless times and they just managed to make RPG fans furious, while earning very little interest from FPS ones? I got nothing against simple games, a simple game can still be great and bring a lot of fun. But a dumbed down game absolutely cannot.

About the culprit, the publisher is always the main suspect for this shit...

I don't think it should be considered dumbing down, however I'm not aware of 100% of the changes.

I think it's really removing something that is enjoyable because it's familiar vs. keeping an old mechanic that acts as a barrier to entry or is not used by some players.

Old mechanics aren't necessarily a barrier, almost always it only takes to improve the interface to make them more accessible. Removing deeper options because not everybody uses them changes the game's target and often it just piss the genre's fans off without really giving anything to more casual gamers. There are already tons of simplified RPGs available for those that don't like complications, and there are also good and deep RPGs that allow to learn them without excessive efforts, or at least with a gradual learning curve, ideal for those that after starting from the simpler ones want to get more challenges as they become more dedicated fans of the genre, but oversimplifying, dumbing down, deeper series to make them compete with the simpler ones is not the right thing to do, it will make the fans of the series mad and it won't make the casuals happier than playing games that were designed from the start to be simpler and appeal them. And let's not forget we are talking about RPGs: how many RPGs elements can be removed before the games aren't RPGs anymore? Trying to change RPGs so much that they aren't RPGs anymore to make those that aren't fans of the genre like them doesn't make much sense, and in fact up until now it never worked, or when it partially did, the result was so bland on every aspect that the new fans attracted were less than the old ones lost.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


Around the Network
RolStoppable said:

It's probably still a better game than Sonic Chronicles.


If it is half as good as Sonic Chronicles it will be a day one for me!



"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." -My good friend Mark Aurelius

Alby is right and for those saying we don't have the right to complain, that's just not true.  I'm sure dragon age 2 is a good game, but were upset because it's not the game it was supposed to be.  I've got plenty of action RPG's to play but what I don't have now is a strategy RPG, so I feel a little cheated.

And I'm also tired of this concept that console gamers need dumber down version's.  Most console gamers, like me used to be PC gamers and switched for some simplicity in hardware and a little more comfort on the couch, we didn't switch cause we wanted games to be less complex.  I was dissapointed that Dragon age origins didn't provide a top down view for the console, and for no reason other than the excuse that console gamers don't want that and it's really hard with analog sticks.  Both reasons are retarded and insulting, and hopefully bioware will get the message.



scat398 said:

Alby is right and for those saying we don't have the right to complain, that's just not true.  I'm sure dragon age 2 is a good game, but were upset because it's not the game it was supposed to be.  I've got plenty of action RPG's to play but what I don't have now is a strategy RPG, so I feel a little cheated.

And I'm also tired of this concept that console gamers need dumber down version's.  Most console gamers, like me used to be PC gamers and switched for some simplicity in hardware and a little more comfort on the couch, we didn't switch cause we wanted games to be less complex.  I was dissapointed that Dragon age origins didn't provide a top down view for the console, and for no reason other than the excuse that console gamers don't want that and it's really hard with analog sticks.  Both reasons are retarded and insulting, and hopefully bioware will get the message.

the top down view is gone from the pc version too.



Alby_da_Wolf said:
silicon said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
JWS said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
noname2200 said:
Galaki said:


We'll see if they dumb down Diablo3...

What's to dumb down?!

Just thinking the same!    If they think console gamers need it dumbed down, then either they wildly underestimate their average IQ, or, if they are right, something horrible must have happened to 200 million brains...  =8-O   

I don't think its dumbed down for the console gamers. I think it's dumbed down for the FPS players. Fps are huge casual market sellers. So bioware whating to tap into the casual market made a game with lots of action,easy learning curve, no complex menus or complex leveling and a short game so the casuals don't lose intrest. I am surprised they didnt try to tack on some online or co-op to the game.

 

Also, who is to blame for this? Is it bioware or is EA forcing this on them?

It makes sense. After all, consoles have, and had particularly in the past, also complex and/or deep games, they managed to have them since they gained the ability to save games or resume them from checkpoints. But do devs and publishers always forget they tried this wannabe smart trick countless times and they just managed to make RPG fans furious, while earning very little interest from FPS ones? I got nothing against simple games, a simple game can still be great and bring a lot of fun. But a dumbed down game absolutely cannot.

About the culprit, the publisher is always the main suspect for this shit...

I don't think it should be considered dumbing down, however I'm not aware of 100% of the changes.

I think it's really removing something that is enjoyable because it's familiar vs. keeping an old mechanic that acts as a barrier to entry or is not used by some players.

Old mechanics aren't necessarily a barrier, almost always it only takes to improve the interface to make them more accessible. Removing deeper options because not everybody uses them changes the game's target and often it just piss the genre's fans off without really giving anything to more casual gamers. There are already tons of simplified RPGs available for those that don't like complications, and there are also good and deep RPGs that allow to learn them without excessive efforts, or at least with a gradual learning curve, ideal for those that after starting from the simpler ones want to get more challenges as they become more dedicated fans of the genre, but oversimplifying, dumbing down, deeper series to make them compete with the simpler ones is not the right thing to do, it will make the fans of the series mad and it won't make the casuals happier than playing games that were designed from the start to be simpler and appeal them. And let's not forget we are talking about RPGs: how many RPGs elements can be removed before the games aren't RPGs anymore? Trying to change RPGs so much that they aren't RPGs anymore to make those that aren't fans of the genre like them doesn't make much sense, and in fact up until now it never worked, or when it partially did, the result was so bland on every aspect that the new fans attracted were less than the old ones lost.


Change "RPG" to "adventure shooter", and you've described perfectly what a lot of us feel about Other M.

As for this game, the score is a bit too close for each version considering the disparity in the number of reviews.

There might be something here that apparently pleases reviewers, but turns off actual gamers (yeah, I'm basically claiming reviewers aren't actual gamers).



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

LordTheNightKnight said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:

[...]

Old mechanics aren't necessarily a barrier, almost always it only takes to improve the interface to make them more accessible. Removing deeper options because not everybody uses them changes the game's target and often it just piss the genre's fans off without really giving anything to more casual gamers. There are already tons of simplified RPGs available for those that don't like complications, and there are also good and deep RPGs that allow to learn them without excessive efforts, or at least with a gradual learning curve, ideal for those that after starting from the simpler ones want to get more challenges as they become more dedicated fans of the genre, but oversimplifying, dumbing down, deeper series to make them compete with the simpler ones is not the right thing to do, it will make the fans of the series mad and it won't make the casuals happier than playing games that were designed from the start to be simpler and appeal them. And let's not forget we are talking about RPGs: how many RPGs elements can be removed before the games aren't RPGs anymore? Trying to change RPGs so much that they aren't RPGs anymore to make those that aren't fans of the genre like them doesn't make much sense, and in fact up until now it never worked, or when it partially did, the result was so bland on every aspect that the new fans attracted were less than the old ones lost.


Change "RPG" to "adventure shooter", and you've described perfectly what a lot of us feel about Other M.

As for this game, the score is a bit too close for each version considering the disparity in the number of reviews.

There might be something here that apparently pleases reviewers, but turns off actual gamers (yeah, I'm basically claiming reviewers aren't actual gamers).

IDK elsewhere, but I noticed that at least in Italy, even the strictest reviewers, after initially ranting against dumbing down, are now like resigned to it (but the last issue of a gaming mag I read gave scores depressingly low, so it looks like they aren't willing yet to totally accept it). I guess publishers bring pressure on them through advertising, but they also use marketing to persuade as many people as possible that they chose the right way... Luckily we gamers aren't willing to accept it and we can vote with our money, but it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth knowing that most probably the additional marketing money spent to persuade inexperienced gamers to buy a dumbed down game could have been spent instead to develop it better and not crippled.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!