Alpha Protocol preview at Eurogamer

[RPGmasterBoo]

How do you explain the recent, and quite common - large differences between gamer grades and the rewiewers grades present on say Metacritic?

Example:

Oblivion

-critic score: 9.3 (45 reviews)

-user score: 8.3 (142 votes)

Witcher

-critic score: 8.1 (50 reviews)

-user score: 9.3 (384 votes)

[Bos_hybrid]

How do you explain the recent, and quite common - large differences between gamer grades and the rewiewers grades present on say Metacritic?

Example:

Oblivion

-critic score: 9.3 (45 reviews)

-user score: 8.3 (142 votes)

Witcher

-critic score: 8.1 (50 reviews)

-user score: 9.3 (384 votes)

 

User reviews = Fanboys & Haters.

 

You will never get a fair average score/vote.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Bos_hybrid

[RPGmasterBoo]

How do you explain the recent, and quite common - large differences between gamer grades and the rewiewers grades present on say Metacritic?

Example:

Oblivion

-critic score: 9.3 (45 reviews)

-user score: 8.3 (142 votes)

Witcher

-critic score: 8.1 (50 reviews)

-user score: 9.3 (384 votes)

 

User reviews = Fanboys & Haters.

 

You will never get a fair average score/vote.

 

You're looking at one.

Both games have as many fanboys, haters and neutral voters as they could get in that place and in the time the voting was open. In fact Oblivion has a slight advantage because its there longer. So what's not fair about it? Obviously the Witcher inspired more people and Oblivion less.

[Bos_hybrid]

You're looking at one.

Both games have as many fanboys, haters and neutral voters as they could get in that place and in the time the voting was open. In fact Oblivion has a slight advantage because its there longer. So what's not fair about it? Obviously the Witcher inspired more people and Oblivion less.

 

Let's be clear here, I couldn't care less about which game gets what score. Your the one that needs your opinion agreed with by a reviewer otherwise they are obviously bribed. But you don't honestly believe the Witcher has more fans then Oblivion, because if you do, you should got to a little forum called ESF. You don't get any more rabid fans then them and they will set you clear on the issue.

 

In the end, all those user votes tell me, is that there are more Witcher fans with too much time on their hands, that care too much about what others think about their favourite game. Open votes that allow anyone to vote and to possibly do it multiple times are never fair.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Let's be clear here, I couldn't care less about which game gets what score. Your the one that needs your opinion agreed with by a reviewer otherwise they are obviously bribed. But you don't honestly believe the Witcher has more fans then Oblivion, because if you do, you should got to a little forum called ESF. You don't get any more rabid fans then them and they will set you clear on the issue.

 

In the end, all those user votes tell me, is that there are more Witcher fans with too much time on their hands, that care too much about what others think about their favourite game. Open votes that allow anyone to vote and to possibly do it multiple times are never fair.

 

They don't have to stick to my opinions, but if they are going to write remotely objective reviews they should learn to point out obvious flaws in the so called AAA titles. While they were so good at finding them in the Witcher, there is nothing to excuse the fact that they didn't even look for them in Oblivion or Fallout 3. Its all there, quite obvious to anyone willing to see it, and it has nothing to do with my opinon - rather with the fact that reviews are 80% paid advertising.

To not see that is to have no insight in how selling a product works, and is also turning a blind eye to actual proof regarding this issue.

Like the Kane & Lynch scandal.

[Bos_hybrid]

They don't have to stick to my opinions, but if they are going to write remotely objective reviews they should learn to point out obvious flaws in the so called AAA titles. While they were so good at finding them in the Witcher, there is nothing to excuse the fact that they didn't even look for them in Oblivion or Fallout 3. Its all there, quite obvious to anyone willing to see it, and it has nothing to do with my opinon - rather with the fact that reviews are 80% paid advertising.

To not see that is to have no insight in how selling a product works, and is also turning a blind eye to actual proof regarding this issue.

Like the Kane & Lynch scandal.

 

That would be true if FO3 and Oblivion had no fans that loved them, but there are millions that do. There are far more that agree with those reviews, then those that don't. That's why I don't believe every reviewer that scored those game high were bribed, but I be honest with you, I don't really take reviewers scores and use them to buy games. They are for an interesting read nothing more.

 

When a game like big truckers(or whatever its called) gets a 90% average then I will agree with you.

[Slowtrain]

Or perhaps, just maybe, they have a different opinion to you.

 

 

SOmetimes the opinion argument is valid; sometimes its not.

 

When a games has as many flaws, failures and broken parts as Oblivion, and yet recieves scores that not only place it among the best games ever made but also indicate it could never be done any better than Oblivion does it, I question exactly how that decision is being made.

 

I'm not necessarily saying game reviewers are paid for high scores, but I think there is something not right and it may just be a lack of competence and rigor.

[Bos_hybrid]

SOmetimes the opinion argument is valid; sometimes its not.

 

When a games has as many flaws, failures and broken parts as Oblivion, and yet recieves scores that not only place it among the best games ever made but also indicate it could never be done any better than Oblivion does it, I question exactly how that decision is being made.

 

I'm not necessarily saying game reviewers are paid for high scores, but I think there is something not right and it may just be a lack of competence and rigor.

 

There are many, many gamers that think Oblivion/FO3 are gold. As I said before the reviewers are not alone in their view.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Bos_hybrid

[Silvernite]

User reviews = Fanboys & Haters.

 

You will never get a fair average score/vote.

Actually, the fanboys and haters cancel themselves out nicely. They come from both extremes.

[Oner]

There are many, many gamers that think Oblivion/FO3 are gold. As I said before the reviewers are not alone in their view.

And a lot of those people "only" consider it good because the crap parts can be modded out.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Oner

[AlphaPro]

How do you explain the recent, and quite common - large differences between gamer grades and the rewiewers grades present on say Metacritic?

Example:

Oblivion

-critic score: 9.3 (45 reviews)

-user score: 8.3 (142 votes)

 

 

I think this is false info. You cant go by 142 votes. Thats like, a tiny insignificant unnamed town. Hered from gamespot:

 

Oblivion

 

Critic Score 9.4 103 reviews

User Score 9.5 34,314 votes

 

Witcher

 

Critic Score 8.1 56 reviews

User Score 8.8 7,175 votes

 

A lot more users like Oblivion than witcher. Including me.

[Hell Kitty]

Or perhaps, just maybe, they have a different opinion to you.

 

SOmetimes the opinion argument is valid; sometimes its not.

 

It's valid when you agree with it, it's not when you don't.

 

When a games has as many flaws, failures and broken parts as Oblivion, and yet recieves scores that not only place it among the best games ever made but also indicate it could never be done any better than Oblivion does it, I question exactly how that decision is being made.

 

Now you're just making **** up. A high score for any game is not an indication that no other game will ever do it better. That doesn't even make any sense, how can you score a game against future games that don't yet exist? It's like when people complain that you can't give a game a score of 10 because 10 means the game is perfect and no game is perfect. Except the scores given to games have no inherent meaning, so if you're going to criticise a score you need to do so using the system the reviewer used, otherwise you're just arguing against your own strawman.

 

When it comes to flaws/failures/broken parts/whatever, the truth is that what proves to be a huge stumbling block for one gamer/reviewer can end up being minor for another. A review is ultimately just an opinion piece, and if your opinion doesn't match it, it's much easier to accuse the reviewer of being stupid or brainwashed or bribed in an attempt to dismiss that opinion.

[Jaesun]

Bethesda also take game reporters to specialized shows of their games (IF you rate their games very favorably).

 

Big surprise they all get good ratings eh? Which makes Metacritic epic fail, rating wise.

[Wrath of Dagon]

When Oblivion came out, it was pretty much alone among open world RPG's, which I believe explains the high scores (Gothic is barely known in the US).

[Humodour]

So you give absurdly high grades to crap games, for nothing??

 

Eg. Oblivion, Crysis, Fallout 3...

 

That's just... illogical.

 

You might not be paid, but its obvious to anyone who has eyes and a brain that there is a large number of games that are bound to have high grades even before they are released, and on the other hand that there are games that don't have that kind of advertising power and are thus sentenced to making a name for themselves on their own.

 

No one who knows anything about cRPG's would say that Oblivion is a better game than the Witcher, yet the former was graded in general above 90 and the latter between 80-90.

 

There is obvious favoritism at work, and no other way to explain it besides money. The honest reviewer in the Kane & Lynch case on Gamespot proves this.

 

 

The other possibility is that a lot of game reviewers don't know what they are talking about or they are not playing the games with a critical eye.

 

I mean, how else can you explain a absolutely horrible game like Oblivion getting such insanely high scores.

 

But yeah, game reviews are highly suspect, I think.

 

Generally speaking of course. There will always be exceptions.

 

You both make good points. I completely avoid game reviews these days. A total waste of time trying to sort the gems (rare) from the trash (common).

Edited August 9, 2009 by Krezack

[Slowtrain]

Now you're just making **** up. A high score for any game is not an indication that no other game will ever do it better. That doesn't even make any sense, how can you score a game against future games that don't yet exist?

 

When a reviewer gives a game a 10/10 score or even 9/10, they are basically saying this games is as good or nearly so as a game can get. There is no room for improvent, so to speak. The heights of Olympus have been scaled. etc and so forth.

 

It's like when people complain that you can't give a game a score of 10 because 10 means the game is perfect and no game is perfect. Except the scores given to games have no inherent meaning, so if you're going to criticise a score you need to do so using the system the reviewer used, otherwise you're just arguing against your own strawman.

 

 

WHen a game gets a high score, it means its a great game, right? Regardless of scale.

 

When it comes to flaws/failures/broken parts/whatever, the truth is that what proves to be a huge stumbling block for one gamer/reviewer can end up being minor for another.

 

 

I'll buy that. Problem with Oblivion is that is has so many stumbling blocks.

 

 

A review is ultimately just an opinion piece, and if your opinion doesn't match it, it's much easier to accuse the reviewer of being stupid or brainwashed or bribed in an attempt to dismiss that opinion.

 

 

I agree that a review is partially opinion, but it is opinion that should be grounded in some sort of attempt to objectively evaulate that aspects that make up the game. If the AI doesn't do what it is supposed to do, then it doesn't do what it's supposed to do. Opinion is irrelevant. If the minigames are broken then the minigames are broken. If the voice acting is terrible then the voice acting is terrible. If the skill system fails to differentiate between classes then it fails to diffeerntiate between classes. etc and so forth.

 

 

Understand that I'm not saying people shouldn't like Oblivion. I like a lot of crappy things. But I still admit they are crap.

 

 

Game reviewers these days seem to be more a part of the pr/hype machine than actual critics.

[Hell Kitty]

When a reviewer gives a game a 10/10 score or even 9/10, they are basically saying this games is as good or nearly so as a game can get. There is no room for improvent, so to speak. The heights of Olympus have been scaled. etc and so forth.

 

This simply isn't true, and it doesn't even make sense. You can only compare a product with current or past products, you cannot compare it with something that doesn't yet exist.

 

WHen a game gets a high score, it means its a great game, right?

 

Sure, it means the reviewer thinks the game is great, but the number alone can't tell you why they think it's great.

 

I agree that a review is partially opinion, but it is opinion that should be grounded in some sort of attempt to objectively evaulate that aspects that make up the game. If the AI doesn't do what it is supposed to do, then it doesn't do what it's supposed to do. Opinion is irrelevant. If the minigames are broken then the minigames are broken. If the voice acting is terrible then the voice acting is terrible. If the skill system fails to differentiate between classes then it fails to diffeerntiate between classes. etc and so forth.

 

You're wrong in thinking opinion is irrelevant in these things. All games are flawed in one way or another, and some can still enjoy a game despite these flaws while others will hate a game because of those flaws. If particular features don't work as they are supposed to (though it's important to differentiate between working as they are meant to and working as I'd like them to) then the text of the review should mention that.

 

Understand that I'm not saying people shouldn't like Oblivion. I like a lot of crappy things. But I still admit they are crap.

 

When you use a word like "crap" you're being purposely inflammatory. Like calling someone who is sexually promiscuous a "slut". If you want to make a factual statement, then you could simply call them "promiscuous", but by giving them a derogatory label you are instead offering up your own personal opinion.

So in your opinion Oblivion is crap. But due to the fact you claim that "I still admit they are crap", it's clear you don't think this is an opinion at all, but the objective truth, and anyone who disagrees with you, anyone who doesn't admit that Oblivion is crap is either a liar, too stupid to be able to see the truth, or corrupt.

"x is crap" is ultimately a pretty worthless statement because all it tells us is that you don't like x, but it doesn't tell us why. In the end it doesn't matter why because you prove yourself to be just as biased (if not more biased) as the fanboys and reviewers you have a problem with.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

"We try and make it so there's no bad choices," says programming producer Nathan Davis. "We want to reward you for playing in the style that you want."

 

Sounds a bit... lame. But then if you don't talk to Sie right, she attacks you, so there are some bad choices.

[Humodour]

"We try and make it so there's no bad choices," says programming producer Nathan Davis. "We want to reward you for playing in the style that you want."

 

Sounds a bit... lame. But then if you don't talk to Sie right, she attacks you, so there are some bad choices.

 

My thoughts exactly. Hopefully they implement this better than they describe it, because if not... bleh.

 

Bad choices exist. Don't pretend otherwise. You can still make a stunning RPG with bad choices (and indeed, perhaps only with bad choices). C.f. Deus Ex, Planescape: Torment.

[RPGmasterBoo]

This simply isn't true, and it doesn't even make sense. You can only compare a product with current or past products, you cannot compare it with something that doesn't yet exist.

 

You're wrong in thinking opinion is irrelevant in these things. All games are flawed in one way or another, and some can still enjoy a game despite these flaws while others will hate a game because of those flaws. If particular features don't work as they are supposed to (though it's important to differentiate between working as they are meant to and working as I'd like them to) then the text of the review should mention that.

 

When you use a word like "crap" you're being purposely inflammatory. Like calling someone who is sexually promiscuous a "slut". If you want to make a factual statement, then you could simply call them "promiscuous", but by giving them a derogatory label you are instead offering up your own personal opinion.

So in your opinion Oblivion is crap. But due to the fact you claim that "I still admit they are crap", it's clear you don't think this is an opinion at all, but the objective truth, and anyone who disagrees with you, anyone who doesn't admit that Oblivion is crap is either a liar, too stupid to be able to see the truth, or corrupt.

"x is crap" is ultimately a pretty worthless statement because all it tells us is that you don't like x, but it doesn't tell us why. In the end it doesn't matter why because you prove yourself to be just as biased (if not more biased) as the fanboys and reviewers you have a problem with.

 

When a game gets above 90 its considered must play. Above 95 is instant classic. The numbers may vary slightly depending on the system of grading but she is essentially right. A top grade means a top game, as in it does everything as perfectly as one can imagine a maximum at the moment.

 

What she is saying is obvious - there are objective criteria for grading a game, regardless of opinion. To deny that these criteria exist is to make everything dependent on opinion, and that would make reviews, discussions and awards utterly pointless because its all someone's opinion.

 

To know what objective criteria a game must fulfill takes experience, but its hardly rocket science.

Eg. Oblivion. In an era around 5 years after Baldur's Gate 2, (which is really an eon for PC games) comes a redone and upgraded version of what is essentially a game of the early 90ties. As if there are no standards in storytelling, characterisation, plot, interaction with the world, character development, choice, a variety of content a game must offer - for a game to have to posses to be considered a contender for RPG greatness.

At the same time reviewers bend over themselves to make the game look like the next best thing since sliced bread - insulting all of us who haven't been living under a rock for the past decade and perhaps even know that there are previous TES games, which I may not like - but I cant deny that they are well crafted. Basically they are telling me, this is a game that is so good you must play it - and I play it - and find out that its more simplistic and has less originality than a randomly chosen game from the 90ties (eg. Eye of the Beholder), indeed less than its predecessor Morowind. As if it was made in a time vortex where role playing games really didn't do anything apart from waiting for Oblivion to show up, and not a single reviewer in a major game site comments on this?. A game cannot ignore years of development in its genre if it is a contender to greatness. At the very least it must offer everything its predecessor offered, certainly not less.

In both Oblivion fails.

Therefore Oblivion is, at best mediocre at worst crap .

Edited August 9, 2009 by RPGmasterBoo

[RPGmasterBoo]

You both make good points. I completely avoid game reviews these days. A total waste of time trying to sort the gems (rare) from the trash (common).

 

The most recent epic lie in cRPGs are the ratings of the german RPG Drakensang. A well crafted, polished, old school dungeon romp in Icewind Dale style has on average got a grade of 70, with no real justification apart from it being "too confusing" (because it isnt DnD) and because you actually have to read a few lines of text that haven't been voice acted. Oh and its also generic... (nods to Oblivion).

Never mind the beautiful graphics, tactical combat, subtle humor, pleasant music, depth, that's all not important lets just bury the game because it isn't Bethesda/Bioware...

[mrmud]

Bethesda also take game reporters to specialized shows of their games (IF you rate their games very favorably).

 

Big surprise they all get good ratings eh? Which makes Metacritic epic fail, rating wise.

No, Metacritic is "fail" for one reason and only one reason.

They do not use the same review outlets for all games, this means that the metric is inherently wrong due to different publications covering different games.

 

This is litterally the only wrong thing about metacritic, but it is also an enormous problem.

[mrmud]

When a reviewer gives a game a 10/10 score or even 9/10, they are basically saying this games is as good or nearly so as a game can get. There is no room for improvent, so to speak. The heights of Olympus have been scaled. etc and so forth.

 

This is completely ridiculous, an outlet determines for themselfs what meaning different scores have.

And when does a "perfect score" stop denoting a perfect game?

 

10 000 / 10 000 : PERFECT GAME!

100 / 100 : Perfect game!

10 / 10 : perfect game?

5 / 5 : perfect game?? really?

2 / 2 : perf... **** off!

[Slowtrain]

When a reviewer gives a game a 10/10 score or even 9/10, they are basically saying this games is as good or nearly so as a game can get. There is no room for improvent, so to speak. The heights of Olympus have been scaled. etc and so forth.

 

This is completely ridiculous, an outlet determines for themselfs what meaning different scores have.

And when does a "perfect score" stop denoting a perfect game?

 

10 000 / 10 000 : PERFECT GAME!

100 / 100 : Perfect game!

10 / 10 : perfect game?

5 / 5 : perfect game?? really?

2 / 2 : perf... **** off!

 

 

If a reviewer awards a game a perfect score, regardless of scale, then the reviewer is saying that the game is perfect, no? Perfection is an absolute. Nothing can ever be MORE perfect. AT the point of perfection a pinnacle has been reached and nothing can ever go any higher. Both in and of itself (a game that is perfect can never be improved) and in comparison to others (a game that is perfect can never be surpassed by other games though it can be equalled)

 

If your scale is only 2 points, then you don't have much leeway in awarding scores. WHich is probably why 2 point scales are rarely used. But 2/2 is still perfect. Just as 5/5 or 10/10 or 100/100.

[mrmud]

If a reviewer awards a game a perfect score, regardless of scale, then the reviewer is saying that the game is perfect, no? Perfection is an absolute. Nothing can ever be MORE perfect. AT the point of perfection a pinnacle has been reached and nothing can ever go any higher. Both in and of itself (a game that is perfect can never be improved) and in comparison to others (a game that is perfect can never be surpassed by other games though it can be equalled)

 

If your scale is only 2 points, then you don't have much leeway in awarding scores. WHich is probably why 2 point scales are rarely used. But 2/2 is still perfect. Just as 5/5 or 10/10 or 100/100.

 

That is certainly an amazingly contrived and eccentric way to view things.

 

Now this is probably how I would construct a 2 point scale:

Bad - Good

or

Dont buy - Buy

 

However I wouldnt make the scale:

PERFECT, BEST GAME EVER - Everything else

 

Because that would be stupid.