Originally posted by nilden

Just for comparing...

Mass Effect (Original all PC versions)

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect-2

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect-3

Dragon Age 2 (XBox360)

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dragon-age-ii

SWTOR

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/star-wars-the-old-republic

 

 

You pretty much nailed it!  Exactly why I hold more value onto the user score than the so called "professional" review scores. Simply because the users (gamers) actually bought and played the game.

Originally posted by Laughing-man

Originally posted by Meerkat93

 ...

I could really do this all day.

 

 

By do this you mean post a user review that you don't like?

No I mean post user review that are by far disporportoinant (I suck at spelling) to the score that follows even more so then the critics.

Because Metacritic user reviews aren't really reviews.

Originally posted by Meerkat93

Originally posted by Laughing-man

Originally posted by Meerkat93

 ...

I could really do this all day.

 

 

By do this you mean post a user review that you don't like?

No I mean post user review that are by far disporportoinant (I suck at spelling) to the score that follows even more so then the critics.

 

Because Metacritic user reviews aren't really reviews.

Show me a better site with a game rating system.

Originally posted by Meerkat93

Originally posted by Skatty2007

Originally posted by Meerkat93

Originally posted by Ceridith

And even so, even using the "they just hate EA" excuse, how many fanboys are skewing the results with perfect 10s? Like I said before, the skewing goes both ways.

Because 9 and 10s are more accurate for a gmae like ME3 than a 1 or 0.

Except for the people who think ME3 is a 1 or a 0.

An old buddy of mine who wrote reviews for movies once told me, "You have every right to an opinion, that is until you write a review then you owe it to other people to be as objective as you can.".

 

Rating a game 0 1 or two on a scale of 1 to 10 means it is absolute shit, and unless you let you own personal dislikes of a certain publisher get in the way of Mass Effect 3 you'd see that its no 0-2.

 

Maybe I should stop expecting people to be fair and unbias when righting user reviews?

Not at all - expect what you want out of people.  I certainly have my own (warranted or unwarranted) expectations of people.

I guess it comes down to what a 1 and a 0 means.  If a game is technincally flawless, but is the worst game an individual has ever played in their life and wish they would have spent that time hanging from an electric fence from their private parts (exaggeration noted, but stated for emphasis), I think a 1 or a 0 could be a very warranted rating from those people that were basing it on how much fun and enjoyment it gave them.

To them, that is a fair and unbiased rating of the game cause it failed to meet ANY criteria that the reviewer was basing the 0-10 rating on.

Originally posted by Meerkat93

Originally posted by Laughing-man

Originally posted by Meerkat93

 ...

I could really do this all day.

 

 

By do this you mean post a user review that you don't like?

No I mean post user review that are by far disporportoinant (I suck at spelling) to the score that follows even more so then the critics.

 

Because Metacritic user reviews aren't really reviews.

Once again, read through the user reviews, pick out the relevant critique, and ignore the blind fanboyism and hate.

Playing ME3 right now and as an RPG its superior to ME2 in every way. Way more cusomization (just not as much as  ME1).

ME3 is all the good parts of ME2+ more RPG. Its a better ME2 and RPG in general.

well, haters be hatin. im glad i put down $60 for it, and i was really close to playing it through other means. im enjoying it, and if anyone is looking for advice regarding ME3: if you liked ME2, you will love ME3 because it's basically an improvement in every respect. if youre a Baldur's Gate purist or some shit, then i cant help you. dont care about BW, TOR and DA2 did suck, but im lovin my ME3.

Sure, that would be like saying everyone on this site are more accurate then the actual figures of say statues of a game. I remember few years back , "WoW will fail huge, their numbers are falling already"... few months later "WoW membership reaches 5million world wide" , that was laughable indeed. Hell look at anyone making a comment about a game, even me.

Point is, PC gamer for example would not have millions sold a month if no one thought their info was no good and more. I read more "I got my butt hurt because I can't offord a,b,c " then anything else in this thread. No reasons, no remarks of actual game mechanics , nothing.

The pc gamer review was pretty much on with what the game is and intails, my score is a bit lower then theirs and I just started the game. But in no way is it dragon age 2, that was a train wreck but I would still give it a 75 in a score. It had repeditive areas constantly, the combat was fun, story was good at points, but it was playable. There was however no replay etc. So in the end, hate EA/Bioware all you want. For me, still a viable developing house and publisher.

I enjoy battlefield series, sims and more from EA and even some sport games. Sorry you got your E-Pon hurt along the way, but everyone here has yet to say anything that is actually realted to this game they can't take from a demo, to which for me equals, your full of crap.

Originally posted by nilden

Originally posted by Meerkat93

Originally posted by Laughing-man

Originally posted by Meerkat93

 ...

I could really do this all day.

 

 

By do this you mean post a user review that you don't like?

No I mean post user review that are by far disporportoinant (I suck at spelling) to the score that follows even more so then the critics.

 

Because Metacritic user reviews aren't really reviews.

Show me a better site with a game rating system.

I don't think there is one honestly.

While I disagree with 90% of the ratings on here (mostly due to peoples egos about 1 MMO or another) MMORPG.com has a pretty good rating system.

So the big question for me is, is the DLC that everyone is up in arms about anything that brings the experience down without having it? Or is it just a side quest or some ****?

Originally posted by Distopia

So the big question for me is, is the DLC that everyone is up in arms about anything that brings the experience down without having it? Or is it just a side quest or some ****?

Nice quest but not needed, adds to the game no doubt, but won't kill it. If that helps.

Originally posted by chaintm

Originally posted by Distopia

So the big question for me is, is the DLC that everyone is up in arms about anything that brings the experience down without having it? Or is it just a side quest or some ****?

 

Nice quest but not needed, adds to the game no doubt, but won't kill it. If that helps.

That's what I suspected.

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by chaintm

Originally posted by Distopia

So the big question for me is, is the DLC that everyone is up in arms about anything that brings the experience down without having it? Or is it just a side quest or some ****?

 

Nice quest but not needed, adds to the game no doubt, but won't kill it. If that helps.

That's what I suspected.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/9403705 

just so you can read up on it, as stated it adds to the game IE new companion and looks, but nothing that kills the core game or makes you feel like it was taken out in gameplay as they did with dragonage 2,. so this one is ok.

Look I haven't played it(nor will I, as I haven't played I and II), but let's get practical shall we.

Approximate average amount of positive and negative reviews by users on Metacritic(in percentages-step 1). Find an average of all those reviews(step 2). Equalise the number of taken user reviews with professional reviews(step 3). Find average review mark(or score w/e) of professional reviews(step 4). Add those average scores{avg user and avg proff)(step 5). Halve it(step 6-the final step). And voila! You have your score(one has to know how to use Metacritic and statistical data...)!

Concerning EA and Riccitello and all the other CEO's... They are morons. Just the simple fact that LoL is better than 98% today's games says leaps and bounds bout today's games(and yes I mean that-truth be told even they started to get greedy which will not end good).

One funny anecdote is the fact that CEO's can get you to believe that you are somehow incomplete without their products. For example, you are a lesser person if you do not consume Pepsi/Coke... and they treat the games the same way as they treat Pepsi. Sure, Pepsi is refreshing and cool, but I sure as hell want my game to last a bit longer than Pepsi lasts(I am not criticising Pepsi here, it's just first thing that popped in me head seeing how I actually like Pepsi WAAAY more than Coke). Why am I telling this anecdote you ask? Well, because our beloved Bobby(Kotick) became CEO of Coke Industries(as if Activision-Bli$$ard was not enough O.0).

Conclussion? Games of future will have longevity of Coke(sad truth, but meh-there will always be Warhammer/other quality brands. One should not care bout random brands ;)).

Originally posted by chaintm

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by chaintm

Originally posted by Distopia

So the big question for me is, is the DLC that everyone is up in arms about anything that brings the experience down without having it? Or is it just a side quest or some ****?

 

Nice quest but not needed, adds to the game no doubt, but won't kill it. If that helps.

That's what I suspected.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/9403705 

 

just so you can read up on it, as stated it adds to the game IE new companion and looks, but nothing that kills the core game or makes you feel like it was taken out in gameplay as they did with dragonage 2,. so this one is ok.

I thought it wasn't the gameplay that the DLC caused outrage over, but rather the fact that they segmented a fairly important part of the storyline out with the sole purpose of getting people to spend more than just 60$ on the game.

It is just a companion, yes, but the quest for that companion ties into a fairly pinacle part of the story (for those that have played ME1, they should know this).

I have no idea as to whether or not it has any effect on the ending, but it's still a pretty shady thing to do for a new game.

I don't think its EA hate(I love BF3 and play it a ton).  EA just does not know how to leave a company alone.  Everyone knew that once EA aquired Bioware it would be ripped apart and slowly eaten alive, and its amazing how many people expect any different.  Bioware still releases above quality products, but they do not release amazing products.  It was a sad day when the owners decided to sell Bioware and whatever their reasons they still made out and unfortunately their brand name has taken a nose dive.  Overall its a sad release for such an epic series to not have been given the time and love that the first and second one was given.  We want to play games, not watch a movie plot go by.  I thought that VCD crap died out, guess with new graphics and spiffy cinematics we might just release stuff where you are a subplot of the actual game play.

I'm also with people on how game magazines used to give solid scores for games have became crap.  I've subbed to Pcgamer for the last 10 years and this time the sub will not be renewed, I am sick and tired of seeing garbage being rated super high that has no business being that high (For example DC Universe MMO of the year?)  Like what shitstick where they smoking. 

Originally posted by aesperus

Originally posted by chaintm

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by chaintm

Originally posted by Distopia

So the big question for me is, is the DLC that everyone is up in arms about anything that brings the experience down without having it? Or is it just a side quest or some ****?

 

Nice quest but not needed, adds to the game no doubt, but won't kill it. If that helps.

That's what I suspected.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/9403705 

 

just so you can read up on it, as stated it adds to the game IE new companion and looks, but nothing that kills the core game or makes you feel like it was taken out in gameplay as they did with dragonage 2,. so this one is ok.

I thought it wasn't the gameplay that the DLC caused outrage over, but rather the fact that they segmented a fairly important part of the storyline out with the sole purpose of getting people to spend more than just 60$ on the game.

It is just a companion, yes, but the quest for that companion ties into a fairly pinacle part of the story (for those that have played ME1, they should know this).

I have no idea as to whether or not it has any effect on the ending, but it's still a pretty shady thing to do for a new game.

For the people that can actually think and had a true interest in this game, we knew dlc was coming as it was announced in the collectors pre-order... mission plus companion. The dlc outrage was a guy that found the code within the core game for the dlc. What the moron didn't know (because he's not a coder) is it was a plug-in for the mission when it was downloaded. You couldn't hack it and play it, it wasn't even finished till the game was gold. Point being, while people will bitch and moan about dlc, it doesn't kill one aspect of the core game. If you never knew about it, you would never miss it. What it adds is some lore, some cool combat, a companion and a gun. 

As mentioned elswhere, for 10 bucks, if you don't care for ME lore, pass till it goes cheaper. If you do , then worth the buy. The question in this thread was basicly "does the dlc kill the game without it" and the answer is again no, it doesn't, but it does add to it, as a dlc should. In dragon age 2, the dlc offered right away made the game night and day and those there after, but that's a whole other subject.

Oh my. Thank goodness I passed this.

The entire objective/subjective discussion aside: how can it be ALL mags review it 9 or 10 of 10, and 600+ players get to an average of 2.3? I understand some gamers may be overly harsh in some cases, but sorry, for me the entire game mags have LONG ago lost all credibility. They are just paid puppets of the industry.

Originally posted by Elikal

Oh my. Thank goodness I passed this.

The entire objective/subjective discussion aside: how can it be ALL mags review it 9 or 10 of 10, and 600+ players get to an average of 2.3? I understand some gamers may be overly harsh in some cases, but sorry, for me the entire game mags have LONG ago lost all credibility. They are just paid puppets of the industry.

Been saying this for years now. To be honest, I'm surprised more people haven't caused a massive stink right about now.

Death to EA, thats all I have to say.  Anything they touch turns into a cash crop for them, but a disaster to ACTUAL gamers (as opposed to sheeple that will pay for anything that looks neat) EA makes enough cash from the more casual gamers that just simply don't or stopped demanding quality games that they could care less about making somthing truely awesome.  I mean really, if you knew your college professor would give you an A for a report no matter how bad you wrote it, you really think you would spend more then a hour writing it?