Originally posted by BadSpock

There is a big difference between giving a bad score to a game you don't like and giving a bad score to a bad game.

There is such a thing as quality and polish - hard, factual, objective measures - does shit work, is shit broken, are things slopp/lazy... etc. etc.

Saying "GW2 is a well made game that I simply do not like for my own personal subjective reasons" is 100% OK but saying "GW2 sux donkey balls and is the worst game ever made" is simply not true.

Yes...exactly, that is the distinction here.  All of those reviews I posted were giving GW2 a bad score for the wrong reason.  They clearly had some kind of personal beef with the game and felt the need to slam it for some reason.

It's not I'm lambasting someone that listed good criticisms and gave GW2 an 8..which would be a reasonable "bad" score given the critical mean so far.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Nikkita

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Nikkita

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by BadSpock

Three critics reviews in thus far- 100, 94, 94

Blasphemy!  All paid off fanbois ;)!

Not paid off just idiots (using your logic).

Okay, let's make this simple...

If you give anything a score that is several standard deviations away from the mean, then you should have a good justification for that score.  If you have no justification, a very poor justification, or an entirely false justification for your score...then your score is stupid.

If you give a game a score of 94 and everyone else is giving it somewhere between 9-10...then that's not very removed from the mean.

All reasoning or justifications given to justify the score whether lower or higher is matter of opinion. How can you argue with an opinion and call them stupid? the point here is not whether the score is 1 or 10 but whther you disagree or agree with that score.

If a person gives all the best reasoning based on his own taste and preferences..say for example he dislikes the graphics or art style of the game. He / she doesn't think that DE's are all the interesting and think that PVP is nothing more than zerg...and he scores it say 2/10..i bet that you would still call him an idiot simply because he gave it a 2 / 10 no matter how well he explained his reasoning.

 

An Olympic diver executes his dive, and the judges hold up their scores, they are:

9, 9, 10, 9, 9, 3

Now...do you think people would ask the person who gave the diver a 9 to justify his score?  Or ask the person who gave the diver a 3?

Did you read what i said in the end? even if someone justifies his low score say 2 or 3 /10 with best of his abilities and on basis of his own preferences or tatse...would you still not call him an idiot for giving a low score?

Originally posted by QuicklyScott

It is what it is. People think what they think.  Just don't let it bother you.

 

I don't know why it makes people so angry when others, whom they've never met, dislike the game they enjoy.  Who the hell cares.

Couldn't agree more. 

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Nikkita

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Nikkita

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by BadSpock

Three critics reviews in thus far- 100, 94, 94

Blasphemy!  All paid off fanbois ;)!

Not paid off just idiots (using your logic).

Okay, let's make this simple...

If you give anything a score that is several standard deviations away from the mean, then you should have a good justification for that score.  If you have no justification, a very poor justification, or an entirely false justification for your score...then your score is stupid.

If you give a game a score of 94 and everyone else is giving it somewhere between 9-10...then that's not very removed from the mean.

All reasoning or justifications given to justify the score whether lower or higher is matter of opinion. How can you argue with an opinion and call them stupid? the point here is not whether the score is 1 or 10 but whther you disagree or agree with that score.

If a person gives all the best reasoning based on his own taste and preferences..say for example he dislikes the graphics or art style of the game. He / she doesn't think that DE's are all the interesting and think that PVP is nothing more than zerg...and he scores it say 2/10..i bet that you would still call him an idiot simply because he gave it a 2 / 10 no matter how well he explained his reasoning.

 

An Olympic diver executes his dive, and the judges hold up their scores, they are:

9, 9, 10, 9, 9, 3

Now...do you think people would ask the person who gave the diver a 9 to justify his score?  Or ask the person who gave the diver a 3?

That's why they, since a while a back, discard the highest and lowest score in figure scating. Don't know the exact rules for diving. 

Originally posted by Nikkita

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Nikkita

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Nikkita

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by BadSpock

Three critics reviews in thus far- 100, 94, 94

Blasphemy!  All paid off fanbois ;)!

Not paid off just idiots (using your logic).

Okay, let's make this simple...

If you give anything a score that is several standard deviations away from the mean, then you should have a good justification for that score.  If you have no justification, a very poor justification, or an entirely false justification for your score...then your score is stupid.

If you give a game a score of 94 and everyone else is giving it somewhere between 9-10...then that's not very removed from the mean.

All reasoning or justifications given to justify the score whether lower or higher is matter of opinion. How can you argue with an opinion and call them stupid? the point here is not whether the score is 1 or 10 but whther you disagree or agree with that score.

If a person gives all the best reasoning based on his own taste and preferences..say for example he dislikes the graphics or art style of the game. He / she doesn't think that DE's are all the interesting and think that PVP is nothing more than zerg...and he scores it say 2/10..i bet that you would still call him an idiot simply because he gave it a 2 / 10 no matter how well he explained his reasoning.

 

An Olympic diver executes his dive, and the judges hold up their scores, they are:

9, 9, 10, 9, 9, 3

Now...do you think people would ask the person who gave the diver a 9 to justify his score?  Or ask the person who gave the diver a 3?

Did you read what i said in the end? even if someone justifies his low score say 2 or 3 /10 with best of his abilities and on basis of his own preferences or tatse...would you still not call him an idiot for giving a low score?

 

Nice evasion lol.  Fine, I'll respond to your point, though I'm sure you will just ignore mine.

Yes, I would say he's an idiot.  You can't just list things you dislike about a game and give it a 2, even if those things are true.  You have to consider the WHOLE GAME.  Omitting all positives and listing only negatives is only one step above completely false criticism.

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Nikkita

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Nikkita

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by BadSpock

Three critics reviews in thus far- 100, 94, 94

Blasphemy!  All paid off fanbois ;)!

Not paid off just idiots (using your logic).

Okay, let's make this simple...

If you give anything a score that is several standard deviations away from the mean, then you should have a good justification for that score.  If you have no justification, a very poor justification, or an entirely false justification for your score...then your score is stupid.

If you give a game a score of 94 and everyone else is giving it somewhere between 9-10...then that's not very removed from the mean.

All reasoning or justifications given to justify the score whether lower or higher is matter of opinion. How can you argue with an opinion and call them stupid? the point here is not whether the score is 1 or 10 but whther you disagree or agree with that score.

If a person gives all the best reasoning based on his own taste and preferences..say for example he dislikes the graphics or art style of the game. He / she doesn't think that DE's are all the interesting and think that PVP is nothing more than zerg...and he scores it say 2/10..i bet that you would still call him an idiot simply because he gave it a 2 / 10 no matter how well he explained his reasoning.

 

An Olympic diver executes his dive, and the judges hold up their scores, they are:

9, 9, 10, 9, 9, 3

Now...do you think people would ask the person who gave the diver a 9 to justify his score?  Or ask the person who gave the diver a 3?

 

That's why they, since a while a back, discard the highest and lowest score in figure scating. Don't know the exact rules for diving. 

I would actually be in favor of doing this on user metacritic scores...let the zeroes and tens literally cancel each other out.

Originally posted by Teala
Creslin123 I guess my opinion that GW2 is worth maybe a 6.5 score(at best) would just make your brain explode.   I personally think GW2 is a step backwards in the MMO genre and is more like an Themepark/MOBA game.    Just my take on it.    That doesn't make it a bad game, it just means, it is at best average.   Not everyone is going to feel the same way you do.  

Yep it's exploding right now lol...I know people will dislike the game and that's fine.  I think a 6.5 is low, but it's not nearly as low as a 1 or a 0 ;).

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by BadSpock

There is a big difference between giving a bad score to a game you don't like and giving a bad score to a bad game.

There is such a thing as quality and polish - hard, factual, objective measures - does shit work, is shit broken, are things slopp/lazy... etc. etc.

Saying "GW2 is a well made game that I simply do not like for my own personal subjective reasons" is 100% OK but saying "GW2 sux donkey balls and is the worst game ever made" is simply not true.

Yes...exactly, that is the distinction here.  All of those reviews I posted were giving GW2 a bad score for the wrong reason.  They clearly had some kind of personal beef with the game and felt the need to slam it for some reason.

It's not I'm lambasting someone that listed good criticisms and gave GW2 an 8..which would be a reasonable "bad" score given the critical mean so far.

Sorry but i feel that is very much YOUR opinion of THEIR opinion. And last time I checked we don't live in a dictatorship where people are only able to forumulate and opinion that pleases the mighty Creslin321. Feel free to disagree with them, but making post after post after post just saying they're WRONG, just makes you look the egotistical prat.

Originally posted by VassagoMael
Hah, I like the Diablo 3 score of metacritic. 88/100 by critics and 3.8 by users.

In all honesty D3 doesn't deserve a score as low as 3.8. In its core it's a very good ARPG, easily 7+ even if you're not an old Diablo series fan.

It had a horrible launch though which ruined the initial impression and now the game is being balanced around RMAH. Thus drops are crappy and cheap gear-independent builds are being obliterated to force people buy more gear.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Nikkita

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Nikkita

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Nikkita

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by BadSpock

Three critics reviews in thus far- 100, 94, 94

Blasphemy!  All paid off fanbois ;)!

Not paid off just idiots (using your logic).

Okay, let's make this simple...

If you give anything a score that is several standard deviations away from the mean, then you should have a good justification for that score.  If you have no justification, a very poor justification, or an entirely false justification for your score...then your score is stupid.

If you give a game a score of 94 and everyone else is giving it somewhere between 9-10...then that's not very removed from the mean.

All reasoning or justifications given to justify the score whether lower or higher is matter of opinion. How can you argue with an opinion and call them stupid? the point here is not whether the score is 1 or 10 but whther you disagree or agree with that score.

If a person gives all the best reasoning based on his own taste and preferences..say for example he dislikes the graphics or art style of the game. He / she doesn't think that DE's are all the interesting and think that PVP is nothing more than zerg...and he scores it say 2/10..i bet that you would still call him an idiot simply because he gave it a 2 / 10 no matter how well he explained his reasoning.

 

An Olympic diver executes his dive, and the judges hold up their scores, they are:

9, 9, 10, 9, 9, 3

Now...do you think people would ask the person who gave the diver a 9 to justify his score?  Or ask the person who gave the diver a 3?

Did you read what i said in the end? even if someone justifies his low score say 2 or 3 /10 with best of his abilities and on basis of his own preferences or tatse...would you still not call him an idiot for giving a low score?

 

Nice evasion lol.  Fine, I'll respond to your point, though I'm sure you will just ignore mine.

Yes, I would say he's an idiot.  You can't just list things you dislike about a game and give it a 2, even if those things are true.  You have to consider the WHOLE GAME.  Omitting all positives and listing only negatives is only one step above completely false criticism.

There is no evasion because i think your analogy of coach giving scores to diver is a bad one. But on the same lines i still answered your question. Since you have been trying to give an impression that your porblem is not with the scores but reasoning behind it. 

By the way it is quite possible to give a game 2 or 3/10 after considering the whole game. That is the beauty of having an opinion. So can we stop with the farce here that you care about the justification behind low scores? because that is not the real issue here. Because if it was there are lots of ridiculous reasonings behind giing GW2 a 10.  After all your OP is all about ridiculous reasons behind the scores and not the scores right ?

*rolls eyes*

Originally posted by Tardcore

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by BadSpock

There is a big difference between giving a bad score to a game you don't like and giving a bad score to a bad game.

There is such a thing as quality and polish - hard, factual, objective measures - does shit work, is shit broken, are things slopp/lazy... etc. etc.

Saying "GW2 is a well made game that I simply do not like for my own personal subjective reasons" is 100% OK but saying "GW2 sux donkey balls and is the worst game ever made" is simply not true.

Yes...exactly, that is the distinction here.  All of those reviews I posted were giving GW2 a bad score for the wrong reason.  They clearly had some kind of personal beef with the game and felt the need to slam it for some reason.

It's not I'm lambasting someone that listed good criticisms and gave GW2 an 8..which would be a reasonable "bad" score given the critical mean so far.

Sorry but i feel that is very much YOUR opinion of THEIR opinion. And last time I checked we don't live in a dictatorship where people are only able to forumulate and opinion that pleases the mighty Creslin321. Feel free to disagree with them, but making post after post after post just saying they're WRONG, just makes you look the egotistical prat.

If someone watched the Godfather and then told me that they thought it was horrible, Three Men and a Baby was much better, and they give the Godfather a 2/10...I would tell them they are dumb and have horrible taste.

That's basically what I'm doing here ;).

Originally posted by wowfan1996

Originally posted by VassagoMael
Hah, I like the Diablo 3 score of metacritic. 88/100 by critics and 3.8 by users.

In all honesty D3 doesn't deserve a score as low as 3.8. In its core it's a very good ARPG, easily 7+ even if you're not an old Diablo series fan.

It had a horrible launch though which ruined the initial impression and now the game is being balanced around RMAH. Thus drops are crappy and cheap gear-independent builds are being obliterated to force people buy more gear.

Completely agree...I would give D3 an 8.

Originally posted by BadSpock

Originally posted by Wickedjelly

Originally posted by BadSpock

The 10's and 0's even each other out for the most part is a lie - all scores would then be 5.0 average.

If there are more fans than haters, the 10's will be greater in number than the 0's so the average will be higher than 5.0.

You see this with Diablo 3 - more "haters" registered and/or reviewed 0 or less thus you see the 3.8 so it IS an indicator that Blizzard screwed their fans big time - even if the critics liked the game.

 

So all the 10's and 0's do count and do matter - it helps push the average and helps give a general sense of community / fan reaction to the game - nothing objective or "review" about it at all but it is a finger on the pulse of the community reaction.

 What? No it wouldn't. The point was that they discount each other out. Not that it would give an overall average between the two.

I am saying that the do not discount each other out.

If the game is badly received by the community or people are pissed off/angry, many more will come to metacritic and rate a game a 0.

If the game is well received and people are happy/excited, many more will come to metacritic and rate a game a 10.

They do not balance each other out, if the game has more 10's than it has 0's by a significant margin, in means there are more fans and less haters which means the game was better received by the gaming community at large.

Each individual "review" doesn't matter - in fact best to ignore the dumb stuff most people write - but the average score is still important.

Obviously not an exact science - more people are likely to rate a game worse if they dislike it than there are people who are likely to rate a game if they enoy it.

But at the same time, if people are really hyped about a game or are "defending" their game/community than you may see things go the other way.

It's all funny numbers, but the POINT is that you can see/feel out trends.

Gotta disagree here!  The people with extreme 'hate' will post and those with extreme love will post, however by and large those "haters" are more apt to post because they are upset then those who are "normal" folks who enjoy a game, play it for what it is and then leave.  I'm  a prime example of this when it comes to D3.  I played the game, enjoyed my time in it and when I was done I stopped playing.  If someone put a gun to my head and said "rate this game" or "give it a thumbs up or thumbs down" I'd give it a thumbs up and probably like a 7/10 rating.  However as nobody has forced me, I feel no need to go post my "positive" feelings or score.

By and large there are many more "silent" bu content fans out there then the ragers and haters.  It's just that the haters are louder and find ways to post more often, thus skewing the games more negative. 

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Warcannibal
[mod edit]

Thanks War...just one question though, I'm REALLY shy around girls...can you help me ask my wife out on a date?

 Does your wife heal?  Mine quit healer a few years back and is still stuck in DPS mode....

Originally posted by BadSpock

There is a big difference between giving a bad score to a game you don't like and giving a bad score to a bad game.

There is such a thing as quality and polish - hard, factual, objective measures - does shit work, is shit broken, are things slopp/lazy... etc. etc.

Saying "GW2 is a well made game that I simply do not like for my own personal subjective reasons" is 100% OK but saying "GW2 sux donkey balls and is the worst game ever made" is simply not true.

Yes but right now a lot of shit doesn't work.  The Black Lion trading company doesn't work.  The grouping system doesn't work.  Many people can't log in.  For the record, I do like the game, but it's not like ther aren't hard factual measures that are broken and not working very well.

As others have said, Blizzard got lambasted for similar issues with D3 and I'm sure if MoP launches like this they will get blasted again.  Right now, Anet deserves some heat.  They new this game was going to be huge.  It is encumbant on them to have got some of these core features working properly for release.  Thus, they need to take some heat for it.

In the long run will it ruin my enjoyment of the game...nope, but what do they say about first impressions?  It might be that some of these issues did ruin it for some people and they are entitled to that feeling.

I should point out the issues I mentioned were as of last night for my server anyway.  I have not tried the game yet today.

If someone watched the Godfather and then told me that they thought it was horrible, Three Men and a Baby was much better, and they give the Godfather a 2/10...I would tell them they are dumb and have horrible taste.

That's basically what I'm doing here ;).

That makes you look dumb and ignorant. You're basicly assuming that your opinion is a fact and anybody who has a different opinion is wrong.

Pointing out that people complain about in-game issues that don't exist is fine, but saying they are wrong, or have a bad taste, becouse they like different things than you do is just ignorant.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by BadSpock

Three critics reviews in thus far- 100, 94, 94

It's now 100, 94, 94, 90 -- Average 94.  But I guess that all the folks who gave is below 4 have perfectly valid reasons for their scores, and they should be just a respected as more reasonable scores (rolleyes).

Granted the scoring history of most of those reviewers are a bit dodgy with a disproportionate amount of perfect scores, more so when compared to the averages. 

Wait till most of the big, proper sites and publications have voiced their opinions. Don't worry, I'm sure they'll be positive as well. But probably a bit more balanced still.

Originally posted by SimonVDH

If someone watched the Godfather and then told me that they thought it was horrible, Three Men and a Baby was much better, and they give the Godfather a 2/10...I would tell them they are dumb and have horrible taste.

That's basically what I'm doing here ;).

 

That makes you look dumb and ignorant. You're basicly assuming that your opinion is a fact and anybody who has a different opinion is wrong.

Pointing out that people complain about in-game issues that don't exist is fine, but saying they are wrong, or have a bad taste, becouse they like different things than you do is just ignorant.

Nope.

You see Creslins opinion would be backed up by objective standards of filmmaking. Technical aspects of camerawork, but also the writing and the acting. There is objective value in these kind of things, in that sense that the excution of a certain aspect is measured relatively. Regardless of taste or genre certain movies are better executed and technically superior.

Same goes for books btw. For a book to be actually considered true litrature it has to hold up to certain standards.

Liking or enjoying something has nothing to do with the assessment of technical (objective) quality. Those kind of opinions arn't  analyctical assessments, they ar e assesments based on mood and feelings. The beauty of technical assessments is that they are not based on emotions, intuition or feelings but objective, measurable facts.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by BadSpock

There is a big difference between giving a bad score to a game you don't like and giving a bad score to a bad game.

There is such a thing as quality and polish - hard, factual, objective measures - does shit work, is shit broken, are things slopp/lazy... etc. etc.

Saying "GW2 is a well made game that I simply do not like for my own personal subjective reasons" is 100% OK but saying "GW2 sux donkey balls and is the worst game ever made" is simply not true.

Yes...exactly, that is the distinction here.  All of those reviews I posted were giving GW2 a bad score for the wrong reason.  They clearly had some kind of personal beef with the game and felt the need to slam it for some reason.

It's not I'm lambasting someone that listed good criticisms and gave GW2 an 8..which would be a reasonable "bad" score given the critical mean so far.

What is a bad game? What is a well made game? Can a game be bad yet not have serious technical issues? Can a good game have serious issues, yet still be good? I think it can depending on the perspective you're coming from. Considering that I have to say you're both wrong about this. Granted I'm not speaking toward something like metacritic here. I'm just thinking from a perspective of opinion.

TES games have lots of issues but I still find them to be some of the best games available. SWG had a ton of issues but I still consider it to be the cream of the crop when discussing MMO's.

If a person feels GW2 has a horrible direction in terms of MMORPG's it's fair for that person to consider it a "bad" game. Many feel that way about TOR, and it's a perfectly legit opinion to have. We're not speaking about facts here, this is a subjective topic through and through, it's not up to anyone but the beholder on what is good or bad.