Caligula_II said:
[
So you're saying good games from good developers have more supporters than bad games from bad developers? Fascinating.
This is not about opinion. I'm not even discussing your views on DLC. My point is that this game IS a huge success with gamers, and you can't accept that this isn't because we're all drolling valve fanboys.
YOU ARE -NOT- MAKING SENSE. First you say there is no meta bombing, and that negative reviews from only a few hours after release are legitimate. Then, when better reviews come in, and its clear that the game was extremely well recieved, you say that THESE reviews are illegitimate, or the result of fanboys, or an insidious plot by Valve. All you're really doing is trying to discredit any supporters of the game, while holding up the word of the few dissenters as gospel.
No, I'm simply observing trends. I really have no motivation either way since it's not my type of game. I'm pretty much the closest thing your going to find to a neutral party on a subject like this.
Irregardless of whether it's fandom or something else, doesn't change the fact that a lot of people defending the ratings are in some serious denial. The entire arguement is that the ratings dropped because of metabombing from forces that have been out there for ages, take action frequently, and ultimatly don't amount to a hill of beans. Saying that they had a huge influance here in dropping the ratings all of a sudden is simply looking for a scapegoat.
A sudden reversal of rating trends, especially given recently uncovered attempts at damage control by companies, shows that it was a reaction. A more legitimate reversal of fortunes would have happened gradually, over a period of time. The initial reaction on the ratings being what was probably the most accurate indicator of reception, despite disturbing people, because that was from people who had just picked up the game and tried it out. Most of both the sales and ratings taking place over the first day or so, that's when everyone is more active in regards to a game. If a couple months from now the ratings slowly, and painfully inched up, then I would buy a better reaction over time, but these sudden movements are a problem, especially the upward trend simply because of the timing where it happened.
What's more there is more to the whole rating control thing than just looking at what happened with "Dragon Age 2". I don't buy the guy who was caught was acting alone, more than the company blew it before they could seriously get started. It's also a matter of how you have efforts by companies to do thngs like surpress negative reviews until the initial sales/reaction period where most of the business is done has transpired. While this kind of thing (which came to the forefront with the release of "Arkham Asylum") mainly affects professional reviewers, it shows the basic attitude of the industry, and what we saw with "Dragon Age 2" shows that they definatly haven't changed their attitudes and are interested in trying to control user reviews as well.
Understand that overall I am far more critical of the industry of a whole, I'm not picking on Valve or "Portal 2" selectively. It's just the current "news of the moment" on the same issues I have been commenting on for years.... and honestly a lot of my accusations of fanboyism are because of the differance in reception (which is by no means always positive) simply because of the game/company involved.
I'll also be blunt, reviews are top heavy, especially professional ones. At it's worst "Portal 2" was apparently rated as a 4.7. That is a tiny bit below average, not an "OMG, this game is the suck" rating on a 10 point scale. It only seems terrible when you consider that professional reviewers rarely rate games below a 7, and even that takes a lot. Companies get upset at anything under an 8 it seems, especially if they are buying ad space. Users are not quite as limited on their scale.
Now, understand that "Portal 2" is a sequel, and covered a lot of the same material as the first game did, but it isn't new anymnore. What's more the arena it's competing in is a bit differant, because what's awesome as an extra feature attached to another release, faces a differant catagory of judgement when viewed as a stand alone 'AAA' title. Things like the famously quirky John Coulton song were so awesome because they were unexpected, but here having the same basic kind of song at the end of the game isn't a huge surprise.
I'm not critiqueing the game, but pointing out that it's a sequel, and was never really rated all THAT badly. With a lot of the freshness gone from the game after how heavily "Portal" was promoted and lionized, and of course the "Still Alive" levels pack, it's quite possible that a lot of the the player base that were not ultra hard core, came away from this being a bit disappointing. It wouldn't be the first time the surprise success of a modestly budgeted production has lead to a big budget sequel that was heavily promoted, but wound up falling flat as far as the users went, despite professional reviewers screaming about how awesome it was, and advertising being streamed everywhere.
Looking at this from a neutral perspective, as someone who is neither a hater OR a fanboy, that is definatly what seems to have happened here. While it wasn't my analogy it seems similar to say "Blair Witch" and the "Blair Witch 2" sequel that flopped with a lot of fans, despite coming along with a huge amount of tie-in material ranging from young adult novels, to video games, and apparently made enough money to keep the franchise alive for a while despite everything.
