Dragon Age II has a 3.4/10 on Metacritic, WHY!?

[Danpascooch]

I haven't had the chance to pick up my preorder of Dragon Age II yet, I plan on getting it later today, but I did look up some reviews, and while critics seem to love it, it has a user score of 3.4 on Metacritic.

Now I'm worried, the Metacritic user score is 3.4, which is so bad it's usually reserved for one of two cases:

1.) They did something specific to cause rage that results in spams of unfairly biased reviews (such as Modern Warfare 2's drop of dedicated servers)

2.) Only a few people reviewed it so far, and of them is an ass.

Well, 178 people rated the game, so it's not #2, and they aren't complaining about a specific nerd rage or single facet that caused hate (don't jump down my throat about my comment on MW2, it was just an example, I know dedicated servers are important but the majority of Metacritic user reviews about them read as if the change from dedicated servers murdered their parents), they are making broad statements about it being linear and bland. This does not bode well.

Does anyone have any explanation for this? Is the game really just crappy? I know Metacritic has some quirks but please don't just post saying Metacritic has no grounding in reality, 200 people don't just wake up and say "hey guys! You know what would be funny? If we all collectively pretended this particular game was terrible!"

EDIT: I think I have an explanation, it's possible that the people who absolutely hated it were motivated to immediately get on Metacritic out of rage, and that the more mild mannered people who are busy playing it right now either haven't gotten around to rating it yet, or don't plan to (believe it or not that logical explanation was given to me by a Gamestop clerk of all people, I guess there is hope for the world yet)

 

[Wolfram23]

I don't know, I played it for a bit last night and it was fun so far but I'm not far at all right now. Anyway I doubt it deserves that score. But without a doubt people nerd rage when their game is changed at all. I noticed how many rage at the changes in Crysis 2 (suit abilities, energy usage...) when it's actually a very fair and balanced system.

 

[Awexsome]

Holy shit.

The critic scores have a rating of like 82-83/100.

But the user reviews put it right now at a 2.8/10!! The hell is everyone so pissed about?! First glance it looks like a bunch of people are calling it "dumbed down" from its old RPG elements. I haven't played it so I wouldn't know but I do know the Mass Effect series' combat was heavily improved when moving closer to an action game than an RPG.

 

[Royta]

I haven't played it, but a bunch of my friends have and they're all enjoying the game. It's just a bunch of kids who are angry that the PC version isn't that much superiour and probably spammed the ratingsystem.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

I haven't had the chance to pick up my preorder of Dragon Age II yet, I plan on getting it later today, but I did look up some reviews, and while critics seem to love it, it has a user score of 3.4 on Metacritic.

Now I'm worried, the Metacritic user score is 3.4, which is so bad it's usually reserved for one of two cases:

1.) They did something specific to cause rage that results in spams of unfairly biased reviews (such as Modern Warfare 2's drop of dedicated servers)

2.) Only a few people reviewed it so far, and of them is an ass.

Well, 178 people rated the game, so it's not #2, and they aren't complaining about a specific nerd rage or single facet that caused hate (don't jump down my throat about my comment on MW2, it was just an example, I know dedicated servers are important but the majority of Metacritic user reviews about them read as if the change from dedicated servers murdered their parents), they are making broad statements about it being linear and bland. This does not bode well.

Does anyone have any explanation for this? Is the game really just crappy? I know Metacritic has some quirks but please don't just post saying Metacritic has no grounding in reality, 200 people don't just wake up and say "hey guys! You know what would be funny? If we all collectively pretended this particular game was terrible!"

That puzzles me too. I've been playing for 7 hours thus far and it is pretty good. I haven't played it enough to get an overall opinion on the game formed, but after seven hours I doubt the quality of the game plummets enough to warrant a 3.4.

 

[Serenegoose]

Whilst I'm skeptical about DA2 for my own reasons, given how little time it's been out, I'm going to guess that the people who want to be disappointed by it already had their rants prepared and written, and aren't letting the game itself get in the way of them slating it.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

Holy shit.

The critic scores have a rating of like 82-83/100.

But the user reviews put it right now at a 2.8/10!! The hell is everyone so pissed about?! First glance it looks like a bunch of people are calling it "dumbed down" from its old RPG elements. I haven't played it so I wouldn't know but I do know the Mass Effect series' combat was heavily improved when moving closer to an action game than an RPG.

its just a bunch of pissed off elitist PC gamers who are angry that their game was "dumbed down" so more people could enjoy it.

 

[Catchy Slogan]

I remember that some people didn't like the new way they've done it, i.e: too much like Mass Effect or that it was too much like a hack 'n' slasher. Might be some of the reasons.

 

[lacktheknack]

Does anyone have any explanation for this? Is the game really just crappy? I know Metacritic has some quirks but please don't just post saying Metacritic has no grounding in reality, 200 people don't just wake up and say "hey guys! You know what would be funny? If we all collectively pretended this particular game was terrible!"

Actually, they do.

See: Anonymous.

Anyways, there's pretty much NEVER this big of a gap between user reviews and critic reviews. I'd peg it down to three or four trolls posting ratings and little "reviews" over and over again.

 

[hazabaza1]

Wasn't there already a thread about this?
But I think I'll have to agree with other people, a bunch of people who haven't played the game are super angry that it's not the same game and decided to zero bomb it.

 

[lacktheknack]

Holy shit.

The critic scores have a rating of like 82-83/100.

But the user reviews put it right now at a 2.8/10!! The hell is everyone so pissed about?! First glance it looks like a bunch of people are calling it "dumbed down" from its old RPG elements. I haven't played it so I wouldn't know but I do know the Mass Effect series' combat was heavily improved when moving closer to an action game than an RPG.

its just a bunch of pissed off elitist PC gamers who are angry that their game was "dumbed down" so more people could enjoy it.

Specifically, it's probably a few that are so angry that they're doing it over and over.

 

[Woodsey]

Holy shit.

The critic scores have a rating of like 82-83/100.

But the user reviews put it right now at a 2.8/10!! The hell is everyone so pissed about?! First glance it looks like a bunch of people are calling it "dumbed down" from its old RPG elements. I haven't played it so I wouldn't know but I do know the Mass Effect series' combat was heavily improved when moving closer to an action game than an RPG.

its just a bunch of pissed off elitist PC gamers who are angry that their game was "dumbed down" so more people could enjoy it.

Hold on a second, plenty of console gamers have complained that auto-attack is off for them now (although they can just change it in the options I believe).

Anyway, I'm just waiting for my copy to unlock on Steam (damn you to hell PAL, DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!), but the user scores should always be taken with a massive pinch of salt.

At least outlets that use scores have a system where the score bands relate to something (don't buy, rent, buy, for example).

Can't wait to play it though.

 

[Lybs]

If your letting another guys opinion color your even before you pick the game up your a guy that review books based on the cover.
Every game I have that betaware have written are heavy on story and that's what I like about that studio.
I say pick up the game and see if you agree with the critic afterwards or not rather then thinking it's something wrong with it.

 

[DustyDrB]

I'm going to try to say this in an understanding way...

1) User reviews skew towards the extremes. And with the way we've grown to interpret review scores, a 5 (the average between an equal amount of scores of 10 and 0) is a bad score. Now more people who hate the game are likely to post reviews earlier, due to having given up or having their minds made up before they played it. Massive disparities in critic and review scores are more common than you think (the Gears of War 2 launch, Little Big Planet, Resistance 2). This will even out over time for Dragon Age 2, however.

2) There are many jaded PC gamers out there who are displeased with BioWare's direction over the last few years. The streamlining of Origins (seen as a spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate) doesn't please them. It's not beyond belief that these people organize (similar to the "Amazon Bombing" of the "Bulletstorm causes rape" woman) and try to bring down the scores in order to make a statement.

3) Because of the previous point, the user review scores we're seeing may not reflect the actual quality of the game. It may just show people who are upset about what they perceive to be a negative trend.

I'm not a PC gamer and never really have been one, though I've been gaming since probably I was five years old (1992). So though I can't honestly understand the scope of these gamers who feel jilted, I can sympathize some if they feel marginalized. But that said, I'm more inclined to trust critics (some much more than others. My five: The Escapist, Destructoid, Giant Bomb, Eurogamer, and Kotaku) than user reviews. I'm highly doubtful that Dragon Age 2 will even (to me) be a mediocre game[footnote]I'm saying "I doubt it will" because my preorder hasn't arrived and won't until tomorrow[/footnote]. I loved Dragon Age: Origins, and actually have loved it more with each playthrough. I also loved Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. But if people hate the game for what it is not, then I can't say their opinion is illegitimate.

 

[indiangrunt91]

ive played like 12 hours on the PC already and i've got to say that its amazing!
I bet all the hate comes from stuff like the conversation wheel

 

[manythings]

I'll wait till I actually play it to decide. Since it is meant to have 50 hours (give or take) of story I have serious doubts anyone has finished it yet.

 

[veloper]

It's simple really.
Many gamers liked the way the original was going, even if it wasn't quite oldskool enough and dislike the new take.
Most metacritic user scores tend to the extreme spectrum so you see a very low score when the community isn't divided on the issue.

 

[Coldie]

The game definitely has its share of problems. Probably enough for some people to mount a crusade. Worst BioWare game to date? Perhaps, but still not 3/10 material.

Spoiler: Some highlights

Environments are heavily reused (like the 3 bunkers in Mass Effect 1) and are pretty much sterile. All mansions are the same mansion with some doors locked. All the caves are the same cave with some passages collapsed doors locked (yes, doors). You get the picture. There is some variety, but after encountering a new map, expect to see it again soon.

Extremely repetitive combat - the only difference between the fights is what models the enemies use. Other than that, all non-boss fights work the same, 2-4 waves of melee and archer darkspawn/demons/bandits/skeletons/spiders/whatever literally appearing from thin air all around you, with an occasional mage or assassin thrown in.

Dialog wheel! Stick to Paragon/Renegade/Joker responses to unlock additional options in the future! Coupled with generic and utterly forgettable side quests and mediocre voice acting, it's not very exciting.

Hold on a second, plenty of console gamers have complained that auto-attack is off for them now (although they can just change it in the options I believe).

There's no auto-attack on consoles at all. BioWare "lost" [http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/6395493&lf=8] the "autoattack file" and the option might be patched in at some later point.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

Holy shit.

The critic scores have a rating of like 82-83/100.

But the user reviews put it right now at a 2.8/10!! The hell is everyone so pissed about?! First glance it looks like a bunch of people are calling it "dumbed down" from its old RPG elements. I haven't played it so I wouldn't know but I do know the Mass Effect series' combat was heavily improved when moving closer to an action game than an RPG.

its just a bunch of pissed off elitist PC gamers who are angry that their game was "dumbed down" so more people could enjoy it.

So the same crowd who grumbled at Bethesda for adding fast travel to Morrowind. Can't say I'm surprised.