Metacritic Brings Down The Hammer On "Review Bombers"

[Metalrocks]

i dont really look much on this site anyway and dont believe them either. but i do agree that reading some 0/10 of a game always makes me think if these guys were actually able to play this game.
especially one game (shadow harvest) got lots of bad user scores. when some really wrote in detail why they think so, i just had to laugh or simply shake my head. simply because they proofed to me that they dint understand the game or coulndt play it. sure, the game has some flaws, but it dint stop me or others to enjoy the game.
so it makes you wonder if this site was also the cause that so many people dint buy a game just because some idiots cant play a game.

 

[infohippie]

But Dragon Age 2 deserves A 4.2
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-ii

No, it really doesn't. That's far too high a score.

 

[Shjade]

But Dragon Age 2 deserves A 4.2
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-ii

Honestly, they should just remove every 0 or 1 rating on there. 99% of them are probably totally worthless

And how many of the 10/10 reviews are more valuable?

Works both ways.

But being serious for a moment: what kind of inhumane monster could review-bomb Bastion, of all things? D:

 

[Shjade]

Bloody lagged post recognition...

 

[Kireshai]

But Dragon Age 2 deserves A 4.2
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-ii

To be the billionth person to chip in on this part of the discussion: No game that can be played through in its entirety and provides a decent amount of entertainment deserves a 4.2. And as DA2 provides both those things, I'm pretty sure it doesn't either.

DA2 is not a perfect game. In fact, there is no such thing as a perfect game. Some games achieve a good balance and fall not too far from the pinnacle, but there will never be a perfect game. Bioware set out to make Dragon Age 2, and I think it's very obvious that when they did so, they decided that they weren't going to make Dragon Age: Origins: The Clone. They set out to make an entirely new game, which shared only one thing with its predecessor: a well loved mythology. In an industry of clones and annual re-releases it was a bold move, I'm sure. But they managed to achieve something more than just a Dragon Age: Origins clone, and I for one am glad of it.

Dragon Age 2 is a well written, well directed game. It's enjoyable, it's engaging, and it's all set in one of the best narrative frameworks that I've ever seen in a game. If it weren't for the fact that I abhor sameyness in games, I would say having Varric as a narrator would do most games a world of good. In addition to narrative, Dragon Age 2 also has combat going for it. To be petty and draw upon comparison with DA:O, the combat is a million times better. Rogues are no longer nerfed and mages are no longer overpowered. They found a balance in this game that was never achieved in origins.
Of course, I've already said that DA2 is not perfect. Many people find the lack of variance in the environments irritating, and there are complaints about the quality of animation. Many fans complain about the differences between it and Dragon Age: Origins. But here's the thing, RPG fans:

If you want to play Dragon Age: Origins, you should just go and play Dragon Age: Origins, there're six origins, three races, three classes, four romances, and billions of choices for you to make, so I'm sure you haven't found them all yet. You can leave Dragon Age 2 to the people who don't mind that it's not the same game.

Which finally brings me to my point on the metacritic scores. It is an infringement upon freedom of expression to remove zero scores, though placing restrictions like length requirements are a good idea. All I have to say to those people out there who feel justified in giving zero scores to just any game, just because it doesn't tickle you just right, do you have to ruin it for everyone else? We're trying to work out what the game's about, and you telling us that it's a piece of crapsack doesn't really help at all.

 

[Shjade]

To be the billionth person to chip in on this part of the discussion: No game that can be played through in its entirety and provides a decent amount of entertainment deserves a 4.2. And as DA2 provides both those things, I'm pretty sure it doesn't either.

On a scale of 1 to 10, 5 is the midpoint. A 4.2, being less than a whole point below that middle, seems like a good place to set a game that is decently entertaining and playable from beginning to end if it has more flaws than that "decent" entertainment value can balance out.

If you want to argue 7/10 is the "norm" point, that's another discussion entirely.

This is, of course, not even addressing the issue of it being a numerical value of an opinion, nor does it consider the number of people who thought DA2 was not at all entertaining and/or unplayable, either of which would render your declaration pointless anyway.

Sidenote: welcome to the forums' posting population!

Edit: love it when I'm quoted and notice a typo in my post. Ugh. x.x

 

[Kireshai]

To be the billionth person to chip in on this part of the discussion: No game that can be played through in its entirety and provides a decent amount of entertainment deserves a 4.2. And as DA2 provides both those things, I'm pretty sure it doesn't either.

On a scale of 1 to 10, 5 is the midpoint. A 4.2, being less than a whole point below that middle, seems like a good place to set a game that is decently entertaining and playable from beginning to end if it has more flaws than that "decent" entertainment value can balance out.

If you want to argue 7/10 is the "norm" point, that's another discussion entirely.

This is, of course, not even addressing the issue of it being a numerical value of an opinion, nor does it consider the number of people who thought DA2 was not at all entertaining and/or unplayable, either of which would your declaration pointless anyway.

Sidenote: welcome to the forums' posting population!

Thankyou. You make a good point with the midpoint thing. Perhaps 4.2 is okay according to that scale. I have difficulties though, because there are alot of people out there who don't take the game at its own face value. And I still disagree with all the negative reviews that complain that it's not origins. Because, of course it's not. I find those reviews to be of the unhelpful kind. It's kind of no wonder that there are so many companies that pump out different versions of the same game out there, when this is the reaction. I will not disagree with the points on unvarying backgrounds, not so great animation, and linearity (though, I don't see why people are so hatin' on linearity, it works for some games), but I just don't think 'it's not origins' is a valid reason to give the game 0 out of 10. Once again, this is all so complicated, and of course people have the right to give a 0 for a game if they want, but they basically just bring down the mood for everyone else.

Thinking about it, some of the other posters make a valid point. Review aggregates like metacritic are perhaps the problem. Sure, show us the text of the review, but maybe they shouldn't average the scores.

 

[The Random One]

I remember reading a metacritic-review about Mass Effect that simply said that it had seen better stories and more interesting characters in other games.

This warranted a "0" score.

I'm still dumbstruck whenever I think about it.

I support this decision wholeheartedly.

See, that's the problem; scale. How do you know where the scale holds up? Is a game that surpasses my expectations an automatic 10? Is a game that was supposed to but didn't a 0? What is an average? 5? 6? 7?

No doubt those people are just spammers, but the system is broken from the core. I get far more information from a ZP video (which not only doesn't give a score but also has less of an allegieance with clear information than with entertainment') then from looking at the average scores of a bunch of people who aren't even using the same scale.

 

[Shjade]

I get far more information from a ZP video (which not only doesn't give a score but also has less of an allegieance with clear information than with entertainment') then from looking at the average scores of a bunch of people who aren't even using the same scale.

On the one hand, sorta true. I was already on the fence about getting Dead Island unless I could get it at a huge sale price (hoping it gets a 50% Christmas sale on Steam), but the lashing it got from Yahtzee has me questioning whether I want it at all at this point since he more or less reinforced all my doubts about the game from what I've seen in gameplay videos to date and heard from friends who've played it.

On the other, you do have to keep in mind that ZP emphasizes anything that is humorous to emphasize more or less without regard for the overall entertainment value of a game, so some come off sounding worse than they may actually be. He's a critic, not a "reviewer" in that sense. ;p

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

It would be even better if people put less weight behind Metacritic scores, then the bombing wouldn't mean anything. That's lateral thinking for you there.

 

[Bostur]

I think DA2 is actually an example of aggregate scores working well. Some liked it, and some absolutely hated it. The score should reflect that. If metacritic only had positive scores it would be completely irrelevant.

Filtering out bombing would be a good thing of course, both the good and bad bombing reduces the credibility of the score.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

It would be even better if people put less weight behind Metacritic scores, then the bombing wouldn't mean anything. That's lateral thinking for you there.

Heaven forbid people actually click on the links and read the assortment of reviews that the site offers. You might actually get a firm idea of a game that way, much better to just base your opinion off of that arbitrary number that they slap on the top of the page.
And I knew that this would turn into another DA2 argument.