Larian Studios
Posted By: IrenicusBG3 Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 03/11/20 09:41 PM
Not a fan of reviewing EA, but it seems there is a consensus for a bad reputation.

it seems that most of the complaints here in the forum were also endorsed by the general media.

It seems that Larian has a lot of work to reverse BG3 reputation.

IGN 7/10

https://www.ign.com/articles/baldurs-gate-3-review

Gamespot 6/10

https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/baldurs-gate-3-review/1900-6417601/
Posted By: Nyanko Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 03/11/20 09:44 PM
Well, 22k reviews on steam and 'Very Positive'. This is the only kind of reviews I trust.
Posted By: azarhal Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 03/11/20 09:50 PM
I don't even know why they are reviewing the early access when they usually only review fully released games.
Mainstream media and some midsize reviews are in consensus.

So it is a "specialized feedback" and not also not a "vocal minority".
Posted By: Abits Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 03/11/20 09:57 PM
The IGN review is kinda fair. The gamespot review I don't know... it sounds like he did the whole run only with shadowheart lol
Posted By: virion Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 03/11/20 09:58 PM
Went through both articles quickly, they seem to highlight different issues to those brought up here. Some of them contradict each other , others agree.

We'll see ^^

Those reviews will be 10/10 when the game releases regardless of the changes based on forums.
Posted By: virion Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 03/11/20 10:00 PM
Originally Posted by Abits
The IGN review is kinda fair. The gamespot review I don't know... it sounds like he did the whole run only with shadowheart lol

They did a review with one of the bg2 designers back in the day :P Great times.
French media : jeuxvideo.com 14/20

I don't find strange to test a 60€ EA if... they consider it is an EA.
But I guess everyone agree to say that the game is promising and I'm sure it's gonna be a 18/20 at release whatever happens during EA^^
Posted By: Verte Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 03/11/20 10:15 PM
A critical review is better than a fan review. Praising unfinished product at this stage would be rather untrue.
Originally Posted by Verte
A critical review is better than a fan review. Praising unfinished product at this stage would be rather untrue.


For what is worth, Hades EA scored 8.8

https://youtu.be/run2ctuEjbY?t=220
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Well, 22k reviews on steam and 'Very Positive'. This is the only kind of reviews I trust.

It's the exact opposite for me. I don't automatically trust pro reviews, but I do automatically distrust and reject average Joe reviews like Steam reviews. They have zero value to me (for everything, not just games). Having said that, I also agree that reviewing an EA is not quite fair. Providing feedback, including hard, cold, no holds barred feedback, is both appropriate and necessary. But I don't see the value of saying "7/10" for an EA game.
Posted By: Tuco Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 03/11/20 10:48 PM
Man, I genuinely disliked that Gamespot (p)review, even on the praises.

It boils down to "Technical glitches, your companions are too mean, I don't understand the mechanics and fights are too hard. Where's my easy mode?".

And on the positive side: "There's a lot of DOS 2 here".

Wow.
Posted By: Svalr Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 03/11/20 10:52 PM
Watch the IGN review for Path of Exile, and then tell me again why I should take these big outlets seriously?
They're a meme for a reason.

With that said I think it says something that people think a 7 is a bad score.
Especially for EA.
It's why I can't take numerical scores seriously either they're so useless.

Edit: Also, not only is IGN infamous for plagiarism.
But also just downright stupidity where they've literally reviewed the wrong game altogether and in the RE2 Remake for example where they didn't understand that there were different scenarios and they just played a single A route and then reviewed it based on that.


Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Well, 22k reviews on steam and 'Very Positive'. This is the only kind of reviews I trust.

It's the exact opposite for me. I don't automatically trust pro reviews, but I do automatically distrust and reject average Joe reviews like Steam reviews. They have zero value to me (for everything, not just games). Having said that, I also agree that reviewing an EA is not quite fair. Providing feedback, including hard, cold, no holds barred feedback, is both appropriate and necessary. But I don't see the value of saying "7/10" for an EA game.



Kinda, if a game is really poorly received on Steam tho there's usually severe technical problems or the devs did something really bad.
Not saying that people don't reviewbomb ofc they do, but usally there's some widespread legitimate problems if it has a poor rating which acts as a good warning.
Posted By: Verte Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 03/11/20 11:09 PM
I haven't play Hades myself but heard many good opinions about it. Remember it was EA of indie game, which cost 1/3 of BG3 price and has no burden of it's predecessors. Easier to live up expectations, when there are none. I found the line from Bulgakov's "The Master and Margerita" “I like to sit low, it is not so dangerous to fall from low.” most accurate.
I have play BG3 EA, and while, I must admit, I really enjoyed it, there is still much to work on. And that's good! More room for improvements, resting on your laurels is last thing needed. Keep up keeping up, like classics says.
The "bad points" of the Gamespot "review"

"Plenty of glitches and bugs remain, including numerous crashes to desktop

Conversations and cinematic scenes are particularly rough and impede both the enjoyment and legibility of the story

There's a strange snarkiness to much of the writing that leaves few likeable characters

The difficulty in general is uneven, forcing an over-reliance on quicksaving and quickloading"

2 points about technical issues, which are EXPECTED in EA, one personal dislike about the writing style, which I instead like as it reminds me of the Belgariad/Mallorean, and of course the last, most ridiculous one "IT IS DUR DIFFICULT TEH HORROR".

Is this an example of a review to trust?
Originally Posted by Svalr
With that said I think it says something that people think a 7 is a bad score.


As Swen said in one of his GDC talks, the closer the game is to 9.0 in mainstream media the better are the sales. Even decimals.

Of course, it is EA, but it is concerning for Larian. Initial sales are based on hype, but if they want to sell more they have to deliver a solid product.

In gamespot poll, 57% is waiting for the final version.


Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Is this an example of a review to trust?


It is the same media that gave DOS2 a 10/10 and has been marketing BG3. So their opinion matters and is influential.
Posted By: Svalr Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 03/11/20 11:50 PM
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Originally Posted by Svalr
With that said I think it says something that people think a 7 is a bad score.


As Swen said in one of his GDC talks, the closer the game is to 9.0 in mainstream media the better are the sales. Even decimals.

Of course, it is EA, but it is concerning for Larian. Initial sales are based on hype, if they want to sell more they have to deliver a solid product.

In gamespot poll, 57% is waiting for the final version.


Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Is this an example of a review to trust?


It is the same media that gave DOS2 a 10/10 and has been marketing BG3. So their opinion matters and is influential.



Alanah Pearce who's a former IGN journalist talked about game journalism a while back and she mentioned that reviews basically don't affect sales at all and I've seen a lot of articles about this before based on research on game reviews and sales.
IGN for example has a lot of sponsor deals but they don't really get that many views on their reviews in the grand scheme of things and they're also a walking meme.
They're more of a marketing arm of the game industry, it's more about exposure.
And very few make their purchase decisions based on these reviews, it's very rare that anyone is swayed one way or the other.

It's also worth noting that AAA games tend to get 9's a lot more often too which are obviously going to sell more, it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy and IGN mostly reviews big titles.
If game reviews did affect sales to any noticable effect then game publishers would be a lot scummier about it and actively try and pay off and pressure reviewers but it doesn't really happen it's more of a myth.
And the people that even visit these sites and especially engage with them is a very tiny group of people, even less when you account for actual target demographics for specific games.
Of course it is not an exact science and there are no meta-analyses, but:


https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014...reviews-lead-to-stronger-sales-on-steam/

Swen also at timestamp 25:00 (I believe he mentions later too).

https://youtu.be/c-4gxB9ulHk?t=1500

Posted By: FelLich Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 04/11/20 12:17 AM
Honestly I consider "professional" reviewers to be in the same league as the average joe over on steam. It's all personal opinions and maybe one of them will align with yours but they're not any more reliable than anyone else.
Posted By: Svalr Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 04/11/20 12:24 AM
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Of course it is not an exact science and there are no meta-analyses, but:


https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014...reviews-lead-to-stronger-sales-on-steam/

Swen also at timestamp 25:00 (I believe he mentions later too).

https://youtu.be/c-4gxB9ulHk?t=1500



Swen isn't a game journalist, and I also think that Steam reviews are different because of what I said before.
Steam reviews are just a thumbs up or thumbs down, and people use that to communicate if there is something wrong with the game.
If a game has a mixed score that's a lot more of a warning than if a game gets a 7 or a 6 from IGN because usually that means that there's significant technical issues.

I don't care about reviews but if I see that a game has a mixed or heck even mostly positive score then that makes me second guess and I'll look into it further before buying.
Monster Hunter World is a good example of this, back when I bought it on Steam it had a mixed score because of connectivity issues.
So it made me second guess and research the game more but ultimately I did buy it, but I didn't buy it right away because of that and with other games I've put off buying something because of it.

I also think that people in general trust users more than media outlets, users aren't perfect and there's a lot of dumb reviewings but generally speaking they tend to get cancelled out.

Edit: Also Steam reviews are in your face in the store.
An IGN review is something you have to either seek out yourself or stumble upon on Youtube.
Posted By: Baraz Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 04/11/20 12:31 AM
First, I read the two articles quickly and I did not perceive them as negative at all.

Second, I feel I would not be professional if I wrote a media article/review for a game that is clearly in such a very early stage. "Early Access" on Steam can mean many different things but, in this case, the systems are really an early version / work-in-progress, though I still have a lot of fun with it and only crashed once or twice (with a good gaming PC). Writing an article about BG3 Early Access, sure, but making sure it is not presented as a review.

nb : I do not count Steam reviews as related to media or professionals. I did post a Steam review, as the game is for sale at 60 USD, just to help buyers.
Originally Posted by Svalr
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Of course it is not an exact science and there are no meta-analyses, but:


https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014...reviews-lead-to-stronger-sales-on-steam/

Swen also at timestamp 25:00 (I believe he mentions later too).

https://youtu.be/c-4gxB9ulHk?t=1500



Swen isn't a game journalist, and I also think that Steam reviews are different because of what I said before.
Steam reviews are just a thumbs up or thumbs down, and people use that to communicate if there is something wrong with the game.
If a game has a mixed score that's a lot more of a warning than if a game gets a 7 or a 6 from IGN because usually that means that there's significant technical issues.

I don't care about reviews but if I see that a game has a mixed or heck even mostly positive score then that makes me second guess and I'll look into it further before buying.
Monster Hunter World is a good example of this, back when I bought it on Steam it had a mixed score because of connectivity issues.
So it made me second guess and research the game more but ultimately I did buy it, but I didn't buy it right away because of that and with other games I've put off buying something because of it.

I also think that people in general trust users more than media outlets, users aren't perfect and there's a lot of dumb reviewings but generally speaking they tend to get cancelled out.

Edit: Also Steam reviews are in your face in the store.
An IGN review is something you have to either seek out yourself or stumble upon on Youtube.


Game journalists are not market experts, I am sure Swen has better insight than them.

Overall, casual players are influenced by review be it Steam or mainstream reviews.
Originally Posted by FelLich
Honestly I consider "professional" reviewers to be in the same league as the average joe over on steam. It's all personal opinions and maybe one of them will align with yours but they're not any more reliable than anyone else.

Fair enough. But the D:OS2 fans swore by all those 10/10 pro reviews that D:OS2 received for why that game was the best game ever made blah blah blah. So, live by the sword, die by the sword?
The actual quote from Swen regarding scores and sales is on timestamp 30:45

https://youtu.be/c-4gxB9ulHk?t=1832
Posted By: Tzelanit Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 04/11/20 03:34 AM
Guess I better stop liking it now since paid review sites don't understand that the game is in early access. Thanks OP, you've changed my mind.
Professional reviews of unfinished products are a bad idea. Devs will stop releasing games in Early Access if they're gonna get shit on by critics for their IN-DEVELOPMENT games.
Posted By: Svalr Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 04/11/20 07:29 AM
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Originally Posted by Svalr
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Of course it is not an exact science and there are no meta-analyses, but:


https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014...reviews-lead-to-stronger-sales-on-steam/

Swen also at timestamp 25:00 (I believe he mentions later too).

https://youtu.be/c-4gxB9ulHk?t=1500



Swen isn't a game journalist, and I also think that Steam reviews are different because of what I said before.
Steam reviews are just a thumbs up or thumbs down, and people use that to communicate if there is something wrong with the game.
If a game has a mixed score that's a lot more of a warning than if a game gets a 7 or a 6 from IGN because usually that means that there's significant technical issues.

I don't care about reviews but if I see that a game has a mixed or heck even mostly positive score then that makes me second guess and I'll look into it further before buying.
Monster Hunter World is a good example of this, back when I bought it on Steam it had a mixed score because of connectivity issues.
So it made me second guess and research the game more but ultimately I did buy it, but I didn't buy it right away because of that and with other games I've put off buying something because of it.

I also think that people in general trust users more than media outlets, users aren't perfect and there's a lot of dumb reviewings but generally speaking they tend to get cancelled out.

Edit: Also Steam reviews are in your face in the store.
An IGN review is something you have to either seek out yourself or stumble upon on Youtube.


Game journalists are not market experts, I am sure Swen has better insight than them.

Overall, casual players are influenced by review be it Steam or mainstream reviews.


I mean neither is Swen.
You were talking about mainstream reviews I never said anything about Steam until after and he was also talking about metacritic.

Like I said, Steam reviews are totally different.
When you go to the store page it's in your face and people just take tens of thousands of people more seriously than an IGN journalist.
A game getting a 7 from IGN doesn't say much, most people understand that.
A game having mixed or negative reviews on Steam on the other hand just turns on more alarm bells in peoples heads because that's thousands of actual customers and not a person who got it for free working on a website barely anyone takes seriously.
Not to mention that the game has been received positively on Steam too to begin with so it doesn't help your argument.
Swen is also a game developer working on a single game he's not a game journalist that reviews and has insight on hundreds of games.

The video is also from 2015 and he's quoting a friend that said something about it at some point who even knows who and when.
The perception of game journalism has changed drastically and I have no clue how those numbers are even measured. Like how do they even know that there is a correlation there?

IGN on their Baldur's Gate 3 video review currently has 1.7k upvotes and 1.2k downvotes and 140k views.
That's pretty awful tbh, but it's quite indicative too of how seriously people take IGN reviews, game journalism has a crap reputation and even their own readers are aware of that.
The biggest thing that these sites do to help game devs sell more copies is marketing, interviews, articles, ads etc for exposure.
Making people aware that the game exists.

It's the same with movies too, movie reviewers used to be more respected and taken more seriously.
But how many countless movies have been awfully received by movie reviewers but been massively successful vise versa?

Yeah, Steam reviewers are more indicative of a games reputation than freaking IGN and Gamespot.
But the game has been received well on Steam so...
It's silly to say that the game has a bad reputation then.

Edit: Also casual players aka the general masses don't even read game websites.
But casual players will be exposed to Steam reviewers just by the mere fact that they're right there on the store page which again.
Positive.
Honestly I have NEVER take mainstreamn game revieuwers websites seriously and over time my skeptic opinion of them has proven to be right. Most outlets have no clue wtf they are talking about and the few that do often dont take things like EA into consideration. I trust a select few revieuwers on youtube and the revieuws from friends. Occasionally il revieuw a dozen or so revieuws (both positive and negative on steam) to see what the game is about. But people like IGN or other such websites? They might be mainstream media but to highlight an easy example: people who cant even pass the cuphead tutorial in a normal manner have no place to tell us anything about games.
Originally Posted by Svalr
I mean neither is Swen.You were talking about mainstream reviews I never said anything about Steam until after and he was also talking about metacritic.


Swen is/was directly involved with sales/publishers. Journalists barely understand games. The other article also mentioned meta-critic as indicator for sales.

Many semi-casual players follow GS or IGN and I am sure they would give a try for games they don't know reaching 9+, especially if there is a consensus in the media that the game is good (which essentially is what metacritic is). Steam also put on his front page some selective scores to promote the game.
There are very few game's journalists that I will even consider looking at. There are reasons beyond "but they're game jounalists" too. When they botch a puzzle, and can't open a door, the game is bugged beyond redemption, a very rough paraphrasing of Jim Stirling with Senua. I don't remember who the journalist was that was failing at jumps in the turtorial of cuphead? Why should I trust that "this time it's different, and it's really the game's fault"?

Metacritic can, and should be, ignored out of hand, since one isn't required to provide any proof that one's actually played the game in question*. Steam is a whole other world of mess when it comes to reviews. Vanilla Skyrim went from one of the best reviewed games on Steam, to one of the worst, over the Creation Club. The problem is, of course, that one can't access the Creation Club in the vanilla version of Skyrim, so it had absolutely no affect on that version of the game. Valve not only allows this to go on unchecked, but does seem to passively encourage it. Even on the SE, where you can access it, it's not required to play, so nothing about the base SE changed, but those review bombs sure would tell a different tale, eh?

If this EA had only been available through Steam, I wouldn't be here. I don't like their blackmail business model, "Do what we approve of, or get review bombed". "But Rob, it's not Valve, but the players that do that, you can't hold them accountable for that", except that I in fact can. They allowed a false review on their site, in fact they allowed review bombs, not just one, that's on them. It's to the point where if a game is available both on XBox and PC, but only through Steam on PC, I'll play it on my XBox. HZD made the right choice, from my perspective, going through anyone but Steam. Even if Epic is coming off a bit shady these days, I don't have to deal with them for anything but one game, HZD, and since I like that game well enough, and won't be buying a PS, ever, stemming from Sony's shady practices dating all the way back to the 90s, it's a better choice than not playing it, and missing out. If it's only through Steam, I'll miss out.

*A lot of negative reviews of DA I can be attributed to "the protagonist isn't the Warden/OGB so the game is bad". Not that I'm just going with that, the same game had a lot of high review scores from people that couldn't have played the game as well. It's another Steam type issue, only Steam at least requires ownership, if it doesn't do anything about shady practices where reviews are concerned.
Who cares about game journalists????

Seriously. Look to his reviews

"many monsters and creatures require very specific tools to kill. Swarms of small creatures like rats, for instance, can't be effectively fought with a sword and shield."
https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/pathfinder-kingmaker-review-the-classics/1900-6417006/

Same reviewer
Witcher 2 (PC): 7/10 [https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/art.../8905-The-Witcher-2-Assassins-of-Kings-Review]
Dragon Age 2 (XBOX): 10/10 [https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/art.../editorials/reviews/8701-Dragon-Age-II-Review]

They reviewing BG1/2



Originally Posted by Verte
A critical review is better than a fan review. Praising unfinished product at this stage would be rather untrue.



Wrong. Journos are low IQ people who failed into game journalism. Fans are the target audience of the game.
1) The reviews are not negative IMO.
2) Why do I care...I love the game
3) Why would you care about a reviewer that didn't spend the time or do the research to know what the level cap is?
Posted By: Emrikol Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 04/11/20 08:38 PM
I have come to trust, rely and care less and less about 'professional' reviews, not just for games, but almost all things. I've even come to be leery about certain things (like movies) that receive top marks, for suspicion that the reasons for which they were so highly touted have no interest to me at all. At the very least, unless I see universal abysmal ratings (e.g 1 or 2 out of 10), I ignore the numbers and rely solely on what is written. In this case, though, a review of something fresh into EA is more of an indictment of the person doing the review than the game being reviewed. Don't give a number (what is a 10 for EA supposed to look like anyway?) and give a consensus of a given subject rather than ones one narrow experience. For example, the claim that "Baldur's Gate 3 is rough and messy and often feels like it is just barely hanging together" is not consonant with my experience at all. Maybe it is with his. Not mine.
Posted By: LoneSky Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 04/11/20 09:22 PM
Just be careful when reading reviews. It's impossible to not be subjective when giving an opinion about the whole game: it's all about what one likes or not.

There can be true points in there, if a single feature is analyzed and compared to how other games did those. There are things that are quite well made in BG3, others not quite and many others that needs complete rework (for example party UI, just IMO). That can be fair, but again, it's just an opinion, and you may agree or not. I may like what the reviewers don't and they may not like what I do, and that's fine, it's just as things should be.
Posted By: Svalr Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 04/11/20 10:01 PM
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Originally Posted by Svalr
I mean neither is Swen.You were talking about mainstream reviews I never said anything about Steam until after and he was also talking about metacritic.


Swen is/was directly involved with sales/publishers. Journalists barely understand games. The other article also mentioned meta-critic as indicator for sales.

Many semi-casual players follow GS or IGN and I am sure they would give a try for games they don't know reaching 9+, especially if there is a consensus in the media that the game is good (which essentially is what metacritic is). Steam also put on his front page some selective scores to promote the game.



You don't have to understand games to understand the business side of them, just like you don't have to be a pro E-sports player to be an excellent E-sports commentator and being an excellent one doesn't make you a good commentator either.
The article is from 2014 a lot has changed very rapidly and even then it's still just speculation.
Metacritic alone has significantly changed since 2014 especially its reputation.
People also have more of an understanding of how Metacritic works now, for example how scores from certain media outlets like IGN actually weigh heavier than other sites on metacritic which only makes people take it even less seriously.

I am not saying that no one will buy a game because of a better score, what I am saying is that it doesn't have a significant impact except for Steam reviews because of the nature of Steam reviews.
It's also important to remember that correlation is not causation.
Most games with a high rating especially a '' critic '' one have it because the production value is so high and those games also have way higher marketing budgets and fancy grahpics which appeals to the mainstream audience.
Baldur's Gate 3 is sorta in the middle I guess.

Either way, your claim is that Baldur's Gate 3 has a bad reputation because certain media outlets didn't give it a high enough score.
I think that anyone who's paying attention knows that's not true, the game has been incredibly well-received.
And even in regards to Metacritic it doesn't even have a Metacritic score to begin with yet.



Originally Posted by Verte
A critical review is better than a fan review. Praising unfinished product at this stage would be rather untrue.



Alanah Pearce covered the '' critics '' vs fans part too.
Basically, and remember that she used to be a game journalist at IGN herself and is close friends with A LOT of game journalists.
Game journalists write reviews for their social media followings and each other, that's why there's such a disconnect between game journalists ( or other journalists ) and the fans.

Most fans are totally aware of this, or they at least speculate that they're paid off ( which is what she was responding to ).
If anything I'd probably argue that '' critics '' are more biased than fans and the general public are.
Which is also why the general publics reviews ultimately matters more especially from the pov of someone in the general public too to begin with.

That's not to say that fans aren't biased or that things like reviewbombings etc can't happen there's always going to be exceptions.
But there's a reason why the Last Jedi was received well by critics but not the fans ( a Star Wars movie part of a trilogy is still bound to be successful tho ).
Not saying that you can't like the movie, but just that the '' critics '' care more about getting pats on the back from their friends, getting invited back to fancy parties and reviewing things for their friends and are often also more culturally involved so cultural drama also plays a much larger role while most people aren't even aware of it altogether and even less care.

We don't live in the times of Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel anymore, we live in the age of the internet where people don't need to rely on '' critics '' anymore.
And things change VERY rapidly in just a couple of years.
Posted By: KingTiki Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 04/11/20 10:08 PM
I mean I don't really care for random reviews, but how do you even have the guts to call those reviews "bad" when the reviews themselves are saying otherwise?

IGN gives a 7, which is "good" on their scale. "Good" is *not* a bad review, you know?

https://corp.ign.com/review-practices/

Quote
Playing a Good game is time well spent. Could it be better? Absolutely. Maybe it lacks ambition, is too repetitive, has a few technical bumps in the road, or is too repetitive, but we came away from it happy nonetheless. We think you will, too.


Gamespot's 6 is a "fair". And the article reflects that the final product seems to have much more potential and that the EA is not the end of all things for BG3.

So it seems you did not even invest the time to check the reviews you base this thread on.
Originally Posted by Emrikol
I have come to trust, rely and care less and less about 'professional' reviews, not just for games, but almost all things. I've even come to be leery about certain things (like movies) that receive top marks, for suspicion that the reasons for which they were so highly touted have no interest to me at all. At the very least, unless I see universal abysmal ratings (e.g 1 or 2 out of 10), I ignore the numbers and rely solely on what is written. In this case, though, a review of something fresh into EA is more of an indictment of the person doing the review than the game being reviewed. Don't give a number (what is a 10 for EA supposed to look like anyway?) and give a consensus of a given subject rather than ones one narrow experience. For example, the claim that "Baldur's Gate 3 is rough and messy and often feels like it is just barely hanging together" is not consonant with my experience at all. Maybe it is with his. Not mine.


I really like your use of "consonant" there. Well done.
Originally Posted by Svalr
You don't have to understand games to understand the business side of them, just like you don't have to be a pro E-sports player to be an excellent E-sports commentator and being an excellent one doesn't make you a good commentator either.

Either way, your claim is that Baldur's Gate 3 has a bad reputation because certain media outlets didn't give it a high enough score.
I think that anyone who's paying attention knows that's not true, the game has been incredibly well-received.
And even in regards to Metacritic it doesn't even have a Metacritic score to begin with yet.


Alanah Pearce is a pseudo-journalist. I don't know why you are obsessed with her. She clearly doesn't understand game market, not alone comparing to game developers.

I am not claiming that BG3 has a bad reputation, just exposing data to support that is not only a "vocal minority" that sees a lot of problems in the current EA. I don't see data supporting it has been well received, in fact it is the opposite. To neglect the fact that mainstream media is still influential is unwise. Steam reviews are binary, so difficulty to draw conclusions from them.


Originally Posted by KingTiki
I mean I don't really care for random reviews, but how do you even have the guts to call those reviews "bad" when the reviews themselves are saying otherwise?


Well, Hades Early Access got 8.8; DOS 2 10/10, so...
Even if a professional reviewer's review is worth more than a fan-review, it isn't worth more than a thousand fan reviews.

Typically when I want to buy a game I look at the steam reviews, read some of the positive ones, and then filter out the positive ones and read only the negative reviews.

If the worst someone can say about the game is something like "It is different from an older game" or "It just doesn't feel right" I'll almost always give the game a chance.
Posted By: Svalr Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 05/11/20 03:09 AM
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Originally Posted by Svalr
You don't have to understand games to understand the business side of them, just like you don't have to be a pro E-sports player to be an excellent E-sports commentator and being an excellent one doesn't make you a good commentator either.

Either way, your claim is that Baldur's Gate 3 has a bad reputation because certain media outlets didn't give it a high enough score.
I think that anyone who's paying attention knows that's not true, the game has been incredibly well-received.
And even in regards to Metacritic it doesn't even have a Metacritic score to begin with yet.


Alanah Pearce is a pseudo-journalist. I don't know why you are obsessed with her. She clearly doesn't understand game market, not alone comparing to game developers.

I am not claiming that BG3 has a bad reputation, just exposing data to support that is not only a "vocal minority" that sees a lot of problems in the current EA. I don't see data supporting it has been well received, in fact it is the opposite. To neglect the fact that mainstream media is still influential is unwise. Steam reviews are binary, so difficulty to draw conclusions from them.


Originally Posted by KingTiki
I mean I don't really care for random reviews, but how do you even have the guts to call those reviews "bad" when the reviews themselves are saying otherwise?


Well, Hades Early Access got 8.8; DOS 2 10/10, so...



She's not a pseudo-journalist, she's very well-respected and literally worked at the largest gaming website...
You don't seem to understand my point at all, game developers work on singular projects they don't necessarily have insight on the industry as a whole.
A journalist covers *the industry*, their field is a lot more large scale.

And you ARE claiming that Baldur's Gate 3 has a bad reputation otherwise you wouldn't be talking about reversing it, read your own OP again.
Just because people are giving feedback in EA doesn't mean that it has been poorly received, for someone who accuses other people of being '' obsessed '' you're basing all of this on your '' obsession '' with IGN's and Gamespot's reviews.
Like I said the game doesn't even have a Metacritic score yet, and the actual consumer base have been reviewing it positively and all of the buzz I've seen outside of the Steam forums and some threads here where mostly the same small group of people posts in has been overwhelmingly positive.
With the understanding that it's EA.
Steam forums are always full of drama and shitposting, but even then it's still very much a minority of people throwing tantrums.

The game has been a massive success even tho it's not even out yet.
And in regards to Hades and DOS2, I imagine that this game has more technical difficulties and issues than those games did just based on scale alone ( also games with these kinds of graphics tend to be more difficult ).
It's also different people reviewing the games and Hades is also a finished game, even a year ago it felt almost like a finished game already.
Comparing Hades to Baldur's Gate 3 is just silly...
Meanwhile Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't even have the full act 1 yet ( probably ).

I never said that mainstream media isn't influental, I just don't think that they're influental when it comes to the general public.
They're only influental because marketing haven't caught up with the times and still believe that a soccer mom being mad about hearing the F-word or getting upset about Cammy's default costume in SFV matters.
There's an irrational fear of negative media coverage when in reality people at large don't even care or thinks that it's dumb.
Originally Posted by Svalr
(...)
She's not a pseudo-journalist, she's very well-respected and literally worked at the largest gaming website...
You don't seem to understand my point at all, game developers work on singular projects they don't necessarily have insight on the industry as a whole.
A journalist covers *the industry*, their field is a lot more large scale.

And you ARE claiming that Baldur's Gate 3 has a bad reputation otherwise you wouldn't be talking about reversing it, read your own OP again.(...)


Game journalists are not a good source of information.

In fact, they tend to give a lot of high scores for superficial things and cinematographic experiences and low scores for games with depth and mechanic / narrative consistency. They focus on general "gaming" but an RPG fan and an Racing fan are two different things. I can't rate and review an racing game cuz I an not the target audience of racing games.

Even as a RPG fan, I would have a strong bias in favor of old school design ideas and principles.

What a random chick on a general game journalist thinks about BG3 has zero relevance about what the target audience has to say.

if was up to me, I would rate ArcaniA, Dungeon Siege 3, Albion Online, Diablo 3(...) as 1/10, BG3 in EA state as a 7/10 and BG2 as 10/10 cuz for me the best aspect of a RPG is the role playing. But game journalists would rate in the opposite. They don't care about mechanics and lore in line, depth, roleplay and only care about cinematography. Diablo 3 which is a amazing game for journos but is a 4/10 for fans. Dungeon Siege 3 is a average game for journos(72) and a awful game for fans(42)...

I even created a thread on other forum to talk ONLY about game journos https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/game-journalists-crap-reviews.134178/
Originally Posted by Svalr
She's not a pseudo-journalist, she's very well-respected and literally worked at the largest gaming website...
You don't seem to understand my point at all, game developers work on singular projects they don't necessarily have insight on the industry as a whole.
A journalist covers *the industry*, their field is a lot more large scale.

And you ARE claiming that Baldur's Gate 3 has a bad reputation otherwise you wouldn't be talking about reversing it, read your own OP again.
Just because people are giving feedback in EA doesn't mean that it has been poorly received, for someone who accuses other people of being '' obsessed '' you're basing all of this on your '' obsession '' with IGN's and Gamespot's reviews.
Like I said the game doesn't even have a Metacritic score yet, and the actual consumer base have been reviewing it positively and all of the buzz I've seen outside of the Steam forums and some threads here where mostly the same small group of people posts in has been overwhelmingly positive.
With the understanding that it's EA.
Steam forums are always full of drama and shitposting, but even then it's still very much a minority of people throwing tantrums.

The game has been a massive success even tho it's not even out yet.
And in regards to Hades and DOS2, I imagine that this game has more technical difficulties and issues than those games did just based on scale alone ( also games with these kinds of graphics tend to be more difficult ).
It's also different people reviewing the games and Hades is also a finished game, even a year ago it felt almost like a finished game already.
Comparing Hades to Baldur's Gate 3 is just silly...
Meanwhile Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't even have the full act 1 yet ( probably ).

I never said that mainstream media isn't influental, I just don't think that they're influental when it comes to the general public.
They're only influental because marketing haven't caught up with the times and still believe that a soccer mom being mad about hearing the F-word or getting upset about Cammy's default costume in SFV matters.
There's an irrational fear of negative media coverage when in reality people at large don't even care or thinks that it's dumb.


Alanah Pearce is a clear example of how much turn-over there is in gaming journalism and how unreliable they are. They are not required to understand market or to follow post-release success. To claim that she would have better insight into gaming sales and market than people that actually sell games like CEOs and publishers is at least bold. And even if you don't believe, it clearly matters to Swen. Regardless, this is not even the point.

I choose IGN and Gamespot because those are "the largest gaming website". Gamespot features a huge section for BG3 in its front page now. So I am quite sure that many undecided players (semi-casual) will choose to not play BG3 because of its score. Even if it is written by a casual player.

There are many poor reviews from other websites and in this forum as well, so I wouldn't say it was well received.
Posted By: Svalr Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 05/11/20 03:56 AM
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Originally Posted by Svalr
(...)
She's not a pseudo-journalist, she's very well-respected and literally worked at the largest gaming website...
You don't seem to understand my point at all, game developers work on singular projects they don't necessarily have insight on the industry as a whole.
A journalist covers *the industry*, their field is a lot more large scale.

And you ARE claiming that Baldur's Gate 3 has a bad reputation otherwise you wouldn't be talking about reversing it, read your own OP again.(...)


Game journalists are not a good source of information.

In fact, they tend to give a lot of high scores for superficial things and cinematographic experiences and low scores for games with depth and mechanic / narrative consistency. They focus on general "gaming" but an RPG fan and an Racing fan are two different things. I can't rate and review an racing game cuz I an not the target audience of racing games.

Even as a RPG fan, I would have a strong bias in favor of old school design ideas and principles.

What a random chick on a general game journalist thinks about BG3 has zero relevance about what the target audience has to say.

if was up to me, I would rate the following games, I would rate ArcaniA, Dungeon Siege 3, Albion Online, Diablo 3(...) as 1/10, BG3 in EA state as a 7/10 and BG2 as 10/10 cuz for me the best aspect of a RPG is the role playing. But game journalists would rate in the opposite. They don't care about mechanics and lore in line and more cinematographic the game is, higher rate they receive. You can see it by Diablo 3 which is a amazing game for journos but is a 4/10 for fans. Dungeon Siege 3 is a average game for journos(72) and a awful game for fans(42)...

I even created a thread on other forum to talk ONLY about game journos https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/game-journalists-crap-reviews.134178/


She never said anything about Baldur's Gate 3 that's not what I am talking about at all, it's like you didn't even read what I said or what I was responding to.
And she even mentioned what you said about game journalists being biased towards the '' artsy '' side of gaming in the video in question...

Like has been stated a billion times already, Baldur's Gate 3 has been positively received overall, it IS a small minority of people complaining about it not being '' DnD enough ''.
I am sorry, but DnD is niche.
There is great interest in the lore etc, but on a gameplay PnP level it is very niche. Same with how a lot of people love Warhammer but very few actually play it.
A game being based on DnD doesn't mean that the target demographic are purist DnD fans.
Baldur's Gate 3 is Larian's take on Baldur's Gate and they're running with a formula that has proven to work.

There is also a disconnect here, because game journalists are supposed to review games as a product just bluntly.
You can't expect game journalists to all be '' hardcore fans '' of everything, and that's why there is a disconnect between game reviewers and Diablo fans.
Diablo 3 is not a bad game, it just objectively isn't on a production value none of Blizzards games are ( minus Warcraft 3 Reforged which was outsourced ).
It was reviewed as a game, not as a Diablo game.

My favorite genre of games is fighting games, I am well aware of this disconnect.
The MK franchise as a whole is an example of this, it sells on nostalgia, singleplayer and gore appeal, production value and pop culture references alone but is not actually a very good fighting game on a mechanical and gameplay level.
Most people in the FGC understands this and don't hold it in very high regard at all gameplay-wise, and yet it's the best selling fighting game franchise and gets glowing reviews and praise.
That doesn't make it a bad game or '' wrong '', even if fighting game fans don't regard it as highly as a game like Tekken or heck even Guilty Gear.
There is value in games like these that appeal to a broader audience too, even if it does irritate me on a personal level that they get so much more attention and success than games that hardcore fans consider to be better.

Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Originally Posted by Svalr
She's not a pseudo-journalist, she's very well-respected and literally worked at the largest gaming website...
You don't seem to understand my point at all, game developers work on singular projects they don't necessarily have insight on the industry as a whole.
A journalist covers *the industry*, their field is a lot more large scale.

And you ARE claiming that Baldur's Gate 3 has a bad reputation otherwise you wouldn't be talking about reversing it, read your own OP again.
Just because people are giving feedback in EA doesn't mean that it has been poorly received, for someone who accuses other people of being '' obsessed '' you're basing all of this on your '' obsession '' with IGN's and Gamespot's reviews.
Like I said the game doesn't even have a Metacritic score yet, and the actual consumer base have been reviewing it positively and all of the buzz I've seen outside of the Steam forums and some threads here where mostly the same small group of people posts in has been overwhelmingly positive.
With the understanding that it's EA.
Steam forums are always full of drama and shitposting, but even then it's still very much a minority of people throwing tantrums.

The game has been a massive success even tho it's not even out yet.
And in regards to Hades and DOS2, I imagine that this game has more technical difficulties and issues than those games did just based on scale alone ( also games with these kinds of graphics tend to be more difficult ).
It's also different people reviewing the games and Hades is also a finished game, even a year ago it felt almost like a finished game already.
Comparing Hades to Baldur's Gate 3 is just silly...
Meanwhile Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't even have the full act 1 yet ( probably ).

I never said that mainstream media isn't influental, I just don't think that they're influental when it comes to the general public.
They're only influental because marketing haven't caught up with the times and still believe that a soccer mom being mad about hearing the F-word or getting upset about Cammy's default costume in SFV matters.
There's an irrational fear of negative media coverage when in reality people at large don't even care or thinks that it's dumb.


Alanah Pearce is a clear example of how much turn-over there is in gaming journalism and how unreliable they are. They are not required to understand market or to follow post-release success. To claim that she would have better insight into gaming sales and market than people that actually sell games like CEOs and publishers is at least bold. And even if you don't believe, it clearly matters to Swen. Regardless, this is not even the point.

I choose IGN and Gamespot because those are "the largest gaming website". Gamespot features a huge section for BG3 in its front page now. So I am quite sure that many undecided players (semi-casual) will choose to not play BG3 because of its score. Even if it is written by a casual player.

There are many poor reviews from other websites and in this forum as well, so I wouldn't say it was well received.



I don't even see the point in engaging with you anymore if you're just going to deny reality.
You put such a disproportionate amount of relevancy on a small group of people on a forum complaining.

I've explained why game journalists are prone to have a better understanding of this than a single game developer too multiple times if you're not going to listen then you're not going to listen.
If you can't understand why someone who covers and works with the industry as a whole might have a wider understanding of the whole than someone who works in a more insular space then I dunno what else to tell you.
Look at the reception of Anthem and it was Bioware's second best selling launch game ever if I remember correctly, things are a lot more complicated than you're making them out to be and I don't even think that Swen would disagree with that.
Originally Posted by Svalr

Like has been stated a billion times already, Baldur's Gate 3 has been positively received overall, it IS a small minority of people complaining about it not being '' DnD enough ''.
I am sorry, but DnD is niche.



Completely wrong.

D&D is the most popular TT game ever. It is not a niche hobby.

Starfinder is a niche hobby, but D&D and Magic aren't.

Most negative reviews on steam mentions hp bloat and did you heard about sword coast legends? SCL abandoned even more the D&D rules. It has cooldowns instead of Vancian magic, it had dozens of times more hp bloat than BG3 and was hated with passion by the fans.

Originally Posted by Svalr

Diablo 3 is not a bad game, it just objectively isn't on a production value none of Blizzards games are ( minus Warcraft 3 Reforged which was outsourced ).



Not a bad game?

Imagine if was.

All spells scaling with the size and sharpness of your axe
Itemization being 100% stat stickie
Cartoonish wow artstyle
Cooldowns to do everything
Everyone is a clone
The necromancer male model is so androginous that I was wondering If i was playing an JRPG
Carnavalesque armor design
Ponny Rainbow levels
(...)

Diablo fans HATED it. But game journos loved it.
Posted By: KingTiki Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 05/11/20 06:56 AM
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3

Originally Posted by KingTiki
I mean I don't really care for random reviews, but how do you even have the guts to call those reviews "bad" when the reviews themselves are saying otherwise?


Well, Hades Early Access got 8.8; DOS 2 10/10, so...


In your logic winning 1mio in the lottery is a BAD thing, because you COULD have won 2mio instead.

Also: Were the better reviews by the same person?
The thing is , if you have an AMAZING game on your hands even harsh critics usually do praise the game even in EA. Hades is a good example of this.
Right now things seem...very MEEH. And checking all the complaints in forums, youtube videos and such, yea its seems pretty MEEH. Larian style DnD, not much BG2 atmosphere (day night cycles, lore, graphic pallette, UI, playable NPCs....).
The overall trend is quite average. There is WAY TOO MUCH stuff recycled from DOS, and not enough from Baldurs gate games.
DOS2 in EA was WAY BETTER and more fun in my opinion....
Posted By: Tarorn Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 05/11/20 09:12 AM
Reviews are very subjective & oftentimes biased in both positive & negative ways. I’m a huge fan of this game already but like all things we all have different tastes. I believe Larian will definitely be watching & working to drag this game up to 10/10.

Isn’t Dos 2 rated as one of the best CRPGs ?

Hell I loved sword coast legends & it got destroyed by critics.

Far to much negativity about BG3 but I guess it’s early days - they have a lot riding on this so they won’t go down without a fight.

As for bad reputation - where the heck does that come from - man we are very quick to attack studios these days ,I know some have behaved poorly but let’s not tar them all with the same brush.
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor

Diablo fans HATED it. But game journos loved it.



I was a big fan of Diablo, I was a bigger fan of Diablo 2, in fact I was an early tester of Diablo 2, Blizzard actually mailed me a disc with the game on it (the days before we could easily download games!), a year before it came out. And I LOVE Diablo 3, and think it's an improvement over the others. And I know others who feel the same. So it's not universal that Diablo fans hate Diablo 3. It's mostly just that the ones who do hate it are really, really loud about it.


As for the topic at hand, I still think that professional news outlets have no business reviewing or putting a score on an UNFINISHED game. Only independent YouTubers and such should really be doing Early Access reviews, in my opinion.
Posted By: Svalr Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 05/11/20 02:56 PM
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor

Diablo fans HATED it. But game journos loved it.



I was a big fan of Diablo, I was a bigger fan of Diablo 2, in fact I was an early tester of Diablo 2, Blizzard actually mailed me a disc with the game on it (the days before we could easily download games!), a year before it came out. And I LOVE Diablo 3, and think it's an improvement over the others. And I know others who feel the same. So it's not universal that Diablo fans hate Diablo 3. It's mostly just that the ones who do hate it are really, really loud about it.


As for the topic at hand, I still think that professional news outlets have no business reviewing or putting a score on an UNFINISHED game. Only independent YouTubers and such should really be doing Early Access reviews, in my opinion.


Diablo 3 has changed significantly too and it has become a lot better, I don't think that people actually genuinely hated it just that it was a disappointment after waiting such a long time that it was so different to Diablo 2 and then there was also the connectivity issues on launch.
I remember it, it was almost impossible to even play the game at launch.

I grew up playing games like Diablo 1 and 2, and this is obviously based on my own personal experience but the overall sentiment isn't that Diablo 3 is awful and that they hate it but just that it was disappointing.
I think that there's a lot of emotional investment in Diablo 3 too that caused a more negative reaction on launch with all of the issues and very different style, but a lot of that dies down and I really think that most of the negativity was due to the connectivity issue and the auction house.
I watch a lot of speedrunners for Diablo 2 too who stream and have played it since day 1 non-stop and they say the same thing, they don't think that Diablo 3 is a bad game just not what they wanted it to be.
A lot of people tho think that just because a game isn't what they want makes the game bad.

When it comes to Baldur's Gate 3 the response hasn't been like that at all, and I also think that people shouldn't overestimate the fans of the first and second games too.
Something worth noting is that it's usually a minority of people who finish games, TLOU2 had a 58% completion rate which was abnormally huge.
Most don't get anywhere near that, only 32% for example finished DA:O and I consider it one of the best RPG's ever made.
Just because Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 sold well doesn't mean that there's millions of hardcore Baldur's Gate fans who are super ultra invested in Baldur's Gate 3 being accurate to a niche thing like DnD.

And then look at a game like Path of Exile, it's fundamentally different than Diablo 2 in so many ways but people still regard it as a spiritual successor to Diablo 2.

Edit: Fighting games again are actually a good example, because so many of them have fundamentally changed to the point that they're unrecognizable and yet have been well-received because of the casual audience.
But then meanwhile the hardcore playerbase just sit there in disappointment.
I don't think that Baldur's Gate 3 is that drastic, but it's definitely going to have part of the audience that are going to be disappointed.
Originally Posted by Svalr
I don't even see the point in engaging with you anymore if you're just going to deny reality.I've explained why game journalists are prone to have a better understanding of this than a single game developer too multiple times if you're not going to listen then you're not going to listen.


If you believe that journalist teenagers that barely understand games would have more insight than veteran CEOs with huge network with other developers and publishers, go ahead. Believe in what you gotta believe.

Originally Posted by KingTiki
In your logic winning 1mio in the lottery is a BAD thing, because you COULD have won 2mio instead.

Also: Were the better reviews by the same person?


The magnitude of your comparison does not correlate with game scores. Larian has a certain expectation for them and a score is as good as the time you invest in them. Do you really believe Larian would like a 7/10 after achieving 10/10 with 10x less budget? I am sure they care.

The scores are designed to be independent and regardless, BOTH mainstream sites and many smaller ones gave mediocre reviews. So it is the consensus not an individual opinion.

Gamespot review is in its headline and facebook already influencing a lot of people.
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Originally Posted by Svalr

Like has been stated a billion times already, Baldur's Gate 3 has been positively received overall, it IS a small minority of people complaining about it not being '' DnD enough ''.
I am sorry, but DnD is niche.



Completely wrong.

D&D is the most popular TT game ever. It is not a niche hobby.

Starfinder is a niche hobby, but D&D and Magic aren't.

Most negative reviews on steam mentions hp bloat and did you heard about sword coast legends? SCL abandoned even more the D&D rules. It has cooldowns instead of Vancian magic, it had dozens of times more hp bloat than BG3 and was hated with passion by the fans.

Originally Posted by Svalr

Diablo 3 is not a bad game, it just objectively isn't on a production value none of Blizzards games are ( minus Warcraft 3 Reforged which was outsourced ).



Not a bad game?

Imagine if was.

All spells scaling with the size and sharpness of your axe
Itemization being 100% stat stickie
Cartoonish wow artstyle
Cooldowns to do everything
Everyone is a clone
The necromancer male model is so androginous that I was wondering If i was playing an JRPG
Carnavalesque armor design
Ponny Rainbow levels
(...)

Diablo fans HATED it. But game journos loved it.

Uh, no? "The most popular TT game ever" outlines very well why it's a niche game. In my current circle of friends, I am the only one that owns dice for DnD. In fact, I'm the only one that's ever played. It's not like I live in a small town of 300 or so either. Outside of the circle of people that actually play, very few people know anything about it that wasn't fed to them by a media outlet trying to shut it down, back in the really old days, claiming it's devil worship and such. Even in my Renaissance Fair circles, there weren't a lot of players. You would think, in the ultimate LARP community, there would be a lot of players, but only about 1/3 of the people in the local fairs played.

But what makes it "niche"? Everyone I know, or have ever known, has played some football, American style, and Soccer. Everyone I know has either played in, or watched live baseball/softball games. That might be insignicant, if I were only discussing a couple dozen people, but across 4 states that I've actually lived in, we're talking thousands of people. Of the hundred men in my basic training and AIT in the army, none of them had ever played. If DnD weren't niche, there would have been some. All of them had played baseball, football or basketball. There's nothing wrong with being a niche game, despite what one's pride might tell them. It just means the fans are a bit more dedicated.
Posted By: Svalr Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 05/11/20 03:31 PM
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Originally Posted by Svalr

Like has been stated a billion times already, Baldur's Gate 3 has been positively received overall, it IS a small minority of people complaining about it not being '' DnD enough ''.
I am sorry, but DnD is niche.



Completely wrong.

D&D is the most popular TT game ever. It is not a niche hobby.

Starfinder is a niche hobby, but D&D and Magic aren't.

Most negative reviews on steam mentions hp bloat and did you heard about sword coast legends? SCL abandoned even more the D&D rules. It has cooldowns instead of Vancian magic, it had dozens of times more hp bloat than BG3 and was hated with passion by the fans.

Originally Posted by Svalr

Diablo 3 is not a bad game, it just objectively isn't on a production value none of Blizzards games are ( minus Warcraft 3 Reforged which was outsourced ).



Not a bad game?

Imagine if was.

All spells scaling with the size and sharpness of your axe
Itemization being 100% stat stickie
Cartoonish wow artstyle
Cooldowns to do everything
Everyone is a clone
The necromancer male model is so androginous that I was wondering If i was playing an JRPG
Carnavalesque armor design
Ponny Rainbow levels
(...)

Diablo fans HATED it. But game journos loved it.


Another thing too, the points against Diablo 3 are mostly totally superficial.
I mean the rainbow level is literally supposed to be a meme, I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain about it.
There are things I don't like about Diablo 3 too and I think are very valid criticisms like the itemization and most would agree on that.

Like I mentioned I grew up playing Diablo 1 and 2 and I actually enjoyed the art direction a lot, Torchlight 1 and 2 were made by old Diablo devs too and were successful and well-received too by Diablo fans.
You don't get to gatekeep who is a fan and who isn't.

The reason why game journalists reviewed Diablo 3 positively is because it's a good game, whether it's the sequel people wanted or expected to Diablo 2 is another matter entirely.
They didn't review it as a sequel to Diablo 2, they reviewed it as a game standing on its own two legs.
Which is kinda the point and their job, they're not supposed to be fanboys they're supposed to review things for the average joe.
Which again, is why games like MK11 gets glowing and quite uncritical reviews.

I also find the notion that they're somehow biased in favor of things like cartoony graphics to be ridiculous, if anything it's the exact opposite and game journalists tend to be more drawn to and value photorealism a lot more.
'' Realistic '' graphics would've been the safe option.
Most people don't sit around obsessing about their insecurity over men not looking manly enough or anything like that either.

I have A LOT of problems with mainstream game journalism, but at least I understand what their actual job is.
They don't always live up to it, I think that there is a ton of negative bias against Japanese games or sexualized content in particular from game journalists. There are definitely times where they have severe issues separating their more personal opinions from reviewing the actual game from a more neutral pov.
But generally speaking they're reviewing things from the pov of an average joe with no previous investement because that's what most people are.
And it's going to be very hit and miss with how that lines up with the reception.

In regards to the TT thing I think that Robert answered that well.
A lot of people know about DnD and games like Warhammer but very few people actually play.

Altho I'd add that while most people have probably played football at one point, very few people who watch football are actually fans of playing it themselves.
It's kinda the same with TT too and things like Critical Role, a lot of people might enjoy watching Critical Role but very few of those people will actually enjoy playing it.
Even E-sports actually has a lot of this, a lot of people watch certain E-sports games but don't like playing them.

It's important to separate interest in something from actual direct engagement with it.
Unsure how you can review 2/3rds of the first act in an early access game tbh. Game reviews by individual gamers are too subjective a sample base anyway, they may be FPS gamers like overwatch which got 10/10/10 across the board and is a game I absolutely hate with a passion.

I don't even care if games get "very positive"on steam etc. I read many reviews and alot of the time the dislikes are petty. You have to separate the fanbois from the cynics. Even though I have many issues on the BG3 subject the game is "as standalone game" well made, fun and involved. If 2/3rds of the first act gains a 7/10 then I would scratch than down to a win in my book.
Originally Posted by Tarorn


Hell I loved sword coast legends & it got destroyed by critics.


SCL was hated by critics AND fans.

Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
And I LOVE Diablo 3, and think it's an improvement over the others. And I know others who feel the same. So it's not universal that Diablo fans hate Diablo 3. It's mostly just that the ones who do hate it are really, really loud about it.


Well, look to metacritic USER reviews, look to the comments on Jay Wilson GDC and reviews of long time fans of D2 like MrLLamaSC.

MRLLamaSC had a amazing video showing why D3 is not Diablo.



Originally Posted by Svalr

Diablo 3 has changed significantly too and it has become a lot better,


RoS only fixed the loot.

The artstyle, game mechanics, character progression, etc; still completely awful and nonsensical.

Originally Posted by Svalr

Most don't get anywhere near that, only 32% for example finished DA:O and I consider it one of the best RPG's ever made.


DA:O is very long and I don't consider the best RPG ever made. In fact, is far inferior to previous BioWare RPG's like Baldur's Gate 2.

Originally Posted by Svalr

And then look at a game like Path of Exile, it's fundamentally different than Diablo 2 in so many ways but people still regard it as a spiritual successor to Diablo 2.


Because PoE has far more Diablo on it than D3 and Immortal combined.



Originally Posted by robertthebard
(...)very few people know anything about it that wasn't fed to them by a media outlet trying to shut it down, back in the really old days, claiming it's devil worship and such. Even in my Renaissance Fair circles, there weren't a lot of players. (...)


Is a anecdotal.

And the fact is, more faithful D&D games like BG3 will outsell more bastardizations of D&D games like SCL. Niche or not.

Originally Posted by robertthebard

The reason why game journalists reviewed Diablo 3 positively is because it's a good game, whether it's the sequel people wanted or expected to Diablo 2 is another matter entirely.


And the point of a game is to please the FANS, not please game journos.

If fans rate a game 4/10 and journos rate 10/10, the game is trash to the target audience. I don't care if a guy who can't pass cuphead tutorial thinks that is a masterpiece. The fans know that is a trash.


Game journalists only on past wrote good reviews. You can't compare modern game journos "i can't hit an insect swarm with an sword on pfkm, 0/10" with 90s journos. Bellow a good game journo review



This is a 90 game journo reviewing an game. As you can see, they are reviewing the game as a part of the game audience. They don't wanna an SSI hardcore RPG to be accessible to non RPG fans. The basic of critique is to critique the object of the critique according to the proposal. I an not capable of reviewing a final fantasy, xenoblade or jrpg games cuz I would probably write something like "androgynous teenager with an oversized sword. the most nonsensical weapon ever. I hate it and is very cliche, the game should let me play as a assassin, technomancer, necromancer, or something cool and the mechanics and narrative are so disconect that you don't fell immersed into the game. 0/10", the guys who should be reviewing this JRPG's are the JRPG's fans. Not an guy like myself that becomes so bored with any of this games that can't play even if I get paid to play it.

Modern game journos are AWFUL. Their reviews are completely trash.

See the reviewer that I posted giving 7/10 to TW2 and 10/10 to DA:2.

Originally Posted by robertthebard


I think that there is a ton of negative bias against Japanese games or sexualized content in particular from game journalists
.


I agree. Sexualization on western games are well received but on Japanese, criticized. It is a bias which I hate. But only proofs that game journalists are irrelevant.
Posted By: AlanC9 Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 05/11/20 06:51 PM
Originally Posted by Svalr

Just because Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 sold well doesn't mean that there's millions of hardcore Baldur's Gate fans who are super ultra invested in Baldur's Gate 3 being accurate to a niche thing like DnD.


Minor quibble: from what I've seen, the BG1 and 2 fans who are upset with BG3 are upset because it's too accurate to D&D. They don't actually like the current D&D rules and the current D&D setting.
Posted By: Svalr Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 05/11/20 07:11 PM
I am not going to continue this big argument, all I'll say is that MrLama was actually one of the people I thought of because I do watch his streams regularly.
And he has never said that he hates Diablo 3 he has acknowledged that it's not a bad game.
It's just not his thing, he doesn't enjoy it like he enjoys Diablo 2.
And he says the same about other games of that genre too.

I dunno why some people have to be so freaking extreme about everything where either something is the best thing ever created or it's the worst and you HATE it.
'' Hate '' is a very strong term and is very different than not enjoying something.
Just because MrLama was disappointed with Diablo 3 doesn't mean that he hates it.

Also there are very few games where the point is to please a hardcore audience, most games aim for a wide audience and that's who most game journalists also aim their content to.
I dunno why you're bringing up reviews from the 90's too as if the industry hasn't grown and changed substantially since then, video games nowadays is the largest entertainment industry in the world and reviews are going to adapt to that.
This applies to the whole industry too not just reviews and game journalists.

People disagreeing with you also doesn't make them not fans.
You keep trying to monopolize the term and act as if you're the arbiter of it.

Edit: I also adressed the Metacritic thing, the reviews from back then are almost all about the connectivity issues and funnily enough also people complaining about it being grindy.
Extreme reactions do happen that doesn't make a game bad, zeros and ones are just ridiculous and not a serious score but this is what happens when a game has technical problems especially at launch and when people get overly emotional about things.
There's also people reviewbombing because of the Hong Kong and Diablo Immortal thing etc.

Originally Posted by AlanC9
Originally Posted by Svalr

Just because Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 sold well doesn't mean that there's millions of hardcore Baldur's Gate fans who are super ultra invested in Baldur's Gate 3 being accurate to a niche thing like DnD.


Minor quibble: from what I've seen, the BG1 and 2 fans who are upset with BG3 are upset because it's too accurate to D&D. They don't actually like the current D&D rules and the current D&D setting.


Fair enough.
Posted By: Schugger Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 05/11/20 07:15 PM
Well, you can only review what you have.
There are a lot of graphical glitches and some annoying questbugs. I think it would be unfair to make up a review of a game and just don't take them into account.
That's quite the problem if you decide to release a game EA, reviewers tend to nitpick on a games shortcomings (quite rightly so) and it is up to the developer to iron out these problems until the full version is released.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 05/11/20 07:21 PM
Originally Posted by AlanC9
Originally Posted by Svalr

Just because Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 sold well doesn't mean that there's millions of hardcore Baldur's Gate fans who are super ultra invested in Baldur's Gate 3 being accurate to a niche thing like DnD.


Minor quibble: from what I've seen, the BG1 and 2 fans who are upset with BG3 are upset because it's too accurate to D&D. They don't actually like the current D&D rules and the current D&D setting.

I have seen the exact opposite. The most prominent way in which BG1&2 fans prefer old D&D is their desire for a 6-player-party, which isn't even that odd for 5e.

Otherwise, BG1&2 fans want BG3 to feel like the older games, through implementing day/night, UI, resting costs, random encounters, etc. But none of these things are against the spirit/rules of 5e.
Or they want the BG3 rules to be more like 5e rules (height, backstab, surfaces, disengage, shove, spellcasting rules, etc)
Originally Posted by Svalr
Also there are very few games where the point is to please a hardcore audience, most games aim for a wide audience and that's who most game journalists also aim their content to.



Definitively not the case with STRATEGY, RPG and similar genres.

And wide audience is more often, lowest common denominator.

The point of any product is to please the target audience, not to please people who failed into game journalism and can't even pass the cuphead tutorial. That said, who Larian is aiming to please? DOS2 and modern RPG's fans. Baldur's Gate Fans, D&D fans and old school D&D fans. All of this target audiences has completely different demands. Larian should try to please then, not critics.

Originally Posted by AlanC9
Minor quibble: from what I've seen, the BG1 and 2 fans who are upset with BG3 are upset because it's too accurate to D&D. They don't actually like the current D&D rules and the current D&D setting.


Ideally, BG3 would be more 2e like not dos2 like... But between 5e like and dos2 like, 5e like is better.


Originally Posted by Svalr
I dunno why you're bringing up reviews from the 90's too as if the industry hasn't grown and changed substantially since then, video games nowadays is the largest entertainment industry in the world and reviews are going to adapt to that.


Changed for the worse.

Any product should be rated and reviewed according to his proposal. You don't see food critics complaining about gourmet food cuz "it is too expensive and fancy", when is the point of the gourmet food. Nor a ski magazine complaining that an track for Skiing on Bariloche is too hard and dangerous for people who don't dedicate themselves a lot on the hobby of ski. But you see retarded game journos(redundancy) demanding easy mode on souls series which has the difficulty as the main selling point. Complaining that PFKM is too much old school when being old school is the main selling point of the game and other retarded nonsense, like criticizing the lack of AfroPolish on The Witcher.

If every ski magazine/website only rated family friendly novice friendly tracks positively, would't be surprised that most people who dedicate a lot of money and time into the ski hobby would't consider their opinion valid. Same with gourmet reviewers if they only ranked good fast food.

----------------

If game journos are rating BG3 poorly, is cuz BG3 is good.
Posted By: Tarorn Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 06/11/20 06:53 AM
Loved sword coast legends - it still had d&d all over it - some D&D people need to learn to relax a bit - table top vs pc games is quite different.
And yes I played d&d for many years - it’s more than a set of rules ...
Originally Posted by Tarorn
Loved sword coast legends - it still had d&d all over it - some D&D people need to learn to relax a bit - table top vs pc games is quite different.
And yes I played d&d for many years - it’s more than a set of rules ...

Interesting. We have fundamentally disagreed on everything else but on this we are in agreement. I liked SCL and enjoyed playing it. I found the free DLC for it to have been especially well-made. I still even replay it. But I speak only for its SP side; don't know or care about co-op play.
Posted By: Limz Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 06/11/20 05:43 PM
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor


Any product should be rated and reviewed according to his proposal. You don't see food critics complaining about gourmet food cuz "it is too expensive and fancy", when is the point of the gourmet food.


Just as an aside, food critics do complain about food being too expensive or too fancy, and as trends change so do their expectations; what was once standard could be judged by critics today as pretentious; molecular gastronomy, as a result, tends to unsettle certain critics. Also, it isn't unheard of for food critics to complain something being too ordinary even if it is done well - the word 'uninspired' comes to mind.

You should actually go and sample a bunch of three star, two star, and one star restaurants and then go for those allegedly gourmet places and you'll see why a ton of them never will earn a single star no matter how hard they try.

Point being that industries do change as do expectations. Welcome to 2020 btw.
Originally Posted by azarhal
I don't even know why they are reviewing the early access when they usually only review fully released games.


Because its currently being sold full retail, so people want to know if its worth buying right now in its current state. That is what is being reviewed.
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Well, 22k reviews on steam and 'Very Positive'. This is the only kind of reviews I trust.


My two dimes:

That is the only kind of review that doesn't matter because is based not on a critic and rational analysis of the game but by personal feelings (by the way I love the game just to be clear on my position), IGN and so on are professional reviewers who read the game from a more dettached point of view.

(And to me the fact that something is love by an awful lot of people doesn't imply that said something is good, it made things just widespread).

Also I can understand the low rate gave by those sites, the mix of awful movement, combat system that dilatate the lenght of battles, dialogues than are in the average of computer based rpg, the distance between expectation from a sequel of an iconic game and the outcome, the cinematic serious bugs (aahhh lost count of how many times I talked to walls, back of necks, shoulders and so on laugh laugh ), the really thin personalization of characters specially in skills and stats, how penalized is the rogue class whose class skills (pickpocket, lockpicking, stealth) are pratically open to all the other classes, is something than can not be ignored so easily specially if it comes from a firm that has made its name with the two underdogs Original Sin.
Originally Posted by Tarorn
Loved sword coast legends - it still had d&d all over it - some D&D people need to learn to relax a bit - table top vs pc games is quite different.
And yes I played d&d for many years - it’s more than a set of rules ...


I strongly disagree.

We already have 68165348646516546846846818964 pseudo RPG's all about gear farming and cooldown managing and we don't need another one. Nor when you LIE to the fanbase promising D&D and delivering wow magical system instead of vancian, zero skill checks, lv 6 liches and so on.

Originally Posted by Limz

Point being that industries do change as do expectations. Welcome to 2020 btw.




Except that food critiques tries to please his readers. Game journos doesn't care about how the target audience sees the product.


Originally Posted by Bufotenina
hat is the only kind of review that doesn't matter because is based not on a critic and rational analysis of the game but by personal feelings (by the way I love the game just to be clear on my position), IGN and so on are professional reviewers who read the game from a more dettached point of view.


Yep. "professional reviewers"

Originally Posted by "S0rcererV1ct0r on RPG codex"


The iconic "I can't hit an swarm with an axe, 0/10"

Originally Posted by "Gamespot Pathfinder Kingmaker Review"
many monsters and creatures require very specific tools to kill. Swarms of small creatures like rats, for instance, can't be effectively fought with a sword and shield.
https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/pathfinder-kingmaker-review-the-classics/1900-6417006/


Path of Exile - IGN review



Nintendo World Report TV Review of Baldur's Gate



Game Journalist VS 5 yo child on cuphead tutorial




Fans who actually played the game >>>>> people who can't beat cuphead tutorial.
Originally Posted by Bufotenina
Also I can understand the low rate gave by those sites, the mix of awful movement, combat system that dilatate the lenght of battles, dialogues than are in the average of computer based rpg, the distance between expectation from a sequel of an iconic game and the outcome, the cinematic serious bugs (aahhh lost count of how many times I talked to walls, back of necks, shoulders and so on laugh laugh ), the really thin personalization of characters specially in skills and stats, how penalized is the rogue class whose class skills (pickpocket, lockpicking, stealth) are pratically open to all the other classes, is something than can not be ignored so easily specially if it comes from a firm that has made its name with the two underdogs Original Sin.


Well put.
Posted By: Tarorn Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 07/11/20 06:17 PM


I strongly disagree.

We already have 68165348646516546846846818964 pseudo RPG's all about gear farming and cooldown managing and we don't need another one. Nor when you LIE to the fanbase promising D&D and delivering wow magical system instead of vancian, zero skill checks, lv 6 liches and so on.

I don’t disagree with your points - but even so I thoroughly enjoyed the game - to me it was engaging, I played it from start to finish & have 150+ hours in it. Writing was great & to me it had a huge D&D feel to it which is what I look for most in aD&D title.

Probably why I’m enjoying BG3 so much. I want as many of the rules to be implemented as makes sense but if they are not all there or perfect but the game is enjoyable - that’s my preference.

Ps - the cool down system could have been ok without all the items giving bonuses to it & the ability to purchase highly powerful magic items from vendors - I do dislike that, totally agree about the lich too.
Posted By: Limz Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 07/11/20 06:46 PM
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor


Except that food critiques tries to please his readers. Game journos doesn't care about how the target audience sees the product.



Food critics don't try to please their readers and if they do its an byproduct of what their main goal is which is informing people of the experience they may or may not have. Game journalists do the same thing.

Stick to what you know and don't use analogies you hardly understand. Go visit some Michelin star restaurants some time and do a compare and contrast, you'll realize very quickly how stupid it would be to 'please the readers'.

Originally Posted by SorcererVictor

Fans who actually played the game >>>>> people who can't beat cuphead tutorial.


You know what's stupid about what you've written? You list the IGN review of Path of Exile but you don't highlight the fact that less than 1% of the player base even makes it to the end game and the IGN review highlights a HUGE problem with the game the game's learning curve (actually I don't think most people even get to Act 3) which is a massive waste of resources on the dev's part. It also means that the game is pretty much unapproachable by the majority of gamers out there, so yeah the IGN review is legitimate. IGN's target audience is greater than just hardcore ARPG fans you know that right? Same goes for the Michelin guide, hence why you see them rate various restaurants from simple sushi shacks, to fast food, to so called high end restaurants.


And if you're a fan of a game and you're giving a review then it's going to be discarded because you aren't exactly thinking critically of it now are you? Anyone who is writing a review that's trying to be unbiased will literally have to put a disclaimer that the game is for people who enjoy specific challenges and if you had to give it a rating for the general population it's going to be a LOT lower than the rating you would give for fans of that genre and then a rating for that subgenre. But most places don't and force you on a simple scale, so you have to drag the overall score down by quite a lot if the game is more niche.


Not really a hard concept to understand.
Considering if you give too many games bad reviews, you stop getting review copies, reviews tend to be inflated.

I've read both of these and they don't seem to know what early access is. They seem to expect it to be as polished as a full release. And they seem like snowflakes that can't understand why an NPC that's supposed to be working with them, doesn't have to like them.
Originally Posted by azarhal
I don't even know why they are reviewing the early access when they usually only review fully released games.


I needn't read any further. This is exactly my sentiment.
Posted By: Verte Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 08/11/20 12:50 AM
Originally Posted by azarhal
I don't even know why they are reviewing the early access when they usually only review fully released games.


Maybe because they are making money on it and this is big EA premiere, which will last at least a year and a half till devs finish it.
Originally Posted by Tarorn
the cool down system could have been ok without all the items giving bonuses to it & the ability to purchase highly powerful magic items from vendors - I do dislike that, totally agree about the lich too.


Cooldowns are just the worst plague on gaming. IDK why people accept this BS on RPG's. The new countra had it and everyone HATED.

Originally Posted by Limz
You know what's stupid about what you've written? You list the IGN review of Path of Exile but you don't highlight the fact that less than 1% of the player base even makes it to the end game and the IGN review highlights a HUGE problem with the game the game's learning curve(...)


Check the like to dislike ratio of the IGN video. 2k upvotes and 10k downvotes. Meanwhile, on steam, PoE appears frequently on the most played games and over 90% of the users recommend. Diablo 3 in other hands, they praised everything while the fanbase criticized the nonsensical wow artstyle and nonsensical game mechanics like monks needing an big and sharp axe to have powerful unarmed attacks that disappear by no reason on combat animations. For game journos, an class all about unarmed combat needing an axe that disappear when in combat is not a problem, but god forbid in a RPG, your fast swinging blade actually can't damage insect swarms and you need to use aoe spells, torches or magical/elemental weapons.

What is the problem of end game being hard to get? You as a casual player CAN GET a hell lot of fun and enjoy a lot of good content for free, the journalist even criticized that the game is too long. What is the problem? The journey on this types of games tends to be better than the end game.


---------


And you keep saying that "hardcore game", "niche game", to refer to the most popular TT game ever and the most played isometric ARPG on steam. What is an on niche/non hardcore for you??? An game which the game journalists that can't pass the Cuphead tutorial can enjoy? Any game which requires 2 digit IQ is too hardcore and niche for you???

I while a child who could't even read English had no problem playing 90s RPG's like Might & Magic VII, my very first RPG. Nowdays, if a game like it was released, the brain of game journos would melt.
Posted By: Limz Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 08/11/20 06:50 AM
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor

Check the like to dislike ratio of the IGN video. 2k upvotes and 10k downvotes. Meanwhile, on steam, PoE appears frequently on the most played games and over 90% of the users recommend...


Yes, you have the entire hardcore fanbase downvoting it and you're completely ignoring the stats provided by GGG when they state that barely anyone makes it beyond Kitava or even reaches maps. Most game journalists have to cover a game for the general population not for a niche crowd. Thanks for missing the point.

And you know that PoE only appears near the top when a new season releases and then drops after two weeks. Among Us has already beaten its highest concurrent user count. So, how would you reconcile that on a single scale rating? Give 10s for both? Then you dilute the value of your rating system. Give Among Us 0 because you only review RPGs?


Originally Posted by SorcererVictor

What is the problem of end game being hard to get? You as a casual player CAN GET a hell lot of fun and enjoy a lot of good content for free, the journalist even criticized that the game is too long. What is the problem? The journey on this types of games tends to be better than the end game.


Depending on your goals having an end game being hard to get to (or impossible for a lot of the populace) reduces the efficiency of development and scales poorly economically and in dev time.

And honestly PoE does take too long. The entire campaign is a waste of time and the entire end game is more or less a grind just to see if your build works which is what the IGN reviewer hinted at. I happen to enjoy that, but do you think casual players sit around with Path of Building open for hours on end trying to theorycraft out or fix their builds? Even veterans of the game will not argue and say that the game play is fun because everyone zips around and clears out a map in one minute.



Do you even know what playing casually means? It means maybe an hour or two per day if you're lucky. Do you also know how punishing the game is to a casual? How many 'casuals' actually have fun dying to Merveil in PoE dozens of times in a row? Not many. Here's something to consider: PoE will never be as popular with the general audience as games like Among Us, League etc.


Originally Posted by SorcererVictor

And you keep saying that "hardcore game", "niche game", to refer to the most popular TT game ever and the most played isometric ARPG on steam. What is an on niche/non hardcore for you??? An game which the game journalists that can't pass the Cuphead tutorial can enjoy? Any game which requires 2 digit IQ is too hardcore and niche for you???

I while a child who could't even read English had no problem playing 90s RPG's like Might & Magic VII, my very first RPG. Nowdays, if a game like it was released, the brain of game journos would melt.


Yes D&D is still a niche game but it's growing and maybe one day it won't be. How many people play D&D? 20 mil? How many play League of Legends - 115mil? How many people play soccer/futbol? How many people play Chess (605mil) or Go? Or play Counter Strike?

It's stupid to think that because D&D is the most popular table top RPG that it somehow means that it isn't niche when the whole perspective of what is and what isn't is usually measured against the most common. Also, lol @ you trying to include PoE in here when it doesn't even come close to the others. Just look at https://steamcharts.com/ right now and show me where PoE is. Oh yeah there's also Fortnite which is 350 million.

Also, it's equally stupid to lump all game journalists together.

I derped through Dark Sun and Eye of the Beholder when I was a child but there's a thread that you can't grasp which is pretty apparent: you have no idea what a casual player is and you're severely overestimating what the average person can do without hours of video game experience to aid them.
Originally Posted by Limz

GGG when they state that barely anyone makes it beyond Kitava or even reaches maps.


What is the problem???

Everyone seems to having fun. That is the point of any hobby. Fun and engagement. Not complete most content in less time.

Originally Posted by Limz

downvoting it


MrLlamaSC criticized a lot of things on PoE and ... Din't received the hate. Maybe cuz he is part of the audience judging the game according to his proposal.


Originally Posted by Limz

cover a game for the general population not for a niche crowd.


Again, what is a niche for you???

ArmA 3 has way more active users on steam than all CoDs combined.

Even if this RPG's are ""niche"" games, WHY THEY SHOULD'T BE RATED according to his proposal? WHY EVERY SINGLE GAME NEEDS TO APPEAL TO BRAINLETS? You don't see food critiques complaining "no meat" in a vegan restaurant cuz is a retarded complain. Nor pick the most dangerous track on ski on Bariloche and give 0/10 cuz "it is too hard for those who don't wanna invest a lot of time and money into skiing". It is a nonsensical complain.

Just like "i can't hit an insect swarm with an axe" is a retarded complain. Can be a valid reason to the guy who just wanna a mindless fun, not play, but this RPG's elements is why people from the target audience of the game loves it. Why food, sports, etc; are reviewed according to the proposal and games, are reviewed according to the demands of brainlets, even when the point of the game is to please people who like old school style and nobody is supplying that demand??

The game journalists threats games like Grimoire as a sin only cuz they don't like. The Dark Sun reviweres 90s reviewers that I've posted, rated the game and criticized as the average SSI fan will see it.


Originally Posted by Limz

PoE only appears near the top when a new season releases and then drops after two weeks


Still far above most AAA "press A for awesome" games. Inlcuding Bugsoft games.

Originally Posted by Limz

Then you dilute the value of your rating system. Give Among Us 0 because you only review RPGs?


Nope. I should try to see what the target audience of among us likes, what dislikes, play and put myself under the skin of then and then, try to see what the target audience of the game will probably like and probably dislike.

Originally Posted by Limz

The entire campaign is a waste of time and the entire end game is more or less a grind just to see if your build works which is what the IGN reviewer hinted at.


He was using the basic attack on late stages. This game is not for him.


Originally Posted by Limz

? It means maybe an hour or two per day if you're lucky.


Then, according to your definition, when I was employed and studding, I was a casual cuz even on weekends, I could't play much. On a period of six months, I had gym, college and a job. Din't had even 1 hour to play per day. Took about 6 months to finish my might & magic run but I enjoyed each second of it.


Originally Posted by Limz

casual player is and you're severely overestimating what the average person can do without hours of video game experience to aid them.


Nope. Completely wrong.

You not only subestime the average player, but also subestime the average RPG player and believe that all RPG's should appeal to the lowest common denominator brainlet. That logic applied to any other hobby would mean that every complex track on skiing should receive poor ratting, that every firing range should only have close quarters stationary targets, every marathon should be based on the shortest and easiest marathon and so on.

Ahhh and climbing too. Lets rate 0/10 the Mt Everest cuz he is too hard and dangerous to climb. We don't need to write a climbing review to the average climbing enthusiast who likes climbing. We need to appeal to the lowest common denominator. /sarcasm
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
The "bad points" of the Gamespot "review"

"Plenty of glitches and bugs remain, including numerous crashes to desktop

Conversations and cinematic scenes are particularly rough and impede both the enjoyment and legibility of the story

There's a strange snarkiness to much of the writing that leaves few likeable characters

The difficulty in general is uneven, forcing an over-reliance on quicksaving and quickloading"

2 points about technical issues, which are EXPECTED in EA, one personal dislike about the writing style, which I instead like as it reminds me of the Belgariad/Mallorean, and of course the last, most ridiculous one "IT IS DUR DIFFICULT TEH HORROR".

Is this an example of a review to trust?


I still can't believe gamespot published a review like that.
IGN and gamespot reviews are not to be trusted. If they're not overlooking a games flaws and kissing it's ass, they're fixating on the negatives without covering the positives. There's a reason many people don't take IGN seriously. Even their video reviews sound scripted and forced. Like their heart isn't in the game. Even if they're giving a positive review (which they often do regardless).

Steam sales figures give a better idea because it's the PEOPLE that decide. Not the media. And THEY are the one playing. Most of them at least. The issue there is people can jump on bandwagons and be more "casual". Acting like an ok game is "the best thing ever". When they likely never even touched BG2.

Personally I want what we've had in pat D&D games. The ability to talk with demons and dragons and other races. Having good conversations with them. To not be forced into fights because dice rolls screw you over (except maybe NOW AND THEN. But not CONSTANTLY over and over). etc, etc. It's not too much to ask for. Let us turn into dragons when we have high stats like n past D&D games with summoning demons through gates with protect from evil spells and we'll good. Just make damn sure you have the D&D. Demons and dragons. To debate with and relate with. Always have demons and dragons. We've always had that, even in Neverwinter Nights 1 (which has a VERY good example of a friendly dragon). So it better be here too.
Originally Posted by Taramafor
Steam sales figures give a better idea because it's the PEOPLE that decide. Not the media. And THEY are the one playing. Most of them at least. The issue there is people can jump on bandwagons and be more "casual". Acting like an ok game is "the best thing ever". When they likely never even touched BG2.

Pro reviews are trash, but so are "ordinary people" mass reviews like on Steam. If every single person playing the game put in a review, then the reviews collectively would have value. If not, then if we at least got a truly representative sample of the people playing the game, that also would be fine. But what we have with mass reviews is a biased sample. And any information you get from a biased sample is the worst possible information. Even having no information at all and simply making an educated guess is better than using information from a biased sample.

Furthermore, the missing information issue cannot be overcome at all even with a good sample. That is to say, what about the people who didn't buy and play the game because they evaluated it and decided they did not like it? They are absolutely a 'no' vote on the game, but don't get "counted" anywhere.
Originally Posted by kanisatha

That is to say, what about the people who didn't buy and play the game because they evaluated it and decided they did not like it? They are absolutely a 'no' vote on the game, but don't get "counted" anywhere.



Nah. I don't think that people who haven't even played a game get to have a vote on whether or not it's good. A restaurant reviewer doesn't get to review restaurants they haven't eaten at. A film reviewer doesn't get to review films they haven't seen.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by kanisatha

That is to say, what about the people who didn't buy and play the game because they evaluated it and decided they did not like it? They are absolutely a 'no' vote on the game, but don't get "counted" anywhere.


Nah. I don't think that people who haven't even played a game get to have a vote on whether or not it's good. A restaurant reviewer doesn't get to review restaurants they haven't eaten at. A film reviewer doesn't get to review films they haven't seen.


As for the latter, I can tell that some people do.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by kanisatha

That is to say, what about the people who didn't buy and play the game because they evaluated it and decided they did not like it? They are absolutely a 'no' vote on the game, but don't get "counted" anywhere.



Nah. I don't think that people who haven't even played a game get to have a vote on whether or not it's good. A restaurant reviewer doesn't get to review restaurants they haven't eaten at. A film reviewer doesn't get to review films they haven't seen.

Bullshit. How convenient to say someone has to pay up $60 and also get counted as a fan of the game just to say "no this isn't to my liking." I don't have to use cocaine to know that it's a "no" for me.

Accounting for people who didn't respond at all is an integral part of research methodology.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by kanisatha

That is to say, what about the people who didn't buy and play the game because they evaluated it and decided they did not like it? They are absolutely a 'no' vote on the game, but don't get "counted" anywhere.



Nah. I don't think that people who haven't even played a game get to have a vote on whether or not it's good. A restaurant reviewer doesn't get to review restaurants they haven't eaten at. A film reviewer doesn't get to review films they haven't seen.

But they can, all they have to do is register at MetaCritic, a fact that makes it absolutely worthless when I'm trying to evaluate the quality of a product.

The problem here, from where I'm sitting, is that we have people that look at what the critics on Rotten Tomatoes say, and believe it's gospel, and people that look at what the consumers say, and believe it's gospel.

However, if I'm looking to buy a game, I don't run straight to IGN, or GameSpot to see what they think of it. I don't run to Steam either, since I won't be using Steam to play it. If that's the only way it's available on PC, I'll pass. I think I mentioned this earlier, but I got this through GoG, or I wouldn't be here, and if the final product was only going to come through Steam, I'd pass. I do, however, trust what my friends might be saying about it. Even if, at the end of the day, we disagree. I at least know they aren't motivated by clicks. For example, I haven't clicked on a single link provided in this thread. I have also refrained from commenting on their content, since I have no idea what it is. I refuse to add to their view counts. Too many 10/10 reviews on games that I know personally sucked, and too many "this game sucks" when they mess up mechanics, or think it's "too hard".
I don't see the problem: just bribe them like everyone else in the industry does if you want better review scores.
Well, apparently every game ever made is solidly downvoted and should not be purchased. In fact, every product of ANY kind is solidly downvoted and should not be purchased. Because there are BILLIONS of people who have not bought everything ever made, so I guess those billions have "voted no" and we need to count their votes. So never buy anything again. Billions of people can't be wrong.
Recently, I've found a lot of times mainstream reviews tend to dislike things for the exact reason I look toward a title. Granted the example that most easily floats to mind is a movie review where critics complained that Godzilla: King of the Monsters was decent fights, but had a terrible plot and completely implausible technobabble...to which I went "That's what I look for in a Godzilla movie...." and I went to it and, hey, look it was exactly what I expected and loved about a Godzilla movie. Cool fights, stupid plot, and implausible technobable. Mainstream reviewers don't really seem to be in touch with what people are looking for in a game.

I look to the reviews of players more than media, and even if I hadn't enjoyed the game a lot already, most of the word of mouth on this game is good.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Well, apparently every game ever made is solidly downvoted and should not be purchased. In fact, every product of ANY kind is solidly downvoted and should not be purchased. Because there are BILLIONS of people who have not bought everything ever made, so I guess those billions have "voted no" and we need to count their votes. So never buy anything again. Billions of people can't be wrong.

See now you're just being ridiculous.

If a vendor is selling hamburgers, and a potential customer who eats only hamburgers all day everyday decides to not try your hamburger, that SHOULD be very critical and useful information to that vendor. By contrast, if a vegan passes on trying your hamburger, that is irrelevant data. Determining what is your POTENTIAL customer base is a critical and foundational element of any business venture.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Well, apparently every game ever made is solidly downvoted and should not be purchased. In fact, every product of ANY kind is solidly downvoted and should not be purchased. Because there are BILLIONS of people who have not bought everything ever made, so I guess those billions have "voted no" and we need to count their votes. So never buy anything again. Billions of people can't be wrong.

We could do that, we could flip the script too, and buy everything, because billions of people have.

Realistically, we can all do what we do already: Watch our various "trusted" outlets. Mine don't happen to be professional critics, or game journalists, in the strictest sense. Some people are going to take these "reviews" at face value, and to those people I say "Well duh". I mean, the Steam store has a warning on the game's page from the developers telling you that EA is going to be an unpolished buggy mess, why should I click on a "review" that's not going to tell me anything Larian didn't already tell me? I've seen them sycophant it up for some developers, even when the game is truly bad, why do I want to add to their revenue stream for an EA title? I don't, and further, I won't. I also won't be reading/watching anything they have to say post launch. I'm not interested in what they have to say, because from my end, they are more influenced by what they get from developers, than whether it's any good or not.

I will be watching game forums, with a grain of salt. Because I've seen game forums implode because they didn't get what they wanted, so the game was doomed out of the gate. DA 2 had it's issues, to be sure, but it was nowhere near as bad as the community would lead you to believe. The same is true for Andromeda, although I could never reproduce some of the bugs that were featured on YouTube, despite spending hours trying to, because I wanted my own video of them. DA 2 was doomed out of the gate because "not the Warden", and Andromeda was doomed out of the gate because "not Shepard, and Mass Effect is Shepard's story". I was 45 minutes into a review before the reviewer actually said that in his review. I wish he would have led with that, so that I'd know that, if I was going to spend all that time, I'd at least be aware of his bias before hand. Of course, because clicks, he didn't do that, so he got to seed that algorithm. We could write what I'd imagine would be a rather accurate copy of a "review" of this EA by simply reading the topic titles on this forum alone. I wonder, how close to a 1 to 1 reproduction would it actually be?

So trust who you want. If that's dedicated game "journalists", or even players. For myself? I'm not going to trust game "journalists", and I don't fully trust players, but at least with the players, I can get some context from posts/post history. If I try that with game "journalists", they're all going to be as useful to me as MetaCritic, which is to say, not at all.
sanc·ti·mo·ny
/ˈsaNG(k)təˌmōnē/
noun DEROGATORY
the action or practice of acting as if one were morally superior to other people.
Originally Posted by millenialboomer
I don't see the problem: just bribe them like everyone else in the industry does if you want better review scores.


Not that I am defending them, but most recent AAA have failed.
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Originally Posted by millenialboomer
I don't see the problem: just bribe them like everyone else in the industry does if you want better review scores.


Not that I am defending them, but most recent AAA have failed.

Interesting, but let's have a look at why some of them have failed. For this post, I will be ignoring games that were genuinely bad, and I'm going to point out an interesting dichotomy that may well put this game on that list:

It's too much like an MMO. This one should be posted ironically, considering it's putting the cart before the horse, but it's out there, and games like Dragon Age Inquisition got hit by it pretty hard. Despite that, it didn't really fail, per se. It did get some GotY awards, after all. What's even more ironic is that some of the same mechanics that exist in Inquisition are in the follow up GotY, The Witcher 3, but it's lauded as one of the best RPGs ever made... So there must be something else, right? Read on:

It's not what the players expected. This one is really hokey to nail down, because expectations are the most subjective metric to base a game's success/failure on. It's ripe on these forums, even now. We'll start out with something that's really hard to quantify: It doesn't feel like Baldur's Gate. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, and if we asked people where they couldn't read what someone else said, we'd get thousands of variables to try to plug in. Way too many to even attempt to list here. So I'm just going to point to it, because it's there.

It's not what players wanted, which is even harder to nail down. This game is doomed, because part of the base is looking for "more DnD, except sometimes it needs to be less DnD", for things like dice rolling, especially in regard to fail states in conversations. Some people are going on about too much like DnD. We even get some overlap in the one listed example for this. Along with things like how it's TB, which is really strange, given it's advertised to be that. It's not unexpected however, as paying attention to advertising, actual marketing, not reviews, is something that gamers tend to struggle with. For my best example, I'm going to use Aion, which was advertised as PvPvE, from the first time we heard of it until now. Yet, I was in a legion of 200+ accounts that moved to RoM, because of PvPvE...

Then there's the crossover things, like how Inquisition and Mass Effect Andromeda were doomed out of the gate, because of 2 and 3 collectively, with some 1 sprinkled in. The second* and third games in DA were both hit hard by "not the warden", despite being informed that the Warden wouldn't be making a comeback, because there's a very real possibility that some players had a Warden that was dead at the end of Origins. There was also a lot of pushback against the protagonist not being the OGB, because the Warden could be dead, and thus, no OGB, or just flat out refusing the ritual, even if another of the Wardens there can end up dead instead. Andromeda had similar issues, with the caveat that they shot themselves in the foot trying to do too much with the game initially, which wound up meaning that they got a lot less out of it than they could have otherwise. It got hit hard by "Mass Effect is Shepard's story" though. I've listed my experience with one "review" that waited until it was about 45 minutes in, gotta seed that algorithm after all, to state that very claim.

*DA 2 had it's share of problems as well, but was colored out of the gate with "not the Warden". I'm not trying to defend any of the games listed, nor am I trying to tout their awesomeness. Ironically, I have several complete runs of DA I, but have never finished any of the The Witcher games. I bought all three, because I respect what CDPR was doing for gamers, and wanted to show my support of that in order to encourage more of it, and have even pre-ordered CP 2077. I sincerely hope I'll be able to finish this one, but, if I'm going to base my experience with CDPR on their previous titles, I won't be able to. I'll try though, and even if it's not what I'm looking for, I won't refund it, because ultimately, CDPR still puts us first, a lot, and that's worth supporting, even if I'm not a huge fan of what they've done previously.
Posted By: FelLich Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 11/11/20 09:31 PM
GotY is about as useful as the oscars, academy awards, junos and all the other glorified awards in various industries. CDPR is the current darling of the gaming industry but they will inevitably fuck up and will be vilified, rightly or wrongly, from then on just like Bethesda, Ubisoft, 343, Bioware, Blizzard and so forth and so forth. This is the internet, hatred is the currency. Inquisition and Andromeda had some impressively shit development if you look into them, "Bioware Magic" I believe was the term. Andromeda was at best middling and followed-up on what was generally considered a disappointing end to the Mass Effect trilogy. Dragon Age Inquisition was a weird one where, I personally had no problems with it, people just didn't seem to like it as much as previous titles. Dragon Age 2 set the stage though with really bad game design, the whole "not the warden" was a typical internet screech the reality was that game was cobbled up and shot out for a quick buck. This was back when a bunch of the bigger developers got it in their head that they needed to produce their IPs yearly.

Other disappointing "Triple AAA" games can include:
a) Halo 4,5
b) The yearly Call of Duty which only occasional makes large improvements but combine with massive monetization
c) The Battlefield series general decline as well as Battlefront 2's bad launch
d) Kingdom of Amalur. the studio straight up imploded with all its issues
e) No Man's Sky, it has improved but that's because they kept working on it for 4 years to get it to a good state and even then there really isn't a ton to it.
f) Fable 3
g) Deus Ex: Mankind Divided

Something being called Triple A is pretty meaningless and is more an excuse to charge more for less these days. Now some of them are calling their games or studios as Quad A, which truly is a joke. Ubisoft on the other hand continuously delivers what, I believe they themselves call, Double A games which are effectively the same game with a new skin pulled over and yet a lot of people keep buying them, just like sports games.

Ratings, reviews and classifications are all fairly useless these days, don't know why anyone values it. (How is this a feedback thread?)
Originally Posted by FelLich
GotY is about as useful as the oscars, academy awards, junos and all the other glorified awards in various industries. CDPR is the current darling of the gaming industry but they will inevitably fuck up and will be vilified, rightly or wrongly, from then on just like Bethesda, Ubisoft, 343, Bioware, Blizzard and so forth and so forth.


That is true. Eventually a company cannot keep the quality control across all the franchises. CDPR is at its peak now and only future will tell how established they will become.


Originally Posted by FelLich
Ratings, reviews and classifications are all fairly useless these days, don't know why anyone values it. (How is this a feedback thread?)


It is media feedback. They complained about similar things like in this thread (rest mechanics, companions personalities) and endorse that is not just "vocal minority".
Posted By: FelLich Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 12/11/20 12:22 AM
The problem is that it's always the vocal minority. Yes media can influence the silent majority but its not like they actually speak for them. Look at movies and games that get glowing reviews from critics and then fail completely when it comes to the everyday consumer. Most people will just look at something, maybe look into it a bit, then decide if they like it or not and move on. The other thing is a lot gaming journalists are effectively just random people voicing their own opinion on a site that happens to give them more "voice" I suppose. You can say IGN or Forbes gives decent reviews but then there's sites like Kotaku, which I don't know how they exist still. They're not all Jason Schreier, who does investigative journalism rather than games review. It's not like they run polls and interview people for their thoughts on a game. They're just people giving their opinion more loudly than the rest of us.
Posted By: AlanC9 Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 12/11/20 02:42 AM
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Taramafor
Steam sales figures give a better idea because it's the PEOPLE that decide. Not the media. And THEY are the one playing. Most of them at least. The issue there is people can jump on bandwagons and be more "casual". Acting like an ok game is "the best thing ever". When they likely never even touched BG2.

Pro reviews are trash, but so are "ordinary people" mass reviews like on Steam. If every single person playing the game put in a review, then the reviews collectively would have value. If not, then if we at least got a truly representative sample of the people playing the game, that also would be fine. But what we have with mass reviews is a biased sample. And any information you get from a biased sample is the worst possible information. Even having no information at all and simply making an educated guess is better than using information from a biased sample.

Furthermore, the missing information issue cannot be overcome at all even with a good sample. That is to say, what about the people who didn't buy and play the game because they evaluated it and decided they did not like it? They are absolutely a 'no' vote on the game, but don't get "counted" anywhere.


I am not disagreeing... but what follows? What sort of review would actually be of value?

Back in the day, I used to follow Desslock's reviews on GameSpot, for no better reason than that his opinions had a proven track record of matching mine. Is this all we have?
Originally Posted by FelLich
This is the internet, hatred is the currency.




Damn, that's a cold line. Someone could drop some bars around that.
Originally Posted by FelLich
The problem is that it's always the vocal minority. Yes media can influence the silent majority but its not like they actually speak for them. Look at movies and games that get glowing reviews from critics and then fail completely when it comes to the everyday consumer. Most people will just look at something, maybe look into it a bit, then decide if they like it or not and move on.



I would say that Gamespot/IGN are even more influential than before. Larian even referenced IGN in their Twitter account. Of course Streamers have their share, but mainstream media is still influential.
Media can stfu, especially Mainstream/Lamestream Media.

Political correct NewWorldOrder employees will soon face the consequences when their leaders will go to jail.
We will CLEANS THIS WORLD from these wannabe winners.
Posted By: FelLich Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 14/11/20 06:20 AM
Hmm, hmm. Going to have to ask you to tone the social media rhetoric down, this is the Larian forum not reddit, 4chan, twitter, or facebook. That said, the day social media dies, if it ever does, will be a good day.
If you don't even buy the game, you don't play the game. Unless you pirate the game. Which can change minds. And lead to pay.

Basically, people might judge a book by it's cover (for better or for worse). But until you ACTUALLY play a game you can't even have a well informed opinion. Because you didn't play it. You simply avoided it due to an assumption and missing context you have not discovered when playing the game. Unless that game is very very alike to a game you already played. But I don't think we can apply that with BG3. At best all you can really do there is WATCH a game. But WATCHING Markplier play Five Nights at Freddy's is MORE entertaining then ACTUALLY playing it for me. His responses to weird shit happening makes it more fun and entertaining.

Dues Ex human revolution got a 9/10 score. Or a 10/10 score. But the ORIGINAL Deus Ex does some things MUCH better then human revolution. You will also note that in human revolution you have some police at the start of the game but at NO point will they ever fight ANY bad guys outside of purely scripted interactions (and even then they still don't. UNLIKE in the original Deus game where you'll have them fighting in the streets against terrorists.

So anyone giving the human revolution a 10/10 clearly can't see the flaws of where there's room for improvement. If the original game did something better and a game under the same series does it worse and pulls the "They're there but not actually there" move (which is something we too many older games did) then I have to subtract a point for that. If a previous games in the same series did it BETTER then that's a deduction.

But I only know this because I played BOTH games. Especially the original. It has the right "mood". It doesn't feel "Hollywood". It builds up suspense. Lets you feel dread. Hearing from Helios is plain creepy at first. You also had to go against your own team at times. Wherever or not you kill them is up to you. It actually felt like "I discovered something and now they're all after me because I know". And eve your own team won't know because they're simply following orders. And some of them can be convinced to stand down or team up with you.

Man. They don't make them like they used too.
Posted By: Nyloth Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 19/11/20 06:11 AM
Why people talking about Hades here? I mean, it's completely different game, a different level. I mean, I played Hades in first day EA. The game is pretty good for its genre. But it doesn't have anything similar to genre and complexity BG3. You can't have bugs with cutscenes in a game that doesn't have them.

Also gamespot is snowflakes, meh.

‘bobobob my mate is evil!!!! Help!!!! He was rude!!!’

Plz? This is why in some new games I don’t have favorite character. Too much virtue and ponies.
Hades is widely regarded as one of the best game releases this year, so in the context of games that had successful EA processes, Hades is very relevant.

You sound churlish.
Posted By: FelLich Re: Negative media reviews. Bad reputation? - 19/11/20 08:54 PM
Too be fair, not a whole lot has been released this year. The games I'm interested in have all been delayed, some repeatedly. At this point Cyberpunk is the only other RPG I'm waiting on, VTMB2 is in flux, and hype never took a hold on me so expectations are tempered. Can't speak to Hades, but it's definitely not in the same vein as Baldur's Gate, style or gameplay. As for bad games media, look no further than Kotaku, that one, that one hurts to read.

10/10 and even 9/10 are effectively never correct, even games I adore such as Fable or Morrowind had their flaws. Dead Rising is another though the escort ai made murder seem reasonable. Deus Ex Human revolution was a good game, Mankind Divided was a game chopped in half and never completed.
Originally Posted by Taramafor
If the original game did something better and a game under the same series does it worse and pulls the "They're there but not actually there" move (which is something we too many older games did) then I have to subtract a point for that. If a previous games in the same series did it BETTER then that's a deduction.


And this is the case for BG3 in many points. And the trade-off does not justify so far.
© Larian Studios forums