Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 10 of 13 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 13
Joined: May 2014
M
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
M
Joined: May 2014
I did on the last page when he was taking about people personally attacking him here:

http://i.imgur.com/OR0N0kj.png

Yes, my opinion and suspicions are rather harsh, but we've seen that behavior all before, and if he is a "professional" as he claims to be his attitude there... would not be the attitude he adopted.

I don't have time to pull up his "I am being victimized" posts.

Last edited by MindlessAutomata; 13/07/14 05:01 PM.
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by Kriss

1) Like Mass Effect 3 all you want, but objectively speaking it's not a 99/100 game or RPG.

There is no objectivity in reviewing a game. As I said before, I couldn't care less whether it's even an RPG or not. It's not the purpose or goal of a review to evaluate whether a game is an RPG or part of any othr genre or not. You can come to the conclusion that Mass Effect 3 is a great game but not a great RPG. So what? Devalueing it because it's not a great RPG and the game has to be a great RPG no matter if it's just a fun and entertaining game? Ahem, no...

Quote
2) Yeah, they wouldn't be apparent in a shill review.

What wouldn't be apparent?

Quote

3) The fact that they were done by different people doesn't matter at all, reviews have to carry some air of objectivity, reviewing something means to critique it, not to just post if you like it or not.

No, not at all. Reviews are pure subjectivity. They can list features but ANY evaluation whether they are fun alone or as a package is just the opinion of a single reviewer.

Quote
4) "The everything is an opinion argument"
I wish people who use this argument were never allowed on the internet. No, in fact a lot of things carry objective value such as plot structure, gameplay elements, graphics, environmental diversity, encounter design etc. Games can and should be judged comparatively, as objectively as possible by critical individuals, otherwise there is no difference between a professional review, and someone's Tumblr page.

Games are more than a list of features, that's what you have to understand. A game can have a great list of features which all sound great on paper. That doesn't matter much if the game just doesn't make any fun. And the opposite can be true as well: there are games that sound only meh on paper but once you play them you are engaged and entertained, sometimes just because ONE feature is done right in such a good way that you personally enjoy a game. That is - sorry - highly subjective, whether you want to accept that or not. The only reason to compare games is to give an interested reader a better impression of how a game could play or function but there is no reason at all to compare games each other based on scores or verdicts (which are bollocks after all).

Quote
5) An affinity isn't needed, a familiarity with the genre, it's conventions and understanding what fans of the genre like and expect is needed.

A review is not there to checkt whether expactations of fans are met or not. That's not even possible since each individual person can have very different expactation when it comes to games.

Quote
6) They changed their policies, ok, so their old reviews won't be changed to reflect this, even for high profile games? Talk about a lack of journalistic integrity.

You can make everything bad if you want to. But acknowledging that you maybe made a mistake in the past by using a "flawed" scale for your reviews should be ignored if they played by your books? Is it better to stick to a flawed scale for reviews just to keep the "journalistic integrity". No not at all, because journalistic integrity is exactly the opposite. It's a sign of journalistic ingerity if you are honest about your own mistakes and try to actively improve on them.

Quote
7) I agree, there is nothing wrong with a late review, but when your reviews go up on metacritic, which you know full well has influence in the industry it means you should strive to judge games fairly, after all, review scores serve a purpose, that is to compare games, because they aren't isolated, they exist in an industry and the only way of knowing if game X is better than Y is to play and judge for yourself, or in an ideal world have actual critics, and not teenagers who can't even be objective about anything.

How is that not fairly? If they reviewed D3 at releast the game might have gotten a lower score which might have attracted less people to the game. But apparently they enjoyed the game a lot a few months after release. So why not giving it a high score? A late high score "upgrades" the metacritic score but only at a late time which is exactly how it actually should be. The problem is the other way round. Low initial scores based on problems with games just after release can be outdated sooon. But then again that's the fault of both metacritic AND the developers who released buggy games. It's not the task of the gaming press to reward for endeavours. That would be a truly dishonest take on reviews.

Quote
8) I agree, meta critic should never have the influence it does, but it has it, and if reviewers continue to ignore it, and continue shilling for that all important marketing $$$, the industry will never change. Luckily kickstarter came along and several experienced development studios managed to get funding to make video games, not committee designed hamburgers like Mass Effect 3.

There is nothing wrong with hamburgers...

Reviewers don't ignore metacritic, not at all. But you want them to ignore their own journalistic integrity or their own opinion just to have an impact on a metacritic average to give somebody "a message"? You just want them to agree on your dogmatic view that modern games are crap (just because you don't like them) and old-school games are great (because you like them). That's not how reviewing works and that has nothing to do with metacritic.



@Mindless Automata
You were not harsh, you were just rude and offensive (I read the whole Steam topic). You can call yourself lucky that he even answered you at all with the behaviour you've shown there....

Last edited by LordCrash; 13/07/14 05:08 PM.

WOOS
Joined: Jun 2014
K
member
Offline
member
K
Joined: Jun 2014
Originally Posted by LordCrash
*snip*

Are you at any point going to have an argument apart from "everything is an opinion and all reviews should always be subjective and objectivity is a lie".
Because, according to you, reviews are completely meaningless and worthless, also you misunderstood half of what I wrote, due maybe in part to the way I wrote it, regardless, honest question, are you at any point going to own to the fact that things are quantifiable and if reviewers ignore this, they are shit at their job.
[Linked Image]
Or should I simply leave the thread and save myself the hassle?
also yes, when a game is compromised in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator, it is generally of lesser quality, than when it is kept high quality for the sake or artistry and respect for the consumer

Last edited by Kriss; 13/07/14 05:24 PM.
Joined: Mar 2014
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2014
Originally Posted by LordCrash

There is no objectivity in reviewing a game.

hahaha

Mass market dronism at its best and most obvious.

Originally Posted by Kriss
Originally Posted by LordCrash
*snip*

Are you at any point going to have an argument apart from "everything is an opinion and all reviews should always be subjective and objectivity is a lie".
Because, according to you, reviews are completely meaningless and worthless, also you misunderstood half of what I wrote, due maybe in part to the way I wrote it, regardless, honest question, are you at any point going to own to the fact that things are quantifiable and if reviewers ignore this, they are shit at their job.
[Linked Image]
Or should I simply leave the thread and save myself the hassle?
also yes, when a game is compromised in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator, it is generally of lesser quality, than when it is kept high quality for the sake or artistry and respect for the consumer


word.

Same as in everything really. Not just games.

Joined: Jun 2014
K
member
Offline
member
K
Joined: Jun 2014
Originally Posted by Hiver

word.

Same as in everything really. Not just games.

Yup, sad thing indeed, you know we live in a fucked up world when critic means marketer and where the main bulk of consumers of a given form of media are completely braindead, spineless drones.

Joined: May 2014
L
member
Offline
member
L
Joined: May 2014
This whole crusade against anyone who doesn't rate the game higher than 8/10 is rather jarring.

Joined: Apr 2013
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Apr 2013
While some do seem to be arguing that point, others are simply disagreeing with the integrity/quality of a review, not so much the score they give (not to say those two don't necessarily go hand-in-hand).

Joined: Jul 2014
G
stranger
Offline
stranger
G
Joined: Jul 2014
Cross-posted from Steam:

Well, I have bad news. Metacritic is refusing to pull the review. They have the aforementioned long-standing policy that somebody pasted in earlier that flat out refuses to pull a review, even in the case of a mistake. When we publish our updated review it'll reflect the appropriate score, but Metacritic will continue to punish Larian. I've reached out to Metacritic, but I sincerely doubt that it'll change anything.

I accept full responsibility for this and have already reached out to the team with my apologies. We will do whatever we can to make it right on our end, and we will tighten up our safeguards to prevent this from happening in the future.

Thanks to the folks who recognize that we are trying to do the right thing.

Joined: Mar 2013
T
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
T
Joined: Mar 2013
Originally Posted by LordofBones
This whole crusade against anyone who doesn't rate the game higher than 8/10 is rather jarring.


After all of the detailed points that have been made in this thread as to why people are upset with the reviews, you seriously are going to claim that?

Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by Kriss
Originally Posted by LordCrash
*snip*

Are you at any point going to have an argument apart from "everything is an opinion and all reviews should always be subjective and objectivity is a lie".

No, because that's what a review is at its core. Of course it can and should offer insight in the mechanics of a game (that's why I said that there can be "technical failures" in a review based on a wrong presentation of features or facts) and what is offered in a game. But the final verdict of a review - which is quantified in a score - , the question whether a game is fun or not regardless of all its mechanics, elements and genre conventions is a pure subjective assessment. So you can even criticise a game like Mass Effect 3 a lot for features you don't like or you think could be improved but that doesn't necessarily change the overall enjoyment you have while playing the game.

Quote
Because, according to you, reviews are completely meaningless and worthless,

If you think that the opinion of other people is in general completely meaningless and worthless, then yes, indeed. But in fact the "value" of a review is that you probably know the preferences and tastes of the given reviewer and therefore you can evaluate whether your own entertainment might coincidence with the entertainment of the reviewer or not.

Quote
also you misunderstood half of what I wrote, due maybe in part to the way I wrote it,

I love generalizations...

Quote
regardless, honest question, are you at any point going to own to the fact that things are quantifiable and if reviewers ignore this, they are shit at their job.

They are shit at their job if they think a game review is the same thing as a product review and that's it. Like every other medium a video game is a work of art that can appeal to someone or not. It's not a product that "has to work" in a certain predefined way. There are "broken features" which mean that they don't work like intended. Mass Effect 3 doesn't even have one such feature tbh.

Quote
[Linked Image]
Or should I simply leave the thread and save myself the hassle?

Maybe you should. Nothing I could say will change your mind anyway I guess.

Quote
also yes, when a game is compromised in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator, it is generally of lesser quality, than when it is kept high quality for the sake or artistry and respect for the consumer

There is a risk indeed. You can nevertheless enjoy such a "mainstream" game and give it a high score if it's exactly what you want to play. There is nothing wrong with that.


WOOS
Joined: Jun 2014
K
member
Offline
member
K
Joined: Jun 2014
Originally Posted by LordCrash
There is a risk indeed. You can nevertheless enjoy such a "mainstream" game and give it a high score if it's exactly what you want to play. There is nothing wrong with that.

There is a lot wrong with that, to an extreme (mainstream games generally have payed reviews), when you give a game which was compromised in order to appeal a high score, and you give a game which has actual thought put into it's design and respects the player as someone with a functional brain a low score.
Do I really have to explain this to someone? Reviews dictate public opinion, 90% of all reviews are purchased marketing, those that aren't are generally given much lower scores, despite the objective superior aspects of the genuine game.
Given that reviews dictate public opinion, they also dictate the perception of publishers which have a role to fund games, they will refuse to fund games with lower scores, because the public doesn't like them as much, because the reviews aren't as glowing.
So we get less good games, this is why the industry was nearly creatively dead up until kickstarter shined a light of hope on us, which was promptly tarnished due to scammers, which made the internet collectively go "lol kickstarter game, must be a scam".
Cause and effect chief, start living in the real world.

Last edited by Kriss; 13/07/14 06:53 PM.
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by Kriss
Originally Posted by LordCrash
There is a risk indeed. You can nevertheless enjoy such a "mainstream" game and give it a high score if it's exactly what you want to play. There is nothing wrong with that.

There is a lot wrong with that, to an extreme (mainstream games generally have payed reviews), when you give a game which was compromised in order to appeal a high score

"Compromised"? Offering a certain set of features is not compromising anything, it's just offering a certain set of features. Just because you don't like a certain set of features doesn't make it objectively wrong. Just stop trying to push your opinion about ME3 or other games on everyone, like everyone had to hate these games just because you decided so.

Quote
Reviews dictate public opinion, 90% of all reviews are purchased marketing

Stopped reading there. I don't think our discussion makes any sense anymore. Discussions with conspiracist are imo pointless in general, sry. Believe whatever you want to believe. You're entertaining but only to a certain extend, so let's stop here.

Last edited by LordCrash; 13/07/14 06:56 PM.

WOOS
Joined: Jun 2014
K
member
Offline
member
K
Joined: Jun 2014
Originally Posted by LordCrash

"Compromised"? Offering a different set of features is not compromising anything, it's just offering a different set of features.
No, removing features is compromising, simplifying the gameplay in order to appeal to more and more brainless consumers is compromising.

[quote=LordCrash]
Stopped reading there. I don't think our discussion makes any sense anymore. Discussions with conspiracist are imo pointless in general, sry. Believe whatever you want to believe, I won't stop you.

If you think that that was tin foil talk, you must be completely ignorant of the real world buddy.

Last edited by Kriss; 13/07/14 07:00 PM.
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by Kriss

If you think that that was tin foil talk, you must be completely ignorant of the real world buddy.

I could say the same about you (even though I don't know what "fin foil talk" is). But it's pointless anyway.

Last edited by LordCrash; 13/07/14 06:58 PM.

WOOS
Joined: Jun 2014
K
member
Offline
member
K
Joined: Jun 2014
Originally Posted by LordCrash
Originally Posted by Kriss

If you think that that was tin foil talk, you must be completely ignorant of the real world buddy.

I could say the same about you (even though I don't know what "fin foil talk" is). But it's pointless anyway.

No, seriously, do you not understand how businesses work?

Joined: Apr 2013
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Apr 2013
Tin foil = conspiracy nuts.

[Linked Image]

Joined: Apr 2010
S
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
S
Joined: Apr 2010
Wow, what a clusterfuck. O_O

At least the folks at Gaming Trend are trying to make it up. I didn't read the review, anyone have a link? Pretty retarded Metacritic won't pull the score. It's a flawed site anyway and it's a shame the industry treats it like the gold standard.

Last edited by slimgrin; 13/07/14 07:04 PM.
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by Kriss
Originally Posted by LordCrash
Originally Posted by Kriss

If you think that that was tin foil talk, you must be completely ignorant of the real world buddy.

I could say the same about you (even though I don't know what "fin foil talk" is). But it's pointless anyway.

No, seriously, do you not understand how businesses work?

No, do YOU not understand what I'm actually talking about? Why do you still bothering me after you clearly presented yourself as some conspirasist? I don't discuss with conspirasist in general since it's pointless and neverending.

If you're not able to talk about the topic at hand (the nature of a video game review) there is not even a theoretical point in continuing this discussion. Try to missionize somebody else, please, whom you can impress with your theories about decline and conspiracy (I suggest RPGcodex if you want to find a lot of likeminded people). I'm tired of that crap...


But just for your information: I've studied business. I know exactly how it works.


WOOS
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by slimgrin
Wow, what a clusterfuck. O_O

At least the folks at Gaming Trend are trying to make it up. I didn't read the review, anyone have a link? Pretty retarded Metacritic won't pull the score. It's a flawed site anyway and it's a shame the industry treats it like the gold standard.


Well, it's not only the industry. Customers/gamers use metacritic and it's mainly their "fault". It's their demand for an "average score" that drives this site. Without people clicking on metacritic every day it wouldn't have much significance... wink


WOOS
Joined: Jun 2014
K
member
Offline
member
K
Joined: Jun 2014
Originally Posted by LordCrash
Originally Posted by Kriss
Originally Posted by LordCrash
Originally Posted by Kriss

If you think that that was tin foil talk, you must be completely ignorant of the real world buddy.

I could say the same about you (even though I don't know what "fin foil talk" is). But it's pointless anyway.

No, seriously, do you not understand how businesses work?

No, do YOU not understand what I'm actually talking about? Why do you still bothering me after you clearly presented yourself as some conspirasist? I don't discuss with conspirasist in general since it's pointless and neverending.

If you're not able to talk about the topic at hand (the nature of a video game review) there is not even a theoretical point in continuing this discussion. Try to missionize somebody else, please, whom you can impress with your theories about decline and conspiracy (I suggest RPGcodex if you want to find a lot of likeminded people). I'm tired of that crap...


But just for your information: I've studied business. I know exactly how it works.

Obviously not, because you're suggesting that a common practice in the entertainment industry, intended to drive sales up, known to drive sales up and that can easily be observed (firing someone for a bad review of a game you're displaying ads for, giving a known bad game good reviews while displaying ads for it, reviewers getting free stuff non-stop, Dorito Pope, etc.) is some conspiracy talk.
Common business practices in the entertainment industry are conspiracy talk... This is some of the most ignorant stuff I've read online, and I've been to reddit, abandoning thread, have a nice day.
[Linked Image]

Last edited by Kriss; 13/07/14 07:13 PM.
Page 10 of 13 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 13

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5