"User reviews" are no longer reliable for PC games, now it's just agenda bullshit - Games

[QUOTE=krail9;28780546]I honestly can't believe that anyone who says this has actually played the game. The graphics are great, and although it's not much in the way of storyline I've got more enjoyment out of the $30 crysis warhead than many premium priced games combined :colbert: All that aside, I was surprised to see crysis 2 got a positive score from IGN, I expected a load of 'hurp derp COD copy' garbage. But I too will reserve my opinion on it till I've played it.[/QUOTE] You pretty much repeated what I had said. Crysis 1's visuals were stunning, but the gameplay and story was really devoid of any substance. I distinctly remember being fascinated for the first 20 minutes of gameplay, and then I rapidly got more and more bored. I could go into a detailed breakdown of why I think the game didn't hold up so well, but Eh.

[QUOTE=markfu;28780656]if you make a game too similar, people will cry out that you're just copying (ex. CoD, MoH, BF, etc.)[/quote] CoD was stale the moment MW2 was released. Medal of Honour series got progressively worse as time went on until it eventually became a CoD Clone, Battlefield went bad at Bad Company 1. In the case of CoD, it was just an uninvolving game that largely just played itself and was popamole. In the case of MoH it was changed for the worse with every game. In the case of Battlefield it changed dramatically and became bad. [quote]for other games, if you try to change one thing pc gamers will tear it apart (DA2, DX: HR, Fallout, etc.) Its a ridiculous double standard that no game company will ever be able to avoid when developing for the PC market.[/quote] As I gather, DA2 is a pretty piss poor sequel to an already pretty bad franchise, I believe people were complaining not because it was a change, but because it was a change for the worse. DE:HR is an example of a change for the worse too, seems like it's going to strip down a bunch of elements that were in Deus Ex 1 and deliver poor map design while it's at it too, rather than improve upon the old and add more complexity to it all. Complaining about the transition from Fallout 2 to 3 is so damn legitimate, especially considering 3 was also a bad game as well as being a very bad RPG, wouldn't have been an issue if they didn't call it Fallout 3, because it's not a Fallout game. [quote]While the constant nitpicking by the PC community does help make better games, I just hate the self-entitled attitude that most of them have.[/QUOTE] There's a fair bit of nitpicking that goes on (it's obvious when), but far too often legitimate complaints are dismissed as nitpicking when in fact they are not. [editline]24th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=markfu;28780683]Also the number system is stupid. How can you give a game a 10/10? There's no such thing as perfect. I don't understand why so many people use it.[/QUOTE] 10 does not mean perfection, it means exceptional.

[QUOTE=Riutet;28780756]Complaining about the transition from Fallout 2 to 3 is so damn legitimate, especially considering 3 was also a bad game as well as being a very bad RPG, wouldn't have been an issue if they didn't call it Fallout 3, because it's not a Fallout game. [/QUOTE] I'm sorry, I can't take you seriously after reading that.

[QUOTE=Riutet;28780756]CoD was stale the moment MW2 was released. Medal of Honour series got progressively worse as time went on until it eventually became a CoD Clone, Battlefield went bad at Bad Company 1.[/quote] CoD was stale around the release of CoD4, stop trying to blame MW2 for all the problems that game has. CoD4 was equally stale, sure it was partially more balanced, but it was the same shit, all day, every day. There was no real variety in the gameplay. The storyline was linear, interesting, but linear. Oh, and Bad Company was never meant to be a real battlefield game, good job looking like an idiot :downs: DICE basically admitted it was a spin off to please the console fan-base that can't play newer titles. They know it isn't a real battlefield and they didn't even try to make it one. [QUOTE=Riutet;28780756]In the case of CoD, it was just an uninvolving game that largely just played itself and was popamole. In the case of MoH it was changed for the worse with every game. In the case of Battlefield it changed dramatically and became bad.[/quote] You mean like almost every shooter in existence? There are very few games that actually get the user more involved than "Press x to do y". And in the case of MoH, the developers have to try new things or they risk CoDitis, where their game becomes the same thing every release with no variety. And like in my previous point, bad Company was never meant to be a real Battlefield, stop using it as a reason for Battlefield become "shit" (hint: it won't, BC/ BC2 were great games in their own rights). [QUOTE=Riutet;28780756]As I gather, DA2 is a pretty piss poor sequel to an already pretty bad franchise, I believe people were complaining not because it was a change, but because it was a change for the worse. DE:HR is an example of a change for the worse too, seems like it's going to strip down a bunch of elements that were in Deus Ex 1 and deliver poor map design while it's at it too, rather than improve upon the old and add more complexity to it all. Complaining about the transition from Fallout 2 to 3 is so damn legitimate, especially considering 3 was also a bad game as well as being a very bad RPG, wouldn't have been an issue if they didn't call it Fallout 3, because it's not a Fallout game.[/quote] DE: HR changed to apply to the modern gaming market. [B]All[/B] games change to apply to the modern market. Deus Ex was broken in terms of gameplay, the stats system was nice, but it was fuck annoying at the very start of the game to not be able to kill or subdue anything without having to jump through hoops. It is a big turnoff for new players when the very first level is piss hard. Oh and we've only seen the intro/ tutorial level, once again, stop talking shit about things you don't know about yet. Fallout 2 to Fallout 3. You are joking right? The development team was an entirely different company, of fucking course it is going to be different you muppet. Once again, it was a game changing to apply to the modern market. Games cannot sit and fester in the late 90's or early 00's. There are so many problems with the logic of "games shouldn't change as they get worse" is is unreal. Fallout 3 may not have been a 1 or 2, but it was good in its own rights, once again. And yes, it is a fallout game, stop being such a prissy little asshole about it. Developers can change what makes their game what without your consent you do know this right? [QUOTE=Riutet;28780756]There's a fair bit of nitpicking that goes on (it's obvious when), but far too often legitimate complaints are dismissed as nitpicking when in fact they are not.[/quote] Mostly legitimate complaints in reviews are good, if someone does call it nitpicking then they are usually a overly pleas-able person. But that isn't really a bad thing, as some people like to over-emphasize problems from small and insignificant, to game break (hint: you do). [QUOTE=Riutet;28780756]10 does not mean perfection, it means exceptional.[/QUOTE] Damn right, this is the only part of your post that doesn't reek biased dumb.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;28780942]CoD was stale around the release of CoD4, stop trying to blame MW2 for all the problems that game has. CoD4 was equally stale, sure it was partially more balanced, but it was the same shit, all day, every day. There was no real variety in the gameplay. The storyline was linear, interesting, but linear.[/quote] Actually the series was stale at 3, CoD4 felt fresh for a short while, MW2 was sobering. [quote]Oh, and Bad Company was never meant to be a real battlefield game, good job looking like an idiot :downs: DICE basically admitted it was a spin off to please the console fan-base that can't play newer titles. They know it isn't a real battlefield and they didn't even try to make it one.[/quote] Wasn't arguing that the Battlefield series had became shit for good, just that the recent additions to it are poor. I'm aware Bad Company was not intended to be similar to 2, 1942 or what 3 is aiming for, the series was still worse off quality wise in BC1/2. [quote]You mean like almost every shooter in existence? There are very few games that actually get the user more involved than "Press x to do y". And in the case of MoH, the developers have to try new things or they risk CoDitis, where their game becomes the same thing every release with no variety. And like in my previous point, bad Company was never meant to be a real Battlefield, stop using it as a reason for Battlefield become "shit" (hint: it won't, BC/ BC2 were great games in their own rights).[/quote] I agree that MoH needed to change, just the changes being made were consistently poor. I sometimes wish CoD would try to be more than it is, because there's just so much content in that game and none of it is being put to proper use. [quote]DE: HR changed to apply to the modern gaming market. [B]All[/B] games change to apply to the modern market.[/quote] So an "acceptable" dumbing down of mechanics to make as many people as possible feel welcome? [quote]Deus Ex was broken in terms of gameplay, the stats system was nice, but it was fuck annoying at the very start of the game to not be able to kill or subdue anything without having to jump through hoops. It is a big turnoff for new players when the very first level is piss hard.[/quote] But you're wrong, Deus Ex worked great gameplay wise, just if you go in expecting a straight shooter and not an FPSRPG it's easy to be taken aback by you being more limited to the ability of your player character. Which is a fault of the user more than it is the game, I think there should have been a second tutorial explaining it in more depth because of the sheer number of people who just didn't get it. [quote]Oh and we've only seen the intro/ tutorial level, once again, stop talking shit about things you don't know about yet.[/quote] No we haven't, we've been shown some lengthy shooter sequences at various conventions. You seriously don't remember the part where he takes out 2 guys with one cutscene attack? Or the bit where he takes out like, 5 guys with that ground pound. [quote]Fallout 2 to Fallout 3. You are joking right? The development team was an entirely different company, of fucking course it is going to be different you muppet.[/quote] And therein lies the issue, became a bad action-rpg with worthless stats, Beth's forte. [quote]Once again, it was a game changing to apply to the modern market. Games cannot sit and fester in the late 90's or early 00's.[/quote] Once again, it was a serious dumbing down. [quote]There are so many problems with the logic of "games shouldn't change as they get worse" is is unreal.[/quote] Now you're just putting words into my mouth, change can be VERY good when done correctly. If Beth had managed to make a Fallout game that stayed true to the originals, while expanding upon them hugely and giving them modern graphics, that would have been great. But they didn't, they mangled the game mechanics, raped the lore, and produced a game that's only relation to the previous games is in name and setting. [quote]Fallout 3 may not have been a 1 or 2, but it was good in its own rights, once again. And yes, it is a fallout game, stop being such a prissy little asshole about it.[/quote] Only in name. :smug: [quote]Developers can change what makes their game what without your consent you do know this right?[/quote] Just because they can change a game they happen to own the IP rights to, doesn't mean what they produce is going to be something that can still be called a game from the same series. [quote]Mostly legitimate complaints in reviews are good, if someone does call it nitpicking then they are usually a overly pleas-able person. But that isn't really a bad thing, as some people like to over-emphasize problems from small and insignificant, to game break (hint: you do).[/quote] "but far too often legitimate complaints are dismissed as nitpicking when in fact they are not." (hint: you do this)

Damn right about how DA2 doesn't deserve that low user-review score. But oh well, what can you do about it.

[QUOTE=Tea Guy;28773480]Sadly, the customer is always right.[/QUOTE] Only a select few are right, the rest are biased retards.

Do what I do and ask fellow FPers what they think of a game before buying it.

About the only reviewer I read (listen/watch) and mostly agree with is Yahtzee.

[QUOTE=Rong;28781480]Damn right about how DA2 doesn't deserve that low user-review score. But oh well, what can you do about it.[/QUOTE] On a scale from 7 to 10, how good do you think DA2 is?

Except in Crysis 2 and DA2's case it's completely warranted. Also, Crysis Warhead was completely linear and boring as sin.

[QUOTE=Lizzrd;28782260]On a scale from 7 to 10, how good do you think DA2 is?[/QUOTE] 8. Almost 9.

Best way to know if a game is good? Trying it out before buying it. Some way, like renting it or borrowing it from someone or something of the sort. You just can't trust user reviews and criticism anymore, since everyone is biased. As soon as they see something they dislike, in Crysis 2 for example the fact that it wasn't released with the editor or DX10/11 capable, they will bash the game completly. For example, games that had and have huge actual gamebreaking problems like bugs and performance issues and such things sometimes get alot of praise. On the other hand, other games, such as the new Crysis 2 as I said, will suffer for colateral things that either don't make a HUGE difference, things that dont even get in your way, or things that have little to do with the game. Then theres the best of all... For example, people cry and cry that Crysis 1 is completly different from the second. That the second completly disses the first. Fun fact, is that a huge ammount of people sometimes rage over games that are the same exact thing compared to their predecessors. One good example of this is the newer CoD's, where people say their all the same shit, just with a different timeline and story to them. Crysis does the complete opposite of this, changes lots of things, and people still rage... Not to mention people are dumb as hell. Some try to find ANY stupid looking argument or thing that they don't like about a game, and slap it on it despite being the most retarded, stupid little thing that you could ever completly drop a game for. And from what I see, people are also blind. They say Crysis 2 has graphics worse then Crysis 1. Fun fact, Crysis 2 is running only on DX9 (for now). Crysis 1 and Warhead was always run on DX10, and even then, it doesn't looks as good as the new one, at least IMO. Not to mention the fact that it runs ALOT better then the first and Warhead ever did and ever will. Kinda drifted off here... Point is, never trust user reviews. Its based on their OWN raw rage filled opinions most of the times and provide no true insight about the product.

[QUOTE=Lizzrd;28782260]On a scale from 7 to 10, how good do you think DA2 is?[/QUOTE] 8.95 exactly, rounding up 9.

[QUOTE=Lizzrd;28782260]On a scale from 7 to 10, how good do you think DA2 is?[/QUOTE] 6

[QUOTE=dass;28782667]Best way to know if a game is good? Trying it out before buying it. Some way, like renting it or borrowing it from someone or something of the sort. [/QUOTE] Or a demo at least.

I firmly believe majority of the good reviews for games like call of duty are simply paid for by the publisher. And the problem with most games getting bad ratings is either from bullshit reviews or jaded mainstream gamers who think Call of Duty is the greatest game in the world.

Why should you care what others think? Your own opinion is the one that matters.

I write reviews for PC Games, and I'd like to think my reviews are reliable and informative... [url=http://www.ciao.co.uk/Homefront_PC__Review_5965183]Homefront (PC) Review[/url] [url=http://www.ciao.co.uk/Bulletstorm_PC__Review_5962206]Bulletstorm (PC) Review[/url] [url=http://www.ciao.co.uk/F_E_A_R_PC__Review_5960971]F.E.A.R (PC) Review[/url]. Reviews are very opinionated by nature. A persons opinion is rarely reliable against your own, and when it is, there will be differences in your opinion.

I usually read multiple sources and then watch gameplay videos. I enjoy Half Life:Blue Shift, but apparently everyone else hates it :v: So I say fuck em.

I think customer reviews are less forgiving, which is a good thing. Unlike big name reviewers like IGN, only truly great games get good ratings. For example, a true video game masterpiece like Mass Effect 2 has an amazing score despite having 400 user reviews. [url]http://www.amazon.com/Mass-Effect-2-Xbox-360/dp/B001TORSII/ref=sr_1_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1300988158&sr=1-1[/url] Just because you like a game doesn't mean it is good, you shouldn't get all upset when the majority of people dislike it.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;28784388]I think customer reviews are less forgiving, which is a good thing.[/QUOTE] Nobody's denying that. It's just that most user reviews tend to be less fair and more 'this game is the best game in the last 20 years and the next 30 years, here's why' or 'this game is a horrendous pile of shit and anyone who likes it is a dumb retard with no taste, here's why'.

I get my reviews from two sources. 1. People I know. 2. Forums.

I don't read reviews at all because I don't want to spoil anything and I don't want somenoe elses opinion stuck in my head before I even try the game.

I rarely read reviews, but I try to watch gameplay videos before purchasing a game.

Bioware makes great examples of these elitist tards all the time. Granted, DA2 was pretty sub-par at best by Bioware standards, and I guess I could kind of see why people would be pissed off about the unsubtle DLC milking and cash-cow of a poorly-designed Facebook game, but things like ME2 make me laugh. "Oh, you like ME2? Haha, what a sheep, just following what your professional reviewer and game award masters tell you. Go play Call of Duty or Halo or one of Bioware's clones of those. I'm going to go pirate every mainstream game ever released because, of course, any game that gets mainstream "awards" is clearly an overhyped piece of unoriginal garbage. Fuck you Bioware, I'm boycotting you and together with my PC master race brethren, we will destroy you by boycotting you despite the fact that we will probably end up buying your games anyways! :smug::smug::smug:" In fact, take a look at [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RULv6HbgEjY&t=6m16s]this bit from a video here[/url]. Basically, the dude just decides that his video shouldn't be completely devoid of bullshit and decides to say "If you own Xbox or PS3, get the fuck off my channel you're part of the problem." and that "PC games used to be special :downs:". You want to talk about being melodramatic about video games, look no further than the cesspool of egotists and ironic hipsters that is the PC elitist community. The worst part is that it paints [i]every[/i] PC gamer as an elitist, which doesn't really help our reputation much.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;28784930]I rarely read reviews, but I try to watch gameplay videos before purchasing a game.[/QUOTE] Reviews are nothing but opinions, like I explained to guy that rated me funny here in the Dragon Age II thread, don't use others' opinions to create own, create them by playing the actual games. A game may suck to you, but not for others and vice-versa. That's why I don't give a crap about the user reviews on Metacritic on DAII, because most of them are bashing for what the game is, or isn't, or what it should be. And the ones that are not bashing, get bashed anyway. The game is fun for me, shouldn't be that enough [b]for me?[/b]

It goes both ways, people rate games you don't like well and games you love poorly. Deal w/ it and stop caring about what other people care about video games.

thats some shit

Both company and user are biased... You just need to see a bunch of them to see an "in between"