blackcerberus Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I love review threads it brings fond memories of my times spent arguing with fanbois when AoC got an 87 and WAR an 88 I also love the superiority that it gives me knowing that I was right twice in the past, and this time it wont be any different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hushups Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 PCGamer giving this game a 93/100 changes everything. I now like this game and will sign up for a 1 year subscription. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackcerberus Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) I think I missed how the vocal minority bashing a game while the majority of players are busy quietly playing the game is "pure win." Biased review is biased, and biased review means absolutely nothing compared to legitimate reviews. so according to you, people who not get paid by the publisher to score a game are biased, and people who do are legit? if you want bribes become a game reviewer and you will get more than you can ever dream of. Edited January 4, 2012 by Meluna content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreadpirateandy Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) so according to you, people who not get paid by the publisher to score a game are biased, and people who do are legit? if you want bribes become a game reviewer and you will get more than you can ever dream of. According to me, accusing reviews that you disagree with of taking bribes doesn't actually make it a fact. Also according to me, attacking me instead of discussing the topic doesn't make you right, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Edited January 4, 2012 by Meluna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kantoro Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 It is fairly common for big companies to pay people to talk nice about their games. All of the large gaming sites are paid off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yfelsung Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I love review threads it brings fond memories of my times spent arguing with fanbois when AoC got an 87 and WAR an 88 I also love the superiority that it gives me knowing that I was right twice in the past, and this time it wont be any different. I'm curious as to what your definition of "right" is, considering both WAR and AoC are still monetarily successful for their publishers, both are still receiving patches regularly and have happy player bases. Being a niche game doesn't mean you failed or that you deserve a low rating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreadpirateandy Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) It is fairly common for big companies to pay people to talk nice about their games. All of the large gaming sites are paid off. Conspiracy theories and tinfoil hats are entertaining, but with no facts to back you up, you're doing nothing but lying. Edited January 4, 2012 by dreadpirateandy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 PCGamer giving this game a 93/100 changes everything. I now like this game and will sign up for a 1 year subscription. On second thought. I agree with this guy. Sign me up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granrick Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Yeah, the same magazine that awarded Dragon Age 2 a 93%, lol. It's one of the most publisher *** licking magazines in all the known universe. It's sad because it used to be better. I loved Dragon Age 2. My only complaint was recycled graphics assets, everything else I thought was brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xcontentia Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 To many bugs to be a above 80% rated game imo.. Having fun with pvp..please make brackets and diverse the 50 from 1-49.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sznur Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Actually, if you group all of the games with their expansions, SWTOR is #7. Look, I can play with lists too! Just because you can word it to make it sound bad doesn't mean a damn thing. Oh, oh! Here's another one! The list is out of 200 games, and SWTOR is #15 overall. That means it's in the top 10% of games that were rated! In fact, it's in the top 7.5% of games that were rated. That means that SWTOR is better than 92.5% of games that they rate. Yeah its number 7, my bad. Congratulations are in order I suppose, I mean 4 places higher and it would get a bronze medal ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QDMcGraw Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 This is why I look at Meta-Critic. They have pro and amateur reviews on there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logiick Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) According to me, accusing reviews that you disagree with of taking bribes doesn't actually make it a fact. No. The fact that it's fact, makes it a fact. Do people really think that these companies wouldn't pay reviewers to highly rate them for advertising? >Pay. ADVERTISING. Answer me this; How many times have you played a game rated terribly and it was incredible fun? Now how many times have you played a game rated highly and it was a major disappointment? Edited January 4, 2012 by Logiick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreadpirateandy Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Yeah its number 7, my bad. Congratulations are in order I suppose, I mean 4 places higher and it would get a bronze medal ! Haha case in point. But very good, that one made me laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameirus Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Conspiracy theories and tinfoil hats are entertaining, but with no facts to back you up, you're doing nothing but lying. its just real politik. game sites rely on sneek peaks and pre-releases and insider interviews to do their job. If they piss off the big companies like EA, they dont get them, so they cant compete with other sites/mags. hence games from big publishers always get high reviews scores. It could be a donkey turd of a game, it will get 80%+, moderately good games get low 90%. Good review sites work round this by doing topic specific scores, and overall scores with the topic specific scores generally more believable, and the over all score to keep the publisher happy and give them something to brag about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inseeisyou Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) Customer is always right. Gamespot User Score Average, Star Wars: The Old Republic: 8.7 (http://www.gamespot.com/star-wars-the-old-republic) Gamespot User Score Average, World of Warcraft: Cataclysm: 8.0 (http://www.gamespot.com/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm) Customer is always right indeed! Oh, did you mean only the certain statistics you cherry picked because they agree with your own personal viewpoint? Or, uh? Uh? I can hear the backpedaling through my screen. Edited January 4, 2012 by inseeisyou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreadpirateandy Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 No. The fact that it's fact, makes it a fact. Do people really think that these companies wouldn't pay reviews to highly rate them for advertising? Answer me this; How many times have you played a game rated terribly and it was incredible fun? Now how many times have you played a game rated highly and it was a major disappointment? See, the problem here is you think it's a fact because "do people really thing that these companies wouldn't pay reviews to highly rate them for advertising" is evidence. It's not evidence. It's something you just said based on silly thoughts in your head, not based on anything concrete. That's called an opinion, statement, bias, conspiracy theory, etc. But it is NOT evidence or fact or truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainmerkin Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 do you guys actually care how someone else finds the game more than how you find it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreadpirateandy Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) its just real politik. game sites rely on sneek peaks and pre-releases and insider interviews to do their job. If they piss off the big companies like EA, they dont get them, so they cant compete with other sites/mags. hence games from big publishers always get high reviews scores. It could be a donkey turd of a game, it will get 80%+, moderately good games get low 90%. Good review sites work round this by doing topic specific scores, and overall scores with the topic specific scores generally more believable, and the over all score to keep the publisher happy and give them something to brag about. Until there's some evidence that supports this, everything you just said is still a made-up conspiracy theory. People have already mentioned this in the thread so far, but people seem to have the general feeling that if a review scores a game better than what I think it should, that review was bribed. If a review scores a game worse than what I think it should, they don't know what they're talking about. I'm sure there's a fancy definition of that, although I don't know what it is. It certainly takes a lot from narcissism and entitlement. Do you have any evidence to back up what you said? Or did you just make it up because everyone else is saying it or because it sounds like it could happen and it explains why the review doesn't score the game how you would? Edited January 4, 2012 by dreadpirateandy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HavenAE Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I love review threads it brings fond memories of my times spent arguing with fanbois when AoC got an 87 and WAR an 88 I also love the superiority that it gives me knowing that I was right twice in the past, and this time it wont be any different. The only thing that makes you right in any sense is the fact that most MMO players today (note I said players not gamers) are as equally impatient as they are senseless and stupid with a dash of lemming, actually better pour the whole bottle of lemming in there. The mentality of the people who play MMOs has change significantly since WoW, it doesn't make those games bad games, it just means most people have no clue what-so-ever what makes a good MMO or even how they are launched/developed/maintained. I call it the WoW-dilution effect, at one time MMO gamers understood a few things about the genre. There were less of us but just because an MMO, any MMO, wasn't perfect at launch was no reason to jump the gun and cancel subs because someone stole our money and our pie off the window ledge. We, intelligent MMO gamers understood and still do that the launched client is the foundation of a game, much like the foundation of a house where the rest of the game is gradually built up around it. You know just like WoW did, Everquest did, DAOC did, Rift has done, and so on... Just as SWTOR will do. All will have issues all will have bugs and glitches all will fix them it's just a matter of time. The problem is that WoW brought in so many MMO players that don't have clue one to be honest. Though they think they do because they played WoW for a few years and maybe tried another random MMO here or there. But they don't have the patience or the understanding this genre requires. Eventually they are going to have to however, or they won't ever see another "successful" MMO post WoW. Or wait did you think it was just because game developer forgot HOW to develop games after WoW became a smashing success? they're all suffering from amnesia right? No one ever stops to ask, "Wait why is it that ever single MMO launched post WoW has failed?" The answer is something terrible happened to the MMO genre in 2004. The gamers got overwhelmed by mere players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logiick Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 See, the problem here is you think it's a fact because "do people really thing that these companies wouldn't pay reviews to highly rate them for advertising" is evidence. It's not evidence. It's something you just said based on silly thoughts in your head, not based on anything concrete. That's called an opinion, statement, bias, conspiracy theory, etc. But it is NOT evidence or fact or truth. Lol, you keep believing that. One day you'll understand how the world and advertising actually work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSchmo Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Who cares who likes or does not like the game? Ask these questions. 1) Am I having fun? 2) Is it worth the monthly fee? 3) Do I find the time I spend in game worthwhile? If the answers are yes, then who cares what anyone else thinks. This is the only thing thing matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falcker Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Do you have any evidence to back up what you said? Or did you just make it up because everyone else is saying it or because it sounds like it could happen and it explains why the review doesn't score the game how you would? You probably wont find EXACT evidence but you can certainly see where people get the idea. PC Gamer rated Dragon Age 2 94/100 and named it RPG of the Decade, I mean really... http://www.pcgamer.com/review/dragon-age-2-review/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameirus Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Until there's some evidence that supports this, everything you just said is still a made-up conspiracy theory. People have already mentioned this in the thread so far, but people seem to have the general feeling that if a review scores a game better than what I think it should, that review was bribed. If a review scores a game worse than what I think it should, they don't know what they're talking about. I'm sure there's a fancy definition of that, although I don't know what it is. It certainly takes a lot from narcissism and entitlement. Do you have any evidence to back up what you said? Or did you just make it up because everyone else is saying it or because it sounds like it could happen and it explains why the review doesn't score the game how you would? you really think some of the dogs turds of games that score 90+ deserve that>? w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattieP Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 play the game for a month, then review it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts