Xugos Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 COD 4 is an original game lol, you must be new to the gaming world. It revolutionized the genre. Sure, CS was the juggernaut of the industry for a while, but COD is original in that it added customization to extents never seen before, and did various other things that had never been done before. I don't like COD. I prefer Battlefield 3. I'm just laying out the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafter Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Metacritic is never more accurate. It's all well and good to trust other players, but all Metacritic is are a bunch of angry babies who down rate anything and everything for the dumbest possible reasons. Anyone going by a Metacritic user rating is a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xugos Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 ...Except both Gamespot and IGN also have user ratings... Which happen to be 8.8/10 (GameSpot) and 9.1 (IGN, although with yet too few voters) so far. My guess is all whiners who were trolling this game here rushed to the first site that put up a review to express their "rage". But even on metacritic if you check the number of positive reviews, it outnumbers negative ones. Simply put, nerdragers rated it '0', while more sensible people did not rate it '10' just to counter that tendency. They ALL have <200 votes, which, if you knew anything about statistical analysis, means that the sample size is absolutely worthless and not representative of any group in any population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobTheTeepo Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) Lots of trolls do reviews for MetaCritic, look at most of those reviews and you'll find that to be true. Anyone who gives the game 1/10 is a troll or an idiot (same with a 10/10, but a 1/10 hurts a good game a LOT more than a 10/10 helps it), because the game does have good features. People don't seem to understand, reviewing a game requires a certain amount of objectivity, just because you do or do not like it, doesn't mean it's good or bad. You have to look at the individual features and judge whether or not it's technically good or not. You'd be better off looking at the Metascore which is done by professional critics. Notice all 23 scores are positive, but not all are 9+? That's fair I'd say. If someone actually comes in here and claims that all of those PROFESSIONAL CRITICS were paid off, then what can you do? Some people you just can't have a rational discussion with, I really hope you're not one of them. http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/star-wars-the-old-republic/user-reviews?dist=negative Just read these posts and judge for yourselves if their ratings were fair. Bottom line people, drop your bias attitude when you're rating a game. It can't ALWAYS be a conspiracy that a game gets good ratings, (I'M NOT INSANE, THE ENTIRE WORLD IS!) sometimes your opinion on something is not shared by most people, and from an objective standpoint is not correct. Edited January 7, 2012 by BobTheTeepo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakarn Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 You know it's pretty well known that any halfway popular game has a group of dedicated trolls determined to drive down the user score with negative reviews? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiroLM Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Metacritic reviews are written by the same people that think the game has either no problems or no chance to make it. A good bit of the official reviews on Metacritic are done by "mom & pop" review sites that sprout up almost exclusively to provide a benefit to the reviewer, and tend to be controversial to a fault. You have a good chunk of sites that just kind of grind out reviews on the 7-10 scale, you have places like Giantbomb, RockPaperShotgun and the like that try to stay away from scale reviews (although not always succesfully), and in the end, the only outcome is this. In order to find a review worth a ****, you need to find a reviewer that shares your interests and dislikes, actually read their reviews, don't worry too much about the number score, and realize that you can probably find bad reviews and good reviews for everything between Bebe's Kids and Zelda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xugos Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 I mostly agree, one pretty large hole to add in your plan though. (aside from A) troll posters making new accounts B) it being "in" to hate on new games - both of which were already raised) What about the fact that those thousands and thousands of players checking every nook in cranny, are in fact NOT seeing every corner of the game because the vast majority of the playerbase isn't 50 yet? I'm 50, have a pretty crazy amount of days played, and STILL I wouldn't consider myself qualified to do a review, I've never even seen an operation for example..... You can read EACH individual player review. Many of them are level 50 and review the game intricately for the end-game. Many of them are also previous beta testers who have experienced end-game and have a general feel for it. They can also successfully and accurately review it, even if it wasn't the absolutely last build of the game. That's because end-game doesn't tend to radically change from build to build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archifikoss Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 TL;DR: Metacritic's user score is far more accurate in presenting an over-all image of SW:TOR, and should be trusted to a far greater extent than any other review. The people know best. PLAY FOR YOURSELVES AND FORM YOUR OWN OPINIONS! Don't rely on reviews, whether they're written by "grease my palms" websites or random idiots on the Internet. Or at least, try to filter the reviews to find the most sincere and unbiased (in other words not written by a fanboy or a hater). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malefactor Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) SW:TOR metacritic user score : 6.1 WoW Cataclysm metacritic user score : 5.1 Xugos' conclusion, SW:TOR is superior to WoW. Edited January 7, 2012 by Malefactor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xugos Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 Metacritic is never more accurate. It's all well and good to trust other players, but all Metacritic is are a bunch of angry babies who down rate anything and everything for the dumbest possible reasons. Anyone going by a Metacritic user rating is a moron. Please prove your assertions to rescind them. This thread will be, exclusively, a logical and intelligent discussion among friends. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogitu Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Exactly, they didn't review end-game. The users, generally, did. the users in general did??? now dont get delusional mate. but knowing its you its unlikely so ill enlighten you: the general users are far from level 50, thus not able to review endgame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xugos Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 SW:TOR metacritic user score : 6.1 WoW Cataclysm metacritic user score : 5.1 Xugos' conclusion, SW:TOR is superior to WoW. We are not rating WoW, and I will not lend my observations regarding any game other than SW:TOR. This thread is about SW:TOR and SW:TOR exclusively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styxian Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 They ALL have <200 votes, which, if you knew anything about statistical analysis, means that the sample size is absolutely worthless and not representative of any group in any population. Not really, no. GameSpot has 1491 votes at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morzak Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Sadly, I'm not being satirical. That's really sad then. If you did some research you would've known that many AAA Titles had bad User Ratings because some communities and Trolls gave them 1 and 0. Let's start another speculation, like you did. The Game got very good scores from nearly all reputable Gaming sites, while the User score is down. This points to the User score being manipulated by Marketing companies that work for Activision/Blizzard. This is a pretty normal occurence, people get paid to advertise a product on FB, twitter, community sites all the time....... See i just turned the Argument around, as long as we don't know if and how much all the review sites recieved and we don't know if most of the User reviews were written in good faith, such speculations lead nowhere. Maybe 9 is a bit high at the momment but common the Metacritic score would lead you to believe that the game is nearly unplayable and that's just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bgiffo Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Posting in a Xugos thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xugos Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 the users in general did??? now dont get delusional mate. but knowing its you its unlikely so ill enlighten you: the general users are far from level 50, thus not able to review endgame. Read each individual user review. I scanned 200+ of them (indicating that it's an accurate sample of the populace that I am surveying) and found that most of them were level 50 and had a great deal of knowledge pertaining to end-game content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalkingDinosaur Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Low scores on Metacritic are just from dislike bots or trolls. Example: Youtube has some great videos which get some random dislikes with no solid reason other than: "Fake" or "Trolol" So I'm going to assume the same thing with any user generated scores. Plus wouldn't be surprised with all the immature children here who have strange ways of venting their anger for something. The Metacritic user score is FAR more accurate because it is a sample of actual players who experienced the game, and it presents and over-all image of their collective view of it. A group of thousands of players can cover every precipice and corner of a game, but a single reviewer at IGN can not. Therefore the user score is far more accurate. Thanks for your input Xugos the door is over there make sure it doesn't hit you on the way out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malefactor Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 We are not rating WoW, and I will not lend my observations regarding any game other than SW:TOR. This thread is about SW:TOR and SW:TOR exclusively. Of course, when it goes against your countless previous assertions on these boards regarding WoW, and flies in the face of your claims you conveniently no longer wish to talk about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xugos Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 Posting in a Xugos thread. Actually, you're posting in a SW:TOR thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terito Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 You can read EACH individual player review. Many of them are level 50 and review the game intricately for the end-game. Many of them are also previous beta testers who have experienced end-game and have a general feel for it. They can also successfully and accurately review it, even if it wasn't the absolutely last build of the game. That's because end-game doesn't tend to radically change from build to build. The game has not been out long enough to give it a review, fact. There's no 2 ways about it. Even if you have no school/job currently, you just can't tell me you've experienced, OPS/hardmodes/nightmare ops/ pvp / crew skills/ world pvp / etc all of it? no way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gradivus Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 The user scores in Metacritic are "by idiots, for idiots". People there only give "0"s (trolls) and "10"s (diehard fans who want to oppose the trolls). The result is complete garbage that means nothing and represents noone's opinion.You should know better than to listen to the mob. This problem is solved by not listening to anyone's review and just trying the game. What a lot of people luckely do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xugos Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 Low scores on Metacritic are just from dislike bots or trolls. Example: Youtube has some great videos which get some random dislikes with no solid reason other than: "Fake" or "Trolol" So I'm going to assume the same thing with any user generated scores. Plus wouldn't be surprised with all the immature children here who have strange ways of venting their anger for something. Thanks for your input Xugos the door is over there make sure it doesn't hit you on the way out. I bolded the part of your post that is factually unconfirmed. There is absolutely no evidence of that. Contrary to your assertion, the user-reviews appear to be articulate and intelligent in nature, therefore it can be deduced that the reviewers themselves were mature, and assessing the game in an objective manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xugos Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 The user scores in Metacritic are "by idiots, for idiots". People there only give "0"s (trolls) and "10"s (diehard fans who want to oppose the trolls). The result is complete garbage that means nothing and represents noone's opinion. You should know better than to listen to the mob. This problem is solved by not listening to anyone's review and just trying the game. What a lot of people luckely do. You may or may not be correct in saying that all reviews are generally dishonest, but the point lies in discovering which is the lesser evil. In this case, it appears as though user scores are being more accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malefactor Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I bolded the part of your post that is factually unconfirmed. There is absolutely no evidence of that. Contrary to your assertion, the user-reviews appear to be articulate and intelligent in nature, therefore it can be deduced that the reviewers themselves were mature, and assessing the game in an objective manner. Prove that they played the game. Factually unconfirmed indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobTheTeepo Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Please prove your assertions to rescind them. This thread will be, exclusively, a logical and intelligent discussion among friends. Thanks. You may find the proof which you seek in the reviews themselves. Look at both the negative and positive reviews of TOR. You'll find them quite polarized. Generally, the game is either HORRIBLE, or THE MOST AMAZING THING EVAR. Anyone who gives any game on earth a 10 isn't thinking, same with anyone who gives a 0. Notice that MOST negative ratings are 1 or 0 on Metacritic. You'll find that most of the negative reviews (I read them) on Metacritic for TOR state that they dislike the game, or were disappointed by it. They don't judge it on it's strengths or weaknesses, instead their review is tainted by their feelings of the game itself. You're much better off reading all the professional critic reviews, that score an average of 86. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts