Lords of Shadow 2 Studio Boss: "One Must Be Blind or Stupid" to Give It a 4/10

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Skimming metcritic let's see

The lowest is 33 rating, which spends most its time harping on the stealth segments. Including several outright false statements about them. The stealth segments making up something like 5% or less of it. Oddly, the part of their review that isn't ranting at the minor part of the game is fairly abundant with praise for the new combat.

Edge starts out in similar vein. Goes on to complain about the voice acting, giving Patrick Stewart a pass just cause, then skewering everyone else without much detail. Goes on to call the city London, which it definately isn't if you actuallly paid any attention. Goes on to complain about the climbing being highlighted and set paths, cause apparently they wanted Assassin's Creed where you can just grab everything. They start in on textures and texture pops, none of which I've ever seen, and even on PS3 (the PC looks better), haven't noticed. Maybe they're stuck on next-gen mode, when this is still last gen. They sort of half-praise the combat, then critique it somewhat validly. Then go right off the rails with erroneous statements about how its impossible to stun enemies with block counters or any attacks. They close out with some opinions on the story which are valid enough.

Having read that, I can empathize with the guys opinion. They blatantly get several not-obscure facts wrong about the game. They open by it calling it clunky, but then later complement the core mechanic (combat), outside of apparently being terrible at it or not paying any attention in the tutorial by what they got wrong, and then cited as faults. Even with rampant errors, I don't get a "subpar" out of their article overall as written.

Not to be unobjective myself here, the Toronto Sun (of all places), actually (after some brief ranting about how this Dracula is not their Dracula), covers its critical points fairly well, without peppering misinformation throughout. Reading less like someone with a grudge against the rebooting (or Konami itself) scrabbling for justification, and more like someone who legitimately disliked the game.

To borrow some phrasing from a webshow I watched recently, I think part of the problem is there's a growing crop of reviewers who are also dabbling (or throwing themselves wholeheartedly at) also being entertainers with distinct personas. The ranting cynic being an overly popular one. Its creating a growing distortion and negative slant on the whole process. Yahtzee, AVGN, or the Spoony Experiment, and similar affairs are some flagships of the "Comedic sketch of a review" format, and it seems to be seeping into regular reviewers. We're getting more reviews that seem like they're looking to establish their entertainment persona, with less focus on the actual reviewing behind it. This is highlighted when entire articles go into rant mode on one segment of a game, and ditch the entire other 70-90% into a single sentence.

"a game with this quality" yeah... Considering that even as I wanted so much to like the first game, or enjoy it even, I couldn't, which is why I didn't expect anything from the sequel, but having a Dev saying "MY GAEM IS GOOD Y U NO LIKE IT!" is actually pretty funny.

To be fair 7/10 tends to get used as average and underwhelming while 4/10 is usually reserved for games that are actually badly broken so I can understand him being frustrated. Although not everyone dose use it that way which is one of the limitations for metacritic scores. Dose Edge do it differently?

you put a lot of effort on your work and its normal to feel hurt when it seems people dont appreciate it, but dont act like this, dont expect people to say your work is good when its not, how can you expect to ever get better if you cant get a proper feedback on what you did wrong? as highly as you think of your work you are probably the last person to review it, sure you made it, nobody knows it better than you, but at the same time, being something youve invested so much on you are less likely to give it an objective critique

medv4380:
]Again completely wrong. In that case Average would be the average of their scores. Their opinion is irrelevant to the average score they give. Someone can "say" that 5 is average, but when you average out all their scores for all games and it comes out to 7 the average is 7.

Pick 10 games and 2 review outlets and I'll show you how wrong you are.

I'm not wrong (you're very good at repeatedly touting your own percieved correctness though), we're just attacking the issue from different perspectives and philosophies.

The problem lies with the outlets who spent years being overly generous with their 8s, 9s and 10s (which seems to be a slowly disappearing trend now, thankfully).

Steve2911:

medv4380:
]Again completely wrong. In that case Average would be the average of their scores. Their opinion is irrelevant to the average score they give. Someone can "say" that 5 is average, but when you average out all their scores for all games and it comes out to 7 the average is 7.

Pick 10 games and 2 review outlets and I'll show you how wrong you are.

I'm not wrong (you're very good at repeatedly touting your own percieved correctness though), we're just attacking the issue from different perspectives and philosophies.

The problem lies with the outlets who spent years being overly generous with their 8s, 9s and 10s (which seems to be a slowly disappearing trend now, thankfully).

Yea, you still are wrong. You've changed your position at every turn in an attempt to make yourself sound right. All you've accomplished is proving how much you don't know about averages, and scoring. There is also no different Philosophies unless you call goal post moving a "Philosophy". You had the "Philosophy" that the Middle of a Scale is the "Average". There is no mathematical formal or informal philosophy that justifies doing that. Trying to present it as such also makes people dumber since they may actually believe the falsehood. If you want to present your "view" as a philosophy you're going to have to do much better at forming your opinions. You had the "Philosophy" that what someone says is average is average for them which is factually wrong, and can be proven as such by actually taking their average and showing a single person who says 5 is average when their average is really different. Sure someone might say their average is X and be right because they took their average and are reporting it, but their "Opinion" of what average is doesn't actually make it their average. Now you have the "Philosophy" that we just have different philosophies, but we're actually arguing the Philosophy of Mathematics which happens to be the most formalized philosophy in existence, and as such you can't just take an unsupported philosophical mathematical position and call it your "philosophy" to give it more weight.

There has also been no "trend" of giving an over abundance of games 8s, 9s, and 10s. It's trivial to look up and confirm, and if you're going to claim otherwise look up the stats and figures and prove your point. There is a subtle difference in reviewer scores vs user scores at the high end mostly caused the the law of large numbers since the number of users far outweighs the number of critics. This issue with critics having a slightly higher average than user scores is that critics have an issue giving out any score less than 6, and a complete phobia of giving anything a 3 or less. Users don't have that issue mostly due to not having to worry if their review will get them fired. Users give about a 7 and critics, in general, give slightly higher. Now there is a slight difference in the Mode, but not anything of significant. Heck when you look at it system by system that difference flips around for the Wii titles with critics having a slightly lower mode than users. I can give far more exact number if you want.

Karadalis:
4/10 means to me that the game is barely playable, has huge issues and crashes every 10 minutes but still shows some potential.

That is exactly how I'd describe Skyrim, and it seems to have gotten 9/10 from most reviewers. This is with fully patched DLC that still generates consistent (6 out of 7 trials) game-breaking bugs during the main DLC story missions.

I kinda think that that kind of thing, charging extra money for stuff that doesn't work, should incur some sort of fine or jail time. Maybe I'm a little extreme. But I think we can at least agree that it should result in quite a bit less then 9/10 for review scores.

McMullen:

Karadalis:
4/10 means to me that the game is barely playable, has huge issues and crashes every 10 minutes but still shows some potential.

That is exactly how I'd describe Skyrim, and it seems to have gotten 9/10 from most reviewers. This is with fully patched DLC that still generates consistent (6 out of 7 trials) game-breaking bugs during the main DLC story missions.

I kinda think that that kind of thing, charging extra money for stuff that doesn't work, should incur some sort of fine or jail time. Maybe I'm a little extreme. But I think we can at least agree that it should result in quite a bit less then 9/10 for review scores.

However, we do know what caused the discrepancy between critic reviews of skyrim and user reviews of skyrim. It's that the Critic only got 360 versions of Skyrim which didn't have nearly as many bugs as the other versions. The Absolutely unacceptable version of Skyrim is the PS3 version, and never should have been released. The bugs also don't immediately show up. They slowly creep in until it becomes unplayable. Since critics rarely play the a game from beginning to end they don't normally see mid to late game bugs. It would be nice if critics would indicate how many hours they actually played a game, but I'd say they play less than 20, and some much much less than that.

From what I've seen with scoring I'd say the longer you play a game the more likely you're to give it a lower score. There is a logical reason for this. Large games like Skyrim are bound to have a few untested game breaking bugs. "Open World" games tends to have this problem in spades. When you look at the metacritic scores for Critics and Users the first day of a games launch all of these reviews were done with the minimum time in the game. After that they tend to fall forcing the average down 1 out of 20 points or 1 of 10 points of what it started out at. People who review a week or two after launch have a much higher chance of encountering a game breaking bug, or just getting made because of a particular level design. Developers will also have removed most if not all of the easy to encounter game breaking bugs in the first few levels because they most likely made those levels first, and via the virtue of being the first part of the game, has been tested the most.

Then you have a games like Sonic that have the exact opposite problem. Critics are normally a full point lower than users on those titles, or they're exactly the same. I'd say the issue is actually that games like Sonic are easy to grasp and understand. If there is a game breaking bug or game mechanic it shows up early and stays the entire game. Another example would be the Disgaea series. This results in the critic who doesn't play for more that 10 hours can now get an accurate view of the games quality. However, this then shows off the selection bias of the users that is a result of the marketing. No gamer ever buys a game that the trailer made them not like the game. They only buy it if the trailer, and marketing, actually made them think it was interesting. So you end up with an over selection of users who know they they will enjoy the game, and an under selection of users who know they wouldn't like the game. For example, if you didn't like JRPG's would you buy a game that the trailer screamed JRPG to you. Your marketing can also backfire in attracting the JRPG crowd. If you get a bunch of players interested in a game that think it's in the JRPG style and it's not then they could out right hate the game much more for not meeting their expectations. A good example of this is actually a movie, The Purge. A lot of people went to it expecting it to be some new take on horror, and instead got a standard home invasion horror flick. Critics don't exactly suffer from that problem, they can, but because they might not have even encounter the marketing by the time they get the game, and are simply playing because their boss wants a review ready by a dead line, and even when they do they can't exactly choose not to review a game their boss told them to.

Here is how I see the scores.
If Critics are Lower than the Users then the game could be a niche title that whether you like it or not should be so obvious. Or the title has some issues early on, forced stealth, that angered the critics, and caused them to view the game differently then someone who continued to play past those parts.

If Critics are only 0.5 to 1 point higher than users then it's normal.

If Users are lower than critics by more than 1 point there are issues that are not readily apparent in the first few hours of play.

Then there are critics who are gaming the system. They've long since figured out that Human beings talk more frequently about negative news then they do about positive news. This is probably why humans keep constructing scales, and then use the first half of the scale to reflect the abysmally bad. This results in bad news becoming click bait when it's the only negative news there.

You can discover who is doing this by using the Law of Large Numbers.

Wiki LLN:
According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed

The expected result of a critic is their average should approach the overall average. Unless something is wrong with the critic. An honest difference would be a food critic who is a Super Taster would consistently hate foods the average liked, but would be inline with the average of other Super Tasters even if you think that their opinion is "subjective". In this sense the more "subjective" the more likely the LLN applies since subjective is just a random element, and that's what the LLN is all about. Averaging mitigates the effect of a random subjective element.

For example The Escapist's profile on Metacritic actually shows the measure of this with the point higher or lower score given to critic profiles. The Escapists only gives 0.12 of 10 points higher on average on a sample of over 400 games. That is what the LLN is all about. It shows that the Escapist is in line with the expected results even when they might give a game a 9 that averaged an 8 they'll give another game a 5 that should have got a 6.

However, even though most fall in line, there are going to be some exploiting human negativity. The Edge gives about 0.88 of 10 points lower than the average with a sample over 2,400 games. That is out of line with the LLN and warrants looking into. If they have a number of reviews with simple facts being way out of sync then they would be generating click bait rather than honest reviews.

Just because he shoveled the majority of his games budget into it's appearance doesn't mean it deserves a better score.

Wow... this is the first time i've seen reviews of the game, i jumped in since i really liked the first one, i was expecting 8's or 9's, i really liked it.

You're all crazy.

This has ensured that I won't even buy this game in a steam sale, devs, treat the public with respect.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here