Metacritic Names EA Publisher of the Year!

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Haefulz:

JazzJack2:

Haefulz:

You're a terrible troll.

'He disagrees with me! h-he must be a troll right?'

Dude, look at your reply I originally quoted. I don't give a shit if you dislike Mass Effect 3. I'm very happy see people with differing opinions, but you were trashing a dude who said he thought ME3 was one of the best games he's ever played. Your comment about scat doesn't change my point: People like different stuff, get over it.

Yeah people like different stuff, but I tend to view people who like Mass effect like I view people who get kicks out of shitty action films like Con air, it fine they like that but they shouldn't pretend it's something its not.

JazzJack2:

Haefulz:

JazzJack2:

'He disagrees with me! h-he must be a troll right?'

Dude, look at your reply I originally quoted. I don't give a shit if you dislike Mass Effect 3. I'm very happy see people with differing opinions, but you were trashing a dude who said he thought ME3 was one of the best games he's ever played. Your comment about scat doesn't change my point: People like different stuff, get over it.

Yeah people like different stuff, but I tend to view people who like Mass effect like I view people who get kicks out of shitty action films like Con air, it fine they like that but they shouldn't pretend it's something its not.

That's a terrible way to think though. Like I said, I enjoyed the entire ME series quite a bit, but I still love games that a lot of hardcore gamers deem good. Just because someone gets enjoyment out of a game that is more shallow than others doesn't mean their opinion is any less valid than yours. (I'm not saying Mass Effect is shallow, but the argument could be made).

Haefulz:
That's a terrible way to think though. Like I said, I enjoyed the entire ME series quite a bit, but I still love games that a lot of hardcore gamers deem good. Just because someone gets enjoyment out of a game that is more shallow than others doesn't mean their opinion is any less valid than yours. (I'm not saying Mass Effect is shallow, but the argument could be made).

problem is that most people don't keep it to opinions. There's a difference between saying "I liked this game." and "This game is good."

Lily, for instance, in another thread, has said that ME3 isn't full of plot holes and that the ending is not terrible. He didn't just keep it to "I liked the game." He stated what he said as a fact, and saying that the game isn't full of plot holes is just plain wrong.

Haefulz:

That's a terrible way to think though.

It seems like a pretty a reasonable way to think to me, if someone claims a shallow and dull game is one of best game they have ever played I think it's fair to assume they haven't played many games and are thus arguing this out of ignorance or they lack any sense of taste.

And while ultimately what someone considers shallow or good is subjective I believe there are objective points you can make about it. For example if someone made the statement 'Rembrandt is one of the best artists who ever lived', this is a subjective point , however art historians and critics could make objective points regarding the validity of this claim by judging his technique and skill against certain criteria, and while the certainly can't prove or disprove this claim they can give weight to it. If you where to put Mass effect against these criteria it would fall apart.

Honestly, I think arguing with these people is a waste of time. They're complaining that someone is rating something on their own opinion rather than other people's opinions. You're not going to convince them with even the best-written, most thoughtful arguments because they genuinely feel that the only rubric to which anything should be judged is their opinion and their opinion alone.

In other news, I dislike mushrooms. What is wrong with you people who like mushrooms?! (Just kidding, of course.)

An arbitrary number was assigned to publishers and EA just happened to be the highest. The worst part is that arbitrary number doesnt take into the past year of EAs business practices or PR debacles. All it does is take the scores of their games (which were already useless due to their behind the curtain score manipulation) put in some arbitrary and over complicated math to come up with a number that doesnt represent the real EA

Metacritic has been completely useless and still is completely useless because they load scores by an ever changing and completely hidden system in which some reviews are arbitrarily counted more (or less) to total scores together. Its open manipulation of art critiquing and for some reason people have bought it hook line and sinker. Its a good idea in theory but so it communism. The fact that they dont average all reviews and even force scores to be on metacritic (not to mention convert all reviews into their idiotic % based scoring system) shows deliberate disregard for what critquing art should be. At the end of the day its a horrible system that has cost people their jobs. Maybe, and this is a big maybe, if they were more transparent on their constantly shifting arbitrary scoring manipulation I could see the thing being a bad review system but that isnt the reality were dealing with. As is the whole thing is just horrible

Note: I know some people will ask me about score manipulation heres the issue. Metacritic has a system behind the iron curtain that is constantly changing and constantly arbitrary. In any normal system scores would just be averaged and I might be able to respect that but metacritics system makes it so some reviews count for more and other reviews count for less when averaging scores.

Consider for a moment the review of natural selection 2 where the reviewer obviously didnt play the game. Metacritic refused to remove that review even though it was proven to be based on incorrect information and it refused to count a new review for the games average score. Now consider, what if that review was given more weight then other reviews? For that matter what if it was given more weight and reviews that were actually made after playing the game were given less weight?

This system has a massive potential for score manipulation and therefore can not be trusted but no matter what i say its going to thrive because people are lazy. Rather then reading a complex review in its entirety they're just going to look at that manipulated score and base their entire purchasing decision off of it.

Lily Venus:
Honestly, I think arguing with these people is a waste of time. They're complaining that someone is rating something on their own opinion rather than other people's opinions. You're not going to convince them with even the best-written, most thoughtful arguments because they genuinely feel that the only rubric to which anything should be judged is their opinion and their opinion alone.

In other news, I dislike mushrooms. What is wrong with you people who like mushrooms?! (Just kidding, of course.)

Funny. I've yet to see any 'best written, most thoughtful argument' from you in the threads I've seen you in. You mostly just post your opinion as fact, and make claims without backing them up in any way. Or you do as the post I quoted, where you just go 'I could make an argument but I won't because it's pointless'. Actually, I see that last one quite often from you...

Odd.
With exception of the Bad Company games and Burnout Paradise, every EA game I've played has been awful and boring.

Someone liking what you don't is no reason to get upset. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked