|
| Thread: CH exclusive Q&A |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted May 05, 2012 11:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The official reviews are very often paid for, they don't show what's the game's real worth even remotely.
Actually I find metacritic is usually a very good rough estimate of what to expect from a game quality-wise. For PS3 I have stuck to games with a rating of 8 or more, and among the twenty some I've purchased, there's only been three I've been dissatisfied with, and one of those (Demons Souls) was my own dumb fault, because what I disliked about it the reviews warned me about. (The other two, for the record, were Fallout 3 and Bad Company.)
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 05, 2012 11:48 PM |
|
|
|
Of course a game review can also be helpful, however when big companies and big money are involved, there isn't much room for objectivity. The same Metacritic gives 7.7 "critics" score and 6.4 "users" score for Heroes VI and while I think that even the latter is a bit generous, the difference is obvious. I remember a review (not the site though) where the game's only big problem according to the reviewer were... the bugs. And finally - one can not really expect a TBS, even as simplified as Heroes VI, to be objectively judged after the few days of playing which the reviewers usually spend with any game that they write about (even if we assume that they intend to be objective).
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 06, 2012 12:18 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 00:23, 06 May 2012.
|
The discrepency between professional scores and user ratings hardly means professional reviewers are bought and paid for and there are literally dozens of alternative explanations. Even a basic statistics argument can be used to justify it. A reviewer is one person. The users are multitudes of people, and you don't know what segment of "all gamers" is made of by the people who actually cast a vote. It's entirely possible that people are more likely to vote if they're dissatisfied with a game, for example, or that scores are made up of a disproportionate number of 1's when people dislike a game for whatever. It's hardly a scientific analysis.
In any case, I'm not looking for a hard quantitative rating of how good or bad a game is. I look at reviews as a general guide to quality, and I think they deliver that fairly reliably. No, they're not always objective, but whose opinion is?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 06, 2012 08:21 AM |
|
|
True enough Corribus..I consider myself a very fair minded person..but I can honestly say that a tactical/roleplay game is going to generally get higher marks from me then a fighting game. I just do not like games like Mortal Combat, etc. I am good at them, but find them boring.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 06, 2012 09:10 AM |
|
|
|
OK, let's make this short - have you played Heroes VI and if yes - do you agree that it deserves scores of about 7.5-8/10?
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted May 06, 2012 10:01 AM |
|
|
I have seen my share of 2/10 in metacritic with the justification that the game lacks a hex grid, titans, blackies or something along those lines.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2012 10:02 AM |
|
|
Irrelevant question.
Take Civ 5. Metacritics: 90%. User rating: 67%. 9 million games sold.
So. Should Fireaxis start to ramble about how they made a crappy game?
With games like this, fans, that is, long-time followers, will rarely be satisfied anyway - add the current trend of online copy protection and you have another source of dissatisfaction and bad user scores.
The simple bottom line is, that the game is not what it could be or could have been. It needs more work and fine-tuning.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 06, 2012 10:51 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 10:52, 06 May 2012.
|
Quote:
I have seen my share of 2/10 in metacritic with the justification that the game lacks a hex grid, titans, blackies or something along those lines.
You should check the opposite side then. There are idiotic 0s and 1s among the user scores, that's true, but there are just as idiotic 9s and 10s. Why do they suddenly get ignored?
Quote:
Take Civ 5. Metacritics: 90%. User rating: 67%. 9 million games sold.
You don't get it, do you? The name sells, not the game itself - apart from some demo or beta, nobody can play something which is not released yet so at least 90% of what you buy is old fame combined with expectation which are again generated by this old fame, previews and negative responses to the demo or the beta be damned. People may like it or not but this is Heroes and it became what it is not thanks to Ubisoft.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2012 12:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You don't get it, do you?
That's actually a fine observation. I don't get your point, and chances are it's because you have none.
What a game WAS, works as an advertisement for a new version, but it also works as a burden.
Question: if the game was called, umm, say... Crusaders For The Dragon Gods - how would it be rated?
Would the game get
a) better
b) equal
c) worse
ratings.
So can it be that the game is worth 77% as a simple game alright, but less as Heroes of Might and Magic VI, since there is so much to look back upon?
Simple example: CONTENT. For a 2011 game it has a LOT of content. For a Heroes game it has NOT.
See the pattern?
|
|
SKPRIMUS
Promising
Supreme Hero
The One and the Prime
|
|
posted May 06, 2012 02:36 PM |
|
Edited by SKPRIMUS at 14:39, 06 May 2012.
|
Quote:
...but there are just as idiotic 9s and 10s..
ye we all know where they came from but who cares.
@Zenofex, at least you & others might get a good part of what you want eventually, given that ubi will work on balance as copied below:
Part of Ubi's answer to CH7.: On the low-level changes, our plan is firstly to work on balance itself: make the abilities more relevant, reduce the power of Healing/resurrection spells, make the Core units more vulnerable, increase the damage of the spells. This should be seen in the future patches. In the long run, we also want to promote the differences between the Might and the Magic heroes, and between the Factions themselves. We know a revamp of the Skill System, Sim Turns and RMG are important features for the Community, so they are high on our "backlog" of features to add in the future.
However, since they are mentioned after the word "patches", I see that in the long run, differentiation between might/magic heroes, revamp of skill system, sim turns & RMG are features to be added in future, so you'll need to get expansion for these
===============
But I agree with Ubi's statement that there is no general consensus. A lot of the hate is emotionally based on impressions up till now & some may not get over these impressions in first 6mths, even if game is improved after.- A lot can be due to people missing basic features that should be in there
Every response to any Q&A now is generally negative...next up heroes.ag.ru.
==================
Now for more interesting points than metacritic offtopic:
CH1. Ubi_Irina aka Ubi_Irina said in response to most have already abandoned the game: "A vast majority of players completed the single player campaign, played some skirmish maps and moved on to other games". That being said, we agree that the post-launch support for Heroes VI has been disappointing so far.
Oh well they may as well make a KB clone (adventure/rpg game with TBS elements) instead . Post-launch support is not the main problem: the game as released & right now is the main problem ==> main problem is what happened before release, not after.
CH3. H6 "even exceeded our expectations in some areas...strongest launch of any Heroes or Might & Magic game
- would be great if they said which areas they exceeded expectations. The good-will achieved after H5TotE 3.1 has now gone, even if H6 eventually gets better, everyone will know initial releases will be crap since there are 2 strong examples.
CH4. about Jeff Spock is very interesting. I never knew that! <how come it's not widely disseminated in the news since his twitter comment was in Oct11?>
Also, production spanned 4 years!!!
CH5.Ubi provided "framework" & "high-level" game design. I sorta knew that, as opposed to telling dev exactly what every game mechanic does.
CH is showing its bias with the statement CH: 9. Given the mediocre success of Heroes V...Thanks CH ...plus mention of campaign editor - it'd be good if Julien or others mentioned other things
CH11. about VIP fans - no point having feedback before release if 4 years production still results in mad crazy rush-rush job at the end without time & money to adjust to any feedback since they need to finish the freakin' game instead.
____________
Hope defeats despair - "a blatant clue"
too many idiots in VW
"to lose is to win, and he who wins shall lose"
bashing orcus 
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 06, 2012 05:20 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 17:21, 06 May 2012.
|
Quote:
OK, let's make this short - have you played Heroes VI and if yes - do you agree that it deserves scores of about 7.5-8/10?
No, I haven't. Even if I had, though, and my opinion disagreed with the professional reviews, it's a leap of logic to assume that the reason for that discrepency is some illicit or dishonest practice on the part of the reviewer.
Quote:
You should check the opposite side then. There are idiotic 0s and 1s among the user scores, that's true, but there are just as idiotic 9s and 10s. Why do they suddenly get ignored?
There probably are a disproportionate number of 9s and 10s as well, and that's the point. It's not a scientific rating system. And so what conclusions can you really make about why one average rating differns from the other? If you know anything about public opinion surveys (i.e., that they're incredibly hard to do well, and take a lot more time and thought to design than throwing a poll on a website), you'd know that.
Ultimately, you have an idea in your head about dishonest game reviewers, and you're trying to see proof for it in places where it doesn't really exist.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 06, 2012 07:41 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 19:43, 06 May 2012.
|
Quote:
What a game WAS, works as an advertisement for a new version, but it also works as a burden.
It's a burden for the quality requirement, for the marketing it's a bless and the very fact that Ubisoft managed to market the game with next to no advertisement says enough. Quote:
No, I haven't. Even if I had, though, and my opinion disagreed with the professional reviews, it's a leap of logic to assume that the reason for that discrepency is some illicit or dishonest practice on the part of the reviewer.
You focus too much on the "dishonest" part. The reviews can be paid for and this happens but I also said that no TBS (or whatever strategy game for that matter) can be objectively evaluated without hundreds of hours of gaming. I also implied that the name itself (of the game, of the publishing company or the developer, etc. - when they are influential of course) is an obstacle enough before the objective evaluation. In short, I'm saying that the so called professional reviewers can be "dishonest", but they can also be rushing their opinion or self-censoring it, or whatever. Ultimately, their reviews are no more "scientific" when it comes to judging the actual quality of some game than the users'. Hence I don't see why should I prefer the former to the latter.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted May 07, 2012 12:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Hence I don't see why should I prefer the former to the latter.
Because by and large your normal critic knows what he is doing and remains mostly objective (it's his job remember) and your average player, who might be disgruntled about any number of small things or who might just throw a number at the game without playing it for more than 10 minutes, doesn't know what real criteria he is judging the game on.
To expand, a professional game critic (which is what I'm assuming a group like Metacritic would be using as their critics pool) would know what they needed to do to get a large, objective and comprehensive view of the game. This includes knowing how long you have to play a game to get the feel for it, whether it be a TBS or a FPS, as well as game mechanics, graphics, design and balance.
Your player, on the other hand, has no obligation to be unbiased or even fair to a game. Many of the fans that bought it did so still with the expectations of having a game like H3, which (though I don't like the game myself) is a successful game no matter how you look at it. When a new, very untested game came out with all of its (almost expected) bugs, balance issues, etc came out, they were obviously disappointed and thus gave poor reviews. And then you have the "Casual" players who only played the game for a short time before abandoning it forever and giving it either an unrealistically poor (0-2) or unrealistically good (9-10) rating. Very few players will actually objectively play or judge this game.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 07, 2012 09:25 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 10:26, 07 May 2012.
|
|
I see no reason why a professional reviewer will be more objective, except, well "he's a professional, he HAS to be" which proves nothing. Games, like movies and books and basically any other form or art, can never be "objectively" evaluated because their attraction boils down to personal preferences, taste. They may have their critics but ultimately their worth is decided by every individual separately. The opposite is like to say "Oh my, this game has perfect scores on this site, I must be wrong to think that it totally sucks then" - WTF??? Moreover, many players have the same or greater gaming experience as/than the reviewers and it's a bit awkward to claim that the former are inferior to the latter because the latter are being paid for to write something about a game.
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted May 07, 2012 11:13 AM |
|
Edited by Maurice at 11:14, 07 May 2012.
|
Quote:
True, perhaps. But we b*tch at them if they don't say anything and demand that they come out and say something, and then we b*tch at them when they actually come out and say ... something.
No. The point is, even if they utter words to the community, they're still essentially saying nothing. There's nothing tangible, nothing solid that we can go on. Only empty words and hollow promises.
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted May 07, 2012 11:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
CH: 3.
Answer: "Despite a changing PC market, Heroes VI performed well, and even exceeded our expectations in some areas. Without delving into specific figures, it was the strongest launch of any Heroes/ or Might & Magic game, but has not yet reached our original expectations."
Which one is it? Exceeded or not exceeded? lol.
|
|
Quique30
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted May 07, 2012 03:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
True, perhaps. But we b*tch at them if they don't say anything and demand that they come out and say something, and then we b*tch at them when they actually come out and say ... something.
No. The point is, even if they utter words to the community, they're still essentially saying nothing. There's nothing tangible, nothing solid that we can go on. Only empty words and hollow promises.
But I still prefer that than the radio silence, where you don't know if they died, moved on, or what. I'm not trying to defend them (God knows I don't like them at all), but they won't always have something to inform.
Even if they only show up to say, "Hey, we're still working. We're here", is enough to alleviate the anxiety and the uncertainty. What baffles me, is that the Community Managers don't seem to use that. Or maybe they're just trying to avoid the flames.
|
| |
|
|
