Arcen Games
General Category => The Last Federation => Topic started by: mrhanman on April 21, 2014, 09:41:32 am
-
I haven't watched it yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu1VziShzDg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu1VziShzDg)
-
That hypocrit made a video about The Last Federation?
Bah, maybe something good'll come out of it. But I can't stand that guy. But maybe it'll be good for Arcen.
-
Whatever your opinion of the man, he wields an impressive amount of influence. And halfway into the video, he seems to really like it quite a lot.
-
Nice one, TB!
-
I guess he does have influence.
I just hope he'll do the research before making his presentation video, this time.
-
I guess he does have influence.
I just hope he'll do the research before making his presentation video, this time.
You are doing the same thing you accuse him of doing.... watch video first, comment later.
He does like the game, and mentions the primary bugs, gameplay issues and issues with the GUI ;P
Once they are fixed, the game is going to be fun ;p
-
He loves the game so give it a go I was unsure what to expect.
-
That hypocrit made a video about The Last Federation?
Bah, maybe something good'll come out of it. But I can't stand that guy. But maybe it'll be good for Arcen.
Oh the irony of this post.
-
Its a great video and he did a great job explaning the main concepts of the game.
And for a game like this its not a easy job.
-
You are doing the same thing you accuse him of doing.... watch video first, comment later.
Usually, at this point, I ask out loud about your intelligence.
Because no. Not at all. I judge him on his past videos, not his current video. Just see his Frozen Synapse "test". And compare with his online stat. Notice how he mentions he'll be playing that game all summer. And notice how he played the game TWICE.
Things like that are enough to destroy my confidence in him and his judgement. I wanted a honest review, I got a guy trying to sell the game by exaggerating how good it was and how he enjoyed it. If he can't be honest with a game, then that means he's dishonest. And if I want a dishonest review of a game, I already have Steam for that. Steam and its "that game is awesome" extremely developped reviews with 50 people out of 51 thinking this is a helpful review giving a valuable insight of the limitations of the game while highlighting the possible source of fun in said game.
Some people just don't understand what a review is.
His current video is probably better, if Hyfrydle is right, but it doesn't change the fact that he was phony. Phony being a nice way to say QUACK. Or charlatan, fake, fraud, humbug, impostor, mountebank, pretender, quacksalver. There are many synonyms, and I listed them ALL ! Gotta catch 'em all these synonyms.
PS : Sorry for not writing these in my usual humourous style. But Total Biscuit is just a person that I can't like or respect. Same go for his white knights. I hate them. Now I'm going to check the options, see if I can hide that thread or something, and go post in another thread. Maybe I'll go complain about spikes in A Valley Without Wind. Or about the Acutians being robotic filthy capitalists. That way, I won't be bothered to see that thread (please read those two last words out loud while clenching your teeth, audio background of damned screaming to death being optional but helpful) again, and everything will be fine in the world.
Good day.
-
Can we please keep the discussion about this particular video, rather than TotalBiscuit himself? I think there is already a thread in Off-Topic for that.
-
I don't even know where to start. I probably shouldn't start at all, considering there's always that one guy who has a hateboner against TB for some completely inane reason, and we really don't need another thread like that.
-
Isn't this a pretty big deal? Very happy about this. TLF deserves this (and more).
-
Admittedly, I played like 10 minutes in the beta of the game since I was quite busy at the time, so now I have the game for free. Then again, i've bought all Arcen Games up to this point and support them no matter what.
The video made me actually want to play the game for realsies, so I guess he advertised the game well.
-
Isn't this a pretty big deal? Very happy about this. TLF deserves this (and more).
I would not be surprised to see TLF do a climb back up the top sellers list on Steam within the next 12 hours.
-
His current video is probably better, if Hyfrydle is right, but it doesn't change the fact that he was phony. Phony being a nice way to say QUACK. Or charlatan, fake, fraud, humbug, impostor, mountebank, pretender, quacksalver. There are many synonyms, and I listed them ALL ! Gotta catch 'em all these synonyms.
Good day.
You know, it's attacks on other people such as this that keeps me away from visiting forums such as Arcen Games' forum on a regular basis. After all, why would I want to waste my day reading garbage like this when I'd be better off getting work done or gaming. Thank you for continuing to remind me why I don't come here that much anymore.
-
Back to the video: I'm glad TB found the time to do this and I'm additionally glad that TLF seems to be doing exceptionally well on Steam. Bonus points for being #1 on the New Releases page for more than a day. Looks like you won't be buried by garbage-games for at least a little while.
-
It's moved up a few points on the best sellers list already
-
Notice how he mentions he'll be playing that game [frozen synapse] all summer. And notice how he played the game TWICE.
And how is this relevant to anything? Its a single game when there are many, many others worth the time of day, and things like 'I'm going to play this all the time' usually are not actually meant literally. You're dragging out one thing and turning it into some massive sin when it never was.
-
TB usually does a good job showing basic gameplay, but I get real tired of hearing his pontificating about how things should work. Quite often about things I do not care about. He will also go on and on for 10+ minutes about how horrible something is, and it really doesn't appear to be that big of deal.
-
TB usually does a good job showing basic gameplay, but I get real tired of hearing his pontificating about how things should work. Quite often about things I do not care about. He will also go on and on for 10+ minutes about how horrible something is, and it really doesn't appear to be that big of deal.
I value his opinion immensely because over time I've learned to know what he wants from video games and how it relates to what I value in games. And he's a critic, it's his job to nitpick. If he keeps going on about a minor detail, it's more often than not a positive thing about the game.
-
If someone wants to discuss TB's personal faults, please do that in the Off Topic forum. If it really must be done, that is.
Not trying to shield anyone from criticism, etc, but what does it actually accomplish to dump vitriol about him onto a small indie game developer's forum?
-
Oh, if anyone's interested, you can discuss this video over at Total Biscuit's subreddit. There's quite a few comments already.
-
Oh, if anyone's interested, you can discuss this video over at Total Biscuit's subreddit. There's quite a few comments already.
Link for the lazy - http://www.reddit.com/r/cynicalbrit
The thread is near the top of the new posts at the moment.
Video seems generally positive, and the comments are too.
-
Wow, nearly cracked the top 10 seller list again! The video seems to have had a big impact.
-
Yea, the past two hours are back to what we were seeing around 3-4 hours after launch. About a 200% increase over the preceding hours.
Though I'm not 100% sure it was the video, as we also just recently got a spot in steam's top-rotator-banner (WOO HOO!), which historically has had really profound effects like that. We just now noticed it but it may have been up there in other regions early enough to be responsible for the spike.
Either way, the sales graphs currently look very happy :)
-
It's back in the top ten :D
-
It's back in the top ten :D
Nice!
Oh, yeah, it is on the banner rotator thing. And STILL top of the new releases page, that's insane. I think it's safe to say that you pretty much nailed the timing of this launch. Congrats!
-
Well, tens of thousands more players looking at your game can't hurt sales. :)
Also, that whole "release just before a release-less weekend" was a stroke of genius.
-
Well, it's back up to #11 on the top sellers list. Had slid to #28 or 29 last time I checked. So those sales figure increases are very real.
How does the increase in Steam sales compare to the increase in GoG and Humble sales? We may not be able to account for the shift from weekend to week, but we can at least see how much good that banner rotation is doing.
-
He had 1.6 million subscribers and is one of the biggest YouTube game critics and quite mainstream. This is extremely good news for Arcen and one of the best marketing for an indie that can be done.
-
A little birdie told me the Steam spring sale starts tomorrow, so that's gonna hurt.
-
A nice bit of exposure, congrats Arcen!
A little birdie told me the Steam spring sale starts tomorrow, so that's gonna hurt.
Maybe, but you can't prepare for every last thing, sooner or later, your little birdie of a game has to get out of the nest. I hope TLF's had a good launch, and that the karma wave continues.
-
TB video convinced a friend to finally drop cash on this one.
-
TB video convinced a friend to finally drop cash on this one.
I convinced a friend of mine by saying it's like Game of Thornes, in space.
-
TB video convinced a friend to finally drop cash on this one.
I convinced a friend of mine by saying it's like Game of Thornes, in space.
Fear cuts deeper than gravity lances...
-
"My dear girl, there is but one hell, and we are living in it."
Ehem, yes, I watch GOT too.
Unit Lost also did TLF with good vibe... overall this is very nice for Arcen, I hope this means AI War 2, or a really good 4x game is coming ;p (after patching TLF of course)
-
Game of Thornes
I bet that one's a bit prickly. ;)
-
Game of Thornes
I bet that one's a bit prickly. ;)
Beware the Porcupine King.
-
I think this thread should be sticked.
-
Not really sure if this is the best thread for this, but my biggest impediments to being fantastically enthralled with this game are pretty simple, but evidently they are not built into the game or the tooltips anywhere.
1) Getting Tech from Friendly races -> It would be really nice if I could just buy Techs from a friendly race.
i.e. - We can research techs together
i.e. - I can get them to share techs with other races (sometimes detrimentally to themselves, there should be a check so that they don't gift technologies to races they don't like)
i.e. - I can steal Techs from people
- But I cannot go to the Acutians, Andors, Skylaxians, etc. and say, "Hey, you have this cool tech that I would like, I want to buy it from you for X Credits/Voting Proxies/Influence, etc."
2) Game Timing -> I cannot find anything that indicates how long (in game time) that a game should last. This seriously impacts my willingness to do long term contracts.
For instance - why would I ever want to spend 10 months building influence at a rate of 0.1 per month? Is the game so long (in game time) that I can twiddle my thumbs for that length of time for such a small gain?
Why would I want to spend 60 months researching a tech with a race? Granted we both get a tech, but if I burn 5 years of game time, would the Thoraxians (or whatever similar race in a specific game) have conquered the rest of the galaxy in that time?
So really, do I have 100s of years to build a Federation, or do I need to be engaged in a manic-state of combat at all times?
Unlike AI War, Bionic Dues, and Skyward Collapse where there is a nicely defined "I do this and get X, but the <other guys> get Y" mechanic, that seems to be missing from Last Federation. Since I am not sure if a game will take 10 years or 100 years...I find myself unwilling to do anything that takes more than 5 months of game time, and then I wonder if there are many other things I could be doing that is a better use of my "in-game-time."
The "Computer Advisor" throws out some suggestions, which are helpful, but they don't tell me - "Hey, it's okay to go spend 10 years getting the Andors to think you are the greatest being in the galaxy and bring them into the Federation".
Seriously - aside from that this game is awesome and I like playing it, but I think I'm suffering from "ambiguity paralysis" at this point.
-
Congratulations on getting a "WTF".
While I'm not a big fan of TB's style of presentation, he certainly commands a lot of eyeballs, and so this can only be a good thing for Arcen.
-
Indarien's post has been Mantised (sent to bug tracker)
http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=14331
-
A little birdie told me the Steam spring sale starts tomorrow, so that's gonna hurt.
I hope your birdie is right. Not that I need any more games lol
-
Lol Total Biscuit helped fixed a bug in the next patch just by talking about it.
"The races now react with proper pleasure or alarm at the following things that you can do:
Undermine Rival Economy (10 pos, 30 neg).
Dump Toxic Waste On Planet (50 pos, 150 neg).
Are there others you notice? If so, please let us know!
Thanks to Total Biscuit for pointing this out."
-
Didn't know TotalSpaceBiscuit helped as well. :P
-
I agree with TB in one regard, the whole "land battles" aspect of the game seems to be handled very badly. I as well have found no way to determine which races actually excel at "ground invasions", or even how to tell if ground invasions are happening in the first place, who is winning, or what is going on whatsoever. Basically, from the player's perspective, a native planet is being surrounded by a swarm of foreign ships, then eventually it's conquered. There's really no indication or explanation of when or how the ground battling begins.
Before I played the game (reading about it before it even went into Alpha), with all the nuances and effort the developers put into the unique attributes for each race, especially in terms of their space and land invasion differences, I simply assumed that ground combat would have its own "simulation" itself, or at least a very visible indicator of how the battle was going. What we got instead were a few obscure numbers, difficult to find, it's such a huge part of the game and yet seems to be so difficult for the player to be involved in it.
Like I said, it could just be that both myself and TB never figured out how to "view" this part of the game, and if so I'd love to know how to do that.
-
Now #7 on Top Sellers, right behind Goat Simulator.
-
Cant say I'm overly fond of the guy either.... I dont think he's BAD at what he does, but he's sorta like Metacritic to me.... I typically find his opinions flawed.
That being said, it's still very good coverage. And the high sales are even better.
Now, hopefully they'll stay that way. I'd hate for this game to end up not getting expansions like AI War does. The last few games didn't really get any, aside from SC's Nihon expansion (which is pretty darn good, really), but... I usually end up wanting to see these games expanded, and it hasnt happened all that much.
This game though is downright perfect for that concept, even more than the others, so here's hoping it works out that way. I'm guessing it's too early to tell yet. Though I was pleased to hear that there's gonna be new content bits every week, that's pretty great.
Oh, and I also agree with something mentioned above, which is that the ground combat aspect of the game needs expanding. I've found that it's the most damn befuddling aspect of it so far.... even the different materials like cesium or xenotine now make sense to me, but the ground combat.... yeah, it's confusing, and there's no indicators of how it's going or what can be done with it.
-
He is going into surgery, so The Last Federation might be the last video he makes for a couple of weeks.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Cynicalbrit/comments/238zyg/totalbiscuit_expect_some_interruptions_in_content/
-
Metacritic [...] opinions flawed.
This phrase confuses me. You know that Metacritic does not actually make reviews, right? They're an aggregate average of other reviews.
-
Metacritic [...] opinions flawed.
This phrase confuses me. You know that Metacritic does not actually make reviews, right? They're an aggregate average of other reviews.
Probably referring to the user reviews.
-
Metacritic [...] opinions flawed.
This phrase confuses me. You know that Metacritic does not actually make reviews, right? They're an aggregate average of other reviews.
Probably referring to the user reviews.
I don't know if Misery would agree, but I would argue that the methodology employed by MetaCritic is itself deeply flawed.
-
Oh yeah, the day Metacritic burns is the day the games industry becomes a better place for everyone.
None of this has anything to do with the purpose of the thread, though. Just let it die before the mods euthanize it with force.
-
Oh, and I also agree with something mentioned above, which is that the ground combat aspect of the game needs expanding. I've found that it's the most damn befuddling aspect of it so far.... even the different materials like cesium or xenotine now make sense to me, but the ground combat.... yeah, it's confusing, and there's no indicators of how it's going or what can be done with it.
Is there a Mantis for this yet, so I can vote for it?
One possible solution is to use the planet itself as a meter. Put a colored overlay on top of it, that slowly "fills up" to visually show how much of the land has been conquered. The color of the overlay shows the race doing the conquering. You'd also need a tooltip describing the situation: "This planet is percent% dominated by invading space_dudes."
-
Is there a Mantis for this yet, so I can vote for it?
One possible solution is to use the planet itself as a meter. Put a colored overlay on top of it, that slowly "fills up" to visually show how much of the land has been conquered. The color of the overlay shows the race doing the conquering. You'd also need a tooltip describing the situation: "This planet is percent% dominated by invading space_dudes."
You can make one, though there is this one (http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=14347).
Your idea would probably require a reworking of how planets are taken, since right now it is basically:
Genocide by bombardment --> I guess it is mine now
-
I'm trying to figure out what kind of scoring system would be better than Metacritic.
I'm actually baffled.
What do you want, an electoral college (http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/RofWY8Op9ws/hqdefault.jpg)?
-
The problems with Metacritic are many, but the most obvious is the way they aggregate scores so blindly. Some things don't translate into a 1 to 100 scale, yet they force it regardless. Consider a game that is nearly perfect. One site gives it a 90 %. The next gives it four out of five stars. The next ranks it "awesome" on their scale which goes "bad, decent, awesome, perfect". Metacritic looks at those and sees 90, 80, 75. Even though they all were intended to mean essentially the same thing.
Another issue is that they don't curate their reviews very well, and just about any fly by night review site can get averaged into the score, even if they have no more credibility than the random user reviews.
Metacritic is okay for very rough estimation of quality. If it's below 50 that usually means bad, but I'd always look at the actual reviews if I really wanted to know. That's its only real useful feature, linking to a lot of reviews that you can parse with your working brain instead of letting their mindless averaging system tell you what to think.
-
Metacritic [...] opinions flawed.
This phrase confuses me. You know that Metacritic does not actually make reviews, right? They're an aggregate average of other reviews.
Exactly.
This is WHY they are so flawed. Because people take the overall number to essentially be a number like a proper review. Many DO NOT go in and read ANY of it. They just see a low number and think "Oh, this must be crap", without actually READING any of them to see if they even can agree with any of it or not. I know ALOT of people who do exactly this.
I consider the site to be an outright plague on the industry. It can seriously affect sales and such, and in a deeply stupid way, no less.
-
Metacritic is okay for very rough estimation of quality. If it's below 50 that usually means bad, but I'd always look at the actual reviews if I really wanted to know. That's its only real useful feature, linking to a lot of reviews that you can parse with your working brain instead of letting their mindless averaging system tell you what to think.
This is a problem with the 7-10 scale, not with Metacritic.
(Also, note: that averages to an 81, which on the 7-10 scale is "buy":
1-6: do not buy
7: worth a look
8: buy
9: overhyped
10: nothing gets a 10)
-
Sure, different issues, but I was trying to avoid posting an entire dissertation on the problems with reviews in the game industry, which I would probably do if I didn't cut myself short. But yes, the weird weight to scales in game reviews is another issue, but one that I'd argue Metacritic exacerbates in its own special way. If you have a site that tries to give more honest reviews, that gets treated exactly the same as sites that review on the 7+/10 scale. Another reason why blind averaging just doesn't work.
-
Metacritic is okay for very rough estimation of quality. If it's below 50 that usually means bad, but I'd always look at the actual reviews if I really wanted to know. That's its only real useful feature, linking to a lot of reviews that you can parse with your working brain instead of letting their mindless averaging system tell you what to think.
This is a problem with the 7-10 scale, not with Metacritic.
(Also, note: that averages to an 81, which on the 7-10 scale is "buy":
1-6: do not buy
7: worth a look
8: buy
9: overhyped
10: nothing gets a 10)
I'd say it's a problem with both.
The scale doesnt help, but it's the review chunks that are at the core of it.
With a normal review, you know it's one guy doing it, and it's made very clear as to how the things he's saying are directly creating the number given at the end. You can also consider WHO is writing it; if it's someone that you tend to agree with overall, that can factor in heavily on your decision. All of this is presented easily, and is very straightforward.
Metacritic, on the other hand, is an absolute and total mess. Most of the time, you have NO bloody idea what's REALLY going on with it. Often when I see one of these scores for a game, if I were to check and see what's generating it, it's going to list MANY people and sites, the vast majority of which I'll never, ever have heard of. For all I know, these people may be an overall negative sort, or they might be so bloody insane that they can have full conversations with their own feet. Yet even a SERIOUSLY terrible reviewer has a real effect on that final number. It is, frankly, a deeply idiotic approach.
And that's when you're looking at "proper" reviewers. It gets even more bloody stupid if you look at general random player reviews. I shouldnt even have to explain what's wrong with THAT.
This stuff is why I consider the site to be an enormous disaster.
-
They also refuse to remove completely inaccurate reviews from their score average, even when the source of the review pulls it from their site and admits that it was flawed. See http://kotaku.com/5960657/metacritic-refuses-to-pull-negative-review-that-gamespot-admits-was-factually-inaccurate
-
I'm trying to figure out what kind of scoring system would be better than Metacritic.
I'm actually baffled.
What do you want, an electoral college (http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/RofWY8Op9ws/hqdefault.jpg)?
How about... no scoring system? :p
-
The problem with not having a scoring system is that someone will then go out and make a scoring system.
-
The problem with not having a scoring system is that someone will then go out and make a scoring system.
That's fine, except if they do, I'm not likely to read that review.
-
The death of scored reviews cannot come soon enough. Summing up an entire videogame with a made-up scale that has many different standards feels completely wrong.
-
Mostly I just find the notion that game reviews are sufficiently precise and objective to merit the precision implied by a hundred point scale hilarious.
-
Mostly I just find the notion that game reviews are sufficiently precise and objective to merit the precision implied by a hundred point scale hilarious.
Or even a 10 point scale.
The closest thing I'll take to a score is a system like "Buy it, burn it, trash it". Basically where you say 1.) Yeah, this is good, 2.) It's okay, maybe you'll like it if you like similar stuff, or 3.) It's awful, avoid.
That's it, just three slots, anything else is silly.
-
Any individual review cannot have the precision of a 100 point system. However, they can generally review something on a 5 point scale for 5 different metrics, then perform a (weighted?) average. Which can be mapped to a 100 point system (4 + 4 + 5 + 5 + 3 => 84)
Also, watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOucwX7Z1HU
-
The problem with not having a scoring system is that someone will then go out and make a scoring system.
That's fine, except if they do, I'm not likely to read that review.
With respect, what you don't read isn't important. (Or I, for that matter.)
When I was a wee lad, I'd read magazines for game reviews. I got burned a couple times, so I started asking friends their opinions.
Nowadays, I don't read many reviews, unless word of mouth is good, first.
Game publishers can't really reach me as easily as someone who reads game reviews and buys based on scores. Enough buyers do exactly this to make my wishes mostly irrelevant.
Game players want a scoring system because it's a way to be told which game to buy, and to self-congratulate on a purchase already made. ("Well I don't want it!" Me neither, and that's exactly why we're irrelevant. As Mitt Romney would see it, we are folks who wouldn't swing that way anyhow.)
Game publishers want a scoring system because it's a metric they can point at and say "success" or "failure," and take action on. Want to push for that sequel? Point at the Metacritic score. Want to get rid of a troublesome lead developer, who still made the company millions? Point at the Metacritic score. It's a dumb metric but one that swings a big hammer anyway.
So, we can wish for the death of the scoring systems, we can analyze how badly they work, and gnash our teeth about it, but they're not going anywhere. Enough people want them, or at least rely on them. If they didn't exist, someone would invent them.
From the perspective of a person who plays video games, this really doesn't bother me much. I'm not being deprived of good video games. I'm frickin' flush with them. And the majority of them are ones that sail under the radar, and as a whole, the indie scene is getting along fine, even with Metacritic entries that would topple huge titles.
It does, however, put small to medium-sized game companies in a tricky situation. Rather than rely on Metacritic metrics, they have to cultivate a fanbase the old fashioned way. It's not very fair, but name me a sector of business these days where the little guy isn't being constantly tread upon by towering giants?
-
Any individual review cannot have the precision of a 100 point system. However, they can generally review something on a 5 point scale for 5 different metrics, then perform a (weighted?) average. Which can be mapped to a 100 point system (4 + 4 + 5 + 5 + 3 => 84)
Assuming that those review scores are normally distributed around the "true" score, that would give us a 95% confidence interval of 4.2 +/- 0.7. That is to say a range of scores from 70-98 on a 0-100 scale. ;)
-
That was 5 metrics (gameplay, graphics, sound, etc.) not 5 reviews.
Also for a good sampling you'd want 30 or more reviews.
-
Ah, my bad. However, my point still applies; you'd still have to account for the error / uncertainty when you aggregate those metrics, as indicated in my previous post. Not to mention that most reviews do not offer such a breakdown in the first place, nor is it clear that such metrics can even meaningfully be summed (conceptually, what does for example 3/5 in Graphics + 4/5 in Gameplay even mean?).
-
Any individual review cannot have the precision of a 100 point system. However, they can generally review something on a 5 point scale for 5 different metrics, then perform a (weighted?) average. Which can be mapped to a 100 point system (4 + 4 + 5 + 5 + 3 => 84)
Also, watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOucwX7Z1HU
Not good enough.
Part of the problem is that it's the bloody internet. By default, it's made entirely of crazy. And worse, it's the GAMING COMMUNITY on the INTERNET. So you add pointless, stupid raging, trolls with the might of 1000 stars, and the extreme and total insanity, and you get.... well, that's basically what Metacritic is made of. And worse, some of those reviews are thought of as "professional" (I could seriously rant for 10 pages as to what's wrong with THAT idea).
If I could simply destroy the site myself, I would. With the virtual equivalent of 300 supernovas going off at once.
If someone wants info on a particular game, go read some basic reviews of it. Find a reviewer/writer that you like, who seems at least relatively sane and objective, and just read what he/she thinks. Dont go and just look at the damn score, READ the review. Pretend the score isnt there. See some detail on the game from a good writer, and then after that, maybe look at a brief gameplay vid.
And POW, you already know way, way, way, WAY more than bloody Metacritic will ever teach you about said game. Your chances of missing out on something that you'd otherwise love, simply because Metacritic, is super dramatically lowered.
This is actually one of the core reasons why I think about it the way I do: Because awhile back, that one happened to me. There was a game, I forget exactly which one.... I buy so damn many.... that I didn't touch because "Oh, it's getting this low score on that site. Okay, must not be very good". Months later, I play it at a friends' house, and.... Yeah. Turned out I loved it. But because I'd just looked at a damn number generated by lots of seperate reviews by reviewers who seriously dont need to even have anything in common, including preferred genres (wow, yet ANOHTER flaw!), and who may or may not be A: insane, B: trolls, or C: insane trolls, well... I'd denied myself that experience for that long. When all I'd really needed to do was watch a couple of quick videos of the game, maybe see a basic write-up somewhere from someone into that genre. Instead, nonsensical Metacritic score. I can tell ya, I wont do THAT again. That site is now worth a vague laugh, if that, but that's all.
-
And that's why you read the reviews.
I look at the description, "That sounds fun" I say.
What is the aggregate score? Oh, it's a [whatever], I wonder why that is.
I look at the predominant view points (rating it very high, very low, and a couple right around the aggregate).
If I still need an opinion, I'll ask a friend or two whom I trust.
And I take each of those reviews that I do read with a grain of salt. "This guy rated it a ten and basically just hyped the game, not relevant. This guy rated it a 1 and is clearly an anti-fan, not relevant. Oh this review makes some good points."
-
And I take each of those reviews that I do read with a grain of salt. "This guy rated it a ten and basically just hyped the game, not relevant. This guy rated it a 1 and is clearly an anti-fan, not relevant. Oh this review makes some good points."
That's pretty much my system to.
-
And that's why you read the reviews.
I look at the description, "That sounds fun" I say.
What is the aggregate score? Oh, it's a [whatever], I wonder why that is.
I look at the predominant view points (rating it very high, very low, and a couple right around the aggregate).
If I still need an opinion, I'll ask a friend or two whom I trust.
And I take each of those reviews that I do read with a grain of salt. "This guy rated it a ten and basically just hyped the game, not relevant. This guy rated it a 1 and is clearly an anti-fan, not relevant. Oh this review makes some good points."
Ideally, yes.
But my whole point is that MOST PEOPLE DONT. They get a score thrown at them, and after that, they've made their judgement. THAT is the problem. YOU may do it that way, actually looking into the reasons for the score, but that's NOT the norm, and this is part of why there are more and more people lately that really hate Metacritic. As time goes on, the problems with it become more and more apparent, even to the unobservant.
At least someone doing this with a normal, single review is getting a score just from ONE writer. And typically anyone actively clicking on a normal review, be it on IGN or whatever, they're on the site to read those. With many sites, you HAVE to click on the review and open it to even see a score at all. And of course, video reviews will show you all sorts of gameplay, with the person talking about it, and THEN give you a score.
But Metacritic? No. Most expect the number, and the number is all they get, because after that, they're done. It's either "Oh, it's got a good score on here, so that's something I'll buy!" or "Ugh, only 60? Well I wont waste my time then!" followed by immediately leaving. This is not a rare way to deal with the site: This is the most COMMON way it's dealt with. The site simply lobs the number, and... that's it. Really, expecting more effort than this from much of the gaming community is damn silly.
And hell, Steam makes it worse, because it shows you the number without you having to even go to the actual site! Most people simply never go past that number.
And again, that's only one other reason why that place is flawed as heck. All of the other reasons still stand.... and I could go on, and on, and on, and on.....
-
Ah, but that still doesn't make "His opinion is flawed, just like Metacritic" any more valid.
Metacritic does not have an opinion. Yes, it boils a lot of things down into a single number, which may or may not be accurate, but that is not the same as one reviewer having a opinion that is wrong.
-
Anybody else find it funny that the Total Biscuit thread turned into the Metacritic sucks thread?
-
Ah, but that still doesn't make "His opinion is flawed, just like Metacritic" any more valid.
Metacritic does not have an opinion. Yes, it boils a lot of things down into a single number, which may or may not be accurate, but that is not the same as one reviewer having a opinion that is wrong.
I never said anyone's specific opinion is flawed, for this particular topic. I meant JUST Metacritic.
At least with a single person making a review, there is an encouragement to read/watch it, and after hearing what the person says, you can make a better judgement, wether you agree or not.
As for TB? Frankly, I"d forgotten this thread had to do with him originally. Which is par for the course for me, really.
-
I never said anyone's specific opinion is flawed, for this particular topic. I meant JUST Metacritic.
At least with a single person making a review, there is an encouragement to read/watch it, and after hearing what the person says, you can make a better judgement, wether you agree or not.
As for TB? Frankly, I"d forgotten this thread had to do with him originally. Which is par for the course for me, really.
Here's the sentence that got this started:
Cant say I'm overly fond of the guy either.... I dont think he's BAD at what he does, but he's sorta like Metacritic to me.... I typically find his opinions flawed.
-
Ahh yes, that. Indeed that is my opinion on him.
Though, he DOES at least explain himself in extreme detail, so I'll give him that at least. Even if you dont agree with him you can still learn about the game in question, so that's okay.
I'll stick to other reviewers myself. THough, I dont really watch reviews much, I tend to find things out by just impulsively buying the game in question.
-
I disagree with a lot of TB's opinions, but at least he tries to make it clear that those are his opinions, not gospel. Unfortunately, many still seem to treat it as such.
I still watch his show a lot because it's fairly informative, and can bring games to my attention that I might not have heard of or looked at otherwise. Except that, as of late, he's been doing a lot of "here's this old game that no one was ever interested and everyone assumed was probably bad. Spoiler alert: You're right." sort of thing. Hearing a good rant once in a while is fun, but not as often as he's been doing it.
-
Yes we've veered way over the horizon from the original topic. But oh well, let's enjoy the ride. His stuff lately with 'steam sells X' and all that has mainly been spotlighting the fact that Steam sells a lot of junk and shovelware and has basically given up all semblance of quality control as of late. And that a lot of games are hitting steam marked as "release date: today!" when in fact they were released years ago.
I find that annoying as well, so I don't really mind someone with a soapbox and a megaphone pointing out the problem. It wasn't all that long ago that you could rely on most of what you saw on Steam to be of a certain level of quality. Even if they weren't all games that I wanted to play, they were usually well made games that fans of whatever genre they happened to be in would enjoy. Not so much lately, now it's starting to look like the bargain bin at a used game shop. I'd much rather have a more curated store front if it meant that that quality titles got more time in the spotlight, rather than what we've got now.
I mean, Arcen had to scheme and plot just to get TLF on the new releases page for 3 days, which is quite good by recent standards. Used to be you could release a game any time and have it not roll off the new releases list for a week or more. But now it seems like every day a new truckload of forgotten and forgettable titles gets dumped onto Steam, burying the rare gems in a never-ending flood of trash.
-
I agree with his grievances, but making a ton of videos to trash specific games seems unnecessary. Especially when he goes into it having effectively pre-judged the game and just attacks it mercilessly, like he did with that one tank game. Was it a good game? Not really, but it wasn't that bad either. As soon as he ran into one glitch, though, he basically admitted "there, I was looking for a reason to hate this" and instantly declared the game total garbage.
Steam does need better quality control, though.
-
Yes we've veered way over the horizon from the original topic. But oh well, let's enjoy the ride. His stuff lately with 'steam sells X' and all that has mainly been spotlighting the fact that Steam sells a lot of junk and shovelware and has basically given up all semblance of quality control as of late. And that a lot of games are hitting steam marked as "release date: today!" when in fact they were released years ago.
I find that annoying as well, so I don't really mind someone with a soapbox and a megaphone pointing out the problem. It wasn't all that long ago that you could rely on most of what you saw on Steam to be of a certain level of quality. Even if they weren't all games that I wanted to play, they were usually well made games that fans of whatever genre they happened to be in would enjoy. Not so much lately, now it's starting to look like the bargain bin at a used game shop. I'd much rather have a more curated store front if it meant that that quality titles got more time in the spotlight, rather than what we've got now.
I mean, Arcen had to scheme and plot just to get TLF on the new releases page for 3 days, which is quite good by recent standards. Used to be you could release a game any time and have it not roll off the new releases list for a week or more. But now it seems like every day a new truckload of forgotten and forgettable titles gets dumped onto Steam, burying the rare gems in a never-ending flood of trash.
Yeah, this has been a big issue with Steam lately.
I dont find that overly many of the recent releases are bad.... I still impulsively buy the absurd amount of games as I ever did and they're mostly good stuff.... but the sheer number of releases can make it hard to look through them and dammit I'd like to smash whoever invented laptop keyboards. Argh.
*ahem* but yeah, that's defniitly an issue. And they *need* to seperate the blasted lists! Early access is a fine system, I buy those frequently. And I like that they put up some older games on there as well, there's some good stuff to be found from earlier eras. But they shouldnt be squashed together all in one list! It's confusing. I dont know what the heck they were thinking with that.
I love Steam but good grief, that bit is obnoxious.
-
Metacritic does not have an opinion. Yes, it boils a lot of things down into a single number, which may or may not be accurate, but that is not the same as one reviewer having a opinion that is wrong.
It's worth keeping in mind that the Metacritic is based on a weighted average (based on criteria such as the "overall stature" of the review-site, whatever that means!) of a selection of reviews, not simply the average of all available reviews mapped to the same scale (which is itself problematic). So what you end up with is an aggregate score adjusted according to / filtered through the opinions of the people at MetaCritic.
So while MetaCritic does not "have an opinion", the scores are contingent upon the opinions of the people at MetaCritic, who are mostly not know to us. It is essentially a black box.
-
Well I think it's good for Arcen as I bought this game having watched his 30+ minute you tube review.
I'm an old Arcen fan and bought the original AI War years ago, as well as Skyward Collapse.
So far TLF looks great fun..will spend some more time with it tonight.