安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Lots of people say lots of things, politicians say they dont lie. I tend to base my opinion on evidence. ALL evidence of IGNs scoring is there over the past 10 years for anyone to see, i can go back picking out 100s of average games they gave 7, 8 and even 9+s to, games which were roundly disliked by fans and players en masse. So yeah keep banging on about how IGN say they score ill look at the evidence and so long as they continue to give generic cack 8s and 9s i wont change my opinion.
Its nothing to do with 'feelings' im basing it on evidence on their site over many years and the games they reviewed how well they were received by fans and how they scored them. Theyve even been forced in the past to go back and reduce their scores cause they rated awful games people hated to highly.
That's what a review IS. It's a like vs dislike of the game/movie/song whatever. We call that enjoyment, not an "agenda." That's why in many reviews people will say "While many players might like this mechanic, others will find it too complex."
Name a game as an example that you think was absolute trash that IGN gave a good review to.
http://uk.ign.com/games/rome-total-war-2/pc-136961
Rome Total War 2 (one of the worst total war games ever made) 8.8
Need any more?
It even got an editors choice ffs, it was awful, buggy, broken, bad ripped all the best bits out of the series its widely regarded as the worst game CA ever made.
And yes a review is an opinion but good reviewers try to be as neutral as possible, take a prominent movie reviewer like Mark Kermode for example, he dislikes certain genres of films hell often state this at the start of the review, but hell try to not let that colour his review to much and approach it from the point of view of an average movie goer.
Has IGN personally reviewed even 1% of all games released in the last 10 years? No no they have not.
You can not draw a statistical average from such a small sample as the amount of games IGN has reviewed.
They evidently are picking which games to review and which to not.
This in turn means any attempt to draw conclusions and apply it to all games is biased.
Your attempts at claiming an average for games is inherently false because of this.
You are basing it on your opinion not fact or reality.
The only thing you can go on in relation to what IGN officially believes to be average is how they define their scores which clear is not the case.
So please take your head out your ass since at this point your are just trying to argue against everything because it does not fit your personal world view.
You can argue that IGN overrates games in general, this is quite easy to show given what a fair number of their reviews consistantly overhype games while ignoring that what is being done is quite frankly the norm in that genre.
Your arguement is as follows:
IGN only reviews a small number of games.
IGN has a scoring system.
They define a scoring system
The small number of games they selectively review which is most likely not even 1% of all games that have been released in even the last 5 years, let alone 10 years.
Therefore from this selected amount of games I will now Apply the scores from these games to all games in existence.
In turn because of this biased average that I now have, I will now claim their definitions of the scoring system is in fact a lie, instead of the correct conclusion that it is not actually used in general.
Therefore the game I like should be much higher on the scoring system despite the definition of the core it recieved being exactly the state the game currently is in because of my own personal bias.
See the problem is your trying to hide personal bias behind your artifical "facts" and "evidence".
it is based on your personal bias not evidence.
What on earth are you going on about... Where did i state they reviewed all games? And thats not even the point i was making, for someone so hot on pointing out other reading comprehension difficulties you sure dont read my posts very well.
I can with absolute faith state I do not trust the word of people who say there scoring system is as you say then give (to use the above example) RTW2 which everyone hated and was awful 8.8, who gave ACM a good score when it released (later redacted) who gave GTAV 10/10 who gave...
And actually even that is not relevant thats getting bogged down on specifics, my point is over 5 years (you can check this yourself) they have given around 120 below 5 scores (many of these are actually duplicate reviews for x platform games) so without counting its around 80 games. They have reviewed 100s of games probably close to over 1000 in that time, and your telling me only 80 were considered below average.
OK
There were a fair few who enjoyed the game a lot and liked it. Much like there are those in stellaris who never faced any crashes or game instabilities.
It also appears that once again you refuse to read that persons review of it with how they do bring up the big problems with the game.
The scoring process however is artifically inflated as seen in how core mechanics not working very well (AI) which the reviewer states outright, the game still got a high score.
Your conclusion should be that IGN inflates scores so they should actually work to keep more in line with their own definition. It should not be will because the vast majority of IGN reviewers/reviews end up with an inflated score any honest review score based upon the definitions of the scores that IGN provides should also be dishonest and inflated to match all the other dishonest and inflated scores.
You are showing extreme personal bias in an attempt to try and argue that a game should get a higher score because a lot of other games recieved dishonest scores while stellaris got an honest one.
You are trying to say that rather than being honest the reviewer should join rank and file and be dishonest for a game you enjoy and like because games you did not enjoy got an inflated and dishonest score.
Like so many people are pointing out, maybe its because they didn't PAY IGN for a good review, whatever or however they do that. I've already heard this particular reviewer has been in trouble for this exact thing.
I think the biggest unfortunate thing is that some people who trusted IGN might have been turned off by the review and missed out on this great game.
Lets not try to justify RTW2 some people like clicker games doesnt make them good. As a long term fan of the series since STW1 and member of an active community of total war fans of 1000s of members its widely regarded as the worst game they ever made, it was flat out broken and bugged to hell on release for example (none of which mentioned in the review) even after many patches and dlc its still regarded as the worst for quantifiable and quite logical reasons which i wont bore you with if you havent played the series.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/total-war-rome-ii
User score across 3700 reviews is 4.2 critic scores 78
It was a terrible broken buggy mess of a game, just cause some people liked it we can still look at the opinions of a majority of people and suggest thats probably where it should sit (in the garbage bin)
I was asked for a roundly regarded as bad game which got a high score RTW2 fits that bill if you enjoyed it good for you, nobody else did.
To get back to stellaris, while you accuse me of being biased your literally basing all your opinion on 1 guy, 1 lone man and discounting 100s of players and 10s of other reviewers as 'biased' how is that any less insane than what you accuse me of.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/stellaris
User score across 405 reviews 8.2 critic scores 72
Now ive argued since about page 5 that the score should be around 7.5 even based on his own review (as his only real gripes were passive AI and slow mid game) he loved other aspects. 7.5 sits perfectly in line with the average scores you get if you round up all the reviews and user scores. That would suggest would it not that stellaris should (which is what im arguing about) be around the 7.5 mark NOT 6.3.
And I personally find this whole 'well we should be trying to bring other reviews in line with this honest score' argument a bit hollow. Cause firstly it wont happen and second in the meantime it sits with its 'honest' score among 100s of other dishonestly (according to you) marked games on the same site. Its like there being a 100m sprint and one guy comes last complains about the other guys using performance enhancing drugs then saying he shouldnt complain we should bring all the others in line then doing nothing about it and he still came last.
Its a ridiculous argument. I repeat until IGN roundly marks everything according to its own scale (it never will) i maintain this is an unfairly low score for a game almost every other review site and fan review thought was much better.
The nail in the coffin of your arguement is that Even the Devs of the game have agreed with the IGN reviewer that they have a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ they need to fix in order to make the game great.
You see you can argue all you like that you think its a great game but when the very devs of the game your talking about agree that in its current state all the points that reviewer made are 100% correct, well turns out that reviewer was pretty damn correct.
Do however live in your false reality.
Solid review to me. Points out the positives, he talks about some of the drawbacks and glitches, some of the vagueness with politics, and some of the frustrations with family members but says he likes the changes.
And no, EVERYONE did not think this game was awful. Sorry but a lot of people liked it including myself.
I'm still not able to find something rock solid about the game that made it an "awful game."
People don't pay IGN for reviews. We've been over this with all the conspiracy theorists and they can't map out how that works without looking extremely child-like in their understanding of finance, business, securities law, and the world. IGN is owned by a publicly-traded company and they don't receive compensation for reviews. If they did, it would have to be disclosed on their financial statements. It isn't. Are you saying there's a RICO Act violation? Seriously?
This reviewer hasn't been "in trouble" for anything. He has reviewed several Paradox titles and Paradox found no flaw in his review.
And about Metacritic reviews, people slammed Attila because of DLC. And the DLC was actually good. So I could care less what people on Metacritic say.
What people generally claim is that the payment is in the form of advertising revenue. Basically, the more advertizing you buy with them, the better your review will be because they don't want to risk the publisher pulling their advertising. IE - It's not direct payment with an agreement, it's more of an unspoken agreement.
It's plausible, but I personaly don't believe it.
I subscribe to the adage "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity... but don't rule out malice". Basically, can they be paid reviews? Sure. But it's more likely that the reviewers are just dumb as a sack of bricks. And that's what I'll believe until there's concrete proof otherwise.
Well we can actually directly refute it with evidence. Need for Speed and The Division both got slammed hard by IGN even though they dumped a lot of advertising revenue on them.
So that hypothesis doesn't work. In addition, Jeff Gerstmann, who a lot of these people idolize, explained in detail that the pay-for-good-review theory is bogus and not how it works.
I don't think every professional game reviewer is some genius, but compared to the "10/10 would run into the wall again" type of reviews here on Steam, I'll take my chances.
Like I said, I personally don't believe it. But some people are geared to want to believe in conspiracies and no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway them. It makes them feel smart to think they're the ones not being fooled.
But as far as the worth of reviews in general... I will look at how well it's written, what points they hit and if those points really matter for the type of game it is and, probably most importantly, see if they've reviewed any other games I've actually played and if they tend to have the same opinion. If they think the games I like are terrible and the games I don't like are wonderful... then I know I can ignore their opinion.
Reviews can never be unbiased so you have to do your homework and find the ones that are biased the same way you are. (Yeah, I know you know this, I just have a habit of restating things for the sake of clarity.)
So IGN giving this a 6.3 doesn't mean it's a bad game, it just means this particular reviewer didn't care for it very much - and that I can safely keep him off my list of "Reviewers Whose Opinions I Actually Care About."
The game certainly isn't perfect - some annoying bugs, some questionable design choices - but it's been quite enjoyable. And I'm glad I didn't listen to anyone who said not to get it.
Then the lead devs even came out and also agrees to a certain extent and acknowledged the concerns.
If anything this gives IGN more credibility to me because no matter how many people screamed and lost their minds, they stood by their review and it turns out they were right.