Quoting: HadBabitsI feel I'm more towards the middle.

That's usually smart. The truth is often found somewhere in the middle. :)

Quoting: HadBabitsIt's pretty much the same problem I have with Greenlight

Excellent point.

Quoting: HadBabitsI've found the best approach (for me) is to find specific reviewers you trust. Also, someone with similar tastes (in my case, the fellow from IndieStatik) or someone who can be objective enough to recommend a quality game that doesn't fit their own taste (e.g. TotalBiscuit).

I agree with this advice. Also, especially on releases that's not received a very high metarating, it's wise to read reviews and see what exactly it is that pulled the score down, and if those elements are important for you.

But my experience is that the metrascore is an as reliable source of ratings as it can be, for a very quick indication of overall quality.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I love this topic :)

Quoting: liamdaweMy stance came as a result of multiple well known big gaming websites giving a certain game I got stung by 9/10 or 10/10 when in fact it was a steaming pile of turd that thankfully "amateurs" who played it gave a better picture. Some of those sites have since changed their scores.

Would be interesting to hear what game this is, just out of curiosity.
I too have experienced metascore being what I would classify as a little bit off, but my experience is that the metascore in more than 9 out of ten times is an extremely good indicator of the game.

Can you for example point at a metascore of a game who you sincerely disagree with and think is totally off the mark?

No, and why would I need to do this? Metascore uses user and publication reviews.

That is simply not true. Metascores - at least those found on real metascore sites - are calculated on reviews from what the maintainer defines as "trusted sources".

Some sites that calculate a metascore (metacritic and imdb being two obvious examples) also carry an additional user rating score that is separate from the metascore. And that user rating is, as a rule of thumb, usually much higher than the metascore. Obviously cause amateurs have no experience as reviewers, and either love or hate something. Ergo, either they give it full score or no score.

Look at any site with user reviews and you'll soon discover the vast majority either hand out 4/5 stars (of a max of five) or null to one star. That's just the rule - this is very likely why Steam only has a thumb up or down.

Amateur reviews however... Don't even get me started. I've seen so much crap coming from amateurs on games I own and know, it's not even funny. And *usually* they are far too forgiving, far too uncritical. That is the rule.

Exactly the same for "professional" reviews.

You obviously got an impression that this is the case and I'm not here to tell you what to believe. But look at the facts, man. Look at how users rate games on Steam that might have an as low a metascore as down in the 50s!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: liamdaweReviews done by "amateurs" are generally a good indication of how a game is. Some "professionals" get paid to write good reviews for bad games.

I trust user reviews more than so called critics or professionals.

What experience do you base this on? What made your stance? I'm seriously wondering how one can come to such a conclusion.
Can you for example point at a metascore of a game who you sincerely disagree with and think is totally off the mark?

Cause I could in a whim whip up at least fifty totally bonkers user reviews for almost any given popular title out there - in particular the franchises it has become trendy to hate (COD in particular stands out as an example of how bad it can get).

Sure there are rotten eggs in the professional sphere, just like there are dishonest journalists. Well, doh. Also, it's far too easy to become a reviewer today, especially on the smaller sites, so in those cases one can say that we indeed only get a "user review" from those sources too - there is no difference. I can agree there.

But overall I have to say that the metascore, in my experience, is a darn precise indicator of a games quality. In my view it's the most reliable source we got. If a game hold a meta of 80 or higher you are essentially *guaranteed* to deal with a quality product almost regardless of your personal preferences. And if it holds a significantly lower score than that there usually *are* major drawbacks to be found in the production.

Amateur reviews however... Don't even get me started. I've seen so much crap coming from amateurs on games I own and know, it's not even funny. And *usually* they are far too forgiving, far too uncritical. That is the rule.

With all respect, but in my ears this is like saying, "I trust my Twitter and Facebook stream the most when it comes to reliable news, rather than serious news journalists".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: fleskThe user reviews on Steam are 10/11 positive.

Ah - user ratings. Yeah, those are reliable...

I'm sorry but user reviews in general are rubbish - after all they are written by amateurs. Any written review done by unexperienced reviewers are more or less ramblings. And I am not just talking about game reviews - same goes for music, tools, PC equipment, the lot. Why do online stores keep user reviews? Cause on average they are much less critical about what they review than experienced reviewers, so they trigger additional sales. That's why.

I'll make *one* exception: Movies. There's a lot of movie buffs out there who see a lot of films and are quite literate and nuanced about it. They can be trusted to a higher extent.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Wow, looked interesting indeed. Gave me associations to "Crush!", a wonderful puzzle game on the PSP.

But where did you read the good reviews? A search on gamerankings.com returned only four very mediocre ones (around 60% rating)?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

WOOHOO! Hot DAMN!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: SirBubblesWell I do like the trailer, but considering it's just more shooty Borderlands, and there are already two games in the series, just what is the point?

Ah well, I guess that can be said about the entire Call Of Duty franchise as well. :)

The point, for someone who's finished the first two, can be summed up in two words: More content.
New locations, new mobs, new characters... You know. More of the same, isn't that exactly what fans want?

Quoting: SirBubblesDidn't remember the Pre-Sequel thing. Do try to forgive me.

There's nothing to forgive. :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: SirBubblesThe people here commenting are aware that this Pre-Sequel is, while using the Borderlands name, closer to The Walking Dead and Wolf Among Us in terms of gameplay, right? It's made by telltale if I recall correctly. And that should make it a good deal more worth watching for me than the other games using the name. I'd like to know if either Walking Dead or Wolf Among Us might be coming to linux as well.

Did you even watch the trailer? This is very much the Borderlands we love and adore, being developed by 2K Australia.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaineBL2 made one small difference in that if a higher level character dropped into a lower level character's game, that game stayed at the lower level BUT that meant that the higher level guy could nearly one-shot every enemy. And he got almost no experience. And all the equipment drops were too low-level to bother looking at.

Not great. If they fix that, it'll be game of the century.

I disagree - it shouldn't be "fixed" cause it's not broken. Just team up with buddies that's roughly your level, or get power levelled by the higher chars and surf on them for a while. That's the way to keep the game fun. In Borderlands, if you are the lowest level you level up a *lot* faster than your teammates, so it doesn't take long before it evens out.

I've seen so many attempts at "fixing" the situation for a group with a wide range of levels, and it always has unwanted consequences. No: Keep the mobs at their level, give the highest levels in the group something to work on, and let the lowest levels face the consequences. No babysitting. No artificial limitations. Just blast on.

Borderlands is GREAT. :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: abelthorneI played the first Borderlands and it was pretty fun but a bit too repetitive and boring after a while. I've heard that Borderlands 2 addresses these issues but I've not played it.

Borderlands (either game) is best played with a buddy and a few strong drinks. It's hilarious, a total blast.
But a good friend or three needs to be onboard. As a solo game it's pretty repetitive, that is true. And lonely. At least once you're used to hang out in there with buddies.

View this comment - View article - View full comments