The Metacritic Prediction Thread

By on October 18, 2012 7:28:40 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Mmrnmhrm

Join Date 02/2005
+8

It looks like Fallen Enchantress is ready for release. I don't know what differences there are between 0.99 and 1.0 yet but it's probably safe to pass judgment.

So.....

What do you think the Metacritic average of Fallen Enchantress will be by December 1, 2012? Put in your guesses.

Here are some recent game releases to compare to.....

Dishonored 91

XCOM 89

Borderlands 2 89

Torchlight II 89

Transformers: Fall of Cyberton 79

Prototype 2 76

The Sims Super Natural 71

Retro City Rampge 70

 

Locked Post 124 Replies
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 24, 2012 9:00:12 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

I would hope we won't see critics' reviews for at least a week.  I would hope that they'll take the time to really play a game that offers some depth.  But typically TBS games get a glib look at the pleasing or displeasing surface.  To be fair, many sites don't offer much space to reviews, but many reviewers also have been raised on a steady diet of action titles, arcades, and first person shooters.  Which makes them perfect at reviewing TBS games, after all.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 24, 2012 9:02:20 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Rhadagast,
User score of 7.1 (out of 10) thanks to some super low ratings, only 18 in so far.  No critic reviews shown yet.  They should show median instead of average, would cut down on the influence of fan boys and trolls alike.

Unfortunately, user game reviews aren't terribly informative.  As someone pointed out, Diablo 3 has a user review rating on Metacritic of 3.

There are a lot of people out there these days who just have an axe to grind.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 24, 2012 9:03:44 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

My Prediction - 78.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 24, 2012 9:08:19 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Frogboy,

Quoting Rhadagast, reply 76User score of 7.1 (out of 10) thanks to some super low ratings, only 18 in so far.  No critic reviews shown yet.  They should show median instead of average, would cut down on the influence of fan boys and trolls alike.

Unfortunately, user game reviews aren't terribly informative.  As someone pointed out, Diablo 3 has a user review rating on Metacritic of 3.

There are a lot of people out there these days who just have an axe to grind.

 

I agree, not very useful, larger sample size will no doubt bring it up a bit also.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 24, 2012 9:15:32 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Rhadagast,

Quoting Frogboy, reply 77
Quoting Rhadagast, reply 76User score of 7.1 (out of 10) thanks to some super low ratings, only 18 in so far.  No critic reviews shown yet.  They should show median instead of average, would cut down on the influence of fan boys and trolls alike.

Unfortunately, user game reviews aren't terribly informative.  As someone pointed out, Diablo 3 has a user review rating on Metacritic of 3.

There are a lot of people out there these days who just have an axe to grind.

 

I agree, not very useful, larger sample size will no doubt bring it up a bit also.

Not necessarily. There's like 4000 people who voted on Diablo 3 and it averaged around a 3. That's totally unfair. Diablo 3 is a very good game.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 24, 2012 10:08:20 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Frogboy,

Not necessarily. There's like 4000 people who voted on Diablo 3 and it averaged around a 3. That's totally unfair. Diablo 3 is a very good game.

I agree that 3 is harsh and exaggerated, but people were voting against always-on internet requirements for single-player and for servers not being ready for the release.  Both are valid complaints.  Blizzard made a bad and IMO anti-gamer/customer decision, then amplified it with lack of preparation.   I personally don't think it should have gotten below a 6 or so, but gamers tend to have exaggerated reactions about games. I'm wondering to what extent this is an American phenomenon, and if gamers in other countries get as dramatic.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 24, 2012 10:21:56 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums


Just so everyone can keep tabs on the Metacritic churning, here's FE's slot:

     http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/elemental-fallen-enchantress

 

But, Fair Warning, just as so many folks have noted: the voting on Metacritic can be totally biased, bizarre, and just plain bananas ... Comments (by people who have taken the time to comment) may be slightly better and/or more informative.  As for the professional reviews, well, you have to take each one of them on its own merits ...     

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 1, 2012 5:46:51 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

I find the average review fairly accurate if slightly below my prediction. Honestly it seems like the majority of the higher scores are from apologists/fanboys bumping up the score because 'its better than WoM', which has me thinking I maybe bumped up my prediction because FE is better than WoM as well. FE should be judged against its peers, not biased against previous iterations.

 

66 reviews is not a lot to base much off of though. As far as professional reviewing goes I hardly count them above the average user these days, sometimes below due to the amount of ridiculous corruption that seems to persist at the more 'reputable' sites.

 

 

Edit: As for Diablo 3, idk how anyone can rate that turd well. Horribly delayed, horrible launch, scam economy (RMAH?!), terrible support, complete lack of any innovation, outspoken dev who tells you that your way of fun is wrong, what is good about this game again (?), I sure hope no one brings up the lackluster gameplay, WoW'd graphics, abysmal plot (FemDiablo, Tyrael Angel of Wisdom LOL). As someone who has played through Inferno on multiple characters and not a casual player/observer who may not have gotten to the 'real game' I felt my time and effort were entirely wasted. I only played because of all my friends who did as well, and that was the only fun part of the game. I doubt any still play as most of us felt like unpaid employees of Blizzard hawking their wares on the RMAH for less than 25 cents on the dollar. There are other 60 dollar and below games that offer everything good about Diablo 3 and far more.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 1, 2012 6:05:18 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Ratatosk7,
I find the average review fairly accurate if slightly below my prediction. Honestly it seems like the majority of the higher scores are from apologists/fanboys bumping up the score because 'its better than WoM', which has me thinking I maybe bumped up my prediction because FE is better than WoM as well. FE should be judged against its peers, not biased against previous iterations.

Something similar could be said in reverse for those that "hate" the game. How many mention that it's not MoM, or some other game that they loved playing 15 years ago? This demonstrates an incapability to judge the game on its own merit, rather it is being judged by how "equal" it is to previous games (including E:wom!). The thought process "I didn't have fun because this isn't a clone of my favourite game X" is completely ludicrous to me.

The question is not if FE has a mechanic you loved in some other game. The question is if FE makes the mechanics it has work, and if it's fun to play. And, to be fair, there is plenty of accurate criticism in that area as well - but not in the lowest votes.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 1, 2012 7:12:44 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

I'm on record in earlier posts as predicting 75-80 metacritic average if released on 23 October as planned and nothing since has changed my mind. I think FE is deserving of an 85-90 metacritic if it had been polished before release but the bugs, inconsistencies, balance issues and slightly 'B' grade feel that results will tell.

Big name games can sometimes get away with these problems (eg Civ 5, although even in its buggy release state it still had a more polished 'feel' than FE) but smaller name games can't.

We'll see though. There have been some decent reviews, if a couple of 90's come in FE could still scrape in above 80%.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 1, 2012 7:30:01 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

As for the whole Diablo debate... sure Diablo has taken a pounding due to haters but haters don't just come from no where, Blizzard made all the choices which created them (in particular making single player online only but there were plenty of other dodgy decisions).

They then compounded this by making a game that is actually rather mediocre and certainly less interesting than its predecessor which it will inevitably be compared against. All in all Diablo 3 probably only deserves a 5 or 6 user review so 3.8 is not that surprising given the bad blood.

The really amusing side of all this is watching how in recent years Metacritic is showing such big discrepancies between critic and user reviews of several recent big name games such as Diablo 3, Mass Effect 3, Empire: Total War, even Civilization 5. Users are hammering games for being buggy, shallow or just generally boring while critics are pretending all these big budget games are A grade. Sure the user scores are exaggerated downwards by people with an axe to grind but in most of these cases there is still a strong kernel of truth behind the lower user scores. There are also plenty of counter examples to prove that users aren't just hating on studios for the fun of it, for example Empire: Total War was panned by users (mostly deservingly, there were some very serious bugs, including game save corruption) but the much tighter, more polished and more fun Total War: Shogun 2 received a good user score of 81.

The obvious conclusion is that while user scores are sometimes exaggerated downwards when there is a serious problem with a game, critic scores are usually exaggerated significantly upwards for big budget games.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 1, 2012 9:12:10 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums


Gamespy's 70 point review doesn't properly depict what they've said in their review. In the review they gave 3.5/5 stars.....and while that is 70%, in the comments below the review, the reviewer SPECIFICALLY said that 3.5/5 DOES NOT equal 70......yet metacritic in it's infinite wisdom decided to plunk the score in as such anyways.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 1, 2012 9:49:57 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

The user reviews on metacritc or anywhere else on games are useless. 

 

The prediction thread is about what the review score will be by professional reviewers. Not kids who gave it a 0 "just because".

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 1, 2012 9:57:17 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Frogboy,

Unfortunately, user game reviews aren't terribly informative.  As someone pointed out, Diablo 3 has a user review rating on Metacritic of 3.
There are a lot of people out there these days who just have an axe to grind.

I would vote Diablo III exactly ZERO, like the chance that I'm going to pay for the "privilege" of "renting" single player gaming hours from their servers, or for an idiotic action house. 

Don't forget that Diablo III isn't the only purchasable game around: there are others. When you think like a customer, harsh reviews have plenty of reasons to exist... and I thank the users who take the time to write them down and warn the other players, who have to carefully decide where to spend their money.

I understand a developer might feel like you do about users who give extremely low votes, but don't forget that there are those who give 10s for "personal" reasons, as well... even FE is benefiting from those. I say the system is more than fair. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 1, 2012 10:22:53 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting GFireflyE,

Gamespy's 70 point review doesn't properly depict what they've said in their review. In the review they gave 3.5/5 stars.....and while that is 70%, in the comments below the review, the reviewer SPECIFICALLY said that 3.5/5 DOES NOT equal 70......yet metacritic in it's infinite wisdom decided to plunk the score in as such anyways.

Metacritic can't start adjusting individual scores / scales, that would lead to disaster. Maybe they do have infinite wisdom as they've realized this, who knows.

It'll be interesting to see whether the game ends up in the high 70s or the low 80s. Big difference in perception depending on which of those it ends up as. I maintain my position in 75-79.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 1, 2012 10:50:57 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Frogboy,

Not necessarily. There's like 4000 people who voted on Diablo 3 and it averaged around a 3. That's totally unfair. Diablo 3 is a very good game.

Not really, and certainly not when it was released. Compared to D2 it was unspectacular, uninspired, limited and built around the auction house. Covering up the database breaches early on, the massive exploiting and the server issues did not help. If you force people to play online, remove LAN features, and then fail to provide adequate server capacities and performance, then the user feedback will reflect this.

I had waited for D3 for ten years, and I played D2 for several years, as well. My interest in D3 died in the third week. I never played a game that annoyed and frustrated me more than D3 did with its Inferno mode. Some of the worst design I have seen in the genre. Now, I would not give it a 3/10 either, because if you just play through the story once or twice, you get 20-40 hours of good entertainment from it, and I do not regret the purchase, but gameplay-wise it is a far worse title than D2 and definitely a league below the excellent Torchlight 2, which had a fraction of the budget. D3 is an "okay" game. Cutscenes and voice acting were great, and I liked the painterly style, too, but loot, character and monster/encounter design, as well as handling of act travelling and poor, barely random map generation were all huge disappointments to me, as a genre fan.

But I agree that user ratings are pretty useless. Actually, I think the professional metascore is also meaningless after a game has been out for a few weeks and development continued. Static scores meant something 20, 25 years ago. Today, they are often counter-productive since they do not reward continued support.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 1, 2012 11:12:43 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Whiners harp on how 70 (or its equivelant 7.0/10) is a bad score.   I completely disagree ... but, then, my bias probably comes from my go-to source for game reviews I've stuck with all these years:  Gamespot.  No, Gamespot hasn't reviewed Elemental Fallen Enchantress, at least not yet, but nonetheless here is Gamespot's breakdown of what varying scores mean:

http://www.gamespot.com/misc/reviewguidelines.html

I quote:

  • 10.0: Prime - This exceedingly rare score refers to a game that is as perfect as a game can aspire to be at its time of release. Obviously, the constantly changing standards for technology and gameplay will probably make this game obsolete some day, but at its time of release, a game earning this score could not have been improved upon in any meaningful way.
  • 9.0-9.5: Superb - We absolutely recommend any game in this range, especially to fans of that particular genre. However, games that score in the 9 range are also typically well suited to new players. Games that earn 9s are naturally uncommon, and earn GameSpot's Editors' Choice Award for their outstanding quality.
  • 8.0-8.5: Great - This range refers to great games that are excellent in almost every way and whose few setbacks probably aren't too important. We highly recommend games in the upper half of this range, since they tend to be good enough to provide an enjoyable experience to fans of the particular genre and to new players alike.
  • 7.0-7.5: Good - A game within this range is good overall, and likely worth playing by fans of the particular genre or by those otherwise interested. While its strengths outweigh its weaknesses, a game that falls in this range tends to have noticeable faults.
  • 6.0-6.5: Fair - Games that earn 6-range ratings have certain good qualities but significant problems as well. These games may well be worth playing, but you should approach them with caution.
  • 5.0-5.5: Mediocre  -A 5-range score refers to a game that's "merely average" in the negative sense. These games tend to have enough major weaknesses to considerably outweigh their strengths. There's probably a substantially better, similar game out there for you.
  • 4.0-4.5: Poor - Games that just don't work right and maybe didn't spend enough time in production tend to fall in to this category. They simply lack the cohesion and quality that make other games fun.
  • 3.0-3.5: Bad - You probably shouldn't get too close to a game in this range. Any of its positive qualities most likely serve only to make the rest of it seem even more disappointing.
  • 2.0-2.5: Terrible - Beware, for a game in this range is almost entirely devoid of any remotely decent or fully functional features.
  • 1.0-1.5: Abysmal - Ouch. The rare game that falls in this lowest-of-the-low range has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Don't play this game

Granted, other game review sites may use different interpretations.  I like that Gamespot makes it difficult to get such a high score, with 9.5s virtually unheard of and 10 the forbidden holy grail that nothing has achieved.  In fact, the highest review score ever on Gamespot for a PC game was 9.6 achieved by the original Diablo:  http://www.gamespot.com/games.html?platform=5&mode=all&sort=score&dlx_type=all&sortdir=asc&official=all

And if you sort through their reviews by date, you'll find they review games going all the way back to Zork in 1980 -- that's 32 years ago -- although the oldest game I found they've reviewed and actually assigned a point score to was the original XCOM: UFO Defense which was published Dec 31, 1993 -- 19 years ago, though the date of the review was 1996 -- and earned a score of 9.0.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 1, 2012 11:12:45 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Frogboy,

Quoting Rhadagast, reply 80
Quoting Frogboy, reply 77
Quoting Rhadagast, reply 76User score of 7.1 (out of 10) thanks to some super low ratings, only 18 in so far.  No critic reviews shown yet.  They should show median instead of average, would cut down on the influence of fan boys and trolls alike.

Unfortunately, user game reviews aren't terribly informative.  As someone pointed out, Diablo 3 has a user review rating on Metacritic of 3.

There are a lot of people out there these days who just have an axe to grind.

 

I agree, not very useful, larger sample size will no doubt bring it up a bit also.

Not necessarily. There's like 4000 people who voted on Diablo 3 and it averaged around a 3. That's totally unfair. Diablo 3 is a very good game.

Exactly.  I don't think many people are aware that there was a concerted effort by certain online communities (namely 4chan) to drag Diablo 3's score down as low as possible.  You even have instances of people registering dozens of times just to offset anybody who submitted a positive score.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 1, 2012 11:22:33 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Heavenfall,

Quoting Ratatosk7, reply 84I find the average review fairly accurate if slightly below my prediction. Honestly it seems like the majority of the higher scores are from apologists/fanboys bumping up the score because 'its better than WoM', which has me thinking I maybe bumped up my prediction because FE is better than WoM as well. FE should be judged against its peers, not biased against previous iterations.

Something similar could be said in reverse for those that "hate" the game. How many mention that it's not MoM, or some other game that they loved playing 15 years ago? This demonstrates an incapability to judge the game on its own merit, rather it is being judged by how "equal" it is to previous games (including E:wom!). The thought process "I didn't have fun because this isn't a clone of my favourite game X" is completely ludicrous to me.

The question is not if FE has a mechanic you loved in some other game. The question is if FE makes the mechanics it has work, and if it's fun to play. And, to be fair, there is plenty of accurate criticism in that area as well - but not in the lowest votes.

 

A fair assessment, I suppose the biases will balance each other out. I think FE will be a very solid game after a couple more large patches. Releasing it now was just asking to take some flak, I would have been paranoid about releasing a finished game after the disaster that was WoM. Thankfully a little more community criticism was accepted this time instead of catering to the crazy fanboys that think everything that Stardock makes is perfect. I cringed so many times during the WoM development process and it personally taught me an important lesson about taking positive feedback with a grain of salt. Stardock doesn't seem to be hurting financially so I am not sure why they rushed this out a month or two ahead of time except for possibly the Christmas season.

 

I just realized how much I typed up about Diablo 3 there. I didn't mean to hijack the thread but its like someone said Fable 2/3/4 or Dragon Age 2 were the greatest RPGs ever made and I had to make a response for the sake of sanity. I hate this age of mediocrity when hype matters more than substance and people are peer pressured into saying games that suck are great while games such as Witcher 2, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Metro 2033, etc get little attention. As far as conspiracy theories of concentrated efforts to drag down Diablo 3's score, do you think people are motivated to do that for games they like? I just checked their recent updates and forums to see if they have fixed any of the issues plaguing the game to see if I should be a bit more lax in my criticism but it looks like nothing has changed.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 1, 2012 11:38:03 AM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting Mmrnmhrm,



Quoting Bellack,
reply 39
Well as is with latest update I would not score it as high as CIV V.  The game is better than it every was but still has some issue (weak AI, no sea units, primitive TC)  I'm not currently noting bugs at this point. so I'll give it a 70 at this point.  With current bugs I'd give a a 68.

Now this is just the Vanilla game. I'm afraid that it aint going to get much better than this before launch. However with modding and expansions this game will go from an Ok game to a fantastic game.  Basic game engine now seem solid so I think this game has the potential to be great.

Now CIV V upon realease should not have been a 90 more like an 80 due to issues it had which God and Kings have mostly addressed. Now it is a 90 IMHO.

 


This isn't a thread about what you, Bellack, would give the game. Everyone has heard, ad naseuem, your opinions. If you think Civilization V should have gotten an 80 then that's your opinion. But it didn't. It got a 90. 

This is a thread for guessing what you think the score on Metacritic will be. 

What I think it should get: 87

What I think it will get: 81




 

Everyone who posted a number is based on what they think it will get and it is based on thier opinion. So trolling me will not affect that. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 1, 2012 12:08:08 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Everyone who posted a number is based on what they think it will get and it is based on thier opinion. So trolling me will not affect that.

Yea, and you said 68. So when you give your "opinion" in the future we can reflect how mainstream it is.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 1, 2012 1:15:54 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting mastroego,



Quoting Frogboy,
reply 77

Unfortunately, user game reviews aren't terribly informative.  As someone pointed out, Diablo 3 has a user review rating on Metacritic of 3.
There are a lot of people out there these days who just have an axe to grind.


I would vote Diablo III exactly ZERO, like the chance that I'm going to pay for the "privilege" of "renting" single player gaming hours from their servers, or for an idiotic action house. 

Don't forget that Diablo III isn't the only purchasable game around: there are others. When you think like a customer, harsh reviews have plenty of reasons to exist... and I thank the users who take the time to write them down and warn the other players, who have to carefully decide where to spend their money.

I understand a developer might feel like you do about users who give extremely low votes, but don't forget that there are those who give 10s for "personal" reasons, as well... even FE is benefiting from those. I say the system is more than fair. 

While I completely agree with you, most gamers out there today don't mind being spoon fed their entertainment. That's why games like DIII and products like Steam are becoming so successful.

Games like FE, where you have to think, will take a hit because thinking is 'work'. It's unfortunate, but popular demand generally coincides with entropic demand.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 1, 2012 1:18:59 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Mmrnmhrm,

Everyone who posted a number is based on what they think it will get and it is based on thier opinion. So trolling me will not affect that.

Yea, and you said 68. So when you give your "opinion" in the future we can reflect how mainstream it is.

And when you give "your" opinion in the future, I can reflect how you substitute mainstream/popularity for merit/value.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 1, 2012 1:25:28 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

For some reason I can't get to metacritic?  Is it down or something wonky on my end?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 1, 2012 1:28:31 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting Mmrnmhrm,
The user reviews on metacritc or anywhere else on games are useless. 

 

The prediction thread is about what the review score will be by professional reviewers. Not kids who gave it a 0 "just because".

Actully the professional reviews are the ones that are not to be trusted in ANYTHING.  User reviews is the only way to gauge a game until you actully play it. But you should read the reviews to see why they gave the score they did and see if thier concerns are similar to your concerns.  And you simply filter out most of the fanboys/Hater reviews that don't make some sort of point as to why they hate or love the game.

Now I'm not saying that you have to agree with the score. People have different taste. WOM was a horrible game but there are some who think it was a wonderful game (Don't know why but they do.) 

And I'd bet the reason you find the user reviews useless is because you can't stand when someone disagrees with you. But Fanboys/Haters tend to be this way.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #108433  walnut3   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0000359   Page Render Time: