Fallout 3 - Preview & Interview @ Crispy Gamer

For me 89% is very well done mediocre game or excellent game with flaws (rough edges, bugs etc). Since halo3 is a very smooth experience without rough edges or bugs it must be mediocre.

In this case, it's the score you get when an absurdly over-hyped and marketed game drops from the pedestal of mass hysteria into the hands of a few people who actually think before they rate the game. Without the hype, I estimate it would have nestled nicely at 75-80% by now - where it belongs. That's probably where it'll land in a few years when the hypnotic effects have fully subsided.
 
As I said, standards differ...
You seem to be getting "factual info" confused with opinion. I've read reviews that praised the level design, etc of Halo 3. They're all going to say something different.

Opinnion of 33 thousand players matters more than single reviews. They scored it only 89% and gaved critique why. Also I happen to believe the factual info since ive seen it myself and agree with it. There were som good levels but mostly it was mediocre scifi stuff.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
3,160
Location
Europa Universalis
Opinnion of 33 thousand players matters more than single reviews. They scored it only 89% and gaved critique why.

Yes, they scored it "only 89%".

I happen to believe the factual info since ive seen it myself and agree with it.

Because you agree with an opinion doesn't make it factual....
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,130
Location
Florida, US
Yes, they scored it "only 89%".

In comparison fallout2 was 94% by opinnion of 4000 gamers. Now that was an excellent game. It could have gotten more points with million dollar advertisement budget though.

Because you agree with an opinion doesn't make it factual....

If most do and I also then its factual enough for me.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
3,160
Location
Europa Universalis
In comparison fallout2 was 94% by opinnion of 4000 gamers. Now that was a good game. :)

Yes it was.

If most do and I also then its factual enough for me.

The problem with that is the "most" you are refering to are simply stating opinions, not trying to be factual. But if that's good enough for you, then so be it... I think we've hijacked this thread long enough.

Fallout 3......
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,130
Location
Florida, US
Opinnion of 33 thousand players matters more than single reviews.

I dispute that - what does the distribution look like? 90% tens and 10% ones? That would be typical for fan voting ...
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,932
I dispute that - what does the distribution look like? 90% tens and 10% ones? That would be typical for fan voting ...

80-100% mostly it seems. Critics (review sites) give it more 100% reviews so their average is 94%. I never trust any single reviews - bought too many bad games due to it in the past.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
3,160
Location
Europa Universalis
I dispute that - what does the distribution look like? 90% tens and 10% ones? That would be typical for fan voting ...

Fan voting?

How many fans vote one?

That makes no sense.

The thing about so many user opinions is that they combine into a whole that tells you something useful in relation to other games. Many are biased - both for or against - that's a given, but they even out. Also, when we're talking thousands of people, there are too many honest opinions that the dishonest ones matter much less. You can't pay off thousands of people, because it would become known and ruin your reputation. You can manipulate individual and popular review sites, like we've seen with Gamespot, which is why the reviews of critics are useless and tainted - even if they're honest - because we can never know their bias.

However, I don't find such scores useful beyond simply observing whether people like a game or not. I don't think that just because thousands of people like it, I will automatically like it. There's just a better chance of that being the case, and nothing more. So it's not a way of measuring quality or entertainment. My own personal scores tend to be quite different from that of the majority, so their combined score is simply a tool for comparison as I know what whatever score means in whatever genre. Just like I know what 7/10 means on IMDB - it doesn't mean I will find it a 7/10 experience, it just means there's a fair chance I will find it better than a 6/10 movie. Also, in 9 out of 10 cases, I don't enjoy movies that have scored less than 6.
 
The thing about so many user opinions is that they combine into a whole that tells you something useful in relation to other games..

Huh? How would a combined review score for any individual game tell you something useful in relation to "other games"?

Many are biased - both for or against - that's a given, but they even out. Also, when we're talking thousands of people, there are too many honest opinions that the dishonest ones matter much less. You can't pay off thousands of people, because it would become known and ruin your reputation. You can manipulate individual and popular review sites, like we've seen with Gamespot, which is why the reviews of critics are useless and tainted - even if they're honest - because we can never know their bias..

A dishonest opinion? That's an oxymoron, as there's really no such thing. People can say anything they like in an opinion, because that's exactly what it is.....an opinion!
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,130
Location
Florida, US
That is the problem I was talking about - you guys are saying that 'mob rule scores are what matter'. I say that is crap ... people scoring a game at GameRankings or wherever give less thought than a reviewer to the score - and I have said repeatedly that I think scores from reviewers should be viewed as no more meaningful than good/fair/poor. It is the context of the review text that should be the driving force.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,932
That is the problem I was talking about - you guys are saying that 'mob rule scores are what matter'. I say that is crap ... people scoring a game at GameRankings or wherever give less thought than a reviewer to the score - and I have said repeatedly that I think scores from reviewers should be viewed as no more meaningful than good/fair/poor. It is the context of the review text that should be the driving force.

I'm not sure what you mean by "they matter".

They simply reflect a score that is the combination of however many user opinions. Once we get into the "thousands", we have something reasonably tangible to compare with.

You have absolutely no way of knowing how much thought goes into the score, as each individual is different. Some may judge a game based on a few seconds of play, others will wait until they've completed the game. However, there's no reason to suspect foul play - which is definitely not the case with "professional" reviews. Why do you think Halo 3 has a score of 94 (metacritic) based on professional reviews, and only 74 based on 1600 user opinions? Are you claiming that 94 is more accurate because professional reviewers put more thought into their reviews?

But please note that I'm not claiming that "mob scores" matter - as that's something only you yourself can decide. They "matter" to me as a tool for researching what unplayed game might be of interest to me. I would never use such a score to quantify the actual quality of a game or its worth to me. So, in many ways, the score doesn't REALLY matter. Just another tool in the toolbox.
 
What if the publishers are paying more attention to the "mob scores" than they should do ?

It would explain some aspects oof the recent mainstreaming.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,908
Location
Old Europe
They simply reflect a score that is the combination of however many user opinions. Once we get into the "thousands", we have something reasonably tangible to compare with.

Absolutely agree - but my thought is that what you are getting is a population estimate of consumer sentiment, not necessarily that of game quality. Heck, whether Halo 1/2 is rated 95% by pros or 89% by thousands of fans, I still call them 75% and 60% games respectively ... ;)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,932
Absolutely agree - but my thought is that what you are getting is a population estimate of consumer sentiment, not necessarily that of game quality. Heck, whether Halo 1/2 is rated 95% by pros or 89% by thousands of fans, I still call them 75% and 60% games respectively ... ;)

But we've been through the whole quality versus rating thing a few times already!

I wonder what words to use if you keep confusing those two concepts ;)
 
Maybe it's that this demo did little to show how Fallout 3 is truly different from Oblivion. Ok, the lock-picking mini-game is slightly different (and better) but the dialogue trees, skill breakdowns and overall feel seem so much like Oblivion, at least in this early stage of the game, that the untrained eye could mistake it for a mod.

Finnish veteran reviewer has played fallout3 too and comments the crispy gamers preview:

I was testing the game in the same occasion as the crispy gamer. I got playing time over double to him and many others due to my long distance travel privilidge. And Ive seen the game before too. Between us the only difference is that even though he has less material abt the game he draws bigger conclusions, which will now be borrowed on different places with great enthusiasm.

For me I consider that I am not familiar with the game enough that I would dare to stretch my neck and fire conclusions which may be totally false.

Allthough with heavy claims I could get quotitions all over the net and my site would get more of active visitors but such fishing isnt my style.

http://keskustelu.plaza.fi/muropaketti/bbs/t485731,645

He has released two articles abt fallout3 and is going to discuss the dialogue system in the next ones.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
3,160
Location
Europa Universalis
Back
Top Bottom