Review dissonance will be a huge problem
ajwz
Member Posts: 4,122
How will a reviewer approach reviewing enhanced edition of baldurs gate?
The way I see it, there are a few mutually exclusive approaches:
1. Judge the whole release. That means that supposing all the new changes are rubbish/meh, the games should still recieve a high review score, since the game includes all the original BG gameplay, and the game was almost universally critically acclaimed.
2. The exact opposite: Review only the enhanced edition changes - If the new content is rubbish/meh then the game gets a very low score
3. Judge it as a re-release: Is it just a cash grab? Does the game merit re-releasing - are the updates enough to justify the game's re-release?
4.Who is the intended audience of the review?
How do the graphics of the game compare to a $20 game you might expect to be released today - is the game really playable by people who didn't play it originally? Is BG essentially a bad or obstructive game by todays standards?
Similarly, is the game recommended to people who already own the originals? Is there enough new content to justify buying the game again?
5. Platform specific. The game might end up scoring a 10/10 on the iPad, since it would blow the competition out of the water, but get a much lower score on the PC, where the competition is higher.
These are just some of the examples I can think of, which would potentially make the game difficult to evaluate with just a quick glance at it's meta critic score, and just reading a review on a website wouldn't necessarily tell you because the reviewer is possibly going to be judging the game to a different standard and to a different audience than you.
So my question is to all the people on these forums who are waiting for the game to release before deciding whether to buy it is: How do you intend to evaluate the finished product as being a worthy/unworthy purchase?
I'm not that interested in answers along the lines of "I just want to see if feature X is included and then I'll get it", but more in the people who are genuinely undecided about whether getting the game is going to be worthwhile.
The way I see it, there are a few mutually exclusive approaches:
1. Judge the whole release. That means that supposing all the new changes are rubbish/meh, the games should still recieve a high review score, since the game includes all the original BG gameplay, and the game was almost universally critically acclaimed.
2. The exact opposite: Review only the enhanced edition changes - If the new content is rubbish/meh then the game gets a very low score
3. Judge it as a re-release: Is it just a cash grab? Does the game merit re-releasing - are the updates enough to justify the game's re-release?
4.Who is the intended audience of the review?
How do the graphics of the game compare to a $20 game you might expect to be released today - is the game really playable by people who didn't play it originally? Is BG essentially a bad or obstructive game by todays standards?
Similarly, is the game recommended to people who already own the originals? Is there enough new content to justify buying the game again?
5. Platform specific. The game might end up scoring a 10/10 on the iPad, since it would blow the competition out of the water, but get a much lower score on the PC, where the competition is higher.
These are just some of the examples I can think of, which would potentially make the game difficult to evaluate with just a quick glance at it's meta critic score, and just reading a review on a website wouldn't necessarily tell you because the reviewer is possibly going to be judging the game to a different standard and to a different audience than you.
So my question is to all the people on these forums who are waiting for the game to release before deciding whether to buy it is: How do you intend to evaluate the finished product as being a worthy/unworthy purchase?
I'm not that interested in answers along the lines of "I just want to see if feature X is included and then I'll get it", but more in the people who are genuinely undecided about whether getting the game is going to be worthwhile.
1
Comments
Even if that is the case for games, I don't expect that for this particular game. Still, one must be wary.
This aspect alone should be enough to judge an EE like this not solely on new content. Like I have said many times before on this forum, in my eyes the actual new content/bugfixes/zoom function etc is worth next to nothing in comparison to what a renewal of the BG trilogy represents when it comes to long-term development.
Having said that, if the new content does turn out to be "meh", punches shouldn't be pulled in the reviewing of it. The development team has some enormous-sized shoes to fill with this project, and anything short of them crawling every last inch on their hands and knees, bleeding and starving, to attempt to do so will be a disappointment.
YES
MAYBE
NOT NOW
NO
Because at the end of the day, that's what people want to know. Numbers or grades are subjective and don't really tell the story. People simply want to know if it's worth their time or not.
Truth be told, I wouldn't be surprised if the AAA publisher was, I don't know, EA or Activison, but that's beyond the point.
Point is - reviewing system is FAKE, it's so rubbish it disugsts me. Those numbers mean NOTHING, games are subjective matter. I love Two Worlds for instance, despite 99% of the reviewers hating it "for not being Oblivion" (word)
Nowadays, a game shouldn't be influenced by a number. "Oooh, IGN gave it a 6, they are pretty big reviewers so I should definitely listen to them, duhh!" - that's a WRONG behavior.
I hope for the sake of Overhaul, the hard work they put into BGEE, that said game will get excellent reviews. It earns them in my eyes. But to some dimwits spread around the world, covered in a gold blanket given to them by the superior AAA companies, it might not be the same. If that's the case, then they are dumb idiots.
That said, I take my leave *slams imaginary door* NICE!
If people can see it they will buy it
Reviewers are like scientists, doctors, and politicians in that they know where their bread is buttered.
Nature of the beast
If they are not it will end up either "HURR DURR there is no 16x AA option in graphics this is shit" or "HURR DURR Baldurs Gate is the best thing that ever happened in this universe therefore it must get 1210347237%"
I would think a LOT of diehard fans are on this forum, and the vast majority is very enthusiastic about the game...
Everything I've read here and on forums at GOG and other places, the fans that are criticizing BG:EE in advance mostly haven't got a clue of what this edition really bring to the table in comparison to the modded version.
And a lot just seems to critique the game in advance just for the hell of it, with no basis whatsoever...
If a review says:
Most diehard fans
It generally means:
Two guys that I know
[insert snarky smiley face here)
Dragon Age 2 score at IGN: 8.5
By listening to IGN reviews you can lose fair amount of money
I wouldn't be too sure that this forum makes up the majority of BG fans. Call me cynical, but I get the feeling that we might just be an extremely vocal minority. Personally, I'm still undecided about the issue and want to wait until the game comes out and people start talking about their personal experiences with it before I make a decision. Professional reviews might be unreliable, but that doesn't mean player reviews can't be trusted.
But I was taking issue with your statement that "most diehard fans" would prefer the modded version.
None of us know how many diehard fans is looking forward to this release.
It's a blanket statement, which means absolutely nothing.
Like, the lack of female romances. I prefer playing female characters, but if I'm stuck with Anomen... urgh. I can't believe they did HIS romance before someone less grating than running your hand through a mechanical cheese grating machine. So, since they don't make DLC or Expansions for a game this old, your only hope was for a modder to come in and make their own custom content.
It's not necessarily anyone's fault either. I don't want to imply that. A lot of great games were rushed out the door because the company making them was going out of business and it was Now or Never so fans had to do the heavy lifting for fixing things.
Maybe you're right- I was probably jumping to conclusions there based on observing a handful of communities I've seen. I'd rather not name them, since I don't want to start a flamewar between forums or something.
in seriousness, I think they're completely useless these days. people have a pretty good idea of what games they'll like and what games they won't, and modern game reviewers are mostly just professional trolls that should be dragged to a ditch, shot and then burnt.