saluk wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 12:59:

ItBurn wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 12:41:

Quboid wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 12:24:

Cutter wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 11:21:
I wish they'd get rid of the stupid thumbs up/dowm BS and use a normal out of 10 sytem. We live in a base 10 world after all. And it's still the best way to get an overall feel for reception of the game.

Reviewers can use whatever rating system they want in their reviews. Using out-of-10 ratings for the actual score would mess up the aggregate score, which is by far the most important aspect of the entire review feature. With such a system, any score other than 0/10 or 10/10 is just telling the algorithm that your opinion is less important than the one-eyed fanboy who can only see the extremes.

Here's 3 hypothetical reviews, with numeric/thumb ratings:

1) Decent game, no masterpiece but fans of the genre should check it out. 6/10, thumbs up.
2) Very good game, they really listened to complaints about the previous title. 8/10, thumbs up.
3) LAME! MEDAL OF BATTLEDUTY IS FARR BETTErrr! 0/10, thumbs down.

Scores:
Numeric: 4.67/10, poor.
Thumbs: 66.67%, good.

The aggregate thumb rating is much more representative of the actual opinions expressed.

I absolutely disagree. I hate the thumbs up system and I can't stand the fact that the best game ever and a barely passable, generic, lowest common denominator one both get a positive rating.
Sure, there's abuse in the base 10 system, but it doesn't matter, it still gives better results.

edit: with that said, I'm not saying that the thumbs up system doesn't work, just that I prefer base 10.

You failed to comment on the point Quboid made. Thumb up/down gives much better statistical rating when there are many reviews, and since for the most part you don't know the bias of the people writing the reviews, the statistical value is more relevant to users than each individual review.

However, what they could do, is let reviewers give an x out of 10, and then statistically count things up anyway they choose, instead of JUST averaging the ratings.

Statistically, the thumbs up would rate a 10/10 game and a 6/10 game the same, this is bad. A 10/10 system is all over the place and people have bias, but it doesn't matter. The aggregate of tons of reviews will be closer to the real rating than a thumbs up system would. I mean, have you seen critic movie reviews on rotten tomatoes? The most mediocre films have 80s and 90s. If you look at games on metacritic, where most of critic reviews are on a base 10 system, you get MUCH more accurate results.

Quboid wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 12:24:

Cutter wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 11:21:
I wish they'd get rid of the stupid thumbs up/dowm BS and use a normal out of 10 sytem. We live in a base 10 world after all. And it's still the best way to get an overall feel for reception of the game.

Reviewers can use whatever rating system they want in their reviews. Using out-of-10 ratings for the actual score would mess up the aggregate score, which is by far the most important aspect of the entire review feature. With such a system, any score other than 0/10 or 10/10 is just telling the algorithm that your opinion is less important than the one-eyed fanboy who can only see the extremes.

Here's 3 hypothetical reviews, with numeric/thumb ratings:

1) Decent game, no masterpiece but fans of the genre should check it out. 6/10, thumbs up.
2) Very good game, they really listened to complaints about the previous title. 8/10, thumbs up.
3) LAME! MEDAL OF BATTLEDUTY IS FARR BETTErrr! 0/10, thumbs down.

Scores:
Numeric: 4.67/10, poor.
Thumbs: 66.67%, good.

The aggregate thumb rating is much more representative of the actual opinions expressed.

I absolutely disagree. I hate the thumbs up system and I can't stand the fact that the best game ever and a barely passable, generic, lowest common denominator one both get a positive rating.
Sure, there's abuse in the base 10 system, but it doesn't matter, it still gives better results.

edit: with that said, I'm not saying that the thumbs up system doesn't work, just that I prefer base 10.

Ok, but 30$, really? That's way too much for an idle game.

I don't understand what's happening. Do they think they'll make money on this? Maybe the re-release they did actually got them some money to justify this.

Flatline wrote on Nov 17, 2017, 12:53:

Kxmode wrote on Nov 17, 2017, 04:16:

jdreyer wrote on Nov 17, 2017, 01:59:

Kxmode wrote on Nov 17, 2017, 01:29:
I'm pretty sure if EA doesn't handle their stuff Disney is going to move their Star Wars IP elsewhere.

They can try. Who else is going to make them the money that EA does? Activision, maybe, but that's a big maybe. Ubi? Please.

CD Projekt Red. Any company that can employ over a 1,000 people to work on a single game (Witcher 3) and can publish it themselves, can handle a franchise like Star Wars.

A single player Star Wars RPG that makes Knights of the Old Republic look like garbage and has like 80 hours of game play?

OMG YES PLEASE

With horrible combat, boring exploration and a crappy progression system?

That's awesome. People are learning. Not sure I thought it would ever happen: consumers understanding their power. You know EA'll double down on their BS soon.

The campaign is huge. I'm fairly confident that it's the biggest one in any Diablo game. The endgame is horribly boring though. Doing generic map after generic map with pretty damn close to zero chance of getting an upgrade. I have probably 100 hours in it and the grind is too overwhelming for me. This new update doesn't look like it has anything interesting enough for me.

no

Alpha Protocol was great. It was definitely a bit broken and somewhat unfinished, but it was just a simple and fun shooter/rpg.

Edit: Dungeon Siege 3 is in my list of worst games ever though. What a pile of steaming shit.

I prefer my characters to be at least somewhat relatable and this trailer is definitely not in the spirit of the shooters of the past. It looks more like gears of war. Also, show gameplay, no one cares about the story.

RedEye9 wrote on Nov 7, 2017, 19:46:

microtransactions brought in more revenue than digital game sales

We are doomed

Actually, it's what "we" want. "We" bought those microtransactions.

This is my favorite GTA style game ever. There were some dumb things in the story, but I loved what you were doing and how you were doing it. I almost 100%'ed it and I never do this. I didn't like WD2 so much though... Too silly, aimless and bloated.

Tried the Blood mod. The levels have some interesting features that are tough to do, but their look is a bit poor and simple. Still fun though. The problem is that level 2 crashes the game and I can't go further.

I didn't like Torchlight 2. I think they lost sight of what made these games great(including Fate). They were cuter and simpler Diablo clones. 2 was more serious and complex and it just ended up being generic and meh. It's pretty sad because they worked so hard on it. As for Hob, I don't know if it's good or bad, but on the surface, it looks very generic. If you're going to make a puzzle platformer, it has to be immediately clear what the cool different mechanic is and what's fresh about the game. I find it hard to understand what made them greenlight this. Maybe it was a stepping stone to prove themselves in the console third person game field.

Orogogus wrote on Oct 30, 2017, 21:05:

ItBurn wrote on Oct 30, 2017, 20:45:
I think you might have clicked on a wrong link or something. The video and video descriptions are clear: "Play the entire campaign in co-op with a Friend".

I think they mean, assuming you don't finish the whole game in co-op, if you're not the host then after you go back to your own game, you have to do the same missions over again. The blurb seems to back this up: "Only the hosting player will be able to... keep the progress you make in the world"

Ah, poop. I guess I'm the one who didn't read properly. At least it seems like the other player keeps his character progress.

Rhett wrote on Oct 30, 2017, 19:07:
Looks like this one yet again does not share quest progress for the joining player.. That was one of the more irritating things about co-op in the last two.

I think you might have clicked on a wrong link or something. The video and video descriptions are clear: "Play the entire campaign in co-op with a Friend".

ForgedReality wrote on Oct 27, 2017, 15:55:
Spoiler-free? That part of the game has been widely advertised. I'd be surprised if you didn't know about it when you bought it.

I've seen zero of the game. Why would I spoil myself a game I want to enjoy?

Steam reviews are much lower than I expected. A ton of people are having crashes and bad performance. 1 review in 3 is negative and none of them are about the gameplay or story, just about the crashes and perf.

removed. Didn't want to have this conversation :p

In my opinion, most people who cheat do it for two reasons. The first is that they don't have enough control/success in their life and they lack the self confidence/education to fix it themselves. The second is people who are addicted to winning or that can't face the feelings of defeat. These are usually really competitive or professional players.

As for the banning, I think it's too early to tell if all people banned were cheaters. I think that when you do manual banning, the human element can easily introduce false positives. Bungie doesn't exactly have experience with the PC ecosystem. Some people do claim that they were falsely banned.