surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
To be honest here, if I made a game, I'd go give it a good user review on Metacritic. Why wouldn't you?
Who actually cares about user Reviews. They are trolls in one or the other direction most of the time. At least on metacritic.
But well, Telltale has to accept that they failed once. But I think it is ok for people that worked on the game to rate it like they want. Why shouldn't they be allowed to? Its "User Reviews" after all.
Would be a different matter entirely if they payed professionals like Jim to give them good scores. That would be a Scandal.
But well, Telltale has to accept that they failed once. But I think it is ok for people that worked on the game to rate it like they want. Why shouldn't they be allowed to? Its "User Reviews" after all.
Would be a different matter entirely if they payed professionals like Jim to give them good scores. That would be a Scandal.
Why does it matter if they give their own product a review. As long as they do it within the regular and proper confines what's wrong with that? Aren't politicians allowed to vote for themselves?
Honestly, I don't see a problem in rating your own game. Why the fuck not? It doesn't hurt anyone and they are totally separated from the 'critic' reviews which are paid and trolled too.
The only problem I see with this hugely is that is a clear bias on their own product. I would consider it a huge deal if it was in the actual reviews that mattered to the average score on Metacritic.
My favorite line has to be its a mix of La Noire and Heavy Rain...yeah
it not wrong them boosting metacritic user reviews ,COD whine over it but is just people trolling or giving their opinion
it not wrong them boosting metacritic user reviews ,COD whine over it but is just people trolling or giving their opinion
@ Dhaos
Yeah, but I guess Telltale has more than 4 employees, so it was probably just 4 buddies coordinating it. Kinda stupid of course, but then again, it would have been more shady if they tried to hide it. ;)
Yeah, but I guess Telltale has more than 4 employees, so it was probably just 4 buddies coordinating it. Kinda stupid of course, but then again, it would have been more shady if they tried to hide it. ;)
@ Bricewgilbert
And what ethics exactly are holding you from it? Every politician votes for himself. And if you worked on the product and shipped it its totally Ok to think its awesome. It wouldn't be ok if the employees thought the game was a piece of shit and shipped it anyway. (Looking at Bethesda)
And what ethics exactly are holding you from it? Every politician votes for himself. And if you worked on the product and shipped it its totally Ok to think its awesome. It wouldn't be ok if the employees thought the game was a piece of shit and shipped it anyway. (Looking at Bethesda)
@bricewgilbert
Ethics are on my side here. Ethics dictate that one produce the best possible product. If they feel that's the case, they have every right to say so, particularly in a case like this where the employees made no effort whatsoever to hide the fact that it was them writing the review. "...posted positively on Metacritic under recognizable online forum and XBLA account names."
Ethics are on my side here. Ethics dictate that one produce the best possible product. If they feel that's the case, they have every right to say so, particularly in a case like this where the employees made no effort whatsoever to hide the fact that it was them writing the review. "...posted positively on Metacritic under recognizable online forum and XBLA account names."
@David Bass
Gamespot's Skyward Sword review is the only honest one I've seen on teh interwebz thus far. They've been beating the same dead horse for decades now and it's about time someone pointed it out. Good for them.
Gamespot's Skyward Sword review is the only honest one I've seen on teh interwebz thus far. They've been beating the same dead horse for decades now and it's about time someone pointed it out. Good for them.
Dear god...I watched the quicklook of this game on Giantbomb.
The game looks like Heavy Rain got really fucking drunk and picked up Deadly Premonition for a one night stand, but then got pregnant. Heavy Rain continued to drink heavily during the pregnancy and out came Jurassic Park: The Game.
The game looks like Heavy Rain got really fucking drunk and picked up Deadly Premonition for a one night stand, but then got pregnant. Heavy Rain continued to drink heavily during the pregnancy and out came Jurassic Park: The Game.
@ Tristix
Not at all. The new Zelda is different from previous Zeldas. And the last console Zelda was 5 years ago, and before that it was even more years ago... seriously, who can call that "beating the dead horse"? Every 5 years? But every year a new CoD Map Pack for full price is ok?
Not at all. The new Zelda is different from previous Zeldas. And the last console Zelda was 5 years ago, and before that it was even more years ago... seriously, who can call that "beating the dead horse"? Every 5 years? But every year a new CoD Map Pack for full price is ok?
My gut reaction is that they're trolling, but there's more to it, I think. Sounds like they're just trying to keep their jobs in an unstable economic climate, if you ask me. I'd certainly resort to dirty tactics to keep food on my family's table. It sucks that bad games get greenlit, on top of time and budget constraints. But of course the devs will be biased, they work their asses off on these games, regardless of how crappy they are. Dirty tactics, to be sure. But it's the lesser of two evils, in the big picture.
I'm always excited for a Telltale game, I was always kind of worried about Jurassic Park not being great. This has just amplified my worries, might have to skip this one and buy something else.
@Cudgeon
Nope, $60 CoD Map Packs are very un-ok too. They'd be just as un-ok every 5 years as every 1 year, too.
Nope, $60 CoD Map Packs are very un-ok too. They'd be just as un-ok every 5 years as every 1 year, too.
@ Tristix
Did you already play the new Zelda?
While the last one was a rip off of the OOC, I didn't have that feeling from this one and they really mixed up a lot. At least in my opinion. Of course you still won't like it if you hated every Zelda before, but that's ok in my book. If you hated Oblivion you won't love Skyrim also. And at least Zelda was bug tested...
Did you already play the new Zelda?
While the last one was a rip off of the OOC, I didn't have that feeling from this one and they really mixed up a lot. At least in my opinion. Of course you still won't like it if you hated every Zelda before, but that's ok in my book. If you hated Oblivion you won't love Skyrim also. And at least Zelda was bug tested...
@Cudgeon
Here's another fun fact for you:
There have been 18 iterations of the Zelda franchise since 1986. That's an average of 1 release every 1.38 years.
There have been 8 iterations of the CoD franchise since 2003. That's an average of 1 release every 1 year.
Here's another fun fact for you:
There have been 18 iterations of the Zelda franchise since 1986. That's an average of 1 release every 1.38 years.
There have been 8 iterations of the CoD franchise since 2003. That's an average of 1 release every 1 year.
All joking aside, this was my worry when Telltale announced all those new IPs they had the rights to - perhaps they took too much on.
Hopefully they learn some lessons from this for The Walking Dead, Fables, and King's Quest
Hopefully they learn some lessons from this for The Walking Dead, Fables, and King's Quest
@Max
There's no animosity here. At least not on my end, and I don't detect any on his either. Just a couple of guys (I assume) who love video games having a conversation about them on the internet.
There's no animosity here. At least not on my end, and I don't detect any on his either. Just a couple of guys (I assume) who love video games having a conversation about them on the internet.
I really don't care. Are there any "user" restrictions imposed by Metacritic? Do they have a rule that people involved cannot vote? If not, then this is not an issue. You are allowed to vote for yourself in most open forums.
@Tristix
I'd have to disagree on the ethics rule. I work for a (shitty) company and I think it's commonly accepted that it's unethical to review your own product on Amazon (or anywhere else), especially if your doing it in the guise of a consumer. I know people employees here do it, but they'd deny it to the bitter end because it's considered unethical business practice.
I'd have to disagree on the ethics rule. I work for a (shitty) company and I think it's commonly accepted that it's unethical to review your own product on Amazon (or anywhere else), especially if your doing it in the guise of a consumer. I know people employees here do it, but they'd deny it to the bitter end because it's considered unethical business practice.
@Hugh
They key phrase there was "in the guise of a consumer" which I agree would be dishonest, but that's not what we're discussing here. These employees did it under recognizable handles from their own forums. Anyone with an ounce of Google-Fu could have determined that if they'd been so inclined. Their only possible failing was not pointing out their employee status within the review. Is that necessary? I personally don't think so but they say they're going to from here on out so there ya go.
Point being, I don't see any dishonesty or intent to deceive here, and to me, that makes all the difference between a creator proud of his creation, and an unethical attempt to skew data.
They key phrase there was "in the guise of a consumer" which I agree would be dishonest, but that's not what we're discussing here. These employees did it under recognizable handles from their own forums. Anyone with an ounce of Google-Fu could have determined that if they'd been so inclined. Their only possible failing was not pointing out their employee status within the review. Is that necessary? I personally don't think so but they say they're going to from here on out so there ya go.
Point being, I don't see any dishonesty or intent to deceive here, and to me, that makes all the difference between a creator proud of his creation, and an unethical attempt to skew data.
Hm.
From 1986 to 2011 = 25 years
18 Zelda games came out in that time...
25 / 18 = 1.38888888...
Right? Where'd I go wrong?
From 1986 to 2011 = 25 years
18 Zelda games came out in that time...
25 / 18 = 1.38888888...
Right? Where'd I go wrong?
I'm gonna go ahead and say it: considering new games routinely get flooded with 0 or 10 user ratings on Metacritic before they've even been released by bitter or enthusiastic fanboys and -girls who have almost certainly not played the game, I think journalistic integrity in the Metacritic user reviews is kind of a moot point. Sort of like being upset that a Wikipedia entry hasn't been academically peer-reviewed.
The Handheld Zelda Games are mostly outsourced project, thats why I said Console Zelda Games. Please read the post before goofing off on handheld cash ins.
If you're gonna try to boost your game's rating at least do it right. It's not hard to setup an account completely untraceable to your actual identity.
@Cudgeon
They're still Zelda games. You don't get to pick and choose which ones you want to count and which ones don't when we're talking about beating a dead horse, which was my entire point. In fact, "cash-ins" would be MORE relevant to that discussion. They're going to wear out the formula that much faster. I'm going to stand by my statement.
They're still Zelda games. You don't get to pick and choose which ones you want to count and which ones don't when we're talking about beating a dead horse, which was my entire point. In fact, "cash-ins" would be MORE relevant to that discussion. They're going to wear out the formula that much faster. I'm going to stand by my statement.
A lot of people really liked Minish Cap, too. Hopefully I'm getting my point across, though, that what's in question here is the freshness of the Zelda formula which, in my opinion, hasn't been significantly altered in 25 years.
@ Tristix
Good, I don't play those so I didn't expirience the outwearing. Could be different if I would play every Zelda Game..
But yeah, Nintendo fought that the formula is too old and renewed it with skyward sword, thats why the argument about the beating the dead horse / using the same formula over and over again doesn't hold on the new Zelda.
At least according to miyamoto. I'm an idiot and never figured the formula out and didn't play enough of Skyward Sword so I can't say if that's right or wrong.
Good, I don't play those so I didn't expirience the outwearing. Could be different if I would play every Zelda Game..
But yeah, Nintendo fought that the formula is too old and renewed it with skyward sword, thats why the argument about the beating the dead horse / using the same formula over and over again doesn't hold on the new Zelda.
At least according to miyamoto. I'm an idiot and never figured the formula out and didn't play enough of Skyward Sword so I can't say if that's right or wrong.
Also, I'd like to jump in the debate I have to say one thing, while I have not played the new zelda game, unfortunately it is not obtainable yet. There's a huge difference in the quality and fun of a zelda game that is a zelda game has typically shown that despite having a similar formula Nintendo consistently release a complete package that delivers a unique take and fresh experience, it's not like Nintendo constantly rehashes dungeon designs and the same crap over and over again.
I don't mean to sound fanboyish but it is true that you can even criticize the Elder Scrolls series with your logic Tristrix. Sure Skyrim changed a couple of problems but it basically had the same crap to do as Oblivion but more refined and changes to miniscule elements
I don't mean to sound fanboyish but it is true that you can even criticize the Elder Scrolls series with your logic Tristrix. Sure Skyrim changed a couple of problems but it basically had the same crap to do as Oblivion but more refined and changes to miniscule elements
follow
