Use this space to cheer the creator along, ask questions, and talk to your fellow backers. Please remember to be respectful and considerate. Thanks!
Well, I doubt Simcity's userscore started at 2.2, so I would say it did plunge :)
I think it started close to 5, but I'm relying on memory here and that isn't completely trustworthy.
As for the metascore, I was guessing, based on the fact that the online issues were bad and longlasting enough to make multiple sites change their scores and assuming that the metascore would have been updated to take that into account. I might have been wrong, though — in which case the metascore is even less useful than I thought, which makes the relative importance of the userscore even higher in my eyes.
@ Fabio Capela
Did the userscore for SimCity ever get high enough to "plunge"? ;oP
That's interesting though. I hadn't thought of the Metascore from an review outlet changing. For SimCity though, ( http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/simcity/critic-reviews ) the review for Polygon semi-famously jumped up and down ( http://www.polygon.com/2013/3/4/4051444/simcity-review ).
9.5 --> 8.0 --> 4.0 --> 6.5
But Metacritic still says 9.5 , so I'm not sure if Metacritic will change a review score. But then, I have *no* idea how Metacritic gets all it's scores from outlets (scouring the web? submitted? manually updated? no idea). I would guess that any drop in score would have coincided with slightly later (or deliberately delayed) reviews reflecting all the server issues and problems (I think that's kind of obvious), but I don't know if Metacritic changed any. Was there a Metascore review that you'd heard of that changed?
But yes, I saw a review from an Elite: Dangerous User sayer (s)he'd changed his/her score and then I went searching, as I didn't know that was possible.
Hope I haven't caused any confusion about my suggestion earlier https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments… . I made that suggestion in order to stop reading about what people who were "loving the game so far" got up too.
It was a absolutely genuinely 100% honest suggestion to make vids of players gameplay though. A the time I was just wondering why would somebody would waste time typing stuff about what they did in game like..."whAt I diD oN my SuMmer hoLidaYS" to people who already own the game and to others who'd nearly been defrauded by Frontier Developments PLC FDEV to the tune of hundreds of pounds. To waste your time typing your exploits of the game here seems, to me at least anyway, quite shallow, stupid and illogical, almost like the race to Elite comp. No offence meant. FDEV have PR and marketing so why do people feel they have to do job for them? The game went gold ages ago and is now in the shops so people can buy it if they want. A video of ones gameplay speaks volumes rather than "Hey! I did this! I did that". We're not 35 going on 12. Looking back I remember school friends who used to be like that back in the day when we got the latest issue of ZZAP64! hot of the press and we'd huddle around the mag with Elite splashed all over the front page. " Wow!! Look at the size of those pixels!!!!" :-O. Later on after playing the game we'd actually talk about it, just like https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments… ,............ when we were, 13!
The mentality of the people that go out of there way to type stuff like that makes me think that I'm actually glad I got my money back from Frontier Developments PLC FDEV. A galaxy full of shills and brown-nosers helping each other to survive would be to much to bear. I hate to say this but at least there's a saving grace by switching to ignore-the-rest-of-the-MMO-mode.
If one is going down the path of showing off their exploits then make a video of the gameplay and post the link. Simple.
Just don't try to emulate this of all things....... https://www.youtube.com/watch…
Makes me lol every time :-D. Classic.
Glad FDEV took the hint and have toned things down with a much more relativity speaking, with a big rock of salt, "realistic" gameplay route.
Don't ever forget that Frontier Developments PLC FDEV tried to defraud some people by funnelling and abandoning them in Frontier Developments PLC black hole limbo "support system". Don't ever forget the disgusting plan of KS deception followed by the response and behaviour metered out to legitimate refund requesters.
Have fun making your vids and post the links here instead of typing BS....like your 35 going on 13.
It's the weekend so what the f@ck an I doing here? :-) Ciao!
Yep. And AFAIK this works for professional reviews too. Simcity, for example, started with great reviews, with most of the professional reviewers giving it great scores despite the always online nature and even the users giving it positive scores most of the time, but saw both its metascore and its userscore plunge after the servers started having issues, and to a large degree that seemed to happen because players and critics that previously praised it decided to now complain and reduce their scores accordingly.
Saw a bit of this with ED too, at least when it comes to the userscore; I've read a number of reviews from players that originally gave the game great scores due to a strong first impression but afterwards reduced their scores when they found the game shallow.
@ Jörn Huxhorn :oD
No idea if this came up in the earlier discussion, but one small detail: it's possible to change one's score (either written or just a score) on Metacritic.
(As an aside: one can also edit one's written review.)
@Jörn Huxhorn @Avalanche ;-)
@Avalanche Agreed. ;-)
@ Jörn Huxhorn
Ahh, yes. Sorry... I completely missed your earlier post of the link.
Officially though, I'm going to go with:
"Yes, I know you know, I was reposting the link for you." :o)
@Avalanche I know that version of the interview and posted it previously in https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments… - that comment was the reason (it was quoted in the mail) for someone to search for one of my email addresses and send me that other uncensored text. ^^
@ Jörn Huxhorn ( https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments… )
On top of that, I would also add that if anyone should respond, it should be Frontier Developments.
& @ All ( https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/comments… )
Not sure if this is absolutely the interview that was originally released to the world, but here's a version to compare?:
I just received an email with a link to the original text of that Ian Bell interview, i.e. including the text that was replaced by the [STATEMENT DELETED] blocks: http://pastebin.com/TPnExyng
Thanks to the anonymous whistleblower. ^^
Well I finally received my Premium Backers Edition box today, very pretty package though I'm not sure what the silver disk inside is for. I remember backing a DRM free offline game but that doesn't appear to be what's on the disk.
Strange... still, never mind, in the future if the online servers ever get switched off I'll still be able to, um, well, er, I suppose I can look at the box?
It is a *very* pretty box...
Good to hear you're enjoying the Elite galaxy.
You should definitely consider the suggestion from @Random Element and perhaps create a YouTube channel - there's some great stuff out there.
Particularly, Tommyttk with Flight Assist Off ;-)
Tommyttk: 'Elite Dangerous Flight Assist Off through the station - Isinona or isn't he?'
Scott Manley: '1.2 - Looking at the New Ships With The New Camera'
'Elite Racers: Altair Race Day'
Erimus One: 'Daedalus Wing (Mission to Hyponia)'
Isinona: 'Elite: Dangerous' v1.1.06 - Hired Gun: Part 3 (Flight Assist Off)'
@Jörn Huxhorn @Random Element
Thank you for assisting @Bradley Sercombe
@ Bradley Sercombe
Suggestion: Make a youtube channel with your exploits? A video speaks a hundred thousand words! Would be nice to see your sessions. Post a link to them!! :-)
Recently I flew to Betelguese from Sol. Sure- not as epic as the guys that crossed the galaxy, but it IS my favorite star after all. I have played the game solo the entire time- this is the first time I've ever used something with HOTAS controls and the last time I used a joystick was probably in the 1980s. Yes the game is a bit grind-y, I hope that they plan to build more content for it, however it also remains pretty true to the original Elite which I appreciate. I spent a considerable time cataloging systems on the way to Betelguese and back. When I returned I had half a million credits in info and surveyed 3 previously unknown systems. The star itself was massive. Not really what I expected it to look like, but flying around it sure took time! I got some great screen shots with it and a nebula in the same image. I nursed my ship 300-odd lights back to the nearest starport I could find without too much further damage and paid whatever was asked for repairs (also, I think the cost for repairs is a little low, people should be incentivised to be more careful... after all, dying in space is easy- one "ssst" and your guts are spread out over a thousand miles of stratosphere). Sometimes with these open games you need to make your own fun and set your own goals. I do that quite a bit in 7 days to die.
Not sure I'm up to visiting Sag. A in ED though - lol. Maybe if I got together with a group of likeminded people that could be fun.
Thanks heaps Jorn!
Not in my case.
Hi ladies and gents, recently I received a package from FD which was a tube with a poster in it. Unfortunately, since nobody had bothered to tape up the plastic ends one of the ends had come off. Does anyone know if the tube contained anything other than the poster?"
The reason for the lack of answers @Paul R Francis might be that I have genuinely zero ideas if the collectors edition is in any way a collectors edition other than that it's called a collectors edition. There have been "exclusive" pre-order skins that weren't exclusive anymore a few weeks later So why on earth should I a) believe FD about that collectors editions and b) give someone an information that would just be guesswork on my part? I can just imagine Braben arguing that it's *still* possible to collect those editions even though they are sold for $10 at Walmart. "But you *can* collect them!"
I had all that when I promoted E:D to all my friends for about two years. Thanks, but no thanks.
It's funny how you call Shadowrunner paranoid. Wouldn't his suspicion just be a hypothesis? ;-)
Refunders don't exactly display helpful or amicable behaviour to all though, do they?
Precisely zero refunders fell over themselves to advise @Paul R Francis when he benignly enquired:
"Just received my physical copy of the game. Looks great, is it going to be released to stores or is it a collectors edition? Want to open it but am scared haha."
Similarly, newbie poster @tarasis stating an innocent observation was unfortunate enough to be not-so-warmly greeted by the overly suspicious and/or paranoid @Oldschool Shadowrunner who seemed to be having a bad day:
"@tarasis - excuse my language but where the hell have you been living for last 2-3 months? You really like us to believe this is the first time you heard people are not happy with FD? 15,000 posts on FD board, google news paper articles, thousands of negative comments here and many other places, refund game code, etc, etc, etc. Yet you want us to swallow that you just randomly decide to check kickstarter comments section months after the game was released and then post how you are shocked about legal actions and how happy you are with what you got?!?! Smells Fishy...Is that you Braben?"
Needless to say, @tarasis left promptly and hasn't returned - can't really blame him, nor anyone else that doesn't feel exactly the same way you guys evidently do about E:D
And regarding that Scotsman... I never said that biologists couldn't be statisticians. You've put those words in my mouth. They need statistics in their field. Badly. That's not the problem at all.
In contrast to biology, where statistics are applied to objective results, he used those statistics to analyze the most subjective things on earth - game/movie/music reviews.
There is no such thing as an objective game review. It would read something like this:
"Game ran with 25fps on my machine with the following specs: [..]
Could be more fluid. 7/10"
Not exactly the most useful, right? It contains some valid info but it isn't very enlightening about the game itself.
Instead, this would require a thorough psychological examination and not one that assumes that the ratings are objective in any way. Giving a zero rating isn't something people do without any reason at all. Anger led me to create an account at MC in the first place.
You pseudo-quote me with this:
"No relevant statistician could also be a biologist."
"Zuurman is a statistician *and* a biologist."
"Well, then, I cast doubt on his being a relevant statistician due to his biologist credentials"
I didn't say anything like that. I also didn't belittle his credentials and I'm sure he is a great biologist. I merely suggested that a thing like "competence in a field" exists and that I would have appreciated a scientific analysis from a more suitable field, e.g. a quantitative psychology.
If I'd write a 30 pages pamphlet about "Orphan chemokine receptors in neuroimmunology: functional and pharmacological analysis of L-CCR and HCR" I'm pretty sure you'd value his words more than mine. And not for the reason that I'm not a true biologist but because I don't even know what L-CCR and HCR means without google-cheating. :p (and yes, that was just a joke)
We just have different opinions about that paper. You deem it important enough to link it three times. I don't.
I mostly agree with the paper and said so from the start.
It has issues. Critics reviews are written by magazines/sites and those reviews are very rarely, if ever, revisited and if it happens at all it's merely to increase the score of a game that was very buggy at release and has since been subsequently patched. That's the only updated reviews by media I have ever seen.
I'm pretty sure that professional reviewers aren't dumping 200h of play time into a single game they review either. Gamers do that and they are able to update their score and review text. So while E:D might be pure eye candy and actually quite fun during the first 10-20h even the positive reviews say that it's currently a pretty thin game. And a score that can be updated shows that over time.
Quantitative psychologists would realize this and take it into account.
Take a look at the comments under http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/03/12/david-braben-on-fan-anger-interview/
Are you arguing that all those comments are also just us 4-5 people here in the comments section?
If you really observed this comments section you would have seen that us angry ranters were providing constructive support to people with actual problems since FD is ignoring Kickstarter entirely. We pointed them to to correct places. That's not exactly troll behavior, is it?
Regarding that two year till shutdown date I gave earlier... it may very well be three years. I'm neither prophet nor psychic so I can't be sure about the exact date.
But I can guarantee you 100% that it won't be 30 years like the original Elite - and that is the whole point about that always-online-drm-issue.
And even without any Scotsman involved:
I'd still like to know how Elite without Thargoids can ever be a realistic, "objective" 10/10.
Star Citizen will be along to save the space-sim genre (...in a few years or so) and by then Elite:Dangerous, Frontier and David Braben will be nothing but the memory of a bad taste in your mouth.
How's that Metacritic User Score doing? ;-)
And yet... as a comparative... Elite falls below Frozen Cortex and well below Dragonball Xenoverse?!?
It's a rushed to market snooze fest published by an abusive asshat company. And people are both noticing and commenting on it.
RPS had a nice article a few months ago:
...Elite Dangerous, a game I have played and played but never fully enjoyed...
...Imagine making a game with as slick and impressive an interface as Elite, and then creating systems that all but require players to alt-tab over to a screenshot in order to play...
...Glumly grinding out the funds to get a larger hauling ship – necessary if you’re going to make properly good money – is an exercise in grim frustration...
...With the in-game experience doing so little to support the fantasy of being a trader, the game then becomes about the few physical interactions you have as a non-combative ship pilot: lightspeed jumps, interdiction avoidance, and docking. The first is programmed via the galaxy map and requires you to rotate towards your destination, press a button, and throttle up; the middle means keeping your mouse pointer in the center of a moving HUD element, like a browser game that wouldn’t hold your attention for more than a minute; and the latter is a genuine thrill, a rare moment of grandness and scale in an otherwise empty universe...
If you actually bothered to read http://pastebin.com/VcRYjCGy you'd know whether I backed before or after offline mode was announced. q.e.d.
No, he didn't kill my dog. But he did this to his former partner:
I encourage Frontier Developments to send me a cease and desist letter for calling them fraudulent multiple times in relation to their "Our records show that you backed the game before we committed to an offline mode" stunt.
"In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain."
Frontier Developments used the above argument to fend off refund requests even though it is possible to change the pledge amount or pull the pledge altogether until the very last second of the campaign. Any legal relationship between backer and creator starts with the payment of the money. There is nothing questionable at all. And FD know this very well.
They have my data on their records. But they won't send me a c&d because I would object and a court would ultimately attest that it is valid to call the above behavior by FD fraudulent.
I would very much appreciate this.
"That wasn't a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman at all. Get your fallacies right."
Hmmm... except that, indeed, yours was fallacious reasoning of the type I stated:
You "questioned the competence of the person that wrote it with regards to statistics" citing the fact that he is a biologist (for reasons still not adequately/at all explained)
"No relevant statistician could also be a biologist."
"Zuurman is a statistician *and* a biologist."
"Well, then, I cast doubt on his being a relevant statistician due to his biologist credentials"
And, you apply this 'reasoning' despite the (PhD) author in fact being well-versed in statistical analysis as evidenced by his academic credentials (including computing and games-related statistical analysis) his being the author of the published and cited scientifc paper: 'Statistical analysis of cDNA microarray data' couple with the (surely relatively well-known?) fact that DNA analysis inherently requires a large amount of statistical and computational analysis.
You then further cite some classic causation/correlation nonsense completely unrelated to the author we were discussing.
You then apparently go on to actually agree with his analysis.
This doesn't change the fact that you were damning about the guy's credentials as a means to cast doubt over his findings.
In short, you cast aspersions over the veracity of his analysis because you, "prefer statistical analysis from statisticians and/or a university."
He apparently didn't fit your exacting criteria/preference for a statistician, therefore he can't be a relevant statistician, and his works therefore can't be relevant statistical analyses.
It's textbook 'No True Scotsman'
From your response, it seems likely that you would use the same defence against any statistics presented that didn't meet some other set of criteria that you decide upon ad-hoc. Furthemore, your casting of aspersions on Zuurmans's credentials is fallacious in itself and doesn't necessarily make the statistical analysis he produced any less valid - only in your opinion does it do so.
So, there's also a hint of fallacy fallacy in there too, really: You presume that his analyses are fallacious (due to his being a biologist) yet your fallacious reasoning regarding his being a biologist (and therefore not a 'relevant' statistician) does not necessarily imply that his analyses are in fact fallacious.
You "question... the importance of the non-profit organization "Xentax Foundation" that isn't even relevant enough to have a Wikipedia page."
Right. Point taken. We should use Wikipedia as the sole arbiter of 'relevance'.
(perhaps you were joking on this point - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt)
"You have hopes that the general public will stop being stupid so Metacritic loses influence? Good luck with that one."
Not really 'hope' so much as evidence from general comments sections elsewhere, Facebook, Reddit, RPS, etc. I do think there's a lot of evidence from the gaming community (not just E:D fans, and not just haters or fanboys of any given game) that Metacritic scores are largely taken with a large pinch of salt)
The interesting thing, is that in these comments, Metacritic is regularly cited as some sort of paragon of virtue - probably since the obviously downwardly manipulated socre chimes with your own myopic view of E:D.
"I frankly don't care at all about the remaining 25k backers that are happy with Elite in the current implementation."
Noted. Rest assured, the feeling is almost certainly mutual.
"They'll probably understand why an offline mode would have been important when FD turns off their servers due to bankruptcy. I give this game two years."
Well, your prediction is there in perpetuity - it will be most interesting to see how that one plays out, Nostradamus.
Good luck with that one. Perhaps you Should place a bet at a bookmakers? You could be rich! I wonder what odds you'd get on such a bet?
Do try to appreciate that Frontier is a 'company'.
Companies exist, in the main, in order to make money (and not really to pander to the wishes of a small minority of angry keyboard warriors) In terms of revenue, a solely online, non-DRM game is, from a company's medium to long-term perspective a very shrewd move since it completely addresses the resale/piracy issue and the associated crushing loss of revenue from their intellectual properties that they both entail. One player = one copy. Frontier is a business, and they have probably applied business sense to E:D. You don't like that. However, the vast majority don't care and/or completely understand why Frontier have followed this path (...if indeed that is the sole reason why they have chosen that path - the simple fact is, neither you, nor I, nor anyone outside Braben's mind know the true reasons for the offline decision - which is why, I suspect, you find the endless speculation so stimulating - and, of course, it can have no end, since Braben will never tell you. Endless indignation. Powerful stuff)
"I can understand Avalanche perfectly well regarding the curtness of his answers. It isn't worthwhile bothering to write a proper answer to you since you'll ignore 95% of the text, anyway."
It's completely unsurprising that you would support a fellow Kickstarter Backout.
I would further dispute that I have received any 'proper answers' ;-)
You'll note that in this, my previous comment, and the majority of my other comments I have in fact taken the time to address points raised or questions asked - prior to February I occasionally dropped in just to follow the progress of these comments, and it really has been fascinating to see how a one-sided discussion amongst like-minded people with a common grievance continues when not subject to opposing views.
It's very interesting, also, to note that, in the last four months, whenever opposing viewpoints have been raised by other satisfied Kickstarter backers in these comments, the posters have almost without exception, been vehemently opposed by multiple refunders, sometimes ridiculed, by turns accused of being a 'shills', 'fanboys' (some guy was even accused of being Braben - although that was 'explained' (in a later comment) as apparently being just a 'joke' - the OP had long gone by then) and generally made to feel unwelcome on a public Kickstarter comments page for a game that they have as much right to comment on as any other backer.
"I explained that I want to see the end of Frontier Developments because of the way they deal with their customers."
If you take a step back for a second, perhaps you can see that this is one heck of an extreme reaction. Did Braben also kill your dog?! ;-)
"85 days until they refunded me is totally unacceptable. See http://pastebin.com/VcRYjCGy for the whole rationale of why I demanded that refund at all."
Yes. 85 days is a long time. But I'm not really sure you had a legal case at all. The greyness of the area regarding refunds still hasn't turned white or black. I take the view that the delay was most probably a combination of time taken for legal advice to be sought by Frontier, time taken to investigate the play-history/backer history of each request, potentially coupled with a low priority assigned to the task of refunding people that backed a by-definition risky project - in contrast to a purchaser ordering an existing product with well-known, and crucially evidenced parameters. Remember, Frontier were/are developing a game - analysing play-time histories and backer-histories takes time an effort away from an undoubtedly hectic planned release schedule.
"Our records show that you backed the game before we committed to an offline mode" figment about the relevance of pledge time was the final straw - but you'll ignore all this in all of your future comments anyway and will argue that we are just bad people with no reasons whatsoever to hold a gripe against FD.)
Well, *did* you back the game *before* the 'commitment' to offline mode?
Legally, they're in a pretty strong position if that's what they're asserting.
Sounds to me like they just gave you a refund a a goodwill gesture so you would stop bleating.
"And again: this isn't a forum, this isn't a thread."
A forum is simply a generic term used to describe any medium where ideas can be exchanged.
That's what's happening here.
A 'thread' of a conversation is the term used to describe the path that a particular conversation or discussion takes.
But that's just semantics, we're losing the thread.
"The forum is over at https://forums.frontier.co.uk/"
"A" forum is over there, too.
There are lots of forums:
There are lots of places where people exchange ideas.
"No true Elite Commander would give an Elite:Dangerous without Thargoids a 10 on Metacritic.
There. Now you have your Scotsman."
Well, if we're counting, that's actually the second one.
That wasn't a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman at all. Get your fallacies right.
I also didn't even say that the findings of that paper are wrong. I just question the competence of the person that wrote it with regards to statistics as well as the importance of the non-profit organization "Xentax Foundation" that isn't even relevant enough to have a Wikipedia page.
I mean... I even agreed with the general finding of that paper and said that Metacritic is indeed bullshit. But nevertheless, objectively and factual, Metacritic is still more relevant than "Xentax Foundation" because it has a Wikipedia page. ;-)
You have hopes that the general public will stop being stupid so Metacritic loses influence? Good luck with that one.
I frankly don't care at all about the remaining 25k backers that are happy with Elite in the current implementation. They'll probably understand why an offline mode would have been important when FD turns off their servers due to bankruptcy. I give this game two years.
I can understand Avalanche perfectly well regarding the curtness of his answers. It isn't worthwhile bothering to write a proper answer to you since you'll ignore 95% of the text, anyway.
I explained that I want to see the end of Frontier Developments because of the way they deal with their customers. 85 days until they refunded me is totally unacceptable. See http://pastebin.com/VcRYjCGy for the whole rationale of why I demanded that refund at all.
(Spoiler: the "Our records show that you backed the game before we committed to an offline mode" figment about the relevance of pledge time was the final straw - but you'll ignore all this in all of your future comments anyway and will argue that we are just bad people with no reasons whatsoever to hold a gripe against FD.)
And again: this isn't a forum, this isn't a thread. The forum is over at https://forums.frontier.co.uk/ where the mods are swinging their ban hammer and locked at least two threads about the offline mode. The only "moderation" happening on Kickstarter is the deletion of whole comments in case of spam or slurs.
No true Elite Commander would give an Elite:Dangerous without Thargoids a 10 on Metacritic.
There. Now you have your Scotsman.
@ Theta Sigma
"..reign of dominance"?
Previously so prolific of post.
Now so curt.
What's happened to you?
Could it in any way be related to satisifed Kickstarter backers returning to this thread to call you out on your perspective after your brief reign of dominance? ;-)
So "facts" or "appears"?
"Oh, and that "independent, in-depth statistical analyses of Metacritic" paper you keep citing was written by a biologist."
"Biologist's can't do statistics" (?)
(...if that was indeed your implication... care to clarify?)
Mike Zuurman performed the analysis for the non-profit organisation Xentax Foundation.
'non-profit organisation is pretty much a definition of 'independent'
"I simply prefer statistical analysis from statisticians and/or a university."
'No-true Scotsman' duly noted in your approach to the disparaging of statistical analyses that aren't performed by persons that fit your exacting specifications.
Additionally, Zuurman's academic credentials and published papers point to his being more than adequately qualified in statistical analysis to investigate the practices of a game review aggregator - this isn't 'Statistical analysis of cDNA microarray data' or 'Rocket Science', after all ;-)
"And "severely damaging the reputation of a video-game title" (also mentioned in the Metacritic Wikipedia article you keep copy-pasting)
"Quoting" a Wikipedia article which in turn cites the original papers and sources of the quotes does not in any way reduce the credibility of the source's original findings.
"...is exactly what I'd like to see in case of Elite:Dangerous."
Yes. Your obvious bias and emotional responses are obvious.
"Simply because Frontier Developments deserves bankruptcy for the way they are dealing with their customers."
"Deserve" is your emotive opinion and, from all available evidence, a view certainly not shared by the majority of the 25,681 original Kickstarter Backers.
"Yep, Metacritic is bullshit. But bullshit with influence."
I agree with the first part:
As to the second part:
People (reviewers, games producers, the public) are becoming increasingly wise to the bias inherent in, and the open-to-abuse-potential of, Metacritic.
And "severely damaging the reputation of a video-game title" (also mentioned in the Metacritic Wikipedia article you keep copy-pasting) is exactly what I'd like to see in case of Elite:Dangerous. Simply because Frontier Developments deserves bankruptcy for the way they are dealing with their customers.
Yep, Metacritic is bullshit. But bullshit with influence. ¯\_(シ)_/¯
Oh, and that "independent, in-depth statistical analyses of Metacritic" paper you keep citing was written by a biologist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Zuurman
I'm not saying that Metacritic isn't bullshit and skewed (I personally despise reviews that boil down to a simple number). I simply prefer statistical analysis from statisticians and/or a university. Otherwise you'll simply end up with stuff like http://tylervigen.com/
"Still appears analytical."
Perhaps it does appear like that to you.
However, it still appears, to me, that you much prefer to:
- Consider a simple 'average' reported by an aggregator
- Which has been independently described as "heavily biased" and with "no standards"
- Because it supports your world-view/perception/hopes
- Rather than actually thinking about how that number was arrived at
- Or considering the valid criticisms made of that 'average' by multiple independent sources
I completely agree with you on the point:
Ratings != Reviews
A 'Review' is 'An individual User Score with accompanying text' (individually, publicly-visible)
A 'Rating' is 'An individual User Score with or without accompanying text' (individually, not publicly-visible)
'Ratings' are thus the superset which includes within it the set of 'Reviews'
The issue here is that multiple zero-score 'Ratings' (with no accompanying text) can readily be posted to Metacritic and which, crucially, are not individually publicly-visible to other Metacritic users for the equitable-to-all purposes of liking/disliking/moderation/reporting of abuse.
In very stark contrast, there are many '10' and '0' 'Reviews' that *have* been removed by Metacritic from the site following individuals reporting 'abuse' of the system.
'Ratings', however, are *not* subject in any way at all to the same crowd-scrutiny.
As stated, this is in very stark contrast to the publicly-visible 'Reviews' which are subject to all of the above eminently, 'fair', processes.
This is the mechanism I referred to previously by which a release can be "Bombed" with 0/10 ratings, with:
1) no comeback on the perpetrator(s) of the 0/10 "bombing", and...
2) no process of appeal by either the producer of the release, or the reviewing Metacritic public.
"Under recent years, Metacritic has been the subject of heavy criticism due to the controversial way the website currently handles the banning of users and their reviews with no notices or proper appeals for the affected."
"Critics and developers alike have pointed out the website's lack of personnel management along with the automatic systems as video-games in particular, can be "Bombed" with 0/10 ratings under just one night, severely damaging the reputation of a video-game title.
These are amongst the reasons that many games producers have heavily criticised the Metacritic scoring system and algorithms.
For example, Signal Studios president and creative director Douglas Robert Albright describing the website as having "No standards".
So, all the above reasons, and various independent analyses of the massively-skewed and disproportionate 'liking' and 'disliking' of 'positive' and 'negative' reviews by a relatively small proportion of 'reviewers' lead overwhelmingly to the conclusion that Metacritic can be easily manipulated by those so inclined. It has furthermore been independently asserted by the Xentax Foundation that "The data at Metacritic leaves much to be desired and seems to be heavily biased."
It is of note that many regular commentators on this thread repeatedly point to the Metacritic Average User Score as cast-iron "evidence" that E:D is "failing", yet the analysis of games producers, professional reviewers and independent researchers repeatedly, and convincingly, show that the Metacritic scoring system is fundamentally flawed, and subject to abuse not least due to the ease with which a given score can be maliciously manipulated by those so-inclined to do so.
Still appears analytical.
The average user score doesn't only include scores from reviews but also ratings, i.e. "reviews without text". It explicitly says so on the site: "Mixed or average reviewsbased on 1294 Ratings"
Ratings != Reviews.
I registered an account on MC 2014-12-31 to give a zero rating (!) after seeing a huge amount of 10 ratings. I did not write a review. I feel very much entitled to give this game one zero vote for reasons already mentioned by other people in some of the comments below, i.e. the game simply doesn't deliver for me, at all.
It's astonishing that people are giving a 10 to an Elite that doesn't even contain Thargoids...
If you suspect foul play regarding the metacritic score I strongly suggest you discuss this with the metacritic staff.
Also, this isn't a forum and it isn't moderated. This is the comments section of a Kickstarter campaign that has been abandoned by the project creators (the comments section, not the campaign. The campaign hasn't been abandoned by the project creators - yet.)
@Avalanche @Philip Konczak @Fabio Capela @Oldschool Shadowrunner @Jörn Huxhorn @Darious @Wyzak
Note: This is objective, public data, available on Metacritic for anyone to verify
From 16th December 2014 to 25th March 2015, inclusive, on Metacritic:
Total Number of publicly visible 'User Reviews':
'Cumulative Total Score Awarded' by all these 671 visible 'User Reviews':
'Average Score per Review' from 16th December 2014 to 25th March 2015, inclusive:
4954/671 = 7.4
Publicly reported Metacritic Average User Score for the period 16th December 2014 to 25th March 2015, inclusive:
Considered in light of the previous verifiable objective facts regarding the publicly available date for March thus far, this is not only intriguing, but downright suspicious.
An extremely significant delta of 0.9 between the Metacritic-reported 'Average User Score' and the actual 'Average User Score' calculated from all publicly visible reviews.
It is of further note that these results tally with the previous independent, in-depth statistical analyses of Metacritic by Xentax which concluded:
"The data at Metacritic leaves much to be desired and seems to be heavily biased."
By all means, leave the analysis aside and simply consider the following publicly verifiable and objective facts:
Since 1st March 2015
Metacritic Average User Score = 6.90
(from 49 reviews, totalling a combined 'User Score' of 338)
Bizarrely, over the exact same time period Metacritic 'Average User Score' *decreased* from 6.8 to 6.5
The decrease (a fact) has been much trumpeted by yourself, @Darious and others.
...and yet you seem *extremely* reticent to discuss the other publicly verifiable objective fact regarding the actual Metacritic 'Average User Score' of 6.90 for the 49 reviews posted in March thus far.
Perhaps you could address that in your next reply? ;-)
Your 'analysis' =/= facts.
"Would you check your mathematics before using metacritic statistic as proof there is a malicious movement against Elite?"
By all means, Philip:
I would never present evidence supporting hypotheses without first having performed the necessary verification.
Having already checked and double-checked the 'mathematics' prior to making any of my previous hypotheses, do rest assured that I have now triple-checked the data at your behest.
With that in mind:
The 'calculations' in your most recent post are based on a demonstrably false premise.
"If the 28 positive review give a ten and 15 negative review give a zero and the 6 mix revieww give a five, the metacritic score should be 6.327, so to be fair the score is not lowered enough."
Ample demonstration of the falsity of the premise now follows.
Rather than dealing with "Ifs" and "shoulds" (as you have just done in your 'analysis') I have always, in discussion on the analytical points regarding Metacritic, dealt exclusively with the actual publicly available data and the statistical facts of the matter.
Objective and publicly verifiable facts:
Since 1st March 2015, on Metacritic:
Number of publicly visible 'User Reviews':
Total Score Awarded by all 49 visible 'User Reviews':
Average Score per Review since 1st March 2015:
338/49 = 6.90 (2 dp)
The Metacritic E:D 'Average User Score' has, in fact, reduced from 6.8 to 6.5 during the period 1st March 2015 to 25th March 2015
...despite the 'Average User Score' being 6.90 over that *exact same time period*
Given that the Metacritic average User Score has dropped by 0.3 in the same time period that the 'Average User Score' was, in fact, 0.1 higher (at 6.9) than the starting 'Average User Score' on 1st March 2015 (6.8) there is very strong evidence that there is more to the Metacritic scoring algorithms than a simple numerical average of all user scores submitted.
Metacritic scoring algorithms also take into account a 'weighting factor' based upon the relative number of 'likes' and 'dislikes' which a given review receives.
Given that detailed statistical analysis of the distribution 'likes' and 'dislikes' for *all* reviews shows a statistically significant anomaly towards disproportionate:
'liking' of negative scores, and:
'disliking' of positive scores
It is indeed highly likely that a group, or groups (totalling a relatively small proportion of the scoring population) are colluding in order to maliciously manipulate the Metacritic Elite:Dangerous 'Average User Score' through the practice of "bombing" with 0/10 scores (potentially from multiple, fake accounts) and furthermore continuously, and disproportionately, 'liking' negative user reviews whilst continuously and disproportionately 'disliking' positive user reviews.
The above mathematical analysis is based *entirely* on the publicly available data on Metacritic and is verifiable by anyone wishing to do so.
As you'll have noted, I have only recently joined this seemingly refunder-moderated forum.
I take particular issue with misinformation being posted and then repeated as if it has somehow become fact - a practice that has been conspicuously rife over the past three or four months.
It is, of course, entirely your prerogative to disagree with my factual and statistical analysis, but do note that my analysis of the Metacritic Average User Score is based exclusively in fact, from the objective and publicly verifiable data available from Metacritic - a site, please note, that has been denounced by independent studies as leaving "much to be desired" and "heavily biased."
My own analysis supports these assertions, and it is most telling that you and others on this forum continue to place such importance on the Metacritic Average User Score.
"focus" = "Obsessed much?"?
I was asked to post this
Dear Theta Sigma,
Would you check your mathematics before using metacritic statistic as proof there is a malicious movement against Elite?
If the 28 positive review give a ten and 15 negative review give a zero and the 6 mix revieww give a five, the metacritic score should be 6.327, so to be fair the score is not lowered enough.
If you think it is unfair to give zero for the score, how about adding 2 to the negative review and subtracting 2 to the positive review?
(15 X 2 + 6 X 5 + 28 X 8) / 49 = 5.796
Even if you cheat and make the negative score 4 instead of 2, you will get 6.408
So you are right that the metacritic score is unfair, it is not low enough.
On the contrary, my focus is the statistically extremely significant distribution of 'likes' and 'dislikes' for positive and negative reviews on Metacritic which is causing absurd anomalies such as:
Since 1st March, 2015
Metacritic score has decreased from 6.8 to 6.5
In the exact same time period:
Negative User Reviews: 15
Mixed User Reviews: 6
Positive User Reviews: 28
@Darious and yourself agree that these positive user reviews are from 'shills', and yet the objective evidence shows the score continuing to decrease despite the number of positive reviews far outnumbering the negative reviews in that period.
There is very likely, therefore, to be a concerted effort by a malicious party, or parties, to subvert the Metacritic scoring system in order to negatively affect the E:D user score.
You're focusing on one word.
If you don't want to answer that question, why not just say so? ;-)
"Agreed" was one word though.
It's clear that you "Agreed" with something (...but with what, exactly?)
I laboriously went through the things it *could* have been - the objective and undeniable facts such as the score decreasing, and there having been positive reviews - but as these are all facts, it's strange that you felt the need to agree on something that nobody could possibly disagree with i.e. the easily verifiable, objective facts.
Still no clearer on what you were actually agreeing with - although it seems likely that it was the only part that wasn't a definite fact: Darious' opinion on 'shills'
"Agreed" = "utter ambiguity"??
It seems so long ago...