ARR > Dawntrail

[Nitelancer]

The numbers don't lie.









https://www.metacritic.com/game/fina...-realm-reborn/
https://opencritic.com/game/271/fina...a-realm-reborn

[Daralii]

I put more stock in user score than critic score. It's not exactly a secret that companies as big as SE will bribe critics(through the outlet or as individuals), and Steam's user reviews are as simple as you can get with them just being a yes/no on whether or not you'd recommend it.

[Carolingian]

Can't argue with that. While they sort of go for the same thing, Dawntrail just feels way too sanitised and Disney compared to ARR. A real shame.

[PaulH]

1000 users giving feedback is a very low sample.

[Nitelancer]

1000 users giving feedback is a very low sample.

But the user sample is about the same (~1000, which is not at all a "very low" sample if you know anything about statistics), and the critic reviews are also higher for ARR.

[Striker44]

But the user sample is about the same (~1000, which is not at all a "very low" sample if you know anything about statistics), and the critic reviews are also higher for ARR.

It's still what is statistically called a "voluntary sample" (people choose to join the sample by submitting a rating), which is universally panned as one of the two most unreliable approaches to gathering useful data.

For the critic reviews, what I look for are reviews from the same critics. For example, PC Gamer gives ARR 79/100 vs. DT 80/100. IGN gives ARR 8.6 vs. DT 8.0.

There's also the reality of what they're following. ARR followed 1.0, which was a disaster. DT is following ShB and EW, which were high-points of the franchise. That's necessarily going to make ARR "feel better" and lead to higher ratings, while "deflating" DT. I mean, look at the ARR scores, and then compare it to how many people today point to ARR as a long slog and the infamous "the story doesn't get good until you get to HW." Which isn't to say that I think ARR was bad at all, just that its scores will be naturally inflated because it followed 1.0 (and if you read the actual ratings for it, you'll see exactly that "brought the series back to life" as a key point).

Regardless, I think the User Score is often initially a lot of frustrated players protesting and will probably change over the long-term as the more casual players leave their reviews and balance the score. If you check back some years from now, the User Score will probably be a lot higher.

This. Remember that the initial score people pointed out for DT was 8.6 and then as soon as that became known, it started dropping. There's no doubt in my mind the "current" score is anything resembling an actual representative sample of the playerbase. Give it time for the larger playerbase to complete the main game and post, and watch how it counters those bombing on it.

[Nitelancer]

It's still what is statistically called a "voluntary sample" (people choose to join the sample by submitting a rating), which is universally panned as one of the two most unreliable approaches to gathering useful data.

For the critic reviews, what I look for are reviews from the same critics. For example, PC Gamer gives ARR 79/100 vs. DT 80/100. IGN gives ARR 8.6 vs. DT 8.0.

There's also the reality of what they're following. ARR followed 1.0, which was a disaster. DT is following ShB and EW, which were high-points of the franchise. That's necessarily going to make ARR "feel better" and lead to higher ratings, while "deflating" DT. I mean, look at the ARR scores, and then compare it to how many people today point to ARR as a long slog and the infamous "the story doesn't get good until you get to HW." Which isn't to say that I think ARR was bad at all, just that its scores will be naturally inflated because it followed 1.0 (and if you read the actual ratings for it, you'll see exactly that "brought the series back to life" as a key point).



This. Remember that the initial score people pointed out for DT was 8.6 and then as soon as that became known, it started dropping. There's no doubt in my mind the "current" score is anything resembling an actual representative sample of the playerbase. Give it time for the larger playerbase to complete the main game and post, and watch how it counters those bombing on it.

All survey responses are voluntary. Can't force someone to take a survey or give a rating. But it's true that there is a question of how representative the sample is of the population in question. However, that would depend on additional characteristics of those who gave a rating, such as their age, income, behaviors, etc. The proportion of these characteristics might not perfectly reflect of the proportions that would be found in the whole NA XIV population. We can't really know, but I would think that now with a sample of 1000, the sample would more closely resemble the population than when the score was 8.6 and the sample was smaller. I think user reviews do count for something, otherwise, there would be no point to having them.

[GrizzlyTank]

Arr while being jank. Had a much more mature story.

Twice in a row now the chapters have been almost to say a age-range lower than they used to be.

[Folsom]

Arr while being jank. Had a much more mature story.

Twice in a row now the chapters have been almost to say a age-range lower than they used to be.

100% agree. ARR definitely had its issues with fetch quests, pacing, and general jank, but the story, even though it wasn't told as well as Heavensward and Shadowbringers, was much more mature and engaging than Dawntrail's. ARR had political intrigue, relatable stakes, and diverse character behavior. Dawntrail, by comparison, feels like a cartoon. It has all the political intrigue and character growth of a couple episodes of GI Joe or maybe Captain Planet.

Now, that's not to say it should have been darker, but even a light and uplifting story has the potential to feel good and relatable. Dawntrail just felt like a fanfic.

[Jeeqbit]

These figures are not equal.

The ARR figures are for PS4, while the Dawntrail figures are for PC. So it's not an equal comparison.

The second batch of images don't show the User Score, which is the only score worth anything. The other one is created by journalist who spend barely any time playing or understanding the game. They probably wipe to basic stuff like stack markers and then write in their little review that it's "hard".

Regardless, I think the User Score is often initially a lot of frustrated players protesting and will probably change over the long-term as the more casual players leave their reviews and balance the score. If you check back some years from now, the User Score will probably be a lot higher.

I do think the feeling of FF9's lore being trashed on will leave a poor impression to many who played it though. If they had changed the lore enough to not resemble FF9 so much, it may not have left an impression like this but unfortunately this could affect the User Score in the future as well. Nevertheless, if you can separate yourself from the references to FF9 and pretend you never played it, it's a decent expansion.