55 réponses à ce sujet

[mr_nameless]

Most people have no idea what orcs or goblins actually look like.

Only a few chosen few can actually meet them.

Actually I had one over for afternoon tea the other day.

Very sensitive creatures I would say actually.

[JergenKajaton]

mr_nameless wrote...

Very sensitive creatures I would say actually.

Can you blame them? Look at the way they're constantly negatively stereotyped in the media.

[Saibh]

filaminstrel wrote...

I think you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill.

What do you mean? About IGN being fools? The misinformation about "orcs" is just the beginnings of the problems that article presents. They also were absolutely wrong about there only being three dialogue choices and they spelled Hawke's name wrong (repeatedly).

[Mordaedil]

Oh come on, they are basically orcs and goblins with a new name and a cooler story and more menace tied to them. The ogre is a big balrog without wings and fire. You can't really blame a reporter for giving them names on what roles they basically fill out, rather than what some bloke at Bioware decided to name them.



It's the whole Hobbit/Halfling disaster again.

[Face of Evil]

Mordaedil wrote...

Oh come on, they are basically orcs and goblins with a new name and a cooler story and more menace tied to them. The ogre is a big balrog without wings and fire. You can't really blame a reporter for giving them names on what roles they basically fill out, rather than what some bloke at Bioware decided to name them.

It's the whole Hobbit/Halfling disaster again.

So the writer shouldn't have to strive for accuracy? Glaring mistakes in an article doesn't encourage the reader to treat it as a credible source of information, and all a journalist — even one that works at some crappy gaming site — has is credibility.

This is not a minor detail he's gotten wrong here. The darkspawn weren't just wandering monsters who hassled the PC while travelling the world map; defeating them was the focus of the first game. Even if hurlocks and genlocks are just "orcs and goblins of a different colour," they aren't called by those names. Would it have been so hard to do a few SECONDS of research and find out the bad guys are called "darkspawn"? They're named in several of the trailers for Origins that are still on Youtube. That's an all-encompassing term that would have been accurate.

Modifié par Face of Evil, 25 juillet 2010 - 12:01 .

[errant_knight]

Face of Evil wrote...

 I've seen a couple of references in gaming articles to "orcs and goblins" in DA2. I assume this is a mistake on the part of the writers and they are actually referring to genlocks and hurlocks. Still, the fact that a few different articles have made me pause: is DA2 actually introducing goblins and orcs? Honestly, that would be a misstep, as darkspawn more than adequately fill the role of monster mooks. There's no need to shoehorn in D&D monsters that don't fit with the setting.

As I said, I assume this is an error made on the part of the reviewers — we all make mistakes — but could someone clear this up?

I actually find it LOL funny since the whole point of giving the graphics a new look, was to make sure no one confused DA:O with LOTR. Now, I liked the DA:O graphic, and don't like the new ones, so I'm biased, but I find all the 'orc' talk pretty darn amusing.

[Gill Kaiser]

Mordaedil wrote...

Oh come on, they are basically orcs and goblins with a new name and a cooler story and more menace tied to them. The ogre is a big balrog without wings and fire. You can't really blame a reporter for giving them names on what roles they basically fill out, rather than what some bloke at Bioware decided to name them.

It's the whole Hobbit/Halfling disaster again.

That's not the point. It would have been better if the writer had just said that they were orcs and gobins. I mean, he'd have been wrong, but innocently so. Instead he made an unfunny joke that made it clear that he understood that he was ignorant of the proper nomenclature, yet instead of taking the miniscule amount of time to educate himself, he felt that was beneath him and would have made him "too nerdy". It's just very unprofessional.

[Daewan]

JergenKajaton wrote...

Gill Kaiser wrote...

It was the kind of joke you expect from a lad's mag like FHM, not a supposedly serious gaming website.

I totally get what you're saying, and I even agree, but I'm still mildly amused by the phrase "serious gaming website".

Fun quotes from IGN's media page:
corp.ign.com/

• over 37.2MM unique views and 532MM page views each month (1 in 4 male gamers in the US, according to their statistics and probably close to the truth)
• First-looks, exclusives and the sheer depth of our editorial content
  might go to explaining a part of our following; but the real story is
  that we truly share in the passions of our audience.  (oh really?)

IGN considers themselves to be professionals.  And so do hundreds of advertisers.  They make a lot of money catering to their target audience, and they are partially shaping said audience.  I despise their attempt at humor and failed journalism.

Possibly, I am slightly bitter because I didn't get to go to Comic-Con, and I can't punch the reporter in question for his idiocy.

To contrast: The New York Times has an online audience of about 22.4 million.  Different voice, different reach, but still pretty damn poor market penetration.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Saibh wrote...

This spawned, I believe, from a dimwitted journalist who wrote an article declaring he didn't bother to learn what the name of the darkspawn were, because he wasn't that nerdy, so he just called them orcs. Not everyone got the joke. I'm sure he said this because he was currently at ComicCon, and it was hard to get that nerdy. Doesn't excuse poor writing skills.

EDIT: You know, it's strange. It's almost as if jumping to conclusions has led
people to believe a game they've never played is going to be poor...and
then they were proven wrong, if they bother taking the time to learn
the difference, or pay attention.

Huh.

Oh that Hatfield, effectionatly (not) known by Nintendo fans as Hatefield

[Saibh]

Cynical Being wrote...

... Does anyone know more about the graphics of the darkspawn and overall in Dragon Age 2? I mean.. The screenshots kind of looked bland and lame.Hopefully that was only because it was a demo..?

I don't think we'll get an explanation for the darkspawn's new look (if we do, great!), and I don't think they'll get changed.

As for the graphics, I've been hearing everywhere that the screenshots don't really do the game justice--and while it's not top-notch, it's not quite as low-grade as the screenshots might lead you to believe.

[Demx]

Saibh wrote...

Cynical Being wrote...

... Does anyone know more about the graphics of the darkspawn and overall in Dragon Age 2? I mean.. The screenshots kind of looked bland and lame.Hopefully that was only because it was a demo..?

I don't think we'll get an explanation for the darkspawn's new look (if we do, great!), and I don't think they'll get changed.

As for the graphics, I've been hearing everywhere that the screenshots don't really do the game justice--and while it's not top-notch, it's not quite as low-grade as the screenshots might lead you to believe.

I think all we'll get is that it is part of the new art style. Along with all the pointy-ness we now see.

[Saibh]

Siradix wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Cynical Being wrote...

... Does anyone know more about the graphics of the darkspawn and overall in Dragon Age 2? I mean.. The screenshots kind of looked bland and lame.Hopefully that was only because it was a demo..?

I don't think we'll get an explanation for the darkspawn's new look (if we do, great!), and I don't think they'll get changed.

As for the graphics, I've been hearing everywhere that the screenshots don't really do the game justice--and while it's not top-notch, it's not quite as low-grade as the screenshots might lead you to believe.

I think all we'll get is that it is part of the new art style. Along with all the pointy-ness we now see.

I mean an in-game explanation for their giant retconned appearance. I suppose they'll just treat it as "oh, that's how they always looked", but it's going to bug me to no end.

Like no one being bugged by Shepard changing faces, and how they all instantly recognize her.

[AlanC9]

Mordaedil wrote...

Oh come on, they are basically orcs and goblins with a new name and a cooler story and more menace tied to them. The ogre is a big balrog without wings and fire. You can't really blame a reporter for giving them names on what roles they basically fill out, rather than what some bloke at Bioware decided to name them.

I guess I'd buy that if you could tell me what the distinguishing characteristic of an "orc" is. If all it means is "nonhuman humanoid adversary race" then we might as well stop caring.

[Saibh]

AlanC9 wrote...

Mordaedil wrote...

Oh come on, they are basically orcs and goblins with a new name and a cooler story and more menace tied to them. The ogre is a big balrog without wings and fire. You can't really blame a reporter for giving them names on what roles they basically fill out, rather than what some bloke at Bioware decided to name them.

I guess I'd buy that if you could tell me what the distinguishing characteristic of an "orc" is. If all it means is "nonhuman humanoid adversary race" then we might as well stop caring.

Also, ogres existed well before Tolkien. And the DA version doesn't even remotely resemble what the Balrog is supposed to be. I guess sort of in the vague "it has two legs and horns" sort of way, but then, so do a lot of evil mythical creatures. The word "orc" existed before Tolkien, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't used for the same sort of creature. Especially because I think they had something to do with dolphins.

[DaringMoosejaw]

The comments in here about how, 'They're calling them orcs and goblins to make sense to their new demographic!' are hilarious. "Hur hur, cuz any1 hoo plys ona consoul r dumz! lolololololl!!!!!!11". What a bunch of elitist pricks, you guys must've gotten screwed with a lot in high school to build up that kind of a false superiority complex.

I own both the PC and Xbox versions of DA:O. Though I get better graphics on the PC and smoother framerates and the UI handles a little better, I prefer the xbox since the gamepad makes the gameplay smoother and it handles better in my own opinion. I find the micromanagement aspects of it tedious but a necessary evil, and I'm glad if Bioware can ease it up.

Modifié par DaringMoosejaw, 26 juillet 2010 - 05:07 .

[Rubbish Hero]

I don't see the problem with looking like a generic Lord Of The Rings game, it part of the fun, there's a reason it's popular. I mean, does the game look less generic now, at all? I don't think so, in actuality, it looks worse than it did before. It's almost like Bioware are ashamed game like CRPG for dice rolling nerds who read fantasy book, want mainstream action game for the cool Gears Of War kids to play.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 26 juillet 2010 - 05:34 .

[AlanC9]

The insecurity of CRPG fans is a sad thing to behold.

[Rubbish Hero]

Marilyn Manson big DnD player.

[AlanC9]

I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not, although it does make a certain infamous trailer more understandable.