241 réponses à ce sujet

[orpheuslupus]

Atakuma wrote...

RohanD wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Ign and gameinformer gave Origins a 8.5 and 8.0 respectively, so it's scores ranged much lower than you stated.

IGN review: http://au.pc.ign.com.../1041792p2.html

GI review: http://www.gameinfor.../05/review.aspx

so...both gave it 9/10

I was looking at the console reviews.

.......That is hilarious given all the fretting about the PC version.

[Sereaph502]

Same reason ME2 got a lot of hate. Instead of being a complete carbon copy sequel with the same kinda story, game play, etc, things were changed around. So everybody who hyped themselves out thinking DA2 was going to be exactly the same as DA:O but better got disappointed

[Stanley Woo]

Let's keep the insults and name-calling out of the discussion, please.

[PretentiousCat]

Atakuma wrote...

I was looking at the console reviews.

Well there's the problem

As much as it is a multiplatform title, the original game basis was Baldurs Gate, which then made DA:O, which then inspired DA2. The whole concept of the type of world fits better on a PC platform than on a console platform.
Not saying consoles are bad. It's just some titles do better overall as a pc title than a console title.

[JamesX]

PhrosniteAgainROFL wrote...

JamesX wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Was that the case with ME2 ? That's a real question not a sarcastic comment btw

I think ME2 got higher scores and sold better than ME1.

But personally, I think it is a worse game.  Different strokes for different folks.   Some people liked Avatar, I do too.  Some of the same people liked Iron Man 2, I thought that movie is a mess.

You may like ME1 better/more than ME2 but ME2 is a better game. There is difference...

Actually to this instance, which would be me, there is no difference.  How good a game is directly relates to how much the person enjoys it.

You can say Apple Pie is clearly better than Chocolate Cookies - because it is harder to make, it has more ingredients, it takes more skill, and it is presented better.  But if you are presenting it to a person allergic to apples and loves cookies, then the apple pie is clearly not a better food than chocolate cookies.

You can say it is a more technically advanced game - which is factual.  The moment you present perferrence as facts the statement becomes empty.

It is the same if you say Transformer 2 has much better CG, more Transformers and a Caste that has more award winners.  But you can't really say "it is a better movie" and expect that to be a factual statment.

Sereaph502 wrote...

Same reason ME2 got a lot of hate. Instead of being a complete carbon copy sequel with the same kinda story, game play, etc, things were changed around. So everybody who hyped themselves out thinking DA2 was going to be exactly the same as DA:O but better got disappointed

The reason I didn't like ME2 is not because it is not like ME1.  It is because it clumsily carried over Shephard from the first game.  You have this universal bad ass, who saved the galaxy.  Yet every street punk, every no body on a no body station in the edge of no where, think they can push you around.  It is as if the writers written the story as a typical space opera with a typical character and then forgot he has already an established level of reputation and lore.  It is like you wrote a story about Darth Vader and then you went to planet 2934529 alpha, and the local gangster (who knows who you are and what you are capable of and have already done) decide to screw with you and make you his errand boy.  

Modifié par JamesX, 25 février 2011 - 11:44 .

[Atakuma]

orpheuslupus wrote...

.......That is hilarious given all the fretting about the PC version.

I thought it was just about the game in general.

[Drowsy0106]

Nothing tops chocolate cookies. Nothing.

[Cloaking_Thane]

PretentiousCat wrote...

All I can see now is the 8.0! Threads popping up everywhere.

Higher than an 8.5 = Paid off
Lower than 8.5 = Lul I knew it would be crap.

No one is ever happy.

so 8.5 is the only score that can happen, nice

[PretentiousCat]

DarthSliver wrote...

Basing getting the game off reviews is stupid. Maybe you should start basing what movies you see off the reviews. I seen some of the greatest movies get highly negative remarks by the reviews. It aint any different with Dragon Age 2, plus alot of stuff has changed. If there is one thing humans dont like its change.

Reviews are a way of letting people know who others felt about it. I go to highly rated movies/restaraunts based on reviews. And I'm rarely disappointed. Going to a unreviewed/lowly reviewed place/movie is a gamble and overall is all about preference.

However, taking no other viewpoint into consideration when first venturing into a new place or buying a new thing is wholly irresponsible.

[jontepwn]

A review is just some dudes' opinion anyway.

[astranger_90]

Y'know, Killer7 only has a metacritic of 70. But i've yet to meet a person who can look me in the eyes and say it's not at least incredibly unique.



(Meaning: I put almost no faith in reviews besides the only one that is important. Mine. )

[Sabresandiego]

Because human beings oppose change. From the demo I can see that DA2 is way better than origins. DA2 appeals to a broader audience, such as me. I liked mass effect 2 alot because it was fun to play even after beating it. The gameplay was top notch in mass effect 2. While the story was good in origins, I found the gameplay to suck. Unlimited potion usage, imbalanced classes, slow combat, I didnt like origins gameplay. DA2 looks to have improved upon all that stuff.

Modifié par Sabresandiego, 25 février 2011 - 11:46 .

[FlyingWalrus]

Because OPINION™, that's why.

Jim Sterling of Destructoid completely trashed Assassin's Creed II and yet it is so far the most beloved game in that series. Mass Effect 2 has quite a polarized fanbase but reviews nearly unanimously deem it a masterpiece. Differing tastes and all. Lesson learned, think for yourself.

[Wulfram]

We've only seen 4 reviews that I'm aware of. Interesting, but not enough to determine whether there's a trend

[Sabresandiego]

I consider mass effect 2 to be a much better game then origins, not because of the writing, but because origins gameplay was awful. You could spam potions, mages were gods, it was like no thought was put into game balance. You could get your magic resistance or defense to 100%. Origins game play was bad and imbalanced. DA2 has solved this and all people do is complain. They need to go back in their hole, DA2 is way better than origins. Origins had epic story, acting, and other good elements, but bad combat and gameplay compared to DA2.

[DieHigh2012]

PretentiousCat wrote...

DarthSliver wrote...

Basing getting the game off reviews is stupid. Maybe you should start basing what movies you see off the reviews. I seen some of the greatest movies get highly negative remarks by the reviews. It aint any different with Dragon Age 2, plus alot of stuff has changed. If there is one thing humans dont like its change.

Reviews are a way of letting people know who others felt about it. I go to highly rated movies/restaraunts based on reviews. And I'm rarely disappointed. Going to a unreviewed/lowly reviewed place/movie is a gamble and overall is all about preference.

However, taking no other viewpoint into consideration when first venturing into a new place or buying a new thing is wholly irresponsible.

I think it's called being spontaneous, and being spontaneous is actually a lot of fun.

You should try it sometime.

Modifié par DieHigh2012, 25 février 2011 - 11:50 .

[MorrigansLove]

d

[astranger_90]

MorrigansLove wrote...

d

I agree

[Sydelle]

Every reviewer has their own personal views on the game hence it's a review. Don't take it too seriously, a bad game for you may be an awesome game to another.

[Gavinthelocust]

Where is this score that people are huffing over? Did someone just pull it out their ass and claim it was an official score then everyone believed whoever it was? Is this score possibly an 8 and people are flipping their **** over nothing? Where did the reviewers get a copy? Why do people give a damn about reviews? Why don't people think for themselves?
I'm utterly confused.

Modifié par Gavinthelocust, 25 février 2011 - 11:53 .

[MorrigansLove]

DieHigh2012 wrote...

PretentiousCat wrote...

DarthSliver wrote...

Basing getting the game off reviews is stupid. Maybe you should start basing what movies you see off the reviews. I seen some of the greatest movies get highly negative remarks by the reviews. It aint any different with Dragon Age 2, plus alot of stuff has changed. If there is one thing humans dont like its change.

Reviews are a way of letting people know who others felt about it. I go to highly rated movies/restaraunts based on reviews. And I'm rarely disappointed. Going to a unreviewed/lowly reviewed place/movie is a gamble and overall is all about preference.

However, taking no other viewpoint into consideration when first venturing into a new place or buying a new thing is wholly irresponsible.

You mean like spontaneous combustion?

I think it's called being spontaneous, and being spontaneous is actually a lot of fun.

You should try it sometime.

[ragnaven]

For me the low score in my book is it is to confined in what you can an can't do, and the now EGM artical just added to my sadness.

[PretentiousCat]

Sabresandiego wrote...

Because human beings oppose change. From the demo I can see that DA2 is way better than origins. DA2 appeals to a broader audience, such as me.

So you're implying that simply because more people may find it appealing it's inherently a better game?
More factors go into it than that alone.

Sabresandiego wrote...
I liked mass effect 2 alot because it was fun to play even after beating it. The gameplay was top notch in mass effect 2. While the story was good in origins, I found the gameplay to suck.
Unlimited potion usage, imbalanced classes, slow combat, I didnt like origins gameplay. DA2 looks to have improved upon all that stuff.

Mass effect was a shooter/rpg, so it's hard to compare to a fantasy tactics/rpg.

Potion usage was limited by cooldowns. However many RPG's have unlimited potions. And potions don't break the game. A well placed cone of cold and your team is wiped if you can't play tactically.

Slow combat was realistic. Attacks felt like when they'd hit they would actually hurt. Try running around with a 20 pound/10kilo sword and 40ish pounds/20 kilos of gear and moving the way they do at the start (after varics version even). You'd probably die of exhaustion.

I can see why you'd like DA2 however. It's a action/rpg rather than a tactics/rpg. Which fits with ME2's somewhat frantic shooter and linear gameplay. It also fits well into console gamers hands because of this. And if they wanted CoD's audience, well, they'll get it with the super-ninja characters.

[Drowsy0106]

MorrigansLove wrote...something

Have a chocolate cookie

[Atakuma]

Gavinthelocust wrote...

Where is this score that people are huffing over? Did someone just pull it out their ass and claim it was an official score then everyone believed whoever it was? Is this score possibly an 8 and people are flipping their **** over nothing? Where did the reviewers get a copy? Why do people give a damn about reviews? Why don't people think for themselves?
I'm utterly confused.

This reminds me of the outrage when Super smash Bros. Brawl got a 9.5 on ign. It was gloriously stupid.