241 réponses à ce sujet

[PretentiousCat]

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.

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

You should try it sometime.

I have. And it is fun. However like I implied, it's always a gamble. A review lets people know a rough estimate of how they may feel about it. In times of a poor economy rushing into something without knowing is a poor choice.
Why gamble $60 on a game that may or may not be good, or one that is highly acclaimed. Assuming both are of a genre that you like.

[Sabresandiego]

PretentiousCat wrote...

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.

You cant argue realism in a fantasy game with magic, monsters, and dragons. Nobody would actually use a sword and accomplish anything if they had realistic human attributes. Warriors in fantasy games are all SUPER human to be able to compete with magic and monsters...

[MorrigansLove]

Whatever Gamespot gives it, i'll abide by it. They've never let me down.

[Phaelducan]

astranger_90 wrote...

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. )

I find metacritic useful as a general guideline for how the game is perceived on average. While I often love games that score low (Too Human was a blast I thought), I can usually see why games get the scores they do. 

I think, basically, that we are seeing a really negative, vocal minority complain repeatedly about the same things with no attempt at objectivity or giving the game even a basic opportunity to prove itself. It's been doomed in the eyes of this minority since the very idea *gasp* of faster combat and stylistic changes were confirmed.

Some people just don't want change, and they will slander and attack anything which approaches it. It's the same thing with any successful company/franchise.

I remember clearly Bethesda fanboys complaining endlessly about Morrowind just because it wasn't as big/expansive as Daggerfall. Shrug, it's a losing venture even trying to address it logically.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

Choose one and apply it to any of these "DA:2 sucks" threads, it works without fail.

[Demx]

Taleroth wrote...

The answer is obviously communism.

Damn it's WWII all over again, better prepare the movie Invasion USA for everyone.

[DieHigh2012]

I am not shure i follow you post quoting me Moriganslove, what exactly were you attempting to do?

[Atakuma]

DieHigh2012 wrote...

I am not shure i follow you post quoting me Moriganslove, what exactly were you attempting to do?

It's called trolling.

[Gavinthelocust]

PretentiousCat wrote...

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.

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

You should try it sometime.

I have. And it is fun. However like I implied, it's always a gamble. A review lets people know a rough estimate of how they may feel about it. In times of a poor economy rushing into something without knowing is a poor choice.
Why gamble $60 on a game that may or may not be good, or one that is highly acclaimed. Assuming both are of a genre that you like.

Then comes the easy way to swindle, one can bribe the reviewer with early copies and a nice check to raise the score(Kane and Lynch anyone? ODST?) to get more money out of a crappy game.
That's why I distrust "official" review outlets, especially if they're putting up reviews TWO WEEKS BEFORE RELEASE.

[Eclipse_9990]

Only sheep rely on scores to tell you if somethings good or not.

[Sabresandiego]

If you think combat in Origins is realistic, you need to stop playing video games. There is nothing realistic about melee fighting in any game Ive ever seen. Melee combat is gruesome and you dont have 1 hero beating 100s of others. People get tired, injured, are slow, combat can be sloppy, there is lots of grappling, etc. Nobody has hitpoint. 1 cut and you are injured and bleeding or dead! Never argue about realism in a fantasy game. DA2 is no less realistic than origins, they both are COMPLETELY unrealistic.

Modifié par Sabresandiego, 26 février 2011 - 12:00 .

[Drake Sigar]

Atakuma wrote...

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.

Since it’s well known reviewing sites and magazines only use the top percentages for the most influential developers regardless of the game’s actual quality, people have learned to read between the lines and discern what the scores actually mean. A 9/10 is average, an 8/10 is a death sentence. 

[Dr. Nexas]

MorrigansLove wrote...

Whatever Gamespot gives it, i'll abide by it. They've never let me down.

I'm not quite sure if this is sarcasm. 

[Kuroi Kenshi]

People should stop reading review and play the game i can't remember the last time i bought a game based on a review (be it good or bad review) and i really glad i didn't or i'd had spend money on games like GTA4 or Bulletstorm that received 10 and 9 (GTA case) and 8 and 9 (Bulletorm) that are not worth such scores on the other side i may have never bought Metroid Other M due to the bashing the game received (G4 gave it a 2/5) but i'm glad i din't listen to them (or any other site) because i think the game rocks (although i should be bigger)
However I still read the reviews on games i might be interested not to decide if I'm buying, but for getting a little more information about the game, but in the end if the game receives a 5 or a 10 it's the same to me.
I think that a good written review shouldn't have a number at the end to quantify the games worth it happens a lot when you are reading or watching a review and you read a lots of praises and then look at the number at it doesn't match what you have just read.
SO I don't care if the game as a bigger or worse mettascore than origins, my pre-order still stands and i will not cancel based on a review

Modifié par Kuroi Kenshi, 26 février 2011 - 12:02 .

[Drake Sigar]

Dr. Nexas wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...

Whatever Gamespot gives it, i'll abide by it. They've never let me down.

I'm not quite sure if this is sarcasm. 

I laughed really hard, so I hope so!

[MKDAWUSS]

MorrigansLove wrote...

Albeit, the scores are good ranging from 85 to 94 but Dragon Age Origins was a masterpiece in most peoples eyes with the score ranging from 90 to 100! (I don't trust the PC gamer review anyway as it came out so early when the game had'nt even gone gold) I want to know what the developers think of this, also.

Over and out.

Expectations change.

[Sabresandiego]

simfamSP wrote...

Sabresandiego wrote...

If you think combat in Origins is realistic, you need to stop playing video games. There is nothing realistic about melee fighting in any game Ive ever seen. Melee combat is gruesome and you dont have 1 hero beating 100s of others. People get tired, injured, are slow, combat can be sloppy, there is lots of grappling, etc. Nobody has hitpoint. 1 cut and you are injured and bleeding or dead! Never argue about realism in a fantasy game. DA2 is no less realistic than origins, they both are COMPLETELY unrealistic.

Thank you on putting this out there. There is a reason why it is fiction.

I am responding to the person who is trying to say origins had more realistic combat than DA2. He obviously has no concept of reality vs fantasy. Its funny how people think swinging a sword at lightning speed is strange, yet shooting lightning out of your ass and fighting 40,000lbs dragons with a sword is completely ok...

[DieHigh2012]

PretentiousCat wrote...

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.

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

You should try it sometime.

I have. And it is fun. However like I implied, it's always a gamble. A review lets people know a rough estimate of how they may feel about it. In times of a poor economy rushing into something without knowing is a poor choice.
Why gamble $60 on a game that may or may not be good, or one that is highly acclaimed. Assuming both are of a genre that you like.

I do see what you are saying, however BioWare is as close to a shure thing you can find as far as developers go. The fact that this is their game means far less risk while increasing the reward. If they burn me on this I'll be more cautious in future, but I highly doubt they will

[PretentiousCat]

Sabresandiego wrote...

PretentiousCat wrote...

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.

You cant argue realism in a fantasy game with magic, monsters, and dragons. Nobody would actually use a sword and accomplish anything if they had realistic human attributes. Warriors in fantasy games are all SUPER human to be able to compete with magic and monsters...

Realism adds a sense of relation to the character. Such as you'd understand that at level 1 (very lightly trained at best) it would be hard to kill anything really. And it would be hard to use very heavy equipment. And you'd understand as their power grew that it would be easier to do things in general.

But being able to run around like a monkey and do cartwheels nonstop as a rogue, and dashing about the battlefield with a xboxheug two-handed sword breaks the immersion for many people.

I can argue realism, because I like to feel that my character could be real. Otherwise it feels kind of forced.

Edit: Also nice job on ignoring every other point and trying to pounce on the 'lolrealism in fantasy'. If you can't be bothered to try and immerse yourself in a game. You should stop playing. Or at least just play CoD all day.

Modifié par PretentiousCat, 26 février 2011 - 12:09 .

[failsafeignition]

Stop reading game reviews. They're worthless. There is only one actual review site that I have any amount of trust in--giantbomb--and they only review the game after its released, so, yeah, screw it. If you're here you've probably already preordered, so stop worrying about it and decide for yourself.

[Sabresandiego]

PretentiousCat wrote...

Sabresandiego wrote...

PretentiousCat wrote...

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.

You cant argue realism in a fantasy game with magic, monsters, and dragons. Nobody would actually use a sword and accomplish anything if they had realistic human attributes. Warriors in fantasy games are all SUPER human to be able to compete with magic and monsters...

Realism adds a sense of relation to the character. Such as you'd understand that at level 1 (very lightly trained at best) it would be hard to kill anything really. And it would be hard to use very heavy equipment. And you'd understand as their power grew that it would be easier to do things in general.

But being able to run around like a monkey and do cartwheels nonstop as a rogue, and dashing about the battlefield with a xboxheug two-handed sword breaks the immersion for many people.

I can argue realism, because I like to feel that my character could be real. Otherwise it feels kind of forced.

If a mage can launch huge fireballs and call down lightning, and heal people to full hitpoints all of which is complete bull****, why cant my warrior or rogue move at lightning speed, have superhuman strength and endurance, and be able to compete with magic. Like I said, its a fantasy game and your feeble mind seems to allow magic to exist, but doesnt allow superhuman warrior/rogue to exist. They are both equally unrealistic.

[ObserverStatus]

You know, Dragon Age: Origin has a metacritic score of 86, and DA:2 doesn't have a metacritic score yet, but seeing how PC Gamer has given them their editor's choice award, i'm not panicking yet.

Modifié par bobobo878, 26 février 2011 - 12:09 .

[Nefario]

The scores for Origins ranged from 70 to 100, and there are as yet only four reviews for DA2 ranging from 85 to 94. There is so far nothing to suggest that DA2 is or will be faring more poorly with critics than DA:O.

What's the point of discussion for this thread, exactly?

[DieHigh2012]

Atakuma wrote...

DieHigh2012 wrote...

I am not shure i follow you post quoting me Moriganslove, what exactly were you attempting to do?

It's called trolling.

Hmmmmm, I kind of feel bad for him now.

Poor guy needs to go back under the bridge and learn some basics.