299 réponses à ce sujet

[mashedpotatoeman]

Game Informer (PC) 7.75/10

[Ardamin]

Videogamer 7/10 - Bioware's "Think like a general, fight like a Spartan" mantra tells us everything you need to know about his sequel. (DAO 8/10)

[UltimoCrofto]

Videogamer.com has the best and most accurate review so far as I see it. The reveiwer is one of the few not swayed by novelty-tinted glasses and "OMG ITS BIOWARE 10/10".

Gamespot's 8/10 review is also a good one. They appreciated the original for all the reasons I did/do (though I'm not as easily pleased to mark it higher than 8/10 personally) so for them to highlight flaws that will likely impact me is very helpful.

[Apollo Starflare]

ejoslin wrote...


Maybe a better comparison would be DAO type scores.  However, not all of those scores are good, actually.  I do not consider 87% from a gaming publication a good score.

Fair enough that you don't care about scores, I don't much either, but not considering an 87% a good score? That's crazy. Some brilliant games have come with even lower scores than that in major publications. In my opinion anything over 80% either on metacritic or from an individual reviewer is a great score. I've quite often enjoyed games that get as low as 65/70% as well.

I find it a bit odd that a number of reviews so far are choosing the lack of a central 'big bad' as a (seemingly) major negative. It's quite possible the approach Bioware have taken doesn't work (I havn't played it yet to form my own opinion on that) but to suggest that a story actually needs a 'Darkspawn/Blight' sort of threat is very short sighted. I'll applaud an attempt to actually do something different all day long.

Also, I think Gamespot make a negative remark on this subject about how Hawke's motive is to 'make a name for themselves' and that's it. Erm, didn't Gamespot give a perfect score to GTAIV? That's pretty much the plot of every GTA game.

[Akka le Vil]

It's been a while that all the online reviewers have lost all credibility for me. Their scores  just seem to always reflect the budget and fame of a game, with nearly all the big names being praised, regardless of their real qualities.

Sometimes it means that the scores are deserved (ME2 was certainly, for me, a great game), sometimes it just show the total disconnection between reviews and actual game quality (Civ5 has been hailed by every reviewer as awesome, it has been totally trashed by the community and is actually a BAD game out of an amazing serie).

For now, what I see here is, unsurprisingly, all the classic online reviewers giving it the usual "big budget, big scores" accolades.
But what I see, and which is much more telling for me, is that the actually "gamer's" reviews simply says it's not that good, with notes barely around 5/10, and even worse comments.

Some lines  I've seen have made me even more wary than I was :

"it's not even waste, it's profanation. The general story is very interesting, the rest is simply abject.
We're testing it on five page, to really point out all that doesn't feel right, because it nearly amount to war declaration on PC game"

One another can be simply summed up with the opening line of their conclusion :
"DA2 allows to realize what could have be ME2 if it had been bad"

So...

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 08 mars 2011 - 06:15 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Metacritic for X360: 
metascore: 84 
user score: 5.0 ( huh?? What's happen to X360 users? )

Metacritic for PC:
metascore: 85
user score: 7.5

Metacritic for PS3
metascore:85
user score:tbd

www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-ii

[Ardamin]

RPG Site 8/10 -  Dragon Age II is without a doubt a really good game with a few small but glaring flaws. (DAO 91/100)

Strategy Informer 8.5/10 (PS3) - There's good moments, there's bad moments, there's weird moments... (DAO PS3 9.3/10 | DAO PC 9.2/10 | DAO X360 8.5/10)

Joystiq 4/5 - I'm assuming the slightly stunted world is a result of the accelerated development schedule, which I also imagine is the culprit behind the lackluster gear system. (DAO 5/5)

Modifié par Ardamin, 08 mars 2011 - 06:31 .

[Vuokseniska]

so generally similar or slightly less figure but still praised as a good game... yeah... i've seen worse reviews...

[The Elder King]

I agree with most of the review that said that DA2 isn't on the same level of DAO. But I can't trust a review that gave DAO on PS3 a better score than the PC version. It's unbelieavable.

[Vroumish]

Some french reviews

jvn.com on 360

DAII: 14/20
DAO: 18/20

gameblog on 360

DAII: 3/5
DAO: 4/5

jeuxvideo.com on pc

DAII: 12/20
DAO: 18/20

Canard PC (pc magazine)

DAII: 4/10
DAO: 8/10

Modifié par karaxabul, 08 mars 2011 - 07:04 .

[PhrosniteAgainROFL]

I don't think this is necessary anymore. Metacritic will do this work for us.

[Ardamin]

Gamereactor Norway PC 8/10; X360 7/10; PS3 7/10 - At the same time a lot of things have happened in RPG-gaming since 2009, and Dragon Age II is overshadowed by great titles from last year and coming games this year. (DAO 9/10)

Inc Gamers 7.2/10 (PC) - The gameplay might be lacking but BioWare make up for it by presenting a masterclass in how to write a story that people will actually care about. (DAO 9.4/10)

[Hoogies123]

So from all these reviews I take it thats its a great stand-alone game and if any other developer made this they would get some good praise. But since Bioware made it, the scores are unacceptable and the amount of changes made have made it an almost unrecognizable sequel, not to mention the appart bugs and performance issues that are exploding all over the forums atm.

[FearMonkey]

mashedpotatoeman wrote...

Game Informer (PC) 7.75/10

GameInformer wrote...
With its third-person camera and button-mashing attacks, the combat system in Dragon Age II is designed with a controller in mind, but BioWare doesn’t offer native gamepad support, restricting you to mouse-and-keyboard controls on PC. This approach may have worked well in Origins, but it doesn’t transition well to the new system. Movement feels clumsy, and pausing to readjust the camera and select targets for your abilities just muddles the flow of combat.

Maybe this decision was made to retain a shred of the tactical combat that distinguished Origins, but if that’s the case, the attempt is meager and insufficient. You have no zoomed out isometric view, and the waves and waves of filler enemies that pad out encounters make strategy futile. Yes, you can pause and issue commands, but this maneuvering is pointless when you never know how many more bad guys will jump from the rooftops, rise from the ground, or simply materialize out of nowhere. Even with more foes, the fights are considerably easier (unless you really crank up the difficulty), so planning is a waste of time. You can win most fights without worrying about strategy, so why invest unnecessary time and effort in the tactical approach? This conundrum creates a combat system that does not convey the thrill of controlling an unstoppable hero, but also doesn’t accommodate the strategy that is supposed to serve as an alternative.

[snip]

On all platforms, Dragon Age II caters to an audience that didn’t connect with Origins, while alienating those who did. This may result in a better console experience, but considering that Dragon Age: Origins was a love letter to old-school PC RPGs, BioWare’s neglect of the sequel’s PC release is tragic. I appreciate the technical refinements, but improving the polish doesn’t do much good when the basics still need work.

Yeah, that's the feeling I got after playing the demo. Oh well.

Modifié par FearMonkey, 08 mars 2011 - 07:14 .

[MorrigansLove]

12/20 from a french game site and G4 gave it 3/5 which is 7.5/100 in my book.

[Proviant_germany]

karaxabul wrote...



Canard PC (pc magazine)

DAII: 4/10
DAO: 8/10

Woooh, more info?

[Apollo Starflare]

karaxabul wrote...

Some french reviews

jvn.com on 360

DAII: 14/20
DAO: 18/20

gameblog on 360

DAII: 3/5
DAO: 4/5

jeuxvideo.com on pc

DAII: 12/20
DAO: 18/20

Canard PC (pc magazine)

DAII: 4/10
DAO: 8/10

I'm guessing something didn't sit right with the French?

[Catlana]

Ardamin wrote...

Gamereactor Norway PC 8/10; X360 7/10; PS3 7/10 - At the same time a lot of things have happened in RPG-gaming since 2009, and Dragon Age II is overshadowed by great titles from last year and coming games this year. (DAO 9/10)

Inc Gamers 7.2/10 (PC) - The gameplay might be lacking but BioWare make up for it by presenting a masterclass in how to write a story that people will actually care about. (DAO 9.4/10)

Still, it is nice to have a topic where individuals can find reviews. Metacritic is heavily influenced by UK review sites. 

[The Elder King]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

karaxabul wrote...

Some french reviews

jvn.com on 360

DAII: 14/20
DAO: 18/20

gameblog on 360

DAII: 3/5
DAO: 4/5

jeuxvideo.com on pc

DAII: 12/20
DAO: 18/20

Canard PC (pc magazine)

DAII: 4/10
DAO: 8/10

I'm guessing something didn't sit right with the French?

Something got wrong with French's VO in DA2.

[ejoslin]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

ejoslin wrote...


Maybe a better comparison would be DAO type scores.  However, not all of those scores are good, actually.  I do not consider 87% from a gaming publication a good score.

Fair enough that you don't care about scores, I don't much either, but not considering an 87% a good score? That's crazy. Some brilliant games have come with even lower scores than that in major publications. In my opinion anything over 80% either on metacritic or from an individual reviewer is a great score. I've quite often enjoyed games that get as low as 65/70% as well.

I find it a bit odd that a number of reviews so far are choosing the lack of a central 'big bad' as a (seemingly) major negative. It's quite possible the approach Bioware have taken doesn't work (I havn't played it yet to form my own opinion on that) but to suggest that a story actually needs a 'Darkspawn/Blight' sort of threat is very short sighted. I'll applaud an attempt to actually do something different all day long.

Also, I think Gamespot make a negative remark on this subject about how Hawke's motive is to 'make a name for themselves' and that's it. Erm, didn't Gamespot give a perfect score to GTAIV? That's pretty much the plot of every GTA game.

When you compare scores, you get a bit more information than just a number.  But yeh, I did not say 87 was a BAD score, mind you, but it's not necessarily good (it really REALLY depends on the publication, however).  And normally, if a game gets a lower score, I don't generally enjoy it.  But reviews, ultimately, are just opinions.  I can't think of the last game that the critics were saying "meh" about that I enjoyed.

What is interesting is that DA2 is scoring consistantly lower than DAO from the same publications.  It's not surprising, really.  DAO was a critical success.  No matter what is said here in the forums about what needed to be fixed about DAO and such, obviously, given its success, many people would disagree with that and be disappointed by the changes.  Including reviewers.

Honestly, I was expecting reviews to say, "Fun game.  But don't expect it to be like Origins."  Too much was changed, and too much was taken out that people really loved.  DAO had a target audience of people who loved old school gaming.  If you love the features of DAO (the combat, the dialog system), you're bound to be disappointed if the sequal has a different target audience.

Modifié par ejoslin, 08 mars 2011 - 08:02 .

[RainyDayLover]

Also,

Eurogamer 8/10 - http://www.eurogamer...n-age-ii-review

[DTKT]

Damn, heads will roll if this doesnt sell.

[Aklis]

9/10 from Gamereactor Sweden.

[FedericoV]

I've mostly defended Bioware and the devs during this interesting journey in the last year and a half. But I'm not blind and we must accept that DA2 is not receiving the same praise of DA:O from press and gamers alike.

I don't know what Bioware should make of all those reviews since they are mostly mixed with the personal tastes and bias of the reviewers. But I must admit that I founded a very interesting passage in the videogamer review:

“But despite the way narrative has been re-structured and the combat made meatier, this sequel follows the old conventions of the genre too literally to develop an individuality beyond them. Two entries down the pipe, and Dragon Age is still experiencing the growing pains of a series that's more dedicated to studying fantasy games than developing its own personality in the genre".

[Apollo Starflare]

FedericoV wrote...

I've mostly defended Bioware and the devs during this interesting journey in the last year and a half. But I'm not blind and we must accept that DA2 is not receiving the same praise of DA:O from press and gamers alike.

I don't know what Bioware should make of all those reviews since they are mostly mixed with the personal tastes and bias of the reviewers. But I must admit that I founded a very interesting passage in the videogamer review:

“But despite the way narrative has been re-structured and the combat made meatier, this sequel follows the old conventions of the genre too literally to develop an individuality beyond them. Two entries down the pipe, and Dragon Age is still experiencing the growing pains of a series that's more dedicated to studying fantasy games than developing its own personality in the genre".

Interesting quote and something that concerns me much more than whether there is a Big Bad Guy or a wheel for dialogue choices (seriously, some reviewers even try to make out the fact you get a Surname as a new thing, despite it being the same in Origins). The DA franchise has so much potential to be a fresh, new and exciting fantasy IP that I've been hoping DA2 further shucks off the conventions of the genre, so it'll be a shame (to me) if that isn't really the case.

With that said throwing in -some- expected genre concepts can work well if you are changing up a lot of other stuff. To much 'new' can overwhelm or cause as much of an identity crisis as not having enough new in my experience.

To be honest it was my desire to have them circumvent expectations that to a large extent led me to hope Varric would be romancable, but that is just one example of the sort of thing I'm hoping for.