127 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryu-Eji]

When I first glimpsed at the topic's title I thought it said "78%"



My reaction? "BLASPHEMY!!!!"

[Jordache]

So far, I've seen IGN give Dragon Age a 90% and now this reviewer gives it an 87%. I'm stoked for Tuesday.

[Nemesis Shield]

foolish_sagacity wrote...

*shrugs* so, a reviewer gave it a less than stellar score. It doesn't matter if everyone here ends up loving the game. I'd rather reviewers low ball it than pull the 10/10 bull carp I've been seeing lately. I mean, seriously, I've seen more 10/10's in the past two years than I saw in all my years growing up with games since I first played Donkey Kong around age 5.

GTA4 was NOT a 10/10.

Uncharted 2 got eight bazillion, trillion perfect scores, and I'm playing through it right now, and it's an impressive action game, but hardly a pinnacle of penultimate gaming (Maybe I'll eat my words with the ending?).

MGS4 got a lot of perfect scores, and I thought that game was a narrative mess. Fun, but flawed.

Super Smash Bros. Brawl got perfect scores too. It was fun, but perfect?

Same goes for fallout 3, tons of perfects, but it was not.

Whereas my all time favorite game, Planescape: Torment got as low as an 80, an EIGHTY!!!!!! from Eurogamer, which is not exactly a noname reviewer. I personally believe Planescape: Torment comes closer than any other game to being perfect, but even I admit it's combat was fundamentally flawed. There was no reason to be anything other than a mage, talking out your problems rather than fighting was 100% better than fighting and the combat wasn't close to perfectly tuned.

Reviews tend to be too whimsical, and the best advice is to read the words and find the things that lie in between the hype and the gripe. The statements about MMORPGish quests means that *gasp* we have some go here kill x monster quests. Just so long as it isn't the ONLY kind of quest, along with Fed Ex quests (glares at the Witcher). The statements about DnD combat only mean something if you expected DnD combat, I guess?

***EDIT*** In regards to Sir DungeonHamster's comment...who ever kept their game save where someone insta-gibbed in Baldur's Gate? When I saw Aerie get turned into chunks, I stopped and reloaded immediately. Someday maybe a hardcore RPG will come around where death matters and the game autosaves when someone dies, so you're stuck with that death. But that day is FAR away.

I completely agree! I do not place much trust in game reviews these days. There used to be a time when game reviewers were *actual gamers* like the rest of us. You could trust their reviews to reflect the opinions, ideas, and tastes of the general gaming public.

But no more. Sometime in the early 2000s, in my opinion, game reviewers started to drift further and further from the gaming community. Now, some reviewers actually receive special promotions and discounts and whatnot from companies in exchange for positive game reviews. If a company does not "pad" the reviewer, they can expect an unfriendly attitude and biased preconceptions before the game is even released. And, besides this atrociously unethical practice, game reviewers seem to have lost all "objectivity" - now, all they seem to care about are the latest trends and fads. It is what I call the "WoW-isation" of gaming, wherein everything is about sparkle and bloom, instead of substance. No offense to WoW and Blizzard...

That is why I only use game reviews for a rough, ball-park estimate. If a game is reviewed very badly, then I would trust the reviewer and stay away. However, once a game breaks the 70 out of 100 mark, I don't care about the reviewers personal biases and pet peeves. For me at least, anything above 70 is worth buying. And, most importantly, I never trust any single review - like someone else mentioned, there is a reason why we have Metacritic nowadays. In the end, only a statistical aggregate can be reliable. Individual reviews are great since they contribute to the average (and they do provide in-depth analysis that can be hidden behind an average), but they cannot be relied on for actual purchasing decisions.

So, basically, we are all probably blowing things way out of proportion here. Who cares about an 87??? 87 is, for me, in that nebulous gray area above 70 where the reviewer's individual biases and preconceptions can really get in the way of an honest, objective review. It might as well be a 97 or a 77.

At the end of the day, every purchase carries with it some risk. Yes, maybe DA:O is a horrible, horrible game, but then again maybe it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Most likely, it is somewhere in between. But, to decide for yourself, you are just going to have take the risk of purchasing it. Game reviews can help mitigate the risk involved, but they can't remove it completely. We are just going to have to decide whether to risk buying DA:O for yourselves; and, those that do buy it can then decide further whether or not it merited our money.

[Ravenshrike]

Staylost wrote...

Right, you get something like 25 talents in total when all is said and done, or 25 spells. That is like six spell lines total. For sorcerer types from BG or NWN, this isn't too bad. For wizard types like me, this is the END OF THE WORLD!!!

*Jumps off a cliff.*

Pfft, Wizards are for noobs, Artificiers are where it's at. Especially when you build one for a campaign that starts at level 9. At least 6-9 hours of character creation, if not more.


As to the reviewer, Item #1, message board quests are, except very, very occasionally, the exact same no matter which RPG you play. Once in a blue moon you get a message board quest with depth, but that's the exception for a very good reason. In a message board quest, you are solely doing it for the cash, which means no emotional attachment to the people involved. if all MB quests ended up having long convoluted plots, you'd get sick of them pretty damned quick. Item #2, the spell list is small because the D&D spell list is filled with largely useless and suboptimal spells. There were maybe 2-3 truly useful wizard spells per level in BG2 until you hit the 4th level spells, and even then there were obviously superior ones to choose from at the higher levels.

[Orange_Section]

Lord_Rian wrote...

As long as the game is nowhere close to the MMORPGness of The Witcher, we will all be safe.

Do NOT complain over a truly great game.......One of my all-time favourites..... 

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Can we stop talking about The Witcher? I don't care if it's a great game or not, let's talk about DA:O. Leave The Witcher for boards on The Witcher.



As far as Dragon Age goes, I don't think 87 is a bad score, gaming magazines often do stupid stuff like get a fan of first person shooters to review RPGs or if they do get an RPG guy/gal that person usually has a bug up their butt about what they love or hate because most people are so jaded these days on their favourite systems, worlds, yadda, yadda, yadda. Take all reviews with the smallest grain of salt.

[Knights Templar]

This is about the D&D system.


I don't know any one that plays D&D and only played NWNs well up to the part where the NPCs talked. I have looked up D&D rules and have no interest in learning it. Since i don't know any one that plays and very very very few PCs or Consoles games use it whats the point in learning every little detail. So why make something that a lot of people like me or other gamers will only use MAYBE once or maybe twice in a life time.


Well this is my take on D&D and maybe some other people as well MAYBE + im a little drunk when i typed this.



O ya im not saying D&D is not fun im sure it is if i had people to play D&D with im sure i would be playing too.

Modifié par ColtPeaceMaker, 30 octobre 2009 - 02:27 .

[Aurvan]

What's good about D&D is variety. You can have a fighter character that is in full plate with a big shield and a warhammer. You can also have a character of the same class (fighter) that fights in lighter armour, dual wielding rapiers, an expert in dodging, grappling, tripping and so on.



What is not so good about D&D is all the dodgy rules.

[velimirius]

So this was preview or review?

If he wrote review he actually played trough full game?

Or its just preview of demo part of game?



You cant write review if u didnt played full game.

[endaround]

Its a review. PC copies were sent out for review a rather long time ago (like 6-8 weeks ago). So reviews from the non-embargoed Europe are showing up.

[velimirius]

hm weird they sent them copies before game went gold?

[endaround]

The PC versions yes.

[lionsfan208]

The reviewer sounds a bit biased and at least from the way the OP phrased it he had "high expectations." I think reviewing a game with a preconceived idea of its goodness is only going to hurt a score. Just my opinion.

[JamesMoriarty123]

Meh, no offense but the only gaming magazine I trust is PCGamer UK. 94% and the accolade of "RPG of the decade".

Needless to say, I'm not worried about what some pleb over at a lesser mag has to say.

[Tresca Mizzrym]

Also those complaining about insta raise of dead npcs/party members are foretting one major thing. Dead party members will get injures that gimp them badly an I recall developers saying specefic kits repaired specefic injuries an taht the kits were rare/rareish.

[Amberite]

Jordache wrote...

So far, I've seen IGN give Dragon Age a 90% and now this reviewer gives it an 87%. I'm stoked for Tuesday.

Eh? I don't see anything from IGN about Dragon Age yet. You have a link?

[wiseman207]

I love D&D, but not exclusively... combat doesn't have to be overly complex to have a satisfying amount of tactical options.



Also, I have no doubt this game will have a rich array of characters to interact with. The fact that some of the quests on the periphery would be a bit simplistic is probably equal parts problem and refreshment.

[Jacks-Up]

foolish_sagacity wrote...

*shrugs* so, a reviewer gave it a less than stellar score. It doesn't matter if everyone here ends up loving the game. I'd rather reviewers low ball it than pull the 10/10 bull carp I've been seeing lately. I mean, seriously, I've seen more 10/10's in the past two years than I saw in all my years growing up with games since I first played Donkey Kong around age 5.

GTA4 was NOT a 10/10.

Uncharted 2 got eight bazillion, trillion perfect scores, and I'm playing through it right now, and it's an impressive action game, but hardly a pinnacle of penultimate gaming (Maybe I'll eat my words with the ending?).

MGS4 got a lot of perfect scores, and I thought that game was a narrative mess. Fun, but flawed.

Super Smash Bros. Brawl got perfect scores too. It was fun, but perfect?

Same goes for fallout 3, tons of perfects, but it was not.

This altho IMO Uncharted 2 was about a 9.5/10

[Lucy Glitter]

/cries

[Halfcab]

+5% for reviewer DnD bais brings us up to a 92%, great score!

[Seiphiroth2008]

DnD rule where not made with video game in mind .They needed to change many rule to fit in game. I love Dnd (Have all rule book ) But in video game i prefert not use DND rule since many class seem have less option. Playing a rogue in orinale 3.5 dnd rule or NWN where not same .I can not wait for DOa and i am sure this game will be EPIC !!!(87% The guy must hate rpg ...)

[Theronyll Itholien]

Lord_Rian wrote...

As long as the game is nowhere close to the MMORPGness of The Witcher, we will all be safe.

What the hell are you talking about.

[Herr Uhl]

Theronyll Itholien wrote...

Lord_Rian wrote...

As long as the game is nowhere close to the MMORPGness of The Witcher, we will all be safe.

What the hell are you talking about.

Guessing on the fetch X of item Y quests or kill X of beast Z. There were quite a few.

[tkaz85]

I have never been a fan of adapting D&D rules to CRPGs.  Not only do so many of the rules rely on the interaction between the Dm and the players, but there are so many spells and abilities that enhance things that simply can't be translated to a computer game.  For example in NWN2, warlocks are frankly useless because they are supposed to be magic users that don't have to rely on spell slots, but since you can rest in 5 seconds running out of spells is never really an issue.