177 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

Volourn wrote...

The only BIO game that BIO had to bribe reviewers for to get good reviews was the overrated KOTOR..

I think Bethesda probably bribed reviewers to lower their DA2 score by point b/c DA2 is just as good as DA1 since outside of of spawming enemies out of thin air and reused maps, DA2 and DA1 are equal 'cause DA2 has a vastly better story and better characters by far.

Varric > Oghren

Case closed.

What is it with you and Kotor you make it sound like Kotor ate your baby. 

Kotor was better than DA2 for me...

[randName]

Warheadz wrote...

It's really awesome how Escapist gave DA2 5 stars and praised it as "what videogames are meant to be". Then they gave Portal 2 4 stars, because it wasn't perfect.

But it wasn't it this review that mentioned things that weren't in the console version they reviewed - like auto-attack?

Modifié par randName, 19 avril 2011 - 02:30 .

[madisoncb15]

I wouldn't say bribed...they probably played the demo, and the demo only. That's my theory!

[Warheadz]

randName wrote...

Warheadz wrote...

It's really awesome how Escapist gave DA2 5 stars and praised it as "what videogames are meant to be". Then they gave Portal 2 4 stars, because it wasn't perfect.

But it wasn't it this review that mentioned things that weren't in the console version they reviewed - like auto-attack?

Even if it had auto-attack, no bugs and the ability to let Hawke wear a fully functioning jetpack, it wouldn't still be worth a 100% score + a comment like "it's what games are meant to be".

[byzantine horse]

You don't need to bribe proffessional raters, they do a really good job at rarely giving games anything lower than 7/10 as it is, unles it is Stalin vs Martians or something.

[Volourn]

"What is it with you and Kotor you make it sound like Kotor ate your baby."

Aye.

[LeBurns]

Yes they were bribed, but may not have been directly. Some of those sites that gave reviews were (and are) running adds for DA2 at the same time. Of course BioWare could pull those adds (and the money to run them) if the game got a bad (even if it was honest) review. That's not a direct bribe, but leverage, which I believe was used in a big way judging by some of the scores. Even those players that loved DA2 can't say it's worth a 95+ score.

[Volourn]

"Even those players that loved DA2 can't say it's worth a 95+ score."

Even those played that loved DA1 can't say it's worth a 95+ score.

[randName]

Warheadz wrote...

randName wrote...

Warheadz wrote...

It's really awesome how Escapist gave DA2 5 stars and praised it as "what videogames are meant to be". Then they gave Portal 2 4 stars, because it wasn't perfect.

But it wasn't it this review that mentioned things that weren't in the console version they reviewed - like auto-attack?

Even if it had auto-attack, no bugs and the ability to let Hawke wear a fully functioning jetpack, it wouldn't still be worth a 100% score + a comment like "it's what games are meant to be".

I simply meant that if sounded like the reviewer never played the game, since he wrote about things that he couldn't experience because they weren't in game (unless he didn't get the retail version).

[CommanderShepherd]

I'm Commander Shepherd and this is my worst topic on the citadel.

[jds1bio]

So when will this opinion become fact for people, even without more than weak evidence?

[Everwarden]

Volourn wrote...
Even those played that loved DA1 can't say it's worth a 95+ score.

Yes they can. See, some people have standards and can measure a game to these standards that they attempt to keep objective, regardless of how they subjectively feel about the game.

Some examples: Subjectively, I strongly disliked a lot of things in Mass Effect 2 (to the point that I can't get into playing it through again). Objectively, measuring the game to honest standards it's still an incredibly good game. This might be a shocking concept to you, but that's what it means to be intellectually honest. My personal peeves with Mass Effect 2 are just that, personal peeves*, and ME2 is one hell of a good game. 

A reversed example would be the film 'The Room', which is objectively about as close to getting everything wrong with a film one can. It's almost as though the director went down a checklist of ways to **** his film up; but, on an entirely subjective level, I -love- The Room. 

*This isn't the same as DA2. The problems with DA2 are not merely personal peeves, they're objective design failures and obvious cut corners. Waves of paratroopers, bloated boss HP, three environments to explore, and a complete lack of choices having any impact upon the world.


Edit: To comment on the topic, I doubt EA actually paid anyone. The threat of losing advertising money if you dog a major title was likely enough to cow every professional reviewer. 

Modifié par Everwarden, 19 avril 2011 - 03:46 .

[Maverick827]

Everwarden wrote...

Waves of paratroopers, bloated boss HP, three environments to explore, and a complete lack of choices having any impact upon the world.

I like the wave system, though I agree that it could have been implemented more gracefully.  -.1

I like bosses with more health, though then again I raided "hardcore" in World of Warcaft.  This is a subjective point you mistakenly listed as objective.  + .6

The repetition of environments was bad, I agree.  -1

Origins didn't let you impact the world at all, either.  I, personally, am able to realize the technical and narrative constraints with "choices mattering" in modern gaming, so I disagree that this is a detriment to DA2 specifically.

10 - 1.1 + .6 = 9.5!

Not that I believe the game is a 9.5 - I'd say 8.5 to 9 depending on how DLC might affect the story from here on out.  I just wanted to point out how idiotic number rating systems are and how they, too, can have subjective elements.  I also wanted to point out how entirely unobjective you are, despite your best attempts.

[Everwarden]

Maverick827 wrote...
I like bosses with more health, though then again I raided "hardcore" in World of Warcaft.  This is a subjective point you mistakenly listed as objective.  + .6

Afraid I have to disagree. DA2 had corners obviously cut and the reason bosses have HP bloat is pretty clearly not for the sake of difficulty, but to extend game time. 

Origins didn't let you impact the world at all, either.  I, personally, am able to realize the technical and narrative constraints with "choices mattering" in modern gaming, so I disagree that this is a detriment to DA2 specifically.

That's just false. Or at least it was false before DA2 come blundering into the room and retconning away every major decision in Origins. The difference between Bhelen and Harrowmont, just to use that as an example, has more effect on the world of Thedas at large than every 'choice' Hawke makes combined.

 I also wanted to point out how entirely unobjective you are, despite your best attempts.

I'm sure you wanted to. Not sure why you think you succeeded, though. 

[orbit991]

Who knows, but when the review page is covered with Dragon age advertisements there's some conflict of interest going on.

[Night Prowler76]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'm developing a theory... those who would say DA2 does not have "an epic story" but DAO did probably thought that World War II was the only interesting, or the most interesting war they learned about in school.

Maybe that's just the sleep deprivation talking.

Or it's just their honest opinion that the story is not epic, dont generalize people into your theories, its a personal story, its not really mean't to be epic, and it isnt, you plod through the whole game and decide whether you side with the Templars or Mages.

[Travie]

EA likes having early 'high' scores to add to their advertisements, I'm sure many of you have noticed this.

Its unlikely they were paid with anything like hard currency. What they WERE paid in is exclusive access to future titles.

Thats the real currency of the review market. EA has the games coming out in the near future that reviewers want access to.

Sad, but true.

[jds1bio]

orbit991 wrote...

Who knows, but when the review page is covered with Dragon age advertisements there's some conflict of interest going on.

Well, because the volume of videogames sales is still low overall compared to other forms of entertainment, they reviewers and the devs/pubs still need each other too much to sustain a wide separation.  The review sites and blogs still help promote videogaming, whether they give too much praise or too much criticism.

[Maverick827]

Everwarden wrote...

Afraid I have to disagree. DA2 had corners obviously cut and the reason bosses have HP bloat is pretty clearly not for the sake of difficulty, but to extend game time.

You're perfectly free to disagree. It is, after all, entirely subjective.

That's just false. Or at least it was false before DA2 come blundering into the room and retconning away every major decision in Origins. The difference between Bhelen and Harrowmont, just to use that as an example, has more effect on the world of Thedas at large than every 'choice' Hawke makes combined.

All Origins gave you were epilogue cards at the end; subjective though it may be, I did not find those of any great value and they never satisfied me in "I feel like I changed the world" type of way. Your mileage may vary, of course.

I'm sure you wanted to. Not sure why you think you succeeded, though.

You are stating subjective things as objective. That, itself, is an objective statement. I don't see how I didn't succeed.

[Everwarden]

Maverick827 wrote...
You're perfectly free to disagree. It is, after all, entirely subjective.

Bloated battles being put in to extend playtime on a rushed game is as objective a flaw as one could have in a game.

All Origins gave you were epilogue cards at the end; subjective though it may be, I did not find those of any great value and they never satisfied me in "I feel like I changed the world" type of way. Your mileage may vary, of course.

You're simply ignoring that DAO gave players options that dramatically effect the world of Thedas, the medium in which they display this information isn't really relevant to the fact that it's still true. DAO had choices with impact on the world after your main quest was over, DA2 does not, and no choices you made in DA2 (except, perhaps which companions died) will show up in DA3 because the ending is the same no matter what 'choices' you make. Those are facts. 

Modifié par Everwarden, 19 avril 2011 - 04:32 .

[Volourn]

"Yes they can. See, some people have standards and can measure a game to these standards that they attempt to keep objective, regardless of how they subjectively feel about the game."

Objectively, DA1 is not a 95+ game. No game is.

[randName]

Volourn wrote...

"Yes they can. See, some people have standards and can measure a game to these standards that they attempt to keep objective, regardless of how they subjectively feel about the game."

Objectively, DA1 is not a 95+ game. No game is.

I'd probably give DA:O 7-8 or so, and DA2 5.5-6

So I'd agree (and I'm more in line with Edge ratings than Gamespot ones as in scale; 5 is a decent game for example, not a terrible one).

Modifié par randName, 19 avril 2011 - 04:36 .

[bEVEsthda]

No. No bribery. Just that professional critics suck. C'mon people, they've sucked for a decade. They have as little grasp of the market for the game as EA marketing managers. ...They also don't bother to play the game for particularly long.

It would be cool if some kind of global dictatorship could forbid any kind of 'scores' in game reviews. Like, just tell us about the game. But it won't happen.

Still, it's so sad that one of the very best games of all times, only reached 70%-84% and only sold 72,000 (Bloodlines). So game reviewers miss both ways.

[Travie]

Volourn wrote...

"Yes they can. See, some people have standards and can measure a game to these standards that they attempt to keep objective, regardless of how they subjectively feel about the game."

Objectively, DA1 is not a 95+ game. No game is.

No game is? I don't think thats a reasonable statement to make.

While I would agree that there probably aren't any 'perfect' games, there are many that deliver experiences superior to almost anything else in that genre.