177 réponses à ce sujet

[Maverick827]

Everwarden wrote...

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

You simply do not understand the meaning of the word, then.

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. 

You assume that Hawke's story will not continue.

Modifié par Maverick827, 19 avril 2011 - 05:00 .

[Everwarden]

Maverick827 wrote...
You simply do not understand the meaning of the word, then.

It's a clear-cut, obvious, glaring flaw. If pointless padding to extend gameplay isn't an objective flaw, what would be? 

 You assume that Hawke's story will not continue.

God I hope it doesn't. I'm sick of Hawke. Though you're shifting the goalpost and sort of proving my point. In Dragon Age 2 you have no relevant choices that have any real consequences, you saying "But you might in the expansion!" doesn't change anything, even if it turns out to be true. 

Modifié par Everwarden, 19 avril 2011 - 05:08 .

[Maverick827]

Everwarden wrote...

It's a clear-cut, obvious, glaring flaw. If pointless padding to extend gameplay isn't an objective flaw, what would be?

I'm not here to teach you the difference between objective and subejctive. If you're unwilling to see it now, then nothing I can say will change your mind. Why do you assume that is why these changes were put into the game, though?

As I said, as a WoW player I enjoy long boss encounters, and given the reins I would have made a similar change, though clearly not for the reasons you assume. Why, then, is it out of your comprehension that bosses have more health for any reason other than your preconceived notions?

God I hope it doesn't. I'm sick of Hawke. Though you're shifting the goalpost and sort of proving my point. In Dragon Age 2 you have no relevant choices that have any real consequences, you saying "But you might in the expansion!" doesn't change anything, even if it turns out to be true.

I never conceded that there are no choices in DA2, I simply made the observation that you make a lot of assumptions and believe them to be anything but. Even if it was true, why does "But you might in the expansion!" not hold weight? Do you judge a novel by the prologue, or let the author finish his story?

[Dark83]

There doesn't seem to be much consequences for the choices from DA:O either. Let's look at it from the perspective of someone outside of Ferelden.

We have some doglovin' noble or other who's king, with no real difference in foreign policy.
We have the Blight ended, with some dude who may have died.
One tribe of Elves may be dead, or the forest is still dangerous either way.
Order is restored to the Ferelden Circle of Magi.

The one big thing seem to be if the dwarves shut themselves off, or if they allow entry.
Also, a pilgrimage site may have been discovered.

To anybody else, they're all just minor internal Ferelden things. DA2, the choices are all just minor internal Kirkwall things. The scope's shrunk, it all.

[Dark83]

Maverick827 wrote...

As I said, as a WoW player I enjoy long boss encounters?

I think the WoW raid bosses are a lot more interesting in terms of encounter design than what's in DA2, though. The kinda cyclical encounter in th Deep Roads is sorta interesting, but it's basically two stages repeatedly.

[Everwarden]

Maverick827 wrote...
I'm not here to teach you the difference between objective and subejctive. If you're unwilling to see it now, then nothing I can say will change your mind.

classic cop out.

Objective:
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually:

I'm not letting personal emotions or prejudice influence my appraisal, and the fact is observably true. Thus, it's objective. A bug is also an objective flaw in a game, even if it's an infinite gold cheat and you happen to subjectively like the bug, it's still a flaw. You could just as easily be talking about a bug, too; "What is your problem with bugs, other than a subjective preconception that a game shouldn't have them?" 

Why do you assume that is why these changes were put into the game, though? 

Because it's obvious, especially when one compares that aspect to the plethora of other cut corners. You call it a design choice, but it's really just artificial game extension, which is a flaw. I seriously doubt we're going to see eye to eye on this, though. 

I never conceded that there are no choices in DA2, I simply made the observation that you make a lot of assumptions and believe them to be anything but. Even if it was true, why does "But you might in the expansion!" not hold weight? Do you judge a novel by the prologue, or let the author finish his story?

Because even if there are dozens of tough, weighty choices that change the world forever in the expansion, that won't at all change the game we bought. We aren't talking about a prologue, we're talking about a half finished stand-alone product that doesn't deliver on the promise to give players choices with impact on the world; even if a sequel does that, it's not a reasonable excuse for the product we're discussing. 

Modifié par Everwarden, 19 avril 2011 - 06:01 .

[2papercuts]

at least with the PC Gamer the reviewer made previous complaints on other games that he seemed to ignore for DA2

doesn't mean it was payed but the inconsistences make the review slightly questionable

Modifié par 2papercuts, 19 avril 2011 - 06:05 .

[Everwarden]

Dark83 wrote...
We have some doglovin' noble or other who's king, with no real difference in foreign policy.

True enough. Someone in Tevinter won't care much who is sitting on the throne of some mud hole. 

We have the Blight ended, with some dude who may have died.

 
That can be pretty major, depending on who died. 

One tribe of Elves may be dead, or the forest is still dangerous either way.

The outcome can be that the elves are wiped out, which is a major consequence. Or it can be that everything is happy fun bunny-paradise in the forest after you break the curse, another major consequence. 

Order is restored to the Ferelden Circle of Magi.

The Circle is restored or broken. That's a significant impact. 

The one big thing seem to be if the dwarves shut themselves off, or if they allow entry.
Also, a pilgrimage site may have been discovered.

The dwarves are likely the largest, most important choice for the world at large, though I wouldn't downplay the importance of having the opportunity to ****** on a holy relic (what fun that was). 

[orbit991]

randName wrote...

The escapist 10/10 was probably a half bribe - for example they mention the auto-attack on the console, and while in theory they might not have gotten the retail copy but some other version and actually had auto-attack working, I still believe they didn't and just wrote a puff piece.


There is also that most games get few bad reviews the first week, and it sems to be due to companies not sending out advance review copies to sites they don't like - so for the first week, and the week before release, most reviews for most games are positve.


EDIT: And I'm only saying that in general, with all games there seems to be this trend that during the two weeks around launch all reviews are postive, and then once the reviewers that had to buy the game at launch starts to post reviews one week after launch the score tends to go down - as with DA2, and with many other games.

And in the case of the escapist it looks like the reviewer didn't play the game, and still gave it a perfect score - for what ever reason.

Yea that escapist piece looked like some promotional material rather then from someone who played the game.

[AlanC9]

Everwarden wrote...

Dark83 wrote...
We have some doglovin' noble or other who's king, with no real difference in foreign policy.

True enough. Someone in Tevinter won't care much who is sitting on the throne of some mud hole. 

We have the Blight ended, with some dude who may have died.

 
That can be pretty major, depending on who died. 

I don't follow this. If who's on the throne isn't important, how is who died important?

The outcome can be that the elves are wiped out, which is a major consequence. Or it can be that everything is happy fun bunny-paradise in the forest after you break the curse, another major consequence. 

Major consequence for that one tribe of elves. I don't see how this would be a big deal for Ferelden, let alone the rest of Thedas.

The Circle is restored or broken. That's a significant impact. 

Well, Ferelden would be short of mages for a while. Not without, since some weren't at the Tower.

How many players actually sided with the Templars, anyway? I didn't see any good reason to do that -- unless you were RPing some sort of fanatic.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Dark83 wrote...

There doesn't seem to be much consequences for the choices from DA:O either. Let's look at it from the perspective of someone outside of Ferelden.

We have some doglovin' noble or other who's king, with no real difference in foreign policy.
We have the Blight ended, with some dude who may have died.
One tribe of Elves may be dead, or the forest is still dangerous either way.
Order is restored to the Ferelden Circle of Magi.

The one big thing seem to be if the dwarves shut themselves off, or if they allow entry.
Also, a pilgrimage site may have been discovered.

To anybody else, they're all just minor internal Ferelden things. DA2, the choices are all just minor internal Kirkwall things. The scope's shrunk, it all.

Yes, plus epilogues don't mean sh!T! Remember Fallout 3's "200 over" endings? ha ha haw.

[UltiPup]

Pretty silly how anyone thinks video game reviews are an actual good and serious source.

[Volourn]

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

It's very reasonable. Someone gives a game 95+ rating it means one of two things: a) their rating scale is just plain off or they're reviewing it as a fanboy. It doesn't enccessarily mean they are mindless but it means they are seeing things through rose coloured glasses.

Heck, it's nto an insult, as I've been guilty of it in the past as well overrating games when they first come out and then see things a lot more clearer as time goes by. Not so bad now but when I was younger every game I liked was a '10'. L0LZ


"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."

Like I said, your ratings cale is fof b/c you are basing a game's quality on comparison. I could live with that if that's made clear. But, i'd rather based a game's rating on pure quality inofitself.

It's like me claiming DA2 is a 10 because no matter what it has, it has to be way better than POR2, right? See, that's why 'rating on a scale' is a iffy proposition.


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

I 'officially' give DA2 an 8.7; but I think a 7.5-9 rating for both DAs is reasonable.

Of course, if youa re going by a hardcore 0= no redeeming quality what soeevr, 10 = perfect, and 5 = right in the middle, average game and you find DA2 an average game is 5.

Problem is, you are fighting a losing battle, because when people read 5, they assume the game is beyond crap. heck, DA2 has a rating of 8ish yet people take that as a sign of 'pure crap'. that's right 8/10 is equated with crappy game. L0LZ

And, this brings up another point on why metacritic can be considered a failure b/c every reviewer gives ratings on a different scale. Two people can give the same game 10/10 but for two different reasons. One gives it because they honestly beleive (even if I disagree) the game is perfect while the other gives 10/10 because they believe it's the best of the best.

Sucky way tom compare things sicne the value ratings is different. Plus reviewing games on a 1-10 scale is vastly different than rating games on a 5-10 scale sicne very few games ever get below 5, and most get 6-8.

[Dark83]

Everwarden wrote...

Dark83 wrote...
We have the Blight ended, with some dude who may have died.

 
That can be pretty major, depending on who died.

Not really, like someone else pointed out. The choices are Allistar, Loghain, or the Warden. Their death only potentially affects who's on the throne. Otherwise it's all internal politics.

Everwarden wrote...

The outcome can be that the elves are wiped out, which is a major consequence. Or it can be that everything is happy fun bunny-paradise in the forest after you break the curse, another major consequence.

Someone already pointed out it's just the one tribe. That forest remains dangerous anyway, what with the undead and such. The Dalish also aren't likely going to welcome human intrusion anymore than werewolves.

Everwarden wrote...

The Circle is restored or broken. That's a significant impact.

Nah, it's just the one Circle belonging to (as you said) that mudhole. Many were already lost at Ostagar, remember?

Everwarden wrote...

The dwarves are likely the largest, most important choice for the world at large, though I wouldn't downplay the importance of having the opportunity to ****** on a holy relic (what fun that was).

I agree with the dwarves - however, looking over the lore again, only Ferelden (which sits on top of the dorfs) have real political dealings - for other nations, they'd have to go through/into Ferelden to deal with the dwarven city.

The relics thing... as I recall, the endings are that it's not reported (in which case nobody's the wiser), it's discovered (where it becomes a pilgrimage destination), or discovered but dangerous, in which case people leave it alone after nobody returns. For the first and last case, it matters little because it isn't recognized as a holy site. Only if it becomes an active pilgrammage destination does Ferelden get the tourism gold or something.

Modifié par Dark83, 19 avril 2011 - 06:57 .

[Maverick827]

Everwarden wrote...

I'm not letting personal emotions or prejudice influence my appraisal

Yes, you are. If you were not then you would not be saying the things you are (e.g. attributing objectiveness to subjective matters). Again, you simply do not understand the difference between the two, made evident by this strawman:

A bug is also an objective flaw in a game, even if it's an infinite gold cheat and you happen to subjectively like the bug, it's still a flaw. You could just as easily be talking about a bug, too; "What is your problem with bugs, other than a subjective preconception that a game shouldn't have them?"

It is a fact that bosses in Dragon Age 2 have a great deal of hit points, it is your assumption that this was done do lengthen the game's life span, and it is your subjective opinion (saying "subjective opinion" is actually redundant, but I felt I had to spell it out for you) that this was a negative facet of the game.

Because it's obvious

"classic cop out."

Because even if there are dozens of tough, weighty choices that change the world forever in the expansion, that won't at all change the game we bought. We aren't talking about a prologue, we're talking about a half finished stand-alone product that doesn't deliver on the promise to give players choices with impact on the world; even if a sequel does that, it's not a reasonable excuse for the product we're discussing.

But, again playing to your opinion even though I disagree with it, the product that we are discussing predicates a hypothetical game which would do such a thing, and therefore would be just as important as said sequel in the grand scheme of the "the player-as-Hawke makes decisions that changes the world" promise.

[Imryll]

I'm doubtful that anyone was actually bribed, but I did find it interesting that PC Gamer didn't have Desslock review DA II ...

[CloudOfShadows]

Well. Bribed? More or less bribed than any other game?

If you want to be paranoid you can call good PR bribing, so?

I happen to like DA2, and I think it wasn't meant for a mass audience, what with the story not being mass-compatible, as quite evident with all the disappointed, self-declared hardcore rpg players.

[Altima Darkspells]

orbit991 wrote...


Yea that escapist piece looked like some promotional material rather then from someone who played the game.

To be fair, EA's Blow & Hookers Division isn't so much of a bribe as it is a reward.

After all, that's the only way I can imagine anyone could ever give DA2 a perfect score.

[Tirigon]

All major review sites are bribed, which is why I trust none of them.

[Jim_uk]

The review in the Escapist stank of payola, not only was it obvious the reviewer hadn't played the game they also used exactly the same kind of language as EAs marketing dept.

[Haexpane]

 IGN
We do not accept money for review scores, if a publisher offers exclusive, and I tell them the score is probably not going to be 9+, they elect to take it back - From IGN editors themselves.

See how that works? They wont accept cash for a review. And the publisher has the OPTION to pull an exclusive review.

It's just 100% PURE COINCIDENCE that ever big Take 2 Rockstar or EA game gets a 9+ on IGN

Even the crappy GTA4 gets a 10/10,  later rockstar releases an expansion pack that "fixes what was wrong w/ GTA4" and that gets a 10/10

How do you fix a 10/10 game again?
Halo
Red Dead
Crysis
Uncharted
etc...

All the big games with the big hype get the 9+ score UNLESS it's an obvious stinker like Killzone or Resistence.

IGN is so shameless what they do now when people ask about scores is reply

DUH! WInning! We are the biggest gaming internet site of all time!  We don't have to justify review scores, or why none of them align!  In fact, I didn't even write that review! I would have scored it lower.

They love that excuse.  "So why is crappy game X a 9.5 again?"
IGN - DUH I didn't write that one!  I would have given it a lower score (insert whatever score would make you happy)
So, if you didn't write the review why are you defending it in the comments section?

IGN - DUH, WINNING!  LOL Call of Duty!

[Warheadz]

Red Dead was excellent awesomeness, while GTA IV was good. No need to rip on those games.

But everyone knows that you don't trust IGN unles you want to play Halo, CoD, or any other major FPS release.

[orbit991]

Volourn wrote...

"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.

It wasn't, so whats your point?

[Haexpane]

Warheadz wrote...

Red Dead was excellent awesomeness, while GTA IV was good. No need to rip on those games.

But everyone knows that you don't trust IGN unles you want to play Halo, CoD, or any other major FPS release.

Red Dead had the best Open World Western VIstas in any game.  Great music, great vibe.  The actual gameplay tho?  Same as ME2, boring cover shooting.  Unless you were into the MP? I heard the MP is dead now tho thanks to so much cheating.

Also ranked 10/10, yet the ZOmbie expansion pack which "imrpoved" on everything from RDR and was more fun than RDR, also 10/10?

That's my complaint.  Not that a game from 15 years ago got a 10/10 and now a new game gets a 9.  But that ANY BIG GAME seems to get a 9+ from them, as long as it's Halo/Fable/RockStar/Call of Duty and every time someone mentions the scores seem off, someone who DID NOT REVIEW THE GAME, says "well I didn't review that one"...

I love the rockstar games. but GTA4 is by far the worst GTA and a huge step backwards from the godly GTA SA.  Just like DA2, GTA4 REMOVED rpg features from the gameplay, was smaller, more repetitive, and had tons of bogus filler NON GAMEPLAY like reading email.

[toggled]

Preliatus wrote...

Title says it all..

Either 9/10 for scores has dropped down to 4/10, or EA waves a large wad of cash infront of the Critics bribing them for a good review to increase revenue?

I just read a good chunk of Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000, a book I bought from a garage sale.. weird indeed, and I say that it has a better plot than DA2.

Where did the reviews get 'Epic' from? I don't see 'Epic' in DA2, I see 'Rushed' and 'Filler' nothing 'Epic'.

Edit: Bribe sounded better than 'pay'.

I don't think cash changed hands. But I think there were certain "favors" granted for a positive review (exclusive preview coverage, junkets, whatever). From reading the early reviews, there was certainly something going on. How could they not mention the most obvious game flaws (recycled environments, waves of enemies)?

BTW... Battlefield Earth was made into a movie, and the one good thing you can say about the movie: it was better than the book by L. Ron Hubbard.

Modifié par toggled, 19 avril 2011 - 10:53 .