352 réponses à ce sujet

[Valmarn]

dolphin1329 wrote...

Valmarn wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Valmarn wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

DA2 has been getting positive professional reviews so far.

Though I find that statement to be rather ambiguous, I would agree that most of the reviews have been, more or less, positive. I recognize that many "professional" reviewers have given it scores in the 90's, and that would be "most of the reviews" that are positive.

Now, bear in mind that 3 out of 5 or 7 out of 10 I, personally, consider to be mediocre, which I do not consider positive. Given BioWare's reputation as one of the premiere video game developers, I would even go so far as to consider 8 out of 10 to be mediocre.

~60%, ~70% and 80% could be considered postive, but when compared to BioWare's past success (especially Dragon Age: Origins), I find it difficult to do so.

Metacritic scores of Bioware games:

Baldur's Gate II: 95%
Neverwinter Nights; 91%
Neverwinter Nights 2: 81%
KotoR: 94%
Jade Empire: 89%
Mass Effect: 91%
Dragon Age Origins: 91%
Mass Effect 2: 96%
Dragon Age 2: 84%

Mean Metacritic rating: 90.2%
Median Metacrici rating: 91%

-snip-

Wow...I guess didn't realize Metacritic was the "be all, end all" video game review site.

My bad...lol. I thought there were other outlets that reviewed video games. My mistake.

Now, not to be a ******, but the time you spent typing up your wall of text was in vain.

In all fairness, it looked as though you didn't read my entire post before replying, either.

With that being said, I have highlighted the portion of my post that, judging from your reply, you must have skipped over.

You do know that Metacritic takes an average from a number of sites and not all of the reviews for DA2 came from big gaming sites.

Yes, their scores are an aggregate of numerous reviews from other outlets.

They're also not the only website that does that.
http://en.wikipedia....iew_aggregators

[Valmarn]

Phaedon wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
Dragon Age 2 is not exactly a triumph. A disaster? Hardly.

That was my point, but let the metacritic score stabilize over the week first.

So, when you said...

Phaedon wrote...
DA2 has been getting positive professional reviews so far.

...you meant that all of the reviews, both positive and negative, were averaging out to be positive, and not that it wasn't getting any negative reviews from "professional reviewers."

I see...

[OrlesianWardenCommander]

If they keep everything about me2 and bring it over too me3 with no drastic changes I'll be happy.

[Whatever42]

Valmarn wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
Dragon Age 2 is not exactly a triumph. A disaster? Hardly.

That was my point, but let the metacritic score stabilize over the week first.

So, when you said...

Phaedon wrote...
DA2 has been getting positive professional reviews so far.

...you meant that all of the reviews, both positive and negative, were averaging out to be positive, and not that it wasn't getting any negative reviews from "professional reviewers."

I see...

Every game gets some negative reviews. ME2 really got positive across the board but that's pretty rare. But every game Bioware has created has had critics. What Phaedon likely meant was the user reviewers. The haters on these forums have rushed to metacritic and places like gamespot to bash the game, giving low user reviews on those sites. Over time, those marks will come up.

Metacritic DA2 reviews are very good on average. ME2 is off-the-charts overwhelming gushingly positive. Yes, I can see how that would spell doom for Bioware.

[Tesla17]

I'm here to let you all realize that review scores, as a rule of thumb, all suck suck suck suck suck suck suck suck suck suck suck. They're a skewed and easily corrupted form of measuring quality. Metacritic will never and can never express genuine quality.

Never, ever think that you can judge by some arbitrary number value any piece of art or media, that's just foolish. You actually have to think, look at the media available for the game, read the damn reviews themselves and average those on the preconceived biases of the reviewers in order to figure some perception of objectivity.

At the very least don't look at the review scores at all. They're arbitrary and pointless and they'll need to be burned in effigy for all eternity to purge them of their inherent sins before I will ever bother to even begin looking at them

[Gatt9]

Tesla17 wrote...

I'm here to let you all realize that review scores, as a rule of thumb, all suck suck suck suck suck suck suck suck suck suck suck. They're a skewed and easily corrupted form of measuring quality. Metacritic will never and can never express genuine quality.

Never, ever think that you can judge by some arbitrary number value any piece of art or media, that's just foolish. You actually have to think, look at the media available for the game, read the damn reviews themselves and average those on the preconceived biases of the reviewers in order to figure some perception of objectivity.

At the very least don't look at the review scores at all. They're arbitrary and pointless and they'll need to be burned in effigy for all eternity to purge them of their inherent sins before I will ever bother to even begin looking at them

I disagree.

Unfortunately,  it was a sad day when Jonny Wilson left Computer Gaming World.

You see,  under his reign,  CGW had the following policies:  Never review anything other than a release candidate copy,  always review what's in the box not the patches,  no matter how many advertising dollars are spent they do not buy favor.

CGW would comment often that those were the policies,  and that there were certain advertisers who would not advertise in CGW because they wouldn't play ball.  The result was,  if a game got a CGW award,  that thing was immediately printed on the front of every box in a prominent position because people regarded it as a solid quality indicator,  and it was.  So were their reviews,  they told you very plainly what the game was like,  no glossing over,  no PR.

The Jeff Green took over,  and it went downhill.  I still remember when Magic the Gathering Online was given low review scores because it's graphics weren't flashy enough and it didn't have any animation,  it's an online card game simulator,  what'd you expect?  Explosions?

Then they gave Space Mule a low review score,  because the reviewer couldn't figure out how to play an economic sim.  The irony?  Space Mule is an almost identical copy of M.U.L.E.,  in the very same issue they listed their "Hall of Fame",  and there was MULE,  an acknowledged classic.

That was the end of gaming journalistic honesty.  CGW was the last bastion.  To put it in perspective,  Gamespot owned CGW,  Gamespot was the source of much controversy when they allegedly fired reviewers for giving games bad reviews when advertisers complained.

Just for the record too,  PC Gamer got busted letting the author of Ascendency's strategy guide review the game,  which of course resulted in a very positive score.

What we very desperately need is a Gaming Press site that's subscription driven instead of advertiser driven.

[axmo1]

Why is there such an obsession with review scores to begin with? Why the hell should some guy I have never met, and never plan to meet have any impact on how I view my game? Sometimes man, you just have to disconnect yourself with outside opinions and form your damned own for once people. Don't worry about the sales numbers, the metascore, or any of that.

DA:2 was a "good" game. It was rushed by moneygrubbing sleazies at EA that have for as long as I remember, don't care about putting great games out, but good enough games out. And that's really the only true concern I have for ME3 is that they'll say "It's ready enough."

What's kinda happening here also (and forgive the metaphor) seems to be like when you go to your favorite restaurant. You get a meal and it tastes great. You go back for a few more different meals, and they're all pretty good, but eventually you get one that wasn't quite as good as the rest. You can't go thinking that everything you get there from now on is going to be complete crap, or you might miss out on something really good.

People have been spoiled by all the great bioware games. When one's only decent, it's doom and gloom. ME3 will be fine, and I'm sure they'll have plenty more...even if TOR is looking questionable.

[Oldgrunt]

Hello Im a new member of the forum. Today I will talk about my memories of Mass Affect 2. The dragon thingy is not my cup of tea for now (no zombies and skeletons is a no no in a RPG).

What I liked about the Bioware games and most games is making of the characters and the building of the team in an against all odds type of scenario.

The Baldurs Gate series were in my opinion the pure RPGs most people love. They were a bit clunky for todays standard but can still compete if the were released today. Neverwinter nights 2 brought some memories back although RPGs can never be too long for me. 80 hours of gameplay are not a problem for me.

What i like is that in Mass Affect 2 (played about a year ago) were the different races and the combat and the story was pretty good up to a point. I finished the game early I believe and lost one of my most loved party members Jack/Subject Zero and later some others. Id invested a lot of time in her and I loved the story about her capture etc.

After that it was a pure thrill to kick the enemies to pulp and lose myself in the story. This is what was the best part of the game. The other character I most like was Grunt because the Krogans are pretty funny when they are on your side. These characters and the deeeeep story (including cinematics and drama etc) is what is the most important aspect to return in Mass Affect 3.

Other games that I liked which didnt originate from Bioware were army of two which included 2 psycho soldiers in different warzones having fun with tons of customizable weapons. This is an important aspect of my gaming experience. Making your own weapons and making specific weapons for specific ocassions.

Now for something I dont care for. GRAPHICS. I dont care about beautifull graphics and mass affect 2 was good enough for me. I play games and I want cinematics but I do not wish to play a game that is marketed as a movie. Because this will not work. I want the characters of a movie. Bad guys, jokers, villians, maids, queens, kings. Characters that are so evil you want to bash them of your screen. This is also an underrated aspect of bioware games. Because in real life people will have to make similiar choices. Good choices and Bad choices are what makes a human life worth living and give you experience. This was done by adding cut scenes but it could be done more subtle and unnoticable for the player in Mass Affect 3.

The only thing that sucked in Mass affect 2 (besides the things I have forgotten) Was the end scene(which crashed the first time). Certain aliens kept returning and the uber alien was tough but it wasnt fun at all to kill him. The ending are always a weak part of the Bioware games. In most bioware game the bad guy was a fellow human/half men and always did you face the bad boy alone (except NNW2). I think that Mass Affect 3 should be left open. No more end boss but a slowly ending story with no hope for return but a well defined path of destruction. Mass Affect 2 revisited a mission of no return. Maybe the final fight should be between 2 customized battle ships or a massive all out fight between two groups.

What gaming ultimately should about is finding a part of your personality reflected in the game. Who are you? What made you the way you have become both in real life and in the game?

Sometimes when I play games and look at the real world I see similarities. I now know why people became evil and joined the 'dark' side. Learning from games is as rewarding as learning in real life. If a game doesnt learn me anything this will affect my opinion.

So I hope game makers will have some elements in the game that are able to teach us something valuable about ourselves.

[TelkEvolon]

BioWare had the GoTY last year. KOTOR 1 & 2 were great, Mass Effect 1 & 2 were great Dragon Age has been pretty hit and miss, Jade Empire was great, Baldur's Gate was great.

BioWare is in about the top 10 most solid gaming companies around.

Dragon Age 2 got great reviews.


You are either stupid, insane or ill informed to think otherwise.

[DashRunner92]

As much as I hate to say it, I sort of have to agree with the OP on some parts. DA2 may have had great reviews, but it's sales were pretty bad and way below par. Though it's still a bit early, it's pretty clear DA2 sales were much lower than expected (THOUGH I expect DA2 sales to start increasing from word of mouth). If these was a few years ago, we would be able to say ok it's just one bad selling game. But with the way game companies have been so quick to kill a studio, if ME3 doesn't sell well enough, Bioware will be in big trouble. Though I doubt this would happen, ME3 shouldn't have trouble selling as DA2 did since ME and DA games are two entirely different creatures in almost every way from game play style to graphics.

[Aleksandar Shepard]

I FIND YOUR LACK OF FAITH DISTURBING!

Modifié par Aleksandar Shepard, 13 mars 2011 - 04:49 .

[Voods07]

 Aren't the Dragon age and Mass Effect teams different? I think they are, and its obvious which team has more "talent".

DA2 wasen't bad by any means, it just felt lost(IMO).

Modifié par Voods07, 13 mars 2011 - 04:51 .

[AlanC9]

Oldgrunt wrote...
The Baldurs Gate series were in my opinion the pure RPGs most people love. They were a bit clunky for todays standard but can still compete if the were released today.

No, they couldn't. At least not in my experience. I've loaned my copies out to various people. Unless someone was in gaming over a decade ago, he doesn't find the games interesting enough to play. The clunkiness, the poor character graphics, etc.

[mx3ze]

This thread's purpose is empty as its future.

[xSTONEYx187x]

TelkEvolon wrote...

BioWare had the GoTY last year. KOTOR 1 & 2 were great, Mass Effect 1 & 2 were great Dragon Age has been pretty hit and miss, Jade Empire was great, Baldur's Gate was great.

BioWare is in about the top 10 most solid gaming companies around.

Dragon Age 2 got great reviews.


You are either stupid, insane or ill informed to think otherwise.

It's posters like as to why I still have faith in this forum. Well put, buddy. 

[hannibalizer0]

I am trying to figure out whats all the ME effect hate.
DA O and DA 2 are decent games, but don't even hold a candle to the ME games.
Since ME and ME 2 were amazing games, I don't seem them making ME 3 horrible in any way possible. ME 3 has been in development for almost a year and half I don't think its being rushed.

So everyone just needs to relax.

[Phaedon]

Valmarn wrote...
...you meant that all of the reviews, both positive and negative, were averaging out to be positive, and not that it wasn't getting any negative reviews from "professional reviewers."

I see...

DA2 has 65 positive and 3 average reviews, according to Metacritc. I'd say that it's getting positive reviews so far, hence the:

"Generally favorable reviews based on 68 Critics"

Modifié par Phaedon, 13 mars 2011 - 06:15 .

[Pepper4]

I'll be very happy if they just give ME3 a few more mothes in the bakery.

[Uszi]

Phaedon wrote...

DA2 has been getting positive professional reviews so far.

Yeah, every low user review on metacritic compares the game to DA:O and to ME1 & 2.  It seems to me, the game should be judged on its own mertis, not how it failed to conform to one's expectations.  It leads me to question how much I can trust a user review, when it's stated from the first few lines that the user is a disgruntled that it wasn't what they expected based on other games.

In reality:

DA2 is getting good reviews.

DA2 is selling fairly well*.

I'm having a hard time finding an unbiased source telling me that the game has bombed.  I wouldn't mind seeing that source.

To that end, if the game is getting good reviews and if the game sells well, then ME3 is *not* "bioware's last hope."

I am also confused as to why people think that the company owes them something.






*A lot of people have been talking about how it's bombing, but I think that depends highly on which source and which platform one looks at. 

http://www.gamedwell...ks-steam-sales/
http://www.ripten.co...fect”-assuaged/

It's the most popular game on all platforms at Game Rankings:
http://www.gameranki...e-ii/index.html
http://www.gameranki...e-ii/index.html
http://www.gameranki...e-ii/index.html

Modifié par Uszi, 13 mars 2011 - 06:45 .

[Phaedon]

Uszi wrote...
It seems to me, the game should be judged on its own mertis, not how it failed to conform to one's expectations. 

You are giving the user scores too much credit.
The general consensus on gaming forums that I visit is that it was a raid by /v/

[Scimal]

Ozzyfan223 wrote...

I mean, the cataclysmic response and aftermath of the DA2 launch has sent repercussive doubt and distaste for a company that has always been loved and respected by it's fans and the gaming community as a whole. Whether DA2 was rushed or not is a matter of debate, and I think the DA franchise can be saved from a stellar 3rd game. But if ME3 fails, or feels rushed, I think its proof Bioware has lost its touch.

Uhh... what cataclysmic response?

You mean the DA2 boards? Yeah, they're pretty much like that after the release of any sequel to any game ever. Even Starcraft II had its haters, and as we all know, that was pretty much the swan song for Blizzard-Acitivision... or not.

I happen to like DA2. Is it their usual greatness? No, but it is something I enjoy playing and I love the characters. If ME3 succeeds, and lives up the hype gathered from ME2, it will put the ME series in to the histroy books of gaming. But if it fails, and we are left with a game thats even 95% done, Bioware will be responsible for containing a wave of flames greater than the world has ever known.

It will put it into the, "Series that was good up until the third part" category. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Thompson family]

Gatt9 wrote...

What we very desperately need is a Gaming Press site that's subscription driven instead of advertiser driven.

Couldn't agree more.

When a game has a good critic's score and a user's score that's at least in the ballpark, I take it seriously.

When there's big gap between the two, I'm cautious.

[Mister Mida]

Don't know if I already posted in here but hey, what the hell.

ME3 is not Bioware's last hope. Mostly because there's still SW: tOR that will haul in a crapload of Star Wars and MMO gamers. And EA knows the power of Bioware's name. Combined with their supernatural marketing skills they can probably sell millions of DA and ME spin-offs that they're thinking of right now. When that fails, then Bioware will probably have a problem and soon follow the way of their old collaboration partner Pandemic.

[ExtinctRPG]

DA 2's suckage has me very worried about ME 3.

[habitat 67]

ExtinctRPG wrote...

DA 2's suckage has me very worried about ME 3.

Buddy, did you even try playing it?
<_<