173 réponses à ce sujet

[Romantiq]

Its by far not AMAZING. It certainly does no SUCK. It's just underdeveloped with unfortunate innovations.

[Deified Data]

OP, your first mistake is having such high standards for any game developer. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy - eventually they won't deliver a product that doesn't match your inflated sense of entitlement.

Second, calling a game "bad" does not make it so. Play the game again in about a week when you have nothing to gain from attention-whoring and I'll bet you'll enjoy yourself.

[Eurhetemec]

Anathemic wrote...

Because democracy is the best form of government in a world such as ours amirite?

It is literally the only form of government that won't happily line up it's own citizens against a wall and shoot them for thinking the wrong things, so I'll go with yes. Let's not pretend that various false democracies are democracies.

Anathemic wrote...

Politics aside, I believe ME2 is bad, others believe ME2 is bad. We provide reason why ME2 is bad (Streamlining, story, etc.), thus ME2 is bad to us. Sure other people may enjoy it, just like people enjoy World of Warcraft and some don't. People declare World of Warcraft bad, but by your logic ,it isn't. By your logic Call of Duty: Black Ops is the best game ever, and I'm pretty sure the majority of the gaming communtiy would declare it isn't.

Sales mean success, doesn't mean quality though.

With games (let's not get into bad comparisons), being successful does indicate a certain level of quality, yes.

It doesn't mean you're "the best", but it does indicate that the game is regarded as a worthwhile investment of time and effort by a significant number of people. Clearly, anything that popular is not objectively bad. Or bad in any way that MEANS anything.

I mean, there's literally always some people who thinks any given game is bad. Name any game you love, and there are people who hate it. But if the game sold in big numbers, and got decent reviews, it's bound to be at least decent.

You're lying when you suggest that "by my logic" CoD:BO is the best game ever. I never expressed a framework for you to claim that. That's your claim or whatever.

By my logic, CoD:BO is not a bad game in any meaningful way. And yeah, I agree with that. CoD:BO isn't my ideal game, but it's not bad in any way that matters. And that's what this thread is about - is DA2 a "bad" game in a way that matters? I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that it is. ME2 supports this, because lots of people on this forum hate on ME2, but their reasons for hating it are the same reasons it was well-reviewed and that people love it. So it's really meaningless hate. WoW is similar. Do I like it best of MMOs? No, not by a long shot. But it's not a bad game in any way that is really valid or objective.

With DA2 the only difference is that there is SOME valid criticism - way too much re-use of assets, normal mode too easy and simple, plot seems rushed at the end, and so on. No-one really disputes that. But is it enough to make it a bad game, when it also has excellent visuals, excellent sound, amazing dialogue (equal or superior to any other BioWare game), gameplay that is at least solid (even if it bores you personally - it works), an interesting story, and a good amount of it. I don't think so. I don't think there's any logical argument to be made that it does.

I mean, it's not NWN. Look at NWN. Terrible gameplay - D&D 3E but dumbed down and with most of the cool removed. Terrible campaign - on every level - didn't make sense, wasn't entertaining, terrible characters, terrible dialogue, maps dull, fights unbalanced, and it even had the whole "wildly overpowered GMPC" angle. I could go on all night. It had precisely one redeeming feature - the content builder. That was it. Sad. If you're looking for BioWare's first bad game, that is the only one that comes even close.

[JosephCurwen]

Romantiq wrote...

It's just underdeveloped with unfortunate innovations.

I think you've just put it better than anybody else I've seen. That describes it perfectly.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Eurhetemec wrote...

Your criteria are clearly very special and unique, and totally irrelevant to whether a game is successful or popular.

That wasn't the question asked, so I don't see how that matters.

No one of us has any reason to care whether a game is successful or popular.  Being successful or popular doesn't make the game fun.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Eurhetemec wrote...

It is literally the only form of government that won't happily line up it's own citizens against a wall and shoot them for thinking the wrong things, so I'll go with yes.

It will do that as soon as the majority thinks it's a good idea.

Democracy is dangerous.

[Eurhetemec]

Nivik23 wrote...

Kinda surprised so many people have such a low opinion of NWN. Sure The OC wasn't all that great in the first title (although I thought it was very good in HotU) but the real strength of NWN was in it's MP. I played a persistent world for about 7 years (Gemstone) and absolutely loved it. Many of my greatest gaming memories are due to NWN and it's one of my favorite games of all time.

I can respect this Nik, but it was the content builders who did that, not Bioware. The game itself was dire, at release. The expansions might well have been fine, I have no idea, because the original game was so bad, I ignored all of them.

[Myounage]

NWN was fine. I concur that DA 2 is their first truly bad game. Apart from maybe Something Metal. MDK2 wasn't bad.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Eurhetemec wrote...

I can respect this Nik, but it was the content builders who did that, not Bioware. The game itself was dire, at release.

The game, as designed, was simply a platform for those content builders.  The NWN OC existed primarily as a demonstration of what the game could do.

And even so, I really liked it.  I think NWN  was terrific.

The expansions might well have been fine, I have no idea, because the original game was so bad, I ignored all of them.

The original game was a development platform.  If you were judging it based on something else, then you were missing the point.

[Anathemic]

Eurhetemec wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Because democracy is the best form of government in a world such as ours amirite?

It is literally the only form of government that won't happily line up it's own citizens against a wall and shoot them for thinking the wrong things, so I'll go with yes. Let's not pretend that various false democracies are democracies.

Anathemic wrote...

Politics aside, I believe ME2 is bad, others believe ME2 is bad. We provide reason why ME2 is bad (Streamlining, story, etc.), thus ME2 is bad to us. Sure other people may enjoy it, just like people enjoy World of Warcraft and some don't. People declare World of Warcraft bad, but by your logic ,it isn't. By your logic Call of Duty: Black Ops is the best game ever, and I'm pretty sure the majority of the gaming communtiy would declare it isn't.

Sales mean success, doesn't mean quality though.

With games (let's not get into bad comparisons), being successful does indicate a certain level of quality, yes.

It doesn't mean you're "the best", but it does indicate that the game is regarded as a worthwhile investment of time and effort by a significant number of people. Clearly, anything that popular is not objectively bad. Or bad in any way that MEANS anything.

I mean, there's literally always some people who thinks any given game is bad. Name any game you love, and there are people who hate it. But if the game sold in big numbers, and got decent reviews, it's bound to be at least decent.

You're lying when you suggest that "by my logic" CoD:BO is the best game ever. I never expressed a framework for you to claim that. That's your claim or whatever.

By my logic, CoD:BO is not a bad game in any meaningful way. And yeah, I agree with that. CoD:BO isn't my ideal game, but it's not bad in any way that matters. And that's what this thread is about - is DA2 a "bad" game in a way that matters? I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that it is. ME2 supports this, because lots of people on this forum hate on ME2, but their reasons for hating it are the same reasons it was well-reviewed and that people love it. So it's really meaningless hate. WoW is similar. Do I like it best of MMOs? No, not by a long shot. But it's not a bad game in any way that is really valid or objective.

With DA2 the only difference is that there is SOME valid criticism - way too much re-use of assets, normal mode too easy and simple, plot seems rushed at the end, and so on. No-one really disputes that. But is it enough to make it a bad game, when it also has excellent visuals, excellent sound, amazing dialogue (equal or superior to any other BioWare game), gameplay that is at least solid (even if it bores you personally - it works), an interesting story, and a good amount of it. I don't think so. I don't think there's any logical argument to be made that it does.

I mean, it's not NWN. Look at NWN. Terrible gameplay - D&D 3E but dumbed down and with most of the cool removed. Terrible campaign - on every level - didn't make sense, wasn't entertaining, terrible characters, terrible dialogue, maps dull, fights unbalanced, and it even had the whole "wildly overpowered GMPC" angle. I could go on all night. It had precisely one redeeming feature - the content builder. That was it. Sad. If you're looking for BioWare's first bad game, that is the only one that comes even close.

The framework you procided me with is high sales = good game. Call of Duty: Black Ops is the top-selling game in the game industry to date, by that fact and with your framework it is a perfect example.

It's not meaningless hate if you dislike something that is well-reviewed. Say like DA2's gameplay. Honestly Diablo 2's gameplay was much more superb and defined, I despise DA2's gamepaly because it attempts to make an effort into the action RPG genre but is mediocre to the king of action RPGs and similar games (The Witcher being an example).

[Eurhetemec]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Eurhetemec wrote...

Your criteria are clearly very special and unique, and totally irrelevant to whether a game is successful or popular.

That wasn't the question asked, so I don't see how that matters.

No one of us has any reason to care whether a game is successful or popular.  Being successful or popular doesn't make the game fun.

I don't know about you, but I have reason to care.

I live in the real world, and in real world, when a product is unsuccessful, it means that further products of that nature are less likely to get made. If I enjoyed something, but it was unsuccessful, that's disappointing, because the lack of success indicates it's likely further products enjoyable to me will not be made.

Further, if a game is successful and popular, it's almost certain to be fun for me. I'm just normal like that.

As for democracy, obviously, that's historically untrue. I'm not going to argue this with you, but if you believe that, you should read the history of the 20th century some time (hint: Germany wasn't a democracy post 1933). Take it up in off-topic if you want.

[22nd MadJack]

A bad bioware game is still a head above the rest.

[JosephCurwen]

I never actually completed NWN. I made it as far as Luskan and then just kind of stopped.

[Sporothrix]

Eurhetemec wrote...

This is a misunderstanding on your part. ME2 has very good sales for an RPG released on the PC & Xbox 360. What it doesn't have is the sales figures of a game released on PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 simultaneously. Also, your definition of "poor" is insane, given that it was one of the best-selling Bioware products of all time.

Since ME2 RPG elements got dumbed down to make it look more like a shooter, and reviewers were extatic about it, you could guess it's sales would be better than ME1, especially with all that advert campaign. And it wasn't too different.

Some raw data:
http://gamrreview.vg...35/mass-effect/
http://gamrreview.vg.../mass-effect-2/
http://gamrreview.vg.../7636/fable-ii/
http://gamrreview.vg...lout-new-vegas/

Maybe people just don't see the TRUTH, huh?

DA:O sold almost as many copies as FO:NV (and more than either ME - because it was on all three platforms), by the way, so I'm not sure why you think it didn't. The figures are extremely close. FO:NV's sales are an interesting anomaly, though - it sold way way better than FO3, which was better reviewed, less buggy, and so on. I suspect it was the right game at the right time.

And opinion like this makes me wonder about your taste. New Vegas was made by some people from original Fallouts team, it's really HUGE game with, most importantly, rich dialogues. FO3 compared to this is just pathetic. And you wonder why it, as an RPG, got sold better. But yeah, since it got worse reviews, it apparently doesn't make sense.

[Kortok]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Eurhetemec wrote...

So bad that is was the best reviewed game Bioware have ever made, and one of the best reviewed games of all time!

Clearly I don't think much of mainstream reviewers.  I've even said as much on these fora before.

I measure all games on the same scale.  The same criteria make them good or bad games.  And ME2 was bad.

It wasn't unplayably bad.  It wasn't Diablo or The Witcher.  But it was bad.

Did you just say you like DA2 and ME2 better than The Witcher or did I read your post wrong?

[Eurhetemec]

Anathemic wrote...

The framework you procided me with is high sales = good game. Call of Duty: Black Ops is the top-selling game in the game industry to date, by that fact and with your framework it is a perfect example.

It's not meaningless hate if you dislike something that is well-reviewed. Say like DA2's gameplay. Honestly Diablo 2's gameplay was much more superb and defined, I despise DA2's gamepaly because it attempts to make an effort into the action RPG genre but is mediocre to the king of action RPGs and similar games (The Witcher being an example).

I didn't give you that framework, you imposed it. Sorry.

You're misunderstanding re: meaningless. What's meaningless is the term "bad". There is no meaningful way in which ME2 is "bad". Everything about it is high-quality (by computer-game standards), and it's enjoyed by millions. Calling it "bad" just makes the term "bad" useless.

Specific criticisms aren't meaningless because "bad" is meaningless, though. I agree re: Diablo 2 being the king of action RPGs, but I don't agree re: DA2's gameplay being inferior, because for me, they're so different that I don't like them for the same reasons. Similarly with The Witcher - I didn't ever feel like it was a bad Diablo 2 rip-off, gameplay-wise. I didn't like the gameplay, but comparing it with Diablo 2 would be like complaining that apple pie isn't cupcakes.

Interesting that you mention D2 though - I can see where you're coming from now much better. That makes your opinions much more clear, so that's progress of a kind! If *I* though DA2 was a like a hybrid of D2 and DA:O, maybe I'd be as mad as you are, but I don't, so I'm not. Still, interesting, and now I kind of wish DA2 had a bit more D2 in it!

[Cobrawar]

I would say this game da2 is the first big disappointment Ive seen from bioware ever. A close second I would say was jade empire for me.

[_Dejanus]

Do you people know what a bad game is? A 3D Sonic release is bad. Most RTS console ports are bad. Big Rigs was bad. Dragon Age 2 has problems, some of which may be more important to you than they are to me, It may even be your least favorite of Bioware's works. Does any of this make the game objectively bad? No. And If you are seriously arguing that it fails entirely as a game you are either bitter, or blind, or both.

[Eurhetemec]

misoretu9 wrote...

And opinion like this makes me wonder about your taste. New Vegas was made by some people from original Fallouts team, it's really HUGE game with, most importantly, rich dialogues. FO3 compared to this is just pathetic. And you wonder why it, as an RPG, got sold better. But yeah, since it got worse reviews, it apparently doesn't make sense.

Wow, what's your problem? RE-READ THE POST YOU ARE QUOTING.

Where did I say FO:NV was a bad game that I disliked? Where EXACTLY did I say that?

Oh right, I didn't. I love FO:NV, thanks for asking! I said two thngs:

1) FO:NV is buggy.

It is. It still is right now. At release it was amazingly buggy.

2) FO:NV wasn't that well-reviewed. It wasn't.

So logically, it wouldn't be likely to sell that well - because people knew that it was buggy and it wasn't well-reviewed. Yet it sold great. You can't claim it was the "original team" part that sold it, because other games from the original FO team have sold extremely poorly.

[Kortok]

_Dejanus wrote...

Do you people know what a bad game is? A 3D Sonic release is bad. Most RTS console ports are bad. Big Rigs was bad. Dragon Age 2 has problems, some of which may be more important to you than they are to me, It may even be your least favorite of Bioware's works. Does any of this make the game objectively bad? No. And If you are seriously arguing that it fails entirely as a game you are either bitter, or blind, or both.

Those games are terrible and DA2 is bad.  There's definitely a difference.

I would say DA2 is bad because any game where I have to fight the camera to target spells and have to look at the same environments for 40 hours is bad.

Modifié par Kortok, 16 mars 2011 - 12:46 .

[BounceDK]

Jade Empire was pretty awful as well. So this is their 2nd god awful game in my book.

[_Dejanus]

Kortok wrote...

_Dejanus wrote...

Do you people know what a bad game is? A 3D Sonic release is bad. Most RTS console ports are bad. Big Rigs was bad. Dragon Age 2 has problems, some of which may be more important to you than they are to me, It may even be your least favorite of Bioware's works. Does any of this make the game objectively bad? No. And If you are seriously arguing that it fails entirely as a game you are either bitter, or blind, or both.

Those games are terrible and DA2 is bad.  There's definately a difference.

I would say DA2 is bad because any game where I have to fight the camera to target spells and have to look at the same environments for 40 hours is bad.

Those are definately flaws, but they are rather small ones taken on the whole of the experience, and your absolute statement does little to support your posistion.

[FataliTensei]

DTKT wrote...

It's mainly the "shock" of creating DAII after ME2. A game that's one of the highest rated game ever. A game that's won so many GOTY/awards that it's almost funny.

And then, DAII. 80 metacritic and it will probably still go down.

Mass Effect 2 was pretty ****ty

[DTKT]

FataliTensei wrote...

DTKT wrote...

It's mainly the "shock" of creating DAII after ME2. A game that's one of the highest rated game ever. A game that's won so many GOTY/awards that it's almost funny.

And then, DAII. 80 metacritic and it will probably still go down.

Mass Effect 2 was pretty ****ty

In your own mind, sure.

When you look at actual data of a large public reception, i.e: Metacritic and awards, it's different.

Look at it this way, DAII was moderatly received and reviewed around 80. And that's after 40+reviews. I bet it wont win any awards or GOTY. Now look at ME2, yeah, there is a difference there.

It's fine that you hated ME2, it's just that it seems that the reception was much more positive than DAII.:happy:

[Anathemic]

Eurhetemec wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

The framework you procided me with is high sales = good game. Call of Duty: Black Ops is the top-selling game in the game industry to date, by that fact and with your framework it is a perfect example.

It's not meaningless hate if you dislike something that is well-reviewed. Say like DA2's gameplay. Honestly Diablo 2's gameplay was much more superb and defined, I despise DA2's gamepaly because it attempts to make an effort into the action RPG genre but is mediocre to the king of action RPGs and similar games (The Witcher being an example).

I didn't give you that framework, you imposed it. Sorry.

You're misunderstanding re: meaningless. What's meaningless is the term "bad". There is no meaningful way in which ME2 is "bad". Everything about it is high-quality (by computer-game standards), and it's enjoyed by millions. Calling it "bad" just makes the term "bad" useless.

Specific criticisms aren't meaningless because "bad" is meaningless, though. I agree re: Diablo 2 being the king of action RPGs, but I don't agree re: DA2's gameplay being inferior, because for me, they're so different that I don't like them for the same reasons. Similarly with The Witcher - I didn't ever feel like it was a bad Diablo 2 rip-off, gameplay-wise. I didn't like the gameplay, but comparing it with Diablo 2 would be like complaining that apple pie isn't cupcakes.

Interesting that you mention D2 though - I can see where you're coming from now much better. That makes your opinions much more clear, so that's progress of a kind! If *I* though DA2 was a like a hybrid of D2 and DA:O, maybe I'd be as mad as you are, but I don't, so I'm not. Still, interesting, and now I kind of wish DA2 had a bit more D2 in it!

The framework you provided me is bolded in your quote below

Eurhetemec wrote...

I'm not sure that you get what I'm
explaining, so let me be clear. You think the best-reviewed game that
BioWare have ever made, which is also one of their best-selling games,
is bad.

You're allowed to think that, but what it proves is that
you have very unusual opinions. Very few people think like you, for
better or worse. Maybe you're smart and the rest of the world is
"dumbasses". If so, to bad for you, because essentially game-buying is
democratic, and the game that sells more is more successful.

My
point is that many of the people claiming that DA2 is "bad" are also
claiming ME2 is "bad". This means they're logically disallowed from
using Metacritic scores to comment, and that their opinions of
"good" and "bad" in games are so extremely minority that they probably
have no bearing on whether a game is really good or bad.

What I understood from this post is that sales = good game

How is the term 'bad' meaningless? It's a word, and in criticisms of the game 'bad' is used either as the game as a whole, or a specific feature compared to another (example being DA2 combat system compared to D2 combat system).

Maybe it's just me, but in action RPGs I expect full quality gameplay as first priority, second priorty is story. Diablo 2 provided full quality gameplay because it's fact-paced real time mechanic compliments the micromanagement required on specific moves determiend by your class, also including the strategy of potions and whatnot. And in addition gear.

Witcher 1 provided full quality combat for it's fast-paced action complimented the story really well. A witcher is a monster-slayer a mercenary, an assassin for hire, quick easy deaths are eseential. In addition to this, the animations were superb in complimenting the eseence of a witcher which is a mutant. Not only this but in specific challenging fights I had to craft and carefully choose which combo of potions to use limited to 2-3 due to the toxicity bar.

DA2 combat to me didn't procide full quality combat. I can spam AoE spells on each battle and not give a care in the world. Creeps spawn at random and in waves, eliminating any tactical positioning. It tires to incorporate DA:O's tactical combat with action rpg which plain out doesn't work at all, action rpg relies on real time combat and keeping a person on his/her feet always ready to be caught unawares, pausing completely eliminates this. Gear is lackluster and crafting is nonexistant.