261 réponses à ce sujet

[KenKenpachi]

Hmm well more recent Reviews.


DA:2


GameRankings 83.6% (PC)
80.4% (X360)
81.3% (PS3)

Metacritic 82% (PC)
80% (X360)
82% (PS3)


1UP.com B+

G4 3/5

Game Informer, 7.75 (pc) 8.25 (360)

Gamepro 4 out of 5

Gamespot 8.0

Game Spy 4 out of 5

Game Trailers 9.2/10

IGN 8.5/10

OXM 9/10

PC Gamer UK 94%

PSM 9/10

Videogamer.com 7/10

The Escapist 5/5




DA:O


GameRankings 90.17% (PC)[77]
Metacritic 91% (PC)[78]
87% (PS3)[79]
86% (X360)[80]

Review scores
Publication Score
Eurogamer 6/10 (X360)[81]
8/10 (PC)[82]
Game Informer 9/10(PC)[83]
8(PS360)[84]

GameSpot 9.5/10[35]
GamesRadar 9 PS360, PC[85]
IGN 8.7 PS360[86] 9 PC
Official Xbox Magazine (UK) 8/10[87]
PC Gamer UK 94%[88]
PC Gamer US 92%[89]
RPGFan 95% (X360)[90]



Yep DA:2 is a horible game with a score that isn't equal and in some cases better than DA:O oh the horror!

Haters gonna Hate.

[johook213]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

The Xbox 360 Metacritic score has dropped to 79 - we knew it would happen eventually because althoug I don't believe Bioware pay critics to score them high, I think they have a non-communicated agreement that critics who get the game early feel compelled to give it a high score or else not get such a benefit in the future. Therefore, the metacritic scores will always drop over time as the more accurate reviews come in.

The scores are now as follows:

PC - Critic: 82 (34 critics); User: 4.3 (2109 users)
360 - Critic: 79 (63 critics); User: 4.4 (1387 users)
PS3 - Critic: 82 (46 critics); User: 3.8 (734 users)

While the user scores are arguably biased because people are more likely to rate when they want to rant, the critic scores are particularly interesting. This is because the 360 has many more reviews than the other two consoles, yet has the lowest score. This is evidence to support that critics who get the game early feel compelled to give higher scores, but over time the score will drop as more critics contribute. I think it's likely that we'll see the PS3/PC versions drop to around the 80 mark.

The reason the 360 score dropped so low was because someone decided to give DA2 a 25/100.  Come on now... i know DA2 isn't perfect, but a 25?  I've seen many MANY games that were worse than DA2.  I think some people, even these professional reviewers, sometimes let their own opinions become swayed by others too easily.

[jasfurlock]

I felt like the game was unfinished and too short and was not nearly as epic as Origins. To even get some content I had to buy the DLC to get a mediocre expansion. What happened to the years inbetween the acts I felt cheated.

I enjoyed the game over all and am still playing it but it was no orgins and still no real factional development. The storyline was cut short but epic. I liked the new engine but again content was missing. Everywhere I turned there were dead ends in the buildings where content might go??? I hope Bioware has a ACT 4, 5, 6 for the next DLC or maybe like the Back to the Future chapter system.

Modifié par jasfurlock, 25 mars 2011 - 01:08 .

[leeboi2]

So sonic scored higher? Didn't think so...and the user score is just whining ****es making out its the worst game ever...I'd much rather listen to the critic scores, at least they do what you're supposed to do, and NOT compare it to the previous game...

[Clonedzero]

never ever listen to user reviews. especially averaged user review scores.
go to metacritic and start reading some of the low scoring reviews. its long winded whining rants, giving it a 1/10 and the user is an account that was created days ago and its the only review they've posted.

i.e trolls.

i've personally seen multiple bitter fanboys on forums bragging about how they're spamming bad reviews on sites to lower the score. its pathetic.

[AntiGrav1ty]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Seing Neverwinter Night with such a high score make me cry all over.
DA2 was disappointing and had lots of flaws, but it's still ten times better than the huge pile of crap that the official campaign of NWN was.

Have to agree somewhat. Neverwinter Nights in no way deserves 91/100. DA2 was flawed in some (major) aspects but it was still more fun than NWN.

I don't think the DA2-bashing is deserved to be honets. The expectations were just too high. Bioware took a chance with the changes they made and i must say after some scepticism i liked most of the changes. I like the pace and the skill-trees are a lot more sophisticated than they were in DA:O. The scenery is great, the music is great. the characters are up to bioware standards.


I think all the problems DA2 has could've been fixed with a little more developing time. It could've easily been a 95+ game. Instead it's a 80ish game which actually isnt that bad. It's just that people are used to greatness when it comes to bioware games.

Modifié par AntiGrav1ty, 25 mars 2011 - 03:01 .

[DrGulag]

The reason the 360 score dropped so low was because someone decided to give DA2 a 25/100. Come on now... i know DA2 isn't perfect, but a 25? I've seen many MANY games that were worse than DA2. I think some people, even these professional reviewers, sometimes let their own opinions become swayed by others too easily.

You could just as well say that the only reason the average score is even over 75 is because certain websites gave it a perfect score (100 / 100) ?

Modifié par DrGulag, 25 mars 2011 - 03:20 .

[Alex Kershaw]

KenKenpachi wrote...

Hmm well more recent Reviews.


DA:2


GameRankings 83.6% (PC)
80.4% (X360)
81.3% (PS3)

Metacritic 82% (PC)
80% (X360)
82% (PS3)


1UP.com B+

G4 3/5

Game Informer, 7.75 (pc) 8.25 (360)

Gamepro 4 out of 5

Gamespot 8.0

Game Spy 4 out of 5

Game Trailers 9.2/10

IGN 8.5/10

OXM 9/10

PC Gamer UK 94%

PSM 9/10

Videogamer.com 7/10

The Escapist 5/5




DA:O


GameRankings 90.17% (PC)[77]
Metacritic 91% (PC)[78]
87% (PS3)[79]
86% (X360)[80]

Review scores
Publication Score
Eurogamer 6/10 (X360)[81]
8/10 (PC)[82]
Game Informer 9/10(PC)[83]
8(PS360)[84]

GameSpot 9.5/10[35]
GamesRadar 9 PS360, PC[85]
IGN 8.7 PS360[86] 9 PC
Official Xbox Magazine (UK) 8/10[87]
PC Gamer UK 94%[88]
PC Gamer US 92%[89]
RPGFan 95% (X360)[90]



Yep DA:2 is a horible game with a score that isn't equal and in some cases better than DA:O oh the horror!

Haters gonna Hate.

It isn't really necessary to post anything other than Metacritic because that's the standard for ratings and incorporates all of the other reviews...

The PS3/360 versions of DAO are obviously lower than the PC because it was made for PC. I don't see the problem with making a fantastic PC game and releasing it on console, albeit a bit worse. Seems better than dumbing everything down for consoles and having a worse game across the board. DAO still got a 91 compared to DA2's 82 and so that's quite a considerable difference.

[Alex Kershaw]

johook213 wrote...

Alex Kershaw wrote...

The Xbox 360 Metacritic score has dropped to 79 - we knew it would happen eventually because althoug I don't believe Bioware pay critics to score them high, I think they have a non-communicated agreement that critics who get the game early feel compelled to give it a high score or else not get such a benefit in the future. Therefore, the metacritic scores will always drop over time as the more accurate reviews come in.

The scores are now as follows:

PC - Critic: 82 (34 critics); User: 4.3 (2109 users)
360 - Critic: 79 (63 critics); User: 4.4 (1387 users)
PS3 - Critic: 82 (46 critics); User: 3.8 (734 users)

While the user scores are arguably biased because people are more likely to rate when they want to rant, the critic scores are particularly interesting. This is because the 360 has many more reviews than the other two consoles, yet has the lowest score. This is evidence to support that critics who get the game early feel compelled to give higher scores, but over time the score will drop as more critics contribute. I think it's likely that we'll see the PS3/PC versions drop to around the 80 mark.

The reason the 360 score dropped so low was because someone decided to give DA2 a 25/100.  Come on now... i know DA2 isn't perfect, but a 25?  I've seen many MANY games that were worse than DA2.  I think some people, even these professional reviewers, sometimes let their own opinions become swayed by others too easily.

That is hardly valid since every game could potentially have the same issue. Everybody has different opinions and at least one critic will dislike the vast majority of games. DA2 is judged by tens of critics and averaged, just like every other game. If one of those scores is lower than you personally believe it deserves, that could equally have been the case for all of its competition. That isn't even mentioning that many of the reviews were far too high such as 96%.

[DelboyX]

DA2 is worst bioware game..boring...and to fast 4 tactics. its like japanese cartoons lmao

[DarthBakura]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

Such a shame, if this had been a proper sequel to DAO it would have been in the 90s maybe even beaten its predecessors' score.

You can't say that for certain. There have been game franchises that literally do very little to change the format in a sequential title and then the game gets panned, by at least a portion of the critics. It happens from time to time. This could have easily been the case with a "Dragon Age: Origins II." I think a lot of the criticisms of the first game were simply overlooked, or forgotten, because of the lore and the character depth. Rarely does that happen twice, however.

Modifié par DarthBakura, 25 mars 2011 - 11:31 .

[Persephone]

DarthBakura wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

Such a shame, if this had been a proper sequel to DAO it would have been in the 90s maybe even beaten its predecessors' score.

You can't say that for certain. There have been game franchises that literally do very little to change the format in a sequential title and then the game gets panned, by at least a portion of the critics.

*Cough* Might and Magic Series...*Coughs some more*

[CRISIS1717]

DarthBakura wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

Such a shame, if this had been a proper sequel to DAO it would have been in the 90s maybe even beaten its predecessors' score.

You can't say that for certain. There have been game franchises that literally do very little to change the format in a sequential title and then the game gets panned, by at least a portion of the critics. It happens from time to time. This could have easily been the case with a "Dragon Age: Origins II." I think a lot of the criticisms of the first game were simply overlooked, or forgotten, because of the lore and the character depth. Rarely does that happen twice, however.

How is that not a certainty? it's all people wanted and expected, fans and critics alike, people wanted Origins 2 maybe with some cool new additions but the Origins formula was the core of the Dragon Age experience that people liked. 

Look at these scores dropping for DA2, do you honestly think a 3 year Origins 2 project crafted by Bioware would get less than a 90? maybe by some no name game critic website it will get a 60 saying oh its the same but it would receive critical acclaim and possibly be a goty nominee, DA2 on the other hand is not in the class of a goty game. 

[DarthBakura]

Persephone wrote...

DarthBakura wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

Such a shame, if this had been a proper sequel to DAO it would have been in the 90s maybe even beaten its predecessors' score.

You can't say that for certain. There have been game franchises that literally do very little to change the format in a sequential title and then the game gets panned, by at least a portion of the critics.

*Cough* Might and Magic Series...*Coughs some more*

*Can't tell whether that's good or bad*

Lol, I've never actually played those games. Most of the PC games I played, back when I was a PC gamer, were RTS, FPS and racing games.

[Persephone]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

DarthBakura wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

Such a shame, if this had been a proper sequel to DAO it would have been in the 90s maybe even beaten its predecessors' score.

You can't say that for certain. There have been game franchises that literally do very little to change the format in a sequential title and then the game gets panned, by at least a portion of the critics. It happens from time to time. This could have easily been the case with a "Dragon Age: Origins II." I think a lot of the criticisms of the first game were simply overlooked, or forgotten, because of the lore and the character depth. Rarely does that happen twice, however.

How is that not a certainty? it's all people wanted and expected, fans and critics alike, people wanted Origins 2 maybe with some cool new additions but the Origins formula was the core of the Dragon Age experience that people liked. 

Look at these scores dropping for DA2, do you honestly think a 3 year Origins 2 project crafted by Bioware would get less than a 90? maybe by some no name game critic website it will get a 60 saying oh its the same but it would receive critical acclaim and possibly be a goty nominee, DA2 on the other hand is not in the class of a goty game. 

Didn't work with Awakening though. Or, if you want to go back to the classics, check how using the same formula in three games of a series ruined the Might and Magic series. (M&M 10 being the worst RPG I have ever played)

[Lithuasil]

Persephone wrote...

*Cough* Might and Magic Series...*Coughs some more*

They *do* change a lot, you just don't notice 

[DarthBakura]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

DarthBakura wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

Such a shame, if this had been a proper sequel to DAO it would have been in the 90s maybe even beaten its predecessors' score.

You can't say that for certain. There have been game franchises that literally do very little to change the format in a sequential title and then the game gets panned, by at least a portion of the critics. It happens from time to time. This could have easily been the case with a "Dragon Age: Origins II." I think a lot of the criticisms of the first game were simply overlooked, or forgotten, because of the lore and the character depth. Rarely does that happen twice, however.

How is that not a certainty? it's all people wanted and expected, fans and critics alike, people wanted Origins 2 maybe with some cool new additions but the Origins formula was the core of the Dragon Age experience that people liked. 

Look at these scores dropping for DA2, do you honestly think a 3 year Origins 2 project crafted by Bioware would get less than a 90? maybe by some no name game critic website it will get a 60 saying oh its the same but it would receive critical acclaim and possibly be a goty nominee, DA2 on the other hand is not in the class of a goty game. 

Yes, actually I do. That's what I've come to expect as someone who's followed gaming news and reviews for over a decade. I can almost guarantee the scores would not be as good as Origins if Dragon Age: II was just Origins 2.0 or what have you.

[Persephone]

DarthBakura wrote...

Persephone wrote...

DarthBakura wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

Such a shame, if this had been a proper sequel to DAO it would have been in the 90s maybe even beaten its predecessors' score.

You can't say that for certain. There have been game franchises that literally do very little to change the format in a sequential title and then the game gets panned, by at least a portion of the critics.

*Cough* Might and Magic Series...*Coughs some more*

*Can't tell whether that's good or bad*

Lol, I've never actually played those games. Most of the PC games I played, back when I was a PC gamer, were RTS, FPS and racing games.

In the M&M series, M&M VI introduced a lovely formula, engine, what have you. The same formula and engine was used in Nr. 7,8 and 9, killing the franchise. M&M 10 finally killed that series.

[Persephone]

Lithuasil wrote...

Persephone wrote...

*Cough* Might and Magic Series...*Coughs some more*

They *do* change a lot, you just don't notice 

That must be it. It's not that I don't love the M&M series. VI was divine. VII was superb. VIII was "More of this?". IX was "Meh, been there, done that." And X was....the worst RPG ever released in my opinion.

[CRISIS1717]

DarthBakura wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

DarthBakura wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

Such a shame, if this had been a proper sequel to DAO it would have been in the 90s maybe even beaten its predecessors' score.

You can't say that for certain. There have been game franchises that literally do very little to change the format in a sequential title and then the game gets panned, by at least a portion of the critics. It happens from time to time. This could have easily been the case with a "Dragon Age: Origins II." I think a lot of the criticisms of the first game were simply overlooked, or forgotten, because of the lore and the character depth. Rarely does that happen twice, however.

How is that not a certainty? it's all people wanted and expected, fans and critics alike, people wanted Origins 2 maybe with some cool new additions but the Origins formula was the core of the Dragon Age experience that people liked. 

Look at these scores dropping for DA2, do you honestly think a 3 year Origins 2 project crafted by Bioware would get less than a 90? maybe by some no name game critic website it will get a 60 saying oh its the same but it would receive critical acclaim and possibly be a goty nominee, DA2 on the other hand is not in the class of a goty game. 

Yes, actually I do. That's what I've come to expect as someone who's followed gaming news and reviews for over a decade. I can almost guarantee the scores would not be as good as Origins if Dragon Age: II was just Origins 2.0 or what have you.

erm so have I and if anything it has taught me that the gaming industry is constantly evolving and using years old examples does not give any realistic detail on the state of the modern gaming market. 

[Lithuasil]

Persephone wrote...

That must be it. It's not that I don't love the M&M series. VI was divine. VII was superb. VIII was "More of this?". IX was "Meh, been there, done that." And X was....the worst RPG ever released in my opinion.

I was about to say that title belongs to the gothic series, but technically those aren't rpgs, so I can probably safely second that 

[BeefoTheBold]

Altered Idol wrote...

I played another good game that was panned by the critics, namely Alpha Protocol.

And after that, the sequel was cancelled. Lets hope they don't do the same with Dragon Age as I am looking forward to DA:3. Losing the franchise completely would be disastrous.

On the flip side, I enjoyed the game so these scores don't mean much to me at the moment

I don't think this is a good comparison.

Alpha Protocol was fun, but it had WAAAAYYY more problems and was way further away from being a finished game than DA2. It was also coming from a company that doesn't exactly have Bioware's (rapidly dwindling with releases like Witch Hunt and Awakenings) reputation for never releasing anything that isn't a masterpiece.

[DarthBakura]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

DarthBakura wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

DarthBakura wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

Such a shame, if this had been a proper sequel to DAO it would have been in the 90s maybe even beaten its predecessors' score.

You can't say that for certain. There have been game franchises that literally do very little to change the format in a sequential title and then the game gets panned, by at least a portion of the critics. It happens from time to time. This could have easily been the case with a "Dragon Age: Origins II." I think a lot of the criticisms of the first game were simply overlooked, or forgotten, because of the lore and the character depth. Rarely does that happen twice, however.

How is that not a certainty? it's all people wanted and expected, fans and critics alike, people wanted Origins 2 maybe with some cool new additions but the Origins formula was the core of the Dragon Age experience that people liked. 

Look at these scores dropping for DA2, do you honestly think a 3 year Origins 2 project crafted by Bioware would get less than a 90? maybe by some no name game critic website it will get a 60 saying oh its the same but it would receive critical acclaim and possibly be a goty nominee, DA2 on the other hand is not in the class of a goty game. 

Yes, actually I do. That's what I've come to expect as someone who's followed gaming news and reviews for over a decade. I can almost guarantee the scores would not be as good as Origins if Dragon Age: II was just Origins 2.0 or what have you.

erm so have I and if anything it has taught me that the gaming industry is constantly evolving and using years old examples does not give any realistic detail on the state of the modern gaming market. 

True.

I was simply justifying my belief based on experiences past. As I said, no one can be "certain." You may feel it would have gotten great reviews, as good as Dragon Age: Origins. I feel it would not.

[Goldrock]

Screw reviews main question is did YOU yourselves enjoy the game reviews are just crap and are just OTHER peoples opinions only opinion that really matters is my own and i enjoyed the game and believe it was worth my money not to mention da2 gonna be a growing game with more patches and dlcs.

[Alex Kershaw]

DarthBakura wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

Such a shame, if this had been a proper sequel to DAO it would have been in the 90s maybe even beaten its predecessors' score.

You can't say that for certain. There have been game franchises that literally do very little to change the format in a sequential title and then the game gets panned, by at least a portion of the critics. It happens from time to time. This could have easily been the case with a "Dragon Age: Origins II." I think a lot of the criticisms of the first game were simply overlooked, or forgotten, because of the lore and the character depth. Rarely does that happen twice, however.

Like what? Pretty much every successful franchise reuses the same gameplay mechanics. Gameplay mechanics don't get tiresome - they don't need to change. If they're fun, they're fun. I never understood this argument that making a carbon copy of Baldur's Gate/DAO gameplay is bad because it's been done before. Does that mean making DAO a shorter game would have been better so you have to 'put up' with the gameplay for less time?

Look at Pokemon - it's still going successful after all this years despite being almost identical every single time. Sure - games like CoD/Fifa get the occasional bad review because not much changes, but those games's primary focus is on gameplay and they have new games every single year with identical gameplay. And still, they get mostly positive reviews. Mario, Zelda, Metroid, almost every long-running franchise that has 10+ games all has very similar game mechanics and doesn't get old for the fans. I never played Baldur's Gate but wasn't BG2 just an improvement of BG1's gameplay mechanics, and got much higher reviews? Other examples are the Ratchet and Clank series, etc...

And most of those examples have like 10 games all in the franchise, AND focus on gameplay rather than story. Having TWO dragon age games with similar gameplay is hardly going to get attacked by critics for being too safe, especially since the story is so important. If the sequel used the DAO formula but obviously with a new story, companions, etc, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it would be an infinitely better sequel.

Modifié par Alex Kershaw, 26 mars 2011 - 01:12 .