261 réponses à ce sujet

[FellowerOfOdin]

Bioware had the chance to revive the Old RPG market and make it a profitable genre again...and they utterly failed by falling over their own feet. Sad.

[Chunkor]

Solmyr2000 wrote...

Modern "professional" review scores:
95-100 - Great
90-95 - Good
80-90 - Average
70-80 - Bad
Lower - Trash

Again, this is an absolutely outrageous interpretation of the 100-point scale. 80-90 games are still considered well above average games. I could give a list of games in that range that are not only worth playing but buying, but that would be a long list. If you insist, I would gladly compile that list. 70-80 isn't bad, either. These are the average games. These are the games that have their flaws but aren't unplayable. These are the games that are targeted toward people with specific tastes. Let's have a look at some games that have scores in the 70s range on Metacritic.

Mega Man 9 (77) - Loved by fans of the original games and this game WAS made specifically for them. The only negative reviews from professional critics are that it's "too tough."

Game Revolution wrote...

Really, though, there's nothing wrong with the game itself, and it will appeal greatly to the legions of longtime fans... Yet ultimately, Mega Man 9 is so difficult that it gives newcomers very little reason to pick it up.

Playstation Official Magazine UK...

Great stuff for masochists who think progress ended with 8-bit gaming - not so much if you're looking to have fun.

Mega Man 9 was a great game with a score that was hampered by critics that are of the mentality that gamers today just aren't as up for a challenge as gamers of old. Here's one example of a great game in the 70-80 range that is perfectly worth money.

Star Ocean: The Last Hope (74) - Here's a game whose fault is that it's come at a time when its genre has been making advances. The game itself has no problems. It has a very traditional Japanese RPG feel with the overblown characters and crazy dialogue. But that was the source of all its negative reviews. In an age where RPGs now allow you to customize your characters however you see fit and have branching storylines, Star Ocean just doesn't compare to them. This game does satisfy a certain demographic. As a Japanese RPG, it fulfills its requirements well. As an RPG, it's painfully average. That is why it has a 74 and not higher. While it may appeal to newcomers, it's more for people who still play and enjoy JRPGs. For them, this game is very much worth a buy.

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed (71) - This was touted as THE Star Wars game to play, when it was in development. You were supposed to be an insanely powerful Jedi, one that could down a Star Cruiser with the Force alone. When it finally came out, the gameplay was bland and buggy. The platforming elements were far from perfect. Its worst offense: you could easily get killed by lowly Storm Troopers. So much for being an all powerful Jedi. However, it's one saving grace was its fantastic story. The fact that it won the Writer's Guild award for Best Video Game Writing says something. If you were a Star Wars fan, this game was a must buy. Everyone else, not so much, hence the 71.

These are just a few examples of games that were given scores in the 70-80 range, simply because they appealed more to a certain audience because of their tastes. They weren't terrible, unplayable games, but could be overlooked in the face of superior titles in the market (except for in the case of Mega Man 9). To say that getting a 70 is a mark of a bad game is ludicrous because there are definitely titles in their that are worth playing. If this doesn't appease you, I can post an even longer list. I'll even go back to the PS2, if you'd like, because I'm damned sure there are plenty of games in the 70-80 range that are worth playing.

[Dr. Impossible]

Chunkor wrote...

Star Ocean: The Last Hope (74) - Here's a game whose fault is that it's come at a time when its genre has been making advances. The game itself has no problems. It has a very traditional Japanese RPG feel with the overblown characters and crazy dialogue. But that was the source of all its negative reviews. In an age where RPGs now allow you to customize your characters however you see fit and have branching storylines, Star Ocean just doesn't compare to them.

Hmm? Since when have those been common features in JRPGs?

[Chunkor]

Dr. Impossible wrote...

Hmm? Since when have those been common features in JRPGs?

The branching storylines and customization? Never. I said it was for RPGs, not JRPGs. Perhaps I should have distinctly said Western RPG.

[Dr. Impossible]

Chunkor wrote...

The branching storylines and customization? Never. I said it was for RPGs, not JRPGs. Perhaps I should have distinctly said Western RPG.

Why are you talking about RPGs and JRPGs as if they had anything to do with each other? They don't. They're different genres.

[Kritanakom]

Funny how many of the same people who cite metacritic scores argue that DA2 sucks because it changed too much from Origins and is "too much like Mass Effect 2".

...and yet Metacritic scored ME2 HIGHER THAN ORIGINS...

[JabbaDaHutt30]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

I wonder how Mike Laidlaw is going to explain this to EA along with supposedly lower sales figure as well.

EA: you press a button and unemployment happens.

[ElectricPhase]

Chunkor wrote...

Again, this is an absolutely outrageous interpretation of the 100-point scale. 80-90 games are still considered well above average games. I could give a list of games in that range that are not only worth playing but buying, but that would be a long list. If you insist, I would gladly compile that list. 70-80 isn't bad, either.

It's been my experience that if a game is rated lower than 85 with Metacritic style averaging, the chances of it being worth playing are almost nil.   I've also taken to averaging the pro and user scores on Metacritic to counter the payola effect.   ymmv

[BounceDK]

Not surprising since it's a sucky game made for console tards.

[lazuli]

astrallite wrote...

RPG wise, yes, DA2 is clearly the worst reviewed game in the last 12 years by Bioware. The SP campaign is superior than NWN, yes, but it doesn't come with a toolset or multiplayer play, which were the main focus of the title to start with.

You are correct to point out NWN's saving graces.  The main campaign might have been terrible, but the toolset was deep and easy to use and multiplayer added a lot of replay value.  I wish we had an easy to use toolset for DA2.  The Origins toolset was even more convoluted than NWN2's.  I realize that it's deeper than the NWN toolset, but the tradeoff wasn't worth it for a casual builder like me.

Maybe in DA3...

[Drake Sigar]

Altered Idol wrote...

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

Best RPG in years.

[Akka le Vil]

Drake Sigar wrote...

Altered Idol wrote...

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

Best RPG in years.

It made me feel a bit like DA2 : huge potential slaugtered by bogus design. Both failing at the fighting parts, in fact.
But it certainly gripped me far more than DA2, and was much more immersive and better written.

[Alex Kershaw]

Alpha Protocol got really bad reviews...

[Eclectic Wizard]

BounceDK wrote...

Not surprising since it's a sucky game made for console tards.

Nice work go and make yourself look irrelevent in one post, back to the codex wtih thee.

[Costello_Anasazi]

I can see where the critics are coming from.

Dragon Age 2 isn't a bad game but it does feel short and missing any feeling of control or accomplishment that is so vital to an RPG. A 5 min cut scene at the end doesn't really cut it, specially given how many cut scenes were throughout the game before that.

Now personally since Awakening wasn't that great and Dragon Age 2 seems to have been more about rushing the game out I can't help wonder if BW have have had a chance of policy about getting amazing games out and more about catering to getting what money they can.

[b00mQQ]

Mass Effect 2 outscored Baldur's Gate II. I smell some bull**** right there. Everyone knows Mass Effect 2 was the most dumbed down sequel in BioWare history -- yes, even worse than Dragon Age II.

[Drake Sigar]

b00mQQ wrote...

Mass Effect 2 outscored Baldur's Gate II. I smell some bull**** right there. Everyone knows Mass Effect 2 was the most dumbed down sequel in BioWare history -- yes, even worse than Dragon Age II.

If you’re talking about the RPG elements, they were pretty tame to begin with. I thought Bioware made the smart move by ‘streamlining’ Mass Effect. Dragon Age: Origins on the other hand, was a pure RPG from the get-go.

[Eclectic Wizard]

b00mQQ wrote...

Mass Effect 2 outscored Baldur's Gate II. I smell some bull**** right there. Everyone knows Mass Effect 2 was the most dumbed down sequel in BioWare history -- yes, even worse than Dragon Age II.

Little tip, games are not scored for how complex they are but how great and fun they are.

Call Mass Effect 2 whatever you will it`s still one of the best game experiences i have ever had.

[Alex Kershaw]

b00mQQ wrote...

Mass Effect 2 outscored Baldur's Gate II. I smell some bull**** right there. Everyone knows Mass Effect 2 was the most dumbed down sequel in BioWare history -- yes, even worse than Dragon Age II.

Mass Effect is a shooting game, as opposed to the type of 'click and wait' combat. I see it this way: if the combat involves active action, where you must continuously participate in the combat such as in Mass Effect, then RPG elements need to take a back-seat. If the game is more like DAO where you select a target and auto-attack (obviously with abilities, etc) then I think that the RPG elements are crucial as the combat is all about what you do 'behind the scenes'. This is where DA2 got it wrong IMO.

And how could 'everyone' know ME2 was the worst blah blah when the metacritic score was 96... It was the 2nd top rated game of last year, the 1st top rated PC game, 1st top rated RPG, etc... That isn't to say that YOU have to like ME2 of course, only that you should accept that the majority disagree with you.

[joriandrake]

DA2 Trolled Me wrote...

stewie1974 wrote...

where is KOTOR 2 on that list?

Was made by Obsidion.

They make Bioware sequels better than Bioware does.

With exception of BG2, true that

[AkiKishi]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

Alpha Protocol got really bad reviews...

Totally deserved them as well. But the RP ideas being Alpha Protocol border on genius. That game was tense, not only did everything you do have a consequence, but you had to do it "on the clock" as well.

[Narreneth]

Dr. Impossible wrote...

Chunkor wrote...

The branching storylines and customization? Never. I said it was for RPGs, not JRPGs. Perhaps I should have distinctly said Western RPG.

Why are you talking about RPGs and JRPGs as if they had anything to do with each other? They don't. They're different genres.

God you're dumb.

[Drake Sigar]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Alex Kershaw wrote...

Alpha Protocol got really bad reviews...

Totally deserved them as well. But the RP ideas being Alpha Protocol border on genius. That game was tense, not only did everything you do have a consequence, but you had to do it "on the clock" as well.

I don’t think it did deserve those reviews. Or at least, not when we have a closer look. IGN give Alpha Protocol a 6.3 and Night at the Museum a 7.5? Nobody will ever convince me Night at the Museum – a 2 hour game with appalling graphics and puzzles, is better than Alpha Protocol, or even in the same league.

[Altered Idol]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Alex Kershaw wrote...

Alpha Protocol got really bad reviews...

Totally deserved them as well. But the RP ideas being Alpha Protocol border on genius. That game was tense, not only did everything you do have a consequence, but you had to do it "on the clock" as well.

Alpha Protocol had alot of faults, but the reviews it received were almost criminally harsh. It had a solid storyline, an excellent conversation system and decisions truly made an impact upon the direction of the story (most notably the ending). It looked dated and was riddled with bugs but so was Fallout New Vegas and that received a 9/10 on IGN compared with just over 6 for Alpha Protocol.

[Alex Kershaw]

Drake Sigar wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Alex Kershaw wrote...

Alpha Protocol got really bad reviews...

Totally deserved them as well. But the RP ideas being Alpha Protocol border on genius. That game was tense, not only did everything you do have a consequence, but you had to do it "on the clock" as well.

I don’t think it did deserve those reviews. Or at least, not when we have a closer look. IGN give Alpha Protocol a 6.3 and Night at the Museum a 7.5? Nobody will ever convince me Night at the Museum – a 2 hour game with appalling graphics and puzzles, is better than Alpha Protocol, or even in the same league.

I assume that they compare arcade games to other arcade games. That 2 hour thing is an arcade game, right? E.g. I think Portal was a fantastic game, but it would be harsh to compare it to full retail releases