261 réponses à ce sujet

[edeheusch]

Lukertin wrote...

DA2 Trolled Me wrote...
Was made by Obsidion.

They make Bioware sequels better than Bioware does.

They also make buggy games with more bugs than DA2 and Bethseda combined.

The final version of Neverwinter Nights 2 is far less bugged than the final version of DAO: Awakening. At least Obsidian fixed most of the bugs that effected NWN2 and its extension...  

etherhonky wrote...

the main problem with DA2 is that people can't discern the difference between "dislike" and "bad game".

theres a HUGE difference.

the game is not bad because MANY people are loving it, including myself. so it must be that many people just dislike it, i wonder why they assume its a bad game just because "they" don't like it?

people want to impose their opinions of DA2 for some reason, but DA2 is biowares "album". its their reflection of creativity, story and expression. is their art. they are not wrong for showing us what happens in kirkwall when the hawkes come back to roost.

its already been stated that dragon age's main protagonist/antagonist is Thedas. were seeing a section of the world with a magnifying glass. social turmoil, monster conflict, power upheavals in the various high positions of kirkwall... its all very interesting.

to me, kirkwall is a great microcosm of thedas to explore how a city thrives and exists in the age of dragons. people are only seeing what happens to dragon age when you take away stuff like high camera angles, armor for NPCs etc...

theyre totally missing the grand picture...

It is true for the two sides:
The fight system is not better in DA2 than in DAO, it is just more action oriented. Personally I hate the changes that were made to the fight system but I can understand that some people like it.
I don’t like either the fact that the story is darker than the story of DAO but again, it is a mater of taste.

However there are lot of things that are just downgrades compared to DAO:
The removal of the isometric camera, the reuse of maps, the removal of all the description of the items, the choices that don’t change the outcome of the quests, the removal of the skills…

Indeed the only things that I saw as improvements in DA2 are:
The replacement of the linear ability “trees” by branched ability trees.    
The addition of the rivalry system (which finally brought much less that what I was expecting).

All in all if DA2 is not a bad game, I would never consider it as a good game.

[truestatic]

BobSmith101 wrote...

where as for AAA games, to be worthy In pro reviews it's a 90-100% anything lower is suspect of a bad game.

You're going to have to explain this to me.  Are you saying you'd rather play a poorer rated game made by a smaller studio than a higher rated game (sub 90) made by a bigger studio?  Doesn't that seem peculiar?  Wouldn't it make sense to judge games based on their own merits, rather than the merits of their intellectual property, their developer, or their publisher?

Oh, this game is pretty good, but it came from bioware, so that's TERRIBLE.  Oh this game is mediocre, but it came from a company I've never heard of before, so that's a stunning accomplishment.

[dIRECT0R]

OMG they ruined the Qunari.. Of all the moronic dumbing-down changes this was the worst. I mean they almost completely ruined the glorious feel the game had, its just barely holding on.

As for the Qunari its obvious someone imagined them, an original, interesting race I really looked forward to learning about (I mean Sten was probably right up there alongside Morrigan as one of the most interesting Origins characters), and then some IDIOT decided his "vision" is more accurate. Someone who really, really likes horns for some weird Freudian reason. Probably the same guy who turned Flemmeth into a hair-horned fashion queen that for some reason wears armour only on her hands and legs - something so incredibly stupid I've never even seen it in any RPG, anywhere. We're talking about a guy (or a group) with a very low capacity for subtlety or elegance of expression.

Its completely plain and obvious that they were "re-imagined" (to use a euphemism), and that all this was a stupid idea someone had only recently. For example, in Origins they were described as wearing "glittering steel armour", a sophisticated yet powerful people. Now we have this bunch of WoW-like Illidan-horned, shirtless quasi-demonic freaks that do not come close to displaying the quiet restraint, the intelligence and culture of Sten and his companions (his companions can be seen in the fade during the mage tower quest - wearing "glittering steel armor", just like all Qunari in DA1). It was precisely their near-human form that made them elegantly original, similar yet markedly different. But nooo, lets give them GIGANTIC horns spanning their entire heads.. I mean its not so much their Qunari behavior in DA2, which is tolerable, as the stupid re-imagining of their phyisical appearance and clothing - the MASSIVE physically implausible horns really take the cake.

BioWare gave this project into the hands of some people who have NO idea what a fantasy RPG is about. I don't know what happened in BioWare, but there was clearly one intelligence behind their original conception, and another.. "intelligence" behind the butchering of the concept. I mean such cheapness is everywhere today, but to see it so cruelly implemented on one of the best RPGs in modern gaming history is... physically painful. Hope they come to their senses in DA3, or else Bethesda's grand return to the fantasy RPG genre will simply blow them away in terms of quality. Skyrim is liable to be better even than DA1, let alone the dumbed-down version. The number of top-notch RPG series just went down from 2 to 1. I mean, the game is "good" I guess, its just not up there anymore.

Modifié par dIRECT0R, 22 mars 2011 - 11:24 .

[truestatic]

dIRECT0R wrote...

Someone who really, really likes horns for some weird Freudian reason

Didn't Sten talk about his lack of horns in DA:O?

[randName]

I don't love DA2, or I'm mixed when it comes to DA2; but reviews are not the truth, and the median score just a slice of peoples opinions on the game; its telling, but in it self its not something to write home about, esp. in capital letters.

I'm also getting worried that BW might run scared and revert back on what was good in DA2; and there are good parts.

Modifié par randName, 22 mars 2011 - 12:02 .

[AkiKishi]

truestatic wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

where as for AAA games, to be worthy In pro reviews it's a 90-100% anything lower is suspect of a bad game.

You're going to have to explain this to me.  Are you saying you'd rather play a poorer rated game made by a smaller studio than a higher rated game (sub 90) made by a bigger studio?  Doesn't that seem peculiar?  Wouldn't it make sense to judge games based on their own merits, rather than the merits of their intellectual property, their developer, or their publisher?

Oh, this game is pretty good, but it came from bioware, so that's TERRIBLE.  Oh this game is mediocre, but it came from a company I've never heard of before, so that's a stunning accomplishment.

It's complicated, it varies from reviewer to reviewer games from big name studios get marked up, games from other studios get marked down.

It's really down to production values. DA2 is a poor game, but it's a poor game with high production values. This pushes the scores up.
A similiar game from a less known studio could not afford those production values, would have to settle for less well known VA and so on.  As a result it would be marked lower.

I'll give you an example from PSM. They rated Hyper Dimensional Neptunia at 37% citing stuff like bad va, over the top anime boobs etc. etc.
They also gave the game the award for innovation for the month (this is the mag with the DA2 review in it).

There are many good games that are marked down and ignored only because they cannot match the production values of the big studios. This is why we are in the situation we are in gameswise, no competition breeds lazyness.

[wtfpwned41]

Personally, I think Dragon Age 2 is kick ass. Not quite done with it yet, but is easier to get sucked into the story, awesome characters, awesome gameplay in general. I wish they did a real sequel to Origins, but I am enjoying DA2 more than I did DAO.

[Monica83]

I don't think how the character are awesome in dragon age 2...

i mean;

Fenris: The classical EMO drama queen seen already in toons of RPG
Merryl: Fun
Varric:Fun
Others: Not so much awesome in background and interactions...

I prefeared origins...with character like;
Leliana: An awesome character with a deep background on her past and a loveable too
Sten: The strange warrior with exotic trats that have a strange manner of thinking
Winnye: An old woman that suffer cause of her past.. Ready to help with her wisdom but sometime in cinical manner..
Morrigan: The witch that have a unknown plan.. She knows something...But her don't want to share them with you for mysterious reason...
Zevhran: The bad guy..
Alistair: Awesome character with great irony happy and sad at the same time...
Shale: The killing machine that hate birds...

The characters on Origins have better background and pesonalityes.. The ones in dragon age 2 are most of them bland and designed to look cool (fenris)

[markshim]

i really like dragon age 2 as well. wish people would shut up moaning really.
there are people who love this game and people who don`t same with every game.

[abaris]

Monica83 wrote...


Fenris: The classical EMO drama queen seen already in toons of RPG

Did you mean that? Otherwise it would be the perfect Freudian.

markshim wrote...

i really like dragon age 2 as well. wish people would shut up moaning really.
there are people who love this game and people who don`t same with every game.

Wholeheatedly agree with you second sentence, but your first rather points to your opinion being an absolute.

Modifié par abaris, 22 mars 2011 - 12:18 .

[apoc_reg]

All DA2 needed was a bit more time in the oven so corners weren't cut... whoever decided on a March 11 release date needs firing this instant!!

Its a good game that I'm enjoying but it could have been GREAT!

[AkiKishi]

markshim wrote...

i really like dragon age 2 as well. wish people would shut up moaning really.
there are people who love this game and people who don`t same with every game.

It's not about like or dislike its about bad or good. You can like a bad game, I liked Alpha Protocol, but I would not call it a good game. Likewise I hated Mario Galaxy, but I would not call that a bad game.

[HunterStryfe]

dIRECT0R wrote...

OMG they ruined the Qunari.. Of all the moronic dumbing-down changes this was the worst. I mean they almost completely ruined the glorious feel the game had, its just barely holding on.

As for the Qunari its obvious someone imagined them, an original, interesting race I really looked forward to learning about (I mean Sten was probably right up there alongside Morrigan as one of the most interesting Origins characters), and then some IDIOT decided his "vision" is more accurate. Someone who really, really likes horns for some weird Freudian reason. Probably the same guy who turned Flemmeth into a hair-horned fashion queen that for some reason wears armour only on her hands and legs - something so incredibly stupid I've never even seen it in any RPG, anywhere. We're talking about a guy (or a group) with a very low capacity for subtlety or elegance of expression.

Its completely plain and obvious that they were "re-imagined" (to use a euphemism), and that all this was a stupid idea someone had only recently. For example, in Origins they were described as wearing "glittering steel armour", a sophisticated yet powerful people. Now we have this bunch of WoW-like Illidan-horned, shirtless quasi-demonic freaks that do not come close to displaying the quiet restraint, the intelligence and culture of Sten and his companions (his companions can be seen in the fade during the mage tower quest - wearing "glittering steel armor", just like all Qunari in DA1). It was precisely their near-human form that made them elegantly original, similar yet markedly different. But nooo, lets give them GIGANTIC horns spanning their entire heads.. I mean its not so much their Qunari behavior in DA2, which is tolerable, as the stupid re-imagining of their phyisical appearance and clothing - the MASSIVE physically implausible horns really take the cake.

BioWare gave this project into the hands of some people who have NO idea what a fantasy RPG is about. I don't know what happened in BioWare, but there was clearly one intelligence behind their original conception, and another.. "intelligence" behind the butchering of the concept. I mean such cheapness is everywhere today, but to see it so cruelly implemented on one of the best RPGs in modern gaming history is... physically painful. Hope they come to their senses in DA3, or else Bethesda's grand return to the fantasy RPG genre will simply blow them away in terms of quality. Skyrim is liable to be better even than DA1, let alone the dumbed-down version. The number of top-notch RPG series just went down from 2 to 1. I mean, the game is "good" I guess, its just not up there anymore.

You forgetting "Sten" is a rank in the Qun, not his name.  And secondly the characters can be "re-imagined" because for all we know the characters could be portrayed via Varric's imaginative story-telling

[Dottor_Demento]

The DA2 that we have now is a joke....
Bioware will be release the real DA2 soon....
:-D

[molbani]

BobSmith101 wrote...

truestatic wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

where as for AAA games, to be worthy In pro reviews it's a 90-100% anything lower is suspect of a bad game.

You're going to have to explain this to me.  Are you saying you'd rather play a poorer rated game made by a smaller studio than a higher rated game (sub 90) made by a bigger studio?  Doesn't that seem peculiar?  Wouldn't it make sense to judge games based on their own merits, rather than the merits of their intellectual property, their developer, or their publisher?

Oh, this game is pretty good, but it came from bioware, so that's TERRIBLE.  Oh this game is mediocre, but it came from a company I've never heard of before, so that's a stunning accomplishment.

It's complicated, it varies from reviewer to reviewer games from big name studios get marked up, games from other studios get marked down.

It's really down to production values. DA2 is a poor game, but it's a poor game with high production values. This pushes the scores up.
A similiar game from a less known studio could not afford those production values, would have to settle for less well known VA and so on.  As a result it would be marked lower.

I'll give you an example from PSM. They rated Hyper Dimensional Neptunia at 37% citing stuff like bad va, over the top anime boobs etc. etc.
They also gave the game the award for innovation for the month (this is the mag with the DA2 review in it).

There are many good games that are marked down and ignored only because they cannot match the production values of the big studios. This is why we are in the situation we are in gameswise, no competition breeds lazyness.

now that just dumb, High production value dosnt mean it will be higher rated at all, if the game is crap, its crap. Dragon age 2 isnt crap, but its also not as good as DA:O so its get a 82, thats fair.

But dont start with some non sensical crap that high production valus automaticaly means higher ratings, the reason high producion game get better ratings are because they are generally just better games, because they have the resources to make it better. Thats it. ill give you some examples.

Final Fantasy XIV Online BIG IP; BIG PRODUCTION - 49 on metacritic
Supermeat boy, low production, largy unknow dev - 88
Magicka - swedish indie game, by arrow head studios - 74
Amnesia: The Dark Descent also an indie game - 85
world of goo , another low prod titel - 94
Minecraft isnt out yet, but it has a 8.8/10 user review, and that games wasnt even founded.

If the game has good design, creativty it can allways get a good score regardless of production value, at the same time, if you have a large production you can still make a bad game.

good games are good games and bad games are bad games.

by you definition all badly rated games with low production are good games or that good games with low production are rated lesser, which cleary isnt the case.

Modifié par molbani, 22 mars 2011 - 02:03 .

[Taleroth]

I don't care what the reviews say. It's still not as bad as Neverwinter Nights or Mass Effect 1.

Modifié par Taleroth, 22 mars 2011 - 02:10 .

[NewYears1978]

Yeah and that 82 is generous. If you take out the reviews that were obviously paid for reviews..you'll get a score close to 70.

[Korusus]

NewYears1978 wrote...

Yeah and that 82 is generous. If you take out the reviews that were obviously paid for reviews..you'll get a score close to 70.

The PCGamer review was especially sycophantish.  Unless I'm mistaken they're the only major gaming publication to have given the PC version over a 90.  And with the way metacritic weights the average, I bet if you remove the PCGamer review the average sinks below 80.

Modifié par Korusus, 22 mars 2011 - 02:20 .

[Rafe34]

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.

The official campaign, sure.

The reason why NWN is one of the best games ever made is because of the toolset and the community. Not really sure how much credit you can give to Bioware on that, but there it is.

[Alex Kershaw]

goatman42 wrote...

Ah, the "score" thread. I've never seen one of these before.

Scores don't really matter in the long run. Its all about how you personally felt, not a collection of numbers.

Scores are just an average of how people felt. The average person will prefer a game that got a metacritic score of 90 over a game that got a metacritic score of 30, if they're in the same genre. The higher the score, the better the game is, in general. Of course, people have differing views but when you average them out, this is what it comes down to.

[Alex Kershaw]

dIRECT0R wrote...

OMG they ruined the Qunari.. Of all the moronic dumbing-down changes this was the worst. I mean they almost completely ruined the glorious feel the game had, its just barely holding on.

As for the Qunari its obvious someone imagined them, an original, interesting race I really looked forward to learning about (I mean Sten was probably right up there alongside Morrigan as one of the most interesting Origins characters), and then some IDIOT decided his "vision" is more accurate. Someone who really, really likes horns for some weird Freudian reason. Probably the same guy who turned Flemmeth into a hair-horned fashion queen that for some reason wears armour only on her hands and legs - something so incredibly stupid I've never even seen it in any RPG, anywhere. We're talking about a guy (or a group) with a very low capacity for subtlety or elegance of expression.

Its completely plain and obvious that they were "re-imagined" (to use a euphemism), and that all this was a stupid idea someone had only recently. For example, in Origins they were described as wearing "glittering steel armour", a sophisticated yet powerful people. Now we have this bunch of WoW-like Illidan-horned, shirtless quasi-demonic freaks that do not come close to displaying the quiet restraint, the intelligence and culture of Sten and his companions (his companions can be seen in the fade during the mage tower quest - wearing "glittering steel armor", just like all Qunari in DA1). It was precisely their near-human form that made them elegantly original, similar yet markedly different. But nooo, lets give them GIGANTIC horns spanning their entire heads.. I mean its not so much their Qunari behavior in DA2, which is tolerable, as the stupid re-imagining of their phyisical appearance and clothing - the MASSIVE physically implausible horns really take the cake.

BioWare gave this project into the hands of some people who have NO idea what a fantasy RPG is about. I don't know what happened in BioWare, but there was clearly one intelligence behind their original conception, and another.. "intelligence" behind the butchering of the concept. I mean such cheapness is everywhere today, but to see it so cruelly implemented on one of the best RPGs in modern gaming history is... physically painful. Hope they come to their senses in DA3, or else Bethesda's grand return to the fantasy RPG genre will simply blow them away in terms of quality. Skyrim is liable to be better even than DA1, let alone the dumbed-down version. The number of top-notch RPG series just went down from 2 to 1. I mean, the game is "good" I guess, its just not up there anymore.

I really dislike Flemeth's design and many of the others including the animations, but DA2's problems are so numerous that such things hardly get a mention...

[WalterSobchack]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

goatman42 wrote...

Ah, the "score" thread. I've never seen one of these before.

Scores don't really matter in the long run. Its all about how you personally felt, not a collection of numbers.

Scores are just an average of how people felt. The average person will prefer a game that got a metacritic score of 90 over a game that got a metacritic score of 30, if they're in the same genre. The higher the score, the better the game is, in general. Of course, people have differing views but when you average them out, this is what it comes down to.

+1.  

To add something, each reviewer places greater importance on different aspects of a game.  The large game sites, give better scores to games with high production values...there's simply no question.  You don't even need to go into the bought-and-paid-for debate to see that.  Therefore, when I see that certain game sites give out scores below 90 to games with big time production values like DA2, I see that as major cause for concern.

Anyway, people are totally free to disagree with review scores on a personal level.  However, you're an idiot if you think that average scores mean nothing to the average buyer.  

[Lockindal]

I'm just surprised jade empire was rated so low, lol. that game was great... i wish they'd make a second.

[Riloux]

Doesn't matter. All EA sees is "Dragon Age $$". Long as it makes money; screw creative integrity.

Modifié par Riloux, 22 mars 2011 - 06:29 .

[Faust1979]

The OP is wrong Sonic Chronicles has gotten lower ratings than some of their previous games

Modifié par Faust1979, 22 mars 2011 - 06:35 .