244 réponses à ce sujet

[lazuli]

Persephone wrote...
But I have to say that if I wanted to I could give DAO a 5/10 rating and back it up.

Not everyone that is disappointed with DA2 thinks DA:O did everything right.  An attack on DA2 is not automatically an elevation of DA:O.

[mesmerizedish]

lazuli wrote...

Persephone wrote...
But I have to say that if I wanted to I could give DAO a 5/10 rating and back it up.

Not everyone that is disappointed with DA2 thinks DA:O did everything right.  An attack on DA2 is not automatically an elevation of DA:O.

Well... on these boards it is.

[CRISIS1717]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

lazuli wrote...

Persephone wrote...
But I have to say that if I wanted to I could give DAO a 5/10 rating and back it up.

Not everyone that is disappointed with DA2 thinks DA:O did everything right.  An attack on DA2 is not automatically an elevation of DA:O.

Well... on these boards it is.

That's because DAO was an amazing game, not many other games have that kind of depth anymore and that high level of interaction. 

Bioware is obviously declaring war on us, to arms my brothers!

[NKKKK]

Its easy to blame 4chan for this

[mesmerizedish]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

That's because DAO was an amazing game, not many other games have that kind of depth anymore and that high level of interaction. 

Bioware is obviously declaring war on us, to arms my brothers!

Origins was not an objectively amazing game. I thought it was amazing, but lots of people didn't. I think DAII is amazing, but lots of people don't. The issue is that on these boards, almost every tirade leveled against DAII is about how it's different from Origins.

The bottom line is that >80% of the negative opinions on BSN are not because "DAII is bad," but because "DAII is not what I expected."

[EDIT] I have to add that doesn't mean that the complaints are unfounded. I'm not dismissing negative opinions. I'm only saying that the way in which they're framed negates their value as constructive criticism.

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 23 mars 2011 - 03:02 .

[Maverick827]

Korusus wrote...

Who is to say what is subjective and what isn't?

What is and what is not subjective is, quite ironically, not subjective. The re-use of maps, while it can be claimed to be enjoyed by some, is a quantifiable attribute: DA2 has "less" environments than DAO (though I'd argue not as many as some people believe). That is an objective statement which can be weighted with negative "points."

"Origins' story felt more epic" is in no way, shape, or form, an objective statement. Now, if a reviewer wants to delve into a lengthy dissection of narrative structure and character building and write intelligently on that topic, then that would be a much welcomed and objective review on "the story" of DA2. We have, however, not been given such a review (and I doubt we ever will).

WasGTIguy wrote...

This isn't a band wagon here. If the reviewer didn't like it, I'd like to know. The review was honest. Not wrong, opinions rarely are. His review hit on a couple points that have nothing to do with being subjective. Reused maps and pop in battles, is fact.

Opinions are actually never incorrect (though they can be concluded from incorrect statements). I don't care what the reviewer's opinions are, but that's exactly the issue: I don't care what his personal opinions are. His opinions are quite inapplicable to a review which is (should be?), by definition, an objective document.

And I disagree; these forums are entirely a bandwaggon of malcontentedness and unnecessary hyperbole.

Slayer299 wrote...

While I can agree with you that the review did use language that was overly melodramatic about DA2, it is in fact no more "ridiculous" than sites like PCG who praise DA2 as the "RPG of the Decade" and give it either a 94 or a 96 rating when it was very simply worthy of neither.

"RPG of the Decade" was a tongue-in-cheek award, as we still have nine years to go. By no means was that handed out thinking that it would last for any significant amount of time.

[AkiKishi]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
Origins was not an objectively amazing game. I thought it was amazing, but lots of people didn't. I think DAII is amazing, but lots of people don't. The issue is that on these boards, almost every tirade leveled against DAII is about how it's different from Origins.

The bottom line is that >80% of the negative opinions on BSN are not because "DAII is bad," but because "DAII is not what I expected."

[EDIT] I have to add that doesn't mean that the complaints are unfounded. I'm not dismissing negative opinions. I'm only saying that the way in which they're framed negates their value as constructive criticism.

Orignis was "unique" Even if you were familiar with wherer they got the combat system from , it was still a unique take on it allowing you to have you own character.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 23 mars 2011 - 03:05 .

[mesmerizedish]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Orignis was "unique" Even if you were familiar with wherer they got the combat system from , it was still a unique take on it allowing you to have you own character.

I don't see what that has to do with anything I said, but okay?

Origins wasn't unique. Its whol direction was to be "traditional." It told a traditional story, with traditional archetypes, and traditional mechanics. That isn't a bad thing. But it's true.

[WasGTIguy]

Maverick827 wrote...

Korusus wrote...

Who is to say what is subjective and what isn't?

What is and what is not subjective is, quite ironically, not subjective. The re-use of maps, while it can be claimed to be enjoyed by some, is a quantifiable attribute: DA2 has "less" environments than DAO (though I'd argue not as many as some people believe). That is an objective statement which can be weighted with negative "points."

"Origins' story felt more epic" is in no way, shape, or form, an objective statement. Now, if a reviewer wants to delve into a lengthy dissection of narrative structure and character building and write intelligently on that topic, then that would be a much welcomed and objective review on "the story" of DA2. We have, however, not been given such a review (and I doubt we ever will).

WasGTIguy wrote...

This isn't a band wagon here. If the reviewer didn't like it, I'd like to know. The review was honest. Not wrong, opinions rarely are. His review hit on a couple points that have nothing to do with being subjective. Reused maps and pop in battles, is fact.

Opinions are actually never incorrect (though they can be concluded from incorrect statements). I don't care what the reviewer's opinions are, but that's exactly the issue: I don't care what his personal opinions are. His opinions are quite inapplicable to a review which is (should be?), by definition, an objective document.

And I disagree; these forums are entirely a bandwaggon of malcontentedness and unnecessary hyperbole.

Slayer299 wrote...

While I can agree with you that the review did use language that was overly melodramatic about DA2, it is in fact no more "ridiculous" than sites like PCG who praise DA2 as the "RPG of the Decade" and give it either a 94 or a 96 rating when it was very simply worthy of neither.

"RPG of the Decade" was a tongue-in-cheek award, as we still have nine years to go. By no means was that handed out thinking that it would last for any significant amount of time.

LOL, of course opinions can be wrong.  Saying you don't think a car will run, yet it fires right up.  So if the review was a 95% it was objective?  If it's a 25%, then it's biased?  I guess I can take what your saying with a grain of salt. 

[Madkipz]

Rating games between 3 - 7 only serves to give it a higher rating as those who vote it a blind 10/10 will draw it upwards. So in this regard it is alot better to drag it into the mud by giving it 1/10 reviews. That way your voices have a stronger lasting impact.

Dragon age 2 has very little story to review. More like a 10 page fanfic spinoff.

Modifié par Madkipz, 23 mars 2011 - 03:14 .

[Slayer299]

M-G-D wrote...
Perfect example of why Bioware feels the need to dumb down make their games more accessible.

So, because I don't speak German and I asked the person to clarify what they meant is why BW felt the need to "dumb down" (as you put it) their games? Gee thanks for that <_<

[Persephone]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

lazuli wrote...

Persephone wrote...
But I have to say that if I wanted to I could give DAO a 5/10 rating and back it up.

Not everyone that is disappointed with DA2 thinks DA:O did everything right.  An attack on DA2 is not automatically an elevation of DA:O.

Well... on these boards it is.

That's because DAO was an amazing game, not many other games have that kind of depth anymore and that high level of interaction.

Now, Crisis, be fair: You think the idea of "Have 5 gifts/I agree with everything you say" -> "I wuv you" is interaction/romance with depth? Or the "Everyone is out for themselves" -> "Whiny brat turns into self centered whiny brat" (I love Alistair but puleeeeeeeaze!) "hardening" is good storytelling? Let's call a spade a spade here, both games have serious flaws. But those who love them love them enough to overlook them. (As do I, I admit. Both in DAO's and DA2's case)

[Persephone]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Orignis was "unique" Even if you were familiar with wherer they got the combat system from , it was still a unique take on it allowing you to have you own character.

I don't see what that has to do with anything I said, but okay?

Origins wasn't unique. Its whol direction was to be "traditional." It told a traditional story, with traditional archetypes, and traditional mechanics. That isn't a bad thing. But it's true.

Exactly. Absolutely agreed.

[Derax]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Zmajc wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Darth Executor wrote...

Persephone wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

Obviously that many negative reviews for an awful and rushed game can't be true. Maybe the gestapo have come back and are reading our minds right now?

S>Tin Foil Hat

That many? Professional criticsPaid Shills have been very positive about the game.

Fixed.

I'd appreciate it if you did not mess around with my posts. Disagree if you like, but do NOT put words in my mouth.

Facts are still facts. No unbiased reviwer with any RPG knowledge would ever give DA2 such a positive score. 70-75% is about the maximum this game deserves.

Provide proof that professional critics were paid off before you claim that it's a "fact." Your own view on what "the maximum this game deserves" is is not everyone else's.

you should not unterestimate sanity and reason and experience

[AkiKishi]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Orignis was "unique" Even if you were familiar with wherer they got the combat system from , it was still a unique take on it allowing you to have you own character.

I don't see what that has to do with anything I said, but okay?

Origins wasn't unique. Its whol direction was to be "traditional." It told a traditional story, with traditional archetypes, and traditional mechanics. That isn't a bad thing. But it's true.

The point is that there was nothing like Origins around , or had there been for several years. It had incredible word of mouth advertising because of this. What Bioware calls "evolution" in DA2 is more like a Frankenstein monster of cobbled together parts from other games. It has the same awkwardness that a certain someone has in a certain cutscene.

That's not evolution that's mad "science".

[Tirigon]

4Chan can´t be too bad. Everyone rating DA2 low must have at least SOME sense in himself...

[mesmerizedish]

BobSmith101 wrote...

The point is that there was nothing like Origins around , or had there been for several years. It had incredible word of mouth advertising because of this. What Bioware calls "evolution" in DA2 is more like a Frankenstein monster of cobbled together parts from other games. It has the same awkwardness that a certain someone has in a certain cutscene.

That's not evolution that's mad "science".

*still isn't sure what that has to do with her original post*

But anway, okay. That's a fair criticism of DAII. It's one I disagree with, but it's a fair one. That doesn't make Origins any better, though. It's still down to saying "Well, Origins was better because it wasn't DAII," which is absurd.

[Zmajc]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Zmajc wrote...


Facts are still facts. No unbiased reviwer with any RPG knowledge would ever give DA2 such a positive score. 70-75% is about the maximum this game deserves.

Provide proof that professional critics were paid off before you claim that it's a "fact." Your own view on what "the maximum this game deserves" is is not everyone else's.

What's there to proove? I merely wrote that no "unbiased" reviewer with any RPG knowledge  would ever give DA2 a score in the line of PC Gamer (94) , PC Format (95%) and Escapism(100%). There was never ever a line about anyone bein paid off there. 

[mesmerizedish]

Zmajc wrote...

What's there to proove? I merely wrote that no "unbiased" reviewer with any RPG knowledge  would ever give DA2 a score in the line of PC Gamer (94) , PC Format (95%) and Escapism(100%). There was never ever a line about anyone bein paid off there.

Did you even read what you quoted?

[CRISIS1717]

Persephone wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

lazuli wrote...

Persephone wrote...
But I have to say that if I wanted to I could give DAO a 5/10 rating and back it up.

Not everyone that is disappointed with DA2 thinks DA:O did everything right.  An attack on DA2 is not automatically an elevation of DA:O.

Well... on these boards it is.

That's because DAO was an amazing game, not many other games have that kind of depth anymore and that high level of interaction.

Now, Crisis, be fair: You think the idea of "Have 5 gifts/I agree with everything you say" -> "I wuv you" is interaction/romance with depth? Or the "Everyone is out for themselves" -> "Whiny brat turns into self centered whiny brat" (I love Alistair but puleeeeeeeaze!) "hardening" is good storytelling? Let's call a spade a spade here, both games have serious flaws. But those who love them love them enough to overlook them. (As do I, I admit. Both in DAO's and DA2's case)

I thought gifts, attentive listening and agreeing with everything is what every woman wants from a romance, its like art imitating life lol. 

But seriously the special gifts and the conversations when the characters have some downtime was a nice addition and you could steer the conversation however you wanted, I loved that and I'm sure many peeps who played DAO loved that part too. 

[Maverick827]

WasGTIguy wrote...

LOL, of course opinions can be wrong. Saying you don't think a car will run, yet it fires right up. So if the review was a 95% it was objective? If it's a 25%, then it's biased? I guess I can take what your saying with a grain of salt.

Your hypothetical is confusing an opinion with an inference.

A review is objective if it follows objective conventions. It is subjective if it follows subjective conventions. I'm not sure how to make this easier to understand.

[MasterSamson88]

Zmajc wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Zmajc wrote...


Facts are still facts. No unbiased reviwer with any RPG knowledge would ever give DA2 such a positive score. 70-75% is about the maximum this game deserves.

Provide proof that professional critics were paid off before you claim that it's a "fact." Your own view on what "the maximum this game deserves" is is not everyone else's.

What's there to proove? I merely wrote that no "unbiased" reviewer with any RPG knowledge  would ever give DA2 a score in the line of PC Gamer (94) , PC Format (95%) and Escapism(100%). There was never ever a line about anyone bein paid off there. 

That's really more or less your opinion, no?

Not all RPG  players fall into one category of like minded individuals. 

[Zmajc]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Zmajc wrote...

What's there to proove? I merely wrote that no "unbiased" reviewer with any RPG knowledge  would ever give DA2 a score in the line of PC Gamer (94) , PC Format (95%) and Escapism(100%). There was never ever a line about anyone bein paid off there.

Did you even read what you quoted?

You obviously didn't .

[mesmerizedish]

Zmajc wrote...

You obviously didn't .

Okay, let me try:

Someonetotallymeanandwrong wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Zmajc wrote...

BioWare are evil and fascist!

I agree!

Prove BioWare are evil!

What's there to prove? All I said was "I agree."

It doesn't really work like that.