244 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

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.

It's the very fact that Origins was "traditional" that was it's major selling point. It tapped in to what had been an ignored fanbase. That Bioware pulled a switch for the CoD crowed on the sequel is the reason they are so angry.
What I'm saying is that with Origins your not seeing objective reviews but positively (for the most part) with DA2 you are seeing the opposite effect.

Because Origins could not be compared to anything because there was nothing like it without going back some years.
Don't get me wrong. FFXII is so much better than Origins it's like a different ballpark. But Origins offered something that FFXII and other games did not.

[WasGTIguy]

Maverick827 wrote...

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.

Not at all.  It is an opinion on the vehicles mechanical state.  I tihnk you have gone and confused yourself.  We can agree to disagree, or this will go on all day.

[mesmerizedish]

BobSmith101 wrote...

It's the very fact that Origins was "traditional" that was it's major selling point. It tapped in to what had been an ignored fanbase. That Bioware pulled a switch for the CoD crowed on the sequel is the reason they are so angry.
What I'm saying is that with Origins your not seeing objective reviews but positively (for the most part) with DA2 you are seeing the opposite effect.

Because Origins could not be compared to anything because there was nothing like it without going back some years.
Don't get me wrong. FFXII is so much better than Origins it's like a different ballpark. But Origins offered something that FFXII and other games did not.

So, you're saying that Origins was scored higher than it deserved because it couldn't be compared against anything else, and DAII is scored lower than it deserves because it can be compared to a product that's on the record as getting 100%s from every single reviewer?

If I'm understanding you correctly, then I think I agree. Except about FFXII. Final Fantasy can [no vulgarity please].

[The Spirit of Dance]

whoa that is too low. in my opinion 6 should be the lowest it can get and 7.5 should be the highest but like i said thats my opinion. I haven't even looked at the reviews and i can tell most people rated it 0 either to cancel out all the 10s, they rate all games they don't like/bore them 0 or it didn't even come close to their standards.

[delikanli]

as a rpg game still a high score.but as a action game a bit harsh tho.

[Persephone]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

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. 

LOL, I guess my preference for rivalry romances came out there. I liked the special gifts in DAO and I wish there were more of them rather than bottles of wine etc. Agree with everything you said there btw. (OMG we agreed, Crisis! The end of the world has come!  Just kidding) I'd have liked a combo of the conversations whenever we want ala DAO and the one in DA2 (Special gifts, personality, friend/rivalry paths, getting personal quests without needing a certain amount of approval etc.) :happy:

[Zmajc]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

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.

Oh i know every well what post i replyed to, don't try to be a smartass when you're not.

[Iamnotahater]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

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.

Dragon Age II is a sequel. Now I loved Orgins but there were obviously things that could be improved upon (Combat, graphics, and cutscenes).

Dragon Age II instead of building upon the success of DAO decided to "Nuke the fridge" introducing copy & pasted environments, bad storylines, less interesting bland characters (the delicate flower vs the promiscuous scantly dressed vixen), less choice, and less control/options of their characters. 

Now I chose to rate the game as a seperate entity from DAO. But I certaintly understand and sympathize with those who criticize DAII based on what they were expecting from DAO because like I stated before their purchase was likely based on the fact DAII was a SEQUEL to the game they liked DAO.

Now if this was a totaly seperate game (ie Baulders Gate vs DA) then I could understand the sentiment but users are entitled to the expectation that the sequel will not "jump the shark". 
 

Modifié par Iamnotahater, 23 mars 2011 - 03:40 .

[AkiKishi]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
So, you're saying that Origins was scored higher than it deserved because it couldn't be compared against anything else, and DAII is scored lower than it deserves because it can be compared to a product that's on the record as getting 100%s from every single reviewer?

If I'm understanding you correctly, then I think I agree. Except about FFXII. Final Fantasy can [no vulgarity please].

Bingo on Origins scoring higher, DA2 deserves those scores (between 4 and 8) because of the choices they made and the corners they cut. I don't think you could score it at 25% unless you had the most unfortunate playthrough ever and hit a number of bugs.

FFXII plays so much like Origins you would be shocked. It's the most western JRPG ever, full weapon customisation, skill customisation etc. Plays on like DA real time with pause, or with AI controlled companions.

Skip to about 2:30

[MasterSamson88]

BobSmith101 wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

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.

It's the very fact that Origins was "traditional" that was it's major selling point. It tapped in to what had been an ignored fanbase. That Bioware pulled a switch for the CoD crowed on the sequel is the reason they are so angry.
What I'm saying is that with Origins your not seeing objective reviews but positively (for the most part) with DA2 you are seeing the opposite effect.

Because Origins could not be compared to anything because there was nothing like it without going back some years.
Don't get me wrong. FFXII is so much better than Origins it's like a different ballpark. But Origins offered something that FFXII and other games did not.

You say the Call of Duty crowd like you know it's some kind of fact. But I feel like no matter what, the Call of Duty crowd wouldn't really be interested in an RPG of any kind.

Bioware did change the game, yes. But they did this to appeal to a broader group of people rather than a niche crowd of RPG traditionalists. It doesn't make sense to a lot of people who loved Origins I suppose but it doesn't really matter because games don't exactly grow on trees these days. They wanted to simply expand the accessibility of their game, something a lot of developers do. 

They obviously tried to maintain a balance of what Origins was and where they wanted to take the game from Origins. Honestly I thought they did a good job in keeping that balance. But a lot of the die hard fans of Origins didn't agree because it would appear that any change is perceived as a bad one.

Honestly, I liked Origins a lot. I liked DA2 a lot as well. Both have their issues obviously. But I'd hardly call DA Origins a perfect game by any means. 

[Darth Executor]

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.

I did not touch your post. While within the confines of my quote function, however, I shall do as I please.

[Persephone]

Darth Executor 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.

I did not touch your post. While within the confines of my quote function, however, I shall do as I please.

Right. Because misquoting is absolutely wonderful. You really don't get it, do you?<_<

[Erode_The_Soul]

Honestly, I don't see how anyone could rate this game this low. Now, you might not like this game for any number of completely valid reasons, but this kind of score is reserved for the lowest of the low. This kind of score is like....Superman 64 quality, or some sort of Ubisoft "Pet game that ends in Z" monstrosity, not a Bioware action RPG with some glaring flaws. I wholeheartedly believe that there is no way someone can honestly give this game a 2.5 based on the game on it's own and it has to be influenced by his resentment that DA2 wasn't as fantastic as DAO.

Just to be clear, my disbelief at the low score does not mean I don't understand the negative criticisms. There are several legitimate, glaring, ubelievable flaws in this game and there is nothing wrong with constantly and repeatedly pointing these flaws out. My issue comes with the numerical rating, as such a low score tends to mean a game is unplayable which is just absolutely not the case here.

Such a ridiculously low score coupled with silly insults to those who enjoy the game for it's merits makes me wary to trust this reviewers opinion in the future.

[Darth Executor]

Persephone wrote...

Darth Executor 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.

I did not touch your post. While within the confines of my quote function, however, I shall do as I please.

I love you.

Misquoting is the greatest thing known to man.

[BeljoraDien]

MasterSamson88 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

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.

It's the very fact that Origins was "traditional" that was it's major selling point. It tapped in to what had been an ignored fanbase. That Bioware pulled a switch for the CoD crowed on the sequel is the reason they are so angry.
What I'm saying is that with Origins your not seeing objective reviews but positively (for the most part) with DA2 you are seeing the opposite effect.

Because Origins could not be compared to anything because there was nothing like it without going back some years.
Don't get me wrong. FFXII is so much better than Origins it's like a different ballpark. But Origins offered something that FFXII and other games did not.

You say the Call of Duty crowd like you know it's some kind of fact. But I feel like no matter what, the Call of Duty crowd wouldn't really be interested in an RPG of any kind.

The point is that they changed the game to go after the CoD crowd, whether they succeeded or not is up to debate.

“We have data that shows there are a lot of people that enjoy playing RPGs although they won’t necessarily call them RPGs. They’ll play Fallout, Assassin’s Creed and even Call Of Duty, which have these progression elements – you’re putting points into things – but they don’t necessarily associate that as an RPG. So we think that if we expand that out we’ll attract a much bigger audience.”
-Fernando Melo

[Evolution33]

Gamecritics is a site with a clear agenda. Any game by a big developer is terrible and awful and anything indy is awesome. They are basically a hipster video game sight. I mean Deadly Premonition was their game of the year last year.

[MasterSamson88]

Erode_The_Soul wrote...

Honestly, I don't see how anyone could rate this game this low. Now, you might not like this game for any number of completely valid reasons, but this kind of score is reserved for the lowest of the low. This kind of score is like....Superman 64 quality, or some sort of Ubisoft "Pet game that ends in Z" monstrosity, not a Bioware action RPG with some glaring flaws. I wholeheartedly believe that there is no way someone can honestly give this game a 2.5 based on the game on it's own and it has to be influenced by his resentment that DA2 wasn't as fantastic as DAO.

Just to be clear, my disbelief at the low score does not mean I don't understand the negative criticisms. There are several legitimate, glaring, ubelievable flaws in this game and there is nothing wrong with constantly and repeatedly pointing these flaws out. My issue comes with the numerical rating, as such a low score tends to mean a game is unplayable which is just absolutely not the case here.

Such a ridiculously low score coupled with silly insults to those who enjoy the game for it's merits makes me wary to trust this reviewers opinion in the future.

I absolutely agree with you. I'm not against anyone having a negative opinion on the game, but what I  am against is the constant trolling that a lot of these meta review sites seem to receive from fans who are simply resentful of the fact that it's not like DA:O. Someone can defend I suppose that the low reviews are real reviews, but I can take one look at a few and see that they're all the single word reviews that just yell about bioware selling out or just say "it's terrible!" These aren't thought out, they're just on the fly rage reviews. 

[Crash_7]

Ha ha ha 4Chan, rofl, chokes on the idea rofl haha ha.

Seriously if 4Chan wanted to attack anyone it would be EA not this site. This site serves consumers so it would not be a valid target for them. They attack the system not its users.

And even if you were only joking, having the topic title you have chosen is misleading to say the least. It implies that all of the bad reviews for the game are some form of conspiracy. The truth of the matter is that DA 2 is at best an average game and at worst spitting in the face of the players that backed the franchise in the first place.

[AkiKishi]

MasterSamson88 wrote...
You say the Call of Duty crowd like you know it's some kind of fact. But I feel like no matter what, the Call of Duty crowd wouldn't really be interested in an RPG of any kind.

Bioware did change the game, yes. But they did this to appeal to a broader group of people rather than a niche crowd of RPG traditionalists. It doesn't make sense to a lot of people who loved Origins I suppose but it doesn't really matter because games don't exactly grow on trees these days. They wanted to simply expand the accessibility of their game, something a lot of developers do. 

They obviously tried to maintain a balance of what Origins was and where they wanted to take the game from Origins. Honestly I thought they did a good job in keeping that balance. But a lot of the die hard fans of Origins didn't agree because it would appear that any change is perceived as a bad one.

Honestly, I liked Origins a lot. I liked DA2 a lot as well. Both have their issues obviously. But I'd hardly call DA Origins a perfect game by any means. 

I guess you missed that interview with the "We want the CoD crowd" headline? I totally agree with you, which makes what Bioware are doing almost as mystifying as Charlie Sheen..

I like action games, but cooldowns and waves do not make for a good action game. Without the cooldowns waves would be fine, without the waves cooldowns would be fine.
The people who seem to like it are the ones who thought Origins combat was too slow.

MasterSamson88 wrote...
I absolutely agree with you. I'm not against anyone having a negative opinion on the game, but what I  am against is the constant trolling that a lot of these meta review sites seem to receive from fans who are simply resentful of the fact that it's not like DA:O

Totally Biowares fault. You don't want the game to be judged as a sequel don't advertise it as one.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 23 mars 2011 - 04:11 .

[Maverick827]

WasGTIguy wrote...

Not at all.  It is an opinion on the vehicles mechanical state.  I tihnk you have gone and confused yourself.  We can agree to disagree, or this will go on all day.

I don't think we really can agree to disagree on a well-established definition of a word.  You don't have opinions about empirical issues, you have inferences about them.

[Akulakhan]

BeljoraDien wrote...

MasterSamson88 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

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.

It's the very fact that Origins was "traditional" that was it's major selling point. It tapped in to what had been an ignored fanbase. That Bioware pulled a switch for the CoD crowed on the sequel is the reason they are so angry.
What I'm saying is that with Origins your not seeing objective reviews but positively (for the most part) with DA2 you are seeing the opposite effect.

Because Origins could not be compared to anything because there was nothing like it without going back some years.
Don't get me wrong. FFXII is so much better than Origins it's like a different ballpark. But Origins offered something that FFXII and other games did not.

You say the Call of Duty crowd like you know it's some kind of fact. But I feel like no matter what, the Call of Duty crowd wouldn't really be interested in an RPG of any kind.

The point is that they changed the game to go after the CoD crowd, whether they succeeded or not is up to debate.

“We have data that shows there are a lot of people that enjoy playing RPGs although they won’t necessarily call them RPGs. They’ll play Fallout, Assassin’s Creed and even Call Of Duty, which have these progression elements – you’re putting points into things – but they don’t necessarily associate that as an RPG. So we think that if we expand that out we’ll attract a much bigger audience.”
-Fernando Melo

Pure gold, show exactly the direction that Bioware is taking.



[Spam image removed]

Modifié par JohnEpler, 23 mars 2011 - 04:35 .

[The Brigand]

http://www.destructo...ii-179178.phtml

What an objective review actually looks like.

[Akulakhan]

[Spam image removed]

Modifié par JohnEpler, 23 mars 2011 - 04:35 .

[Makariel]

ginzaen wrote...

what a joke.. i know da2 is not perfect but 2.5 did this reviewer even play the game... seriously

He did. If you take a look at what he wrote on twitter (or indeed read the disclaimer at the end of his review, where he states how long he played, on which platform and that he indeed finished the game) you can see that he didn't like the experience from the very start.