458 réponses à ce sujet

[AloraKast]

Thanks Reinveil, much appreciate it.

As long as Bioware is aware that these "streamlined improvements", the changes they have made, the risks they have taken, etc. are not sitting too well with the fans (generally speaking of course) and they acknowledge that they won't be trying some of these things again... Well, guess that's all I can ask for.

That... and can we PLEASE get the elves un-squished? Pretty please???

[Merced652]

LOL did someone really say pcgamer is fair and reasonable? They haven't been either since the late 90's early 2000's. Why do they get a new EoC every few months? Oh, and the reviewers seem to have extremely high turnover as well. It wasn't always like that, but pcgamer is complete junk right now.

Modifié par Merced652, 24 mars 2011 - 07:31 .

[Giubba]

Reinveil wrote...

Giubba1985 wrote...

Reinveil wrote...

Tom Jolly wrote...

Bravo, Brad. Great points. The number score is a bit too low to garner credibility. However, if you accept the Bioware and EA rushed this game and willfully betrayed the promises of its predecessor, then its fair.

Just to save the defenders some time:

But it's unfair to compare it to it's predecessor, you have to judge it on it's own merits!

Even though it's...you know...a numbered sequel.

Also, (insert game here) resuses locations!  PC ELITIST!

That about cover it?

You know what i hate about those kind of critics?
it's the fact that you implies that those who don't think that DA2 is a pile of **** are some kind of mentally retarded idiots only able to follow the flock .

Get some guts and say it openly if you really must.

So instead of proving me wrong by discussing the game's merits in an intelligent manner without resorting to the same tired strawmen, you instead put words in my mouth and use a typo-laden provocation (in this case challenging my "Internet manliness").  Thanks for proving my point.

How's that for "open"?

More honest at last.

So about the game i've really enjoyed the story, the characters , the "setting" meant as kirkwall and his history and other things.
On the cons the wave mechanic and the map reuse are the 2 biggest point that didn't appraise me.
But the crucial point is that this is my personal opinion, i've read post where people praised the combat and didn't mind the recycled map and in all due honesty i completly miss how they can tolerate it BUT it still happen that people can have a different mindset than mine that lead them to have different... priorities on what is good and what is bad.
The funny things is that i have the right to don't give a bloody damn over personal opinion, you think  that DA2 story suck? Well not for me and i'm not that stupid to use my personal taste as a corner stone in an argument over a game story.
You and other hundreds are pissed off because the game keep crash you to the desktop? You have all the rights to be angry and rate the game low, a bug is undeniable a preference is not.

What pisses me off on comments or review like the one we are writing about it's absolute lack of an undeniable base. 
He writes about  "To start with, the cast of teammates as well as the central hero (or
heroine) feel like shallow sketches, rather than fully-fleshed
characters." and again "However, the plot, setting, dialogue and characters are all shockingly slapdash and unsatisfying." etc
As i've already wrote i enjoyed both story and charactes but if i have to demolish a game i would speak about the indefensible amount of bugs aka solid facts, i won't base my whole review over "what i didn't like" even more if that's my job.
There is no difference between that review, made by someone who should do this as a job, and one post made by some nameless troll here on the forum.

[BounceDK]

Bioware dropped the ball epicly with this game. Welcome to the generic developer rank.

[Kaldarm]

The 2.5 score was ridiculous, it's not THAT bad but honestly, as a long-time Bioware fan, I've been very disappointed with both of their last two big releases (both sequels (ME2 and DA2)). I certainly won't ever pre-order another of their games and am increasingly worried about the quality of ME3.

The review itself did indeed pick out every single negative point one could find within the game (all of which after playing the demo I faithfully thought they'd correct) but failed to pick up on any of the positives but considering his (the reviewer) and many other peoples pre-conceptions and expectations of a Bioware title, I can understand this but think it's unprofessional in a review, as aren't they supposed to remain objective and impartial?

I'm rapidly losing faith in Bioware and whether or not it's due to the influence of EA or not, they're losing their reputation as the best RPG developer, which is a crying shame, as their writing was IMHO the best in any modern RPG's.

Here's to hoping that they actually listen to ALL fan feedback this time and learn from their mistakes with DA2 - afterall, everyone's entitled to one mistake, right (although making me pay £40 for their mistake isn't a good way of doing it)?

[wintermonk]

I think some of his complaints are legitimate, but if you compare DA2 to every other roleplaying game made, is he saying that it is only better than half of them? Half of other RPG's are better? Sorry, I don't buy that for one second. Sacred and Sacred 2 both, in my opinion, were above average RPG games, but those games are basically a world of monsters sitting around waiting for you to come and kill them. ANd you know what? That's alright. I enjoyed the Sacred games for what they were. And those games, like many other RPG's, are filled with silly fed-ex missions, or "go kill ten boars and come back and I'll give you some money" missions. DA2's side quests are far superior to most other RPG games' side quests.

And they are just games, not real life. The complaints the man made toward the game sound reasonable when you read them, but after thinking about them I wonder, what was he expecting? The holodeck of the USS enterprise? Lot of people populating a huge virtual city means only top-of-the-line computers can handle it. Then frame rates suffer, and if you want to give all of them actual personalities, then you have gazillions of hours of work to do. After all, is there an RPG out there with a city with fifty thousand computer-controlled people walking around in it? If there is, I'd like to know about it!

The city, visually, looked great!

Also, I think it was a very bold move to put most of the story in the city. In my opinion, at least it doesn't move around from location to location to, well, simply move around. Then you get these contrived reasons why you have to journey so far through the most miserable and hostile environments imaginable. "You cannot kill the dread Shadow Lord unless you get the Golden Sword of Sir Somebody, and it happens to be across a long desert filled with armored zombies!" Sigh.

Is it so bad to be able to solve Kirkwall's problems while remaining, for the most part, in Kirkwall? Maybe I want to deal with the problem rather than fetch trinkets for a change. I enjoyed dealing with the various factions in Kirkwall! That's roleplaying. I'd rather roleplay than fetch this and fetch that because, well, fetching takes time and gives you an opportunity to kill lots of stuff and see mountains, deserts, swamps, jungles, and so on.

DA2 focused on a different kind of story, a political story with various factions all with their own agenda. I rather liked it. Not saying it was handled perfectly, but what other RPG out there has such a complex world? I don't know it.

Also, his complaints about the story,that it didn't feel epic, I felt the same way when I went through it once. The second time through, I sort of got how some of the smaller, side-quests fit into the whole overall mage/chantry conflict. It is epic. Perhaps it is only the beginning of something epic, but it still felt epic to me the second time through (I enjoyed it MORE the second time through, which, to me, is a good sign--most RPG's I've played have been boring the second time through).

I do agree with his criticism with the way bad guys drop in. That could have been handled better. I'm ambivalent about the conversation wheel. Sometimes it feels like games are being "dumbed down", perhaps that isn't the right word, made to appeal to the movie crowd, but games need to sell to make money otherwise game makers lose their jobs and have to do soemthing else. Sorry, but I dont' have a problem with companies trying to make money. If I was to make a game, I would want to make it good AND popular. Also, we live in a world that has little patience (read a novel from the 19th century and compare it to one today), and is used to movies as the primary narrative art form. So it doesn't surprise me that games are trying to be more cinematic.

My biggest complaints are the huge two-handed weapons and the exploding bodies. But I was able to get over them and enjoy the game, and I'm on my third time through and still enjoying it.

[AkiKishi]

Kaldarm wrote...

The 2.5 score was ridiculous, it's not THAT bad but honestly, as a long-time Bioware fan, I've been very disappointed with both of their last two big releases (both sequels (ME2 and DA2)). I certainly won't ever pre-order another of their games and am increasingly worried about the quality of ME3.

The review itself did indeed pick out every single negative point one could find within the game (all of which after playing the demo I faithfully thought they'd correct) but failed to pick up on any of the positives but considering his (the reviewer) and many other peoples pre-conceptions and expectations of a Bioware title, I can understand this but think it's unprofessional in a review, as aren't they supposed to remain objective and impartial?

I'm rapidly losing faith in Bioware and whether or not it's due to the influence of EA or not, they're losing their reputation as the best RPG developer, which is a crying shame, as their writing was IMHO the best in any modern RPG's.

Here's to hoping that they actually listen to ALL fan feedback this time and learn from their mistakes with DA2 - afterall, everyone's entitled to one mistake, right (although making me pay £40 for their mistake isn't a good way of doing it)?

As long as they don't outright lie, they can be as harsh as they like, or as forgiving as they like.

[tomas819]

RohanD wrote...

 http://www.gamecriti...n-age-ii-review
Many are praising Brad's honesty and integrity. I agree with them. 

Discuss.

EDIT: READ THE WHOLE REVIEW before posting. Don't just look at the score and fanboy flame it. 

Lol. All I had to do was read the title to know the commenter is clueless. But, yes, I held my nose and read the article anyway.

The thing is ... I had a great time playing Dragon Age 2 and don't regret what I spent on it at all. This guy is entitled to his opinion, but -- apart from a few valid criticisms that I think he blows out of proportion -- I think he is largely off base.

[Merced652]

but hes still "clueless" right? Because you disagree with him?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Kaldarm wrote...

The review itself did indeed pick out every single negative point one could find within the game (all of which after playing the demo I faithfully thought they'd correct) but failed to pick up on any of the positives but considering his (the reviewer) and many other peoples pre-conceptions and expectations of a Bioware title, I can understand this but think it's unprofessional in a review, as aren't they supposed to remain objective and impartial?

Since we can't agree on what those positives are, perhaps he simply didn't see them as good features.

I, for example, really like the directionless of Act I.  I love that there's no clear in-character indication of there being any sort of path you're following.  You're just living in Kirkwall getting by however you can.  I think that's a good feature, but I've seen people here complaining about it.

[bill4747bill]

Merced652 wrote...

but hes still "clueless" right? Because you disagree with him?

That IS the definition of clueless. Someone elses opinion.

Oh wait......

[bill4747bill]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Kaldarm wrote...

The 2.5 score was ridiculous, it's not THAT bad but honestly, as a long-time Bioware fan, I've been very disappointed with both of their last two big releases (both sequels (ME2 and DA2)). I certainly won't ever pre-order another of their games and am increasingly worried about the quality of ME3.

The review itself did indeed pick out every single negative point one could find within the game (all of which after playing the demo I faithfully thought they'd correct) but failed to pick up on any of the positives but considering his (the reviewer) and many other peoples pre-conceptions and expectations of a Bioware title, I can understand this but think it's unprofessional in a review, as aren't they supposed to remain objective and impartial?

I'm rapidly losing faith in Bioware and whether or not it's due to the influence of EA or not, they're losing their reputation as the best RPG developer, which is a crying shame, as their writing was IMHO the best in any modern RPG's.

Here's to hoping that they actually listen to ALL fan feedback this time and learn from their mistakes with DA2 - afterall, everyone's entitled to one mistake, right (although making me pay £40 for their mistake isn't a good way of doing it)?

As long as they don't outright lie, they can be as harsh as they like, or as forgiving as they like.

Sure they CAN, but what good is a review that is overly harsh or overly generous? useless really.

And I think many reviewers do lie, depending on how you define lie. We could ask Bill Clinton to explain that.

[Orfevs]

The review is dead on, ranting aside. The 2.5 score could probably be adjusted to the better. I don't put stock in game reviews, and rarely read them. Most reviews are in my eyes paid advertisement anyhow, so it's refreshing seeing someone publicly slaughtering a game..

As a generic RPG, DA2 scores very high, but we are talking about the sequel to Dragon Age Origins. There are expectations, and this is not it.

Looks to me DA2 is the beta version to a upcoming Dragon Age MMO. If it wasn't for the Varric character, I'd say BioWare had nothing to do with this game.

[AkiKishi]

bill4747bill wrote...

Sure they CAN, but what good is a review that is overly harsh or overly generous? useless really.

And I think many reviewers do lie, depending on how you define lie. We could ask Bill Clinton to explain that.

A review is always going to be one person opinion (or more if they have extra reviewers like they sometimes do). This is why people pay attention to metacritic.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 24 mars 2011 - 08:16 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Orfevs wrote...

As a generic RPG, DA2 scores very high

I disagree.  The dialogue system alone is enough to raet it as a poor RPG.  Add to that the nonsensical combat mechanics, and DA2 just doesn't look good.

[DaVeO52]

UnstableMongoose wrote...


This means that, in a very real sense, the flamers get into an opinion war simply parroting the opinions of others and acting like throwing a linkstorm of opinion articles counts as "proof" on some sad level, and that the word of some e-famous flamer is more valuable on an intrinsic level than the layman's, while supporters are more likely to present clearly enumerated responses that are based on their own experiences.

QFT.

[Giubba]

Orfevs wrote...

The review is dead on, ranting aside. The 2.5 score could probably be adjusted to the better. I don't put stock in game reviews, and rarely read them. Most reviews are in my eyes paid advertisement anyhow, so it's refreshing seeing someone publicly slaughtering a game..

As a generic RPG, DA2 scores very high, but we are talking about the sequel to Dragon Age Origins. There are expectations, and this is not it.

Looks to me DA2 is the beta version to a upcoming Dragon Age MMO. If it wasn't for the Varric character, I'd say BioWare had nothing to do with this game.

For me origins didn't do anything so good to put it on a pedestal and use it to speak about DA2 as it did a lese majesty crime.
Still a really enjoyable game but nothing miraculous.

BobSmith101 wrote...

bill4747bill wrote...

Sure they CAN, but what good is a review that is overly harsh or overly generous? useless really.

And I think many reviewers do lie, depending on how you define lie. We could ask Bill Clinton to explain that.

A
review is always going to be one person opinion (or more if they have
extra reviewers like they sometimes do). This is why people pay
attention to metacritic.

The point is if you say that DA2 is the best thing after sex/it's a himalaya of crap it's better you have some real and solid proof especially if you are paid for writing review

[Merced652]

Giubba1985 wrote...

Orfevs wrote...

The review is dead on, ranting aside. The 2.5 score could probably be adjusted to the better. I don't put stock in game reviews, and rarely read them. Most reviews are in my eyes paid advertisement anyhow, so it's refreshing seeing someone publicly slaughtering a game..

As a generic RPG, DA2 scores very high, but we are talking about the sequel to Dragon Age Origins. There are expectations, and this is not it.

Looks to me DA2 is the beta version to a upcoming Dragon Age MMO. If it wasn't for the Varric character, I'd say BioWare had nothing to do with this game.

For me origins didn't do anything so good to put it on a pedestal and use it to speak about DA2 as it did a lese majesty crime.
Still a really enjoyable game but nothing miraculous.

BobSmith101 wrote...

bill4747bill wrote...

Sure they CAN, but what good is a review that is overly harsh or overly generous? useless really.

And I think many reviewers do lie, depending on how you define lie. We could ask Bill Clinton to explain that.

A
review is always going to be one person opinion (or more if they have
extra reviewers like they sometimes do). This is why people pay
attention to metacritic.

The point is if you say that DA2 is the best thing after sex/it's a himalaya of crap it's better you have some real and solid proof especially if you are paid for writing review

You're asking for people to prove an opinion. Based upon that, its my opinion you're retarded. I'm using your statement as evidence of that much like how the reviewer backed up his claims with valid examples. The fact that you think his examples aren't valid is due to your opinion. Have a great day. 

[Reinveil]

Giubba1985 wrote...

Reinveil wrote...

Giubba1985 wrote...

Reinveil wrote...

Tom Jolly wrote...

Bravo, Brad. Great points. The number score is a bit too low to garner credibility. However, if you accept the Bioware and EA rushed this game and willfully betrayed the promises of its predecessor, then its fair.

Just to save the defenders some time:

But it's unfair to compare it to it's predecessor, you have to judge it on it's own merits!

Even though it's...you know...a numbered sequel.

Also, (insert game here) resuses locations!  PC ELITIST!

That about cover it?

You know what i hate about those kind of critics?
it's the fact that you implies that those who don't think that DA2 is a pile of **** are some kind of mentally retarded idiots only able to follow the flock .

Get some guts and say it openly if you really must.

So instead of proving me wrong by discussing the game's merits in an intelligent manner without resorting to the same tired strawmen, you instead put words in my mouth and use a typo-laden provocation (in this case challenging my "Internet manliness").  Thanks for proving my point.

How's that for "open"?

More honest at last.

So about the game i've really enjoyed the story, the characters , the "setting" meant as kirkwall and his history and other things.
On the cons the wave mechanic and the map reuse are the 2 biggest point that didn't appraise me.
But the crucial point is that this is my personal opinion, i've read post where people praised the combat and didn't mind the recycled map and in all due honesty i completly miss how they can tolerate it BUT it still happen that people can have a different mindset than mine that lead them to have different... priorities on what is good and what is bad.
The funny things is that i have the right to don't give a bloody damn over personal opinion, you think  that DA2 story suck? Well not for me and i'm not that stupid to use my personal taste as a corner stone in an argument over a game story.
You and other hundreds are pissed off because the game keep crash you to the desktop? You have all the rights to be angry and rate the game low, a bug is undeniable a preference is not.

What pisses me off on comments or review like the one we are writing about it's absolute lack of an undeniable base. 
He writes about  "To start with, the cast of teammates as well as the central hero (or
heroine) feel like shallow sketches, rather than fully-fleshed
characters." and again "However, the plot, setting, dialogue and characters are all shockingly slapdash and unsatisfying." etc
As i've already wrote i enjoyed both story and charactes but if i have to demolish a game i would speak about the indefensible amount of bugs aka solid facts, i won't base my whole review over "what i didn't like" even more if that's my job.
There is no difference between that review, made by someone who should do this as a job, and one post made by some nameless troll here on the forum.

Opinion is, as you say, subjective, and I wouldn't presume my own or anyone else's is superior to another's.  If you enjoyed the story, that's fine.  Much like the reviewer, I found it disjointed, unfocused, and poorly served by the static nature of Kirkwall.  Though the game is telling you periods of time have passed, nothing is actually changing.  Nobody looks older, the city remains the same, all the NPCs are still where they were in the previous scenario.  Hawke's alleged "rise to power" (which seems to happen in those bits you don't actually play - DAII just tells you he/she did) has no real impact on anything beyond how people address you in the game's limited conversations.  Champion or no, you're still a glorified errand boy performing MMO-esque fetch quests.

I'm not arguing that "save the world" plots are better, and honestly, I don't think many of the game's critics are either.  The whole personal story thing is a fine idea (though hardly new or innovative itself - you "rise to power" and protect a town in The Bard's Tale for the Apple II, a game that came out in 1985, one of many examples), but it's just not executed very well in DAII.

You may think that's "bias", but it shouldn't immediately be discounted (just as your opinion that it's workable shouldn't be either).  Bioware's reputation is built on the undeniable strength of their writing and characterization, and a LOT of people, most of whom seem to be long time fans, were left disappointed by it this time around.  It's not a global conspiracy to slander a game you like, it's more than likely indicative that perhaps there's some merit to the complaint.

Either way, I appreciate anyone that puts a little more thought into their responses than "shut up fanboy/elitist" or "nuh uh".

[Giubba]

You're asking for people to prove an opinion. Based upon that, its my
opinion you're retarded. I'm using your statement as evidence of that
much like how the reviewer backed up his claims with valid examples. The
fact that you think his examples aren't valid is due to your opinion.
Have a great day.

No i'm asking that people don't treat their opinion as the word of god himself and others people opinion as trash.

And journalist (that aren't "people") if they want destroy a game reputation must have some solid proof on their part and not just their "opinion".

I can accept that from something wrote in a forum not by someone who is paid for.

Opinion is, as you say, subjective, and I wouldn't presume my own or
anyone else's is superior to another's.  If you enjoyed the story,
that's fine.  Much like the reviewer, I found it disjointed, unfocused,
and poorly served by the static nature of Kirkwall.  Though the game is
telling you periods of time have passed, nothing is actually changing. 
Nobody looks older, the city remains the same, all the NPCs are still
where they were in the previous scenario.  Hawke's alleged "rise to
power" (which seems to happen in those bits you don't actually play -
DAII just tells you he/she did) has no real impact on anything beyond
how people address you in the game's limited conversations.  Champion or
no, you're still a glorified errand boy performing MMO-esque fetch
quests.

I'm not arguing that "save the world" plots are better,
and honestly, I don't think many of the game's critics are either.  The
whole personal story thing is a fine idea (though hardly new or
innovative itself - you "rise to power" and protect a town in The Bard's
Tale for the Apple II, a game that came out in 1985, one of many
examples), but it's just not executed very well in DAII.

You may
think that's "bias", but it shouldn't immediately be discounted (just as
your opinion that it's workable shouldn't be either).  Bioware's
reputation is built on the undeniable strength of their writing and
characterization, and a LOT of people, most of whom seem to be long time
fans, were left disappointed by it this time around.  It's not a global
conspiracy to slander a game you like, it's more than likely indicative
that perhaps there's some merit to the complaint.

Either way, I appreciate anyone that puts a little more thought into their responses than "shut up fanboy/elitist" or "nuh uh".

Yeah there are a lot of people who criticize the game but  there is the same amount that praise it, who is right? who is wrong?

Don't know and don't care as long as both side don't start to make it looks like it was the second coming of Jesus Crhist or the advent of the devil, choose your side

Modifié par Giubba1985, 24 mars 2011 - 08:53 .

[jweath]

There are some valid points but it is clear the author did rushed through the game. He states he played in 22 hours. My first playthrough took 50 hours. I think that is why he misses some of the dramatic plot effects and may have missed some plot elements. In act 1 for instance it is possible to end the act without even meeting the templar/sister combo that was a big instigator in the game, iirc.

The auto-attack issue if I had heard correctly was a collosal blunder in that it was added back to the game before release but did not make it on the master disk. I am sure someone is not working at Bioware any longer if this is true.

The re-use of maps is an issue. However, I disagree with the new combat system. It is a more fluid realistic system. It isn't the old EQ2 encounter 1 happens while encounter 2 sits back and watches. A lot of so called "hardcore" RPGers were highly irked becuase the stupid unrealistic tactics that are standard did not work in EQ2 once social aggro was put in the game. The game makes these trite tactics no longer work and you go from set piece battles to something fluid where tanks and off-tanks have to be constantly aware of the new threats. The so called "hardcore" RPGers hate this because you can't take the same old cookie cutter tactics that work in all MMORPGs and most RPGs and have them work.

I think DA2 could have done more to explain DAO to those that did not play it. However, the plot does flow nicely and tie up in the end. It is more Tom Clancy than straight story perhaps the author doesn't like the Tom Clancy style of numerous seemingly unrelated events coming all together in the end. If he expects obvious straight story lines it is not surprising he did not get the veichele. This story is more like sixth sense than say a James Bond plot.

The other thing I think is negative about this game and DAO is it takes a playthrough to really understand the combat system and how it works. It takes study and time to really get a good character build. The skill trees are a little harder to navigate which makes them harder to study when you are trying to decide a build. You could more easily evaluate skills and plan builds in DAO becuase it was easier to scroll back and forth and compare lines.

Understanding the threat system is extermely important and it takes some time to learn how to effectively use it to protect the softies when reinforcements flank your party. For instance aggro reset is very powerful if a heavy armored tank is near the mob you need off someone. In DAO you just had stuns that just gave you a respite and taunts that sometimes did not get the tank enough aggro to pull them off. There are different ways in DA2 to utilize threat to your advantage but it is tough to master or even fully understand in one playthrough.

I actually felt DAO was harder overall. You had a harder final encounter and more really tough encounters. Although, there are some important encounters in DA2 that are tougher than DAO. The final battle was a bit of a let down after the high dragon and pride demons.Overall, DAO felt consistently harder though.

I think a lot of RPG players are upset mainly because the new encouter system means new tactics. They don't like the fact they have to discover them and not every ability corresponds to some WOW or EQ2 ability. To me that makes the game better and has more replay value because you have to learn and refine new tactics. Differently different from Awakenings where there were a few new abilities and you could use DAO tactics and roll through the game without a single hard fight because the new abilities and a good knowledge of old tactics made you pretty unstoppable. There is quite different tactics and strategy including character builds in this game.

The lack of armor resistances makes runes more important and planning more important including which party members to take. That sucks for the first playthrough but presents challenges to the next playthrough.

[jweath]

RohanD wrote...

Satyricon331 wrote...

Where is the score?  I see comments that mention a 2.5 score, but I don't see it anywhere on the page.

I swear it's not my eye prescription this time! 

For some odd reason, the text for the rating is all the same colour as the bg. Search the page for 2.5 and then you will see it. If you highlight the sentence you will see:

Rating: 2.5 out of 10.

This is really hypocritical he slams the game for rushing and not fixing buggs but the idiot does not even proofread the html enough to figure out you can't see the rating and leaves the bug in his review. Hillarious. He also criticizes Bioware for rushing the game then says he completed the main story line in 22 hours. So he rushed playing the game and missed a lot of content. Pot meet kettle.

[AkiKishi]

Giubba1985 wrote...
The point is if you say that DA2 is the best thing after sex/it's a himalaya of crap it's better you have some real and solid proof especially if you are paid for writing review

Can't really do that all you can do it point out features if you want to be objective and let the reader draw their own conclusions.

For example If I listed

Reused maps and then a number I'd seen over the course of the game that would be objective.
Waves of enemies another objective fact.
Things popping out of thin air another one.

However each person will still veiw the overall impact of these on the overall enjoyment of the game in a different way.

While I may hate them and give the game a 4 out of 10, others may not care or even like them and give the game 8/10.

[Reinveil]

jweath wrote...

There are some valid points but it is clear the author did rushed through the game. He states he played in 22 hours. My first playthrough took 50 hours.

I don't see how that's even possible.  I did every quest that wasn't bugged (probably adding another couple hours to the total just thoroughly searching each area to make sure I wasn't missing anything) and clocked in at 28 hours.  My girlfriend did the same and actually came in at a little less than that.  Were you stopping regularly to take in the view or something?

Edit: Just wanted to clarify that I don't think 28 hours is bad for an RPG, I'd say its about average really.  Too bad at least half of that is padded with fetch quests, but I wouldn't say it's overly short.  Just that 22 hours isn't quite as "rushed" as some of you apparently think.

Modifié par Reinveil, 24 mars 2011 - 09:37 .

[RohanD]

 Woah it's still going.

Okay guys here's the thing. Lots of people on here might like DA2. That's great, it's good that you like it. 

A lot of people, and I'm talking a LOT of people disagree with you. Many more than with Origins, and many more than is acceptable for a game from a developer like Bioware. This is not a point of argument, this is a fact. Look at the metacritic user scores (and critic scores), go onto facebook and look at the comments (many of which were great before the game came out, and now angry), see that Bioware has done TWO interviews in defense of their game. None of this would have happened if the game had actually been up to the quality that Bioware customers expect. You can't argue with that. 

Game companies screw up sometimes, it's a fact of life that you can't always be perfect. However honestly, there are small mistakes and then there are big mistakes.

It's my opinion that DA2 falls into the huge mistake category. They really shouldn't have messed with the franchise they touted as the spirutual successor to Baldur's Gate. They just shouldn't have. It was a very bad idea and the fact that a large number of less than desirable ratings even EXIST, means that something went horribly wrong with their vision and execution.

I see a lot of people calling people who complain trolls, or flamers. It's actually so far from the truth that it puts the shoe on the other foot.

Let me tell you why people are so upset, and are so passionate in their deriding of this game. It's because they actually like Bioware. They have built up a huge amount of respect for the company who has given them hours and hours of entertainment and are upset that this developer who made such wonderful games in the past, is almost definitely slipping in quality.

I have to be perfectly honest with you, I don't think the company will ever achieve its former glory again. The interviews with Laidlaw post release have been so full of defensive bitterness that I feel as though they are hardly going to listen at all. The really sad thing is, if they had not messed with the spiritual sucessor to Baldur's Gate, and simply improved upon it in a more intelligent, thought out and measured way, all of this would have been avoided.

But that would have cost more money and time than DA2, and for whatever reason, that was not going to happen. I just find that to be really sad and unacceptable really.

Then what I am posting here for? Well to be perfectly honest, I am hoping that when the dust settles, and Bioware's reputation has taken irreversible damage, that the talented people in the company who want to make good games KNOW that there are people out their who respected what they were doing, and valued their talent and would pay good money for it. If Bioware can't get their act together, I am hoping for the company to split (knowing EA's track record, this is very possible, I guarantee you that if ME3 gets a similar reception, it's all over, but this may not happen). Then the people who want to "appeal to the CoD crowd" (their words, not mine) can go off and do that, and the people who want to make true, valued and thoughtful games can go off and do their thing. It seems that this is the only way to go when polarization is this extreme.

Modifié par RohanD, 25 mars 2011 - 02:12 .