458 réponses à ce sujet

[fallingseraph]

242 others like this review and 67 shared it on face book.


I think no matter how many times Bioware mods close my threads and others like this, the truth is out here.

[RohanD]

UnstableMongoose wrote...

I honestly think there should have been one reply to this thread, one which said "Gamecritics.com is a site that survives off pure and unbalanced negativity, and if you think that someone else assigning an arbitrary number to a game on the internets in some way validates your opinions to the level of fact, you're living in a fantasy world." At this point, ideally, the thread should have been locked.

But we seem to have passed the threshold where that was going to happen, so I suppose I'll go to a greater depth.

To directly answer the OP, I found the review "honest", but the word "integrity" simply doesn't roll of the tongue when thinking about Gamecritic's overly-negative writing style in general and the author's ignorance of the game's positive factors (which an analytical person would have to consider at least possibly intentional). He brings up good points, but he has a faulty sense of scale, and has tunnel visioned on aspects of the game that are negative and ignored anything that could be seen as an ameliorating, a redeeming or even a transcendent (depending on how good you thought the game was) feature. Considering Gamecritic's stance of hiding the mostly shallow number at the end of their article to emphasize analyzing the game rather than considering an arbitrary score a review, these shortcomings are inexcusable. His blank panning of all characters as sketches (with no exceptions or examples given) and other sweeping generalizations of the game's strong points designed to avoid giving it any credit (there is not a single positively-slanted sentence in the article, as a point of interest) are juvenile in delivery. Of course, GC articles without a single positive quality mentioned are, in fact, fairly common--just take a stroll through the archives.

In any case, the main complaint regarding Dragon Age II seems to be re-used environments. While to some extent I agree that it is somewhat true, I think that people's memories are too short and biased. Dragon Age: Origins, both Mass Effects, and KOTOR all relied on template maps. Dragon Age II obviously had a less-varied setting than previous games, and I agree that the degree to which the environments were re-used was most likely unnecessary, many are missing the point. DA:O focused on setting and conflict at the expense of its characters, while varied, becoming somewhat (though not entirely) flat reflections of ideals and conflicts. DA2 takes the opposite approach, focusing on character at the expense of environment. Hawke's decisions impact a much smaller area than the Warden's, but their impacts on characters run very, very deep. The way the narrative and characters were done in DA2 required that the setting be scaled back to some degree. Bioware's only crime was over-doing it (ideally, they should get the people that bought their game some nice DLC for free).

Going back to clarifying my opinion on the reviewer and his article, I find it suspect that there are three articles slamming the mess out of DA2 before the reviewer actually completed peeing all over the floor instead of the newspaper. This is incredibly odd, and, strangely enough, similar articles are not often found, even for clearly worse games that received even more negative reviews. The reviewer spent 22 hours playing the game. And wrote four articles on it. Even if you're not very cynical, you really should start wondering how much of the deep character stuff he skipped over, and how much he's reveling in the love-to-hate aspect of being a reviewer that operates on negativity. Anyone having the phrase, "a complete failure in every respect," is either engaging in hyperbole because he hates something too much to admit that it has positive qualities, talking about some horrific historic event that has been revealed to have no positive qualities such as the Hindenburg accident, or doesn't understand what he's talking about on a level high enough to identify any positive qualities. It's just such a damn catch-all statement with no meaning--there are only a miniscule number of things that have not succeeded in any aspect. We can rule out B, meaning that the reviewer is by simple logical process either blowing smoke out his ass, intentionally or uninentionally--the enormous degree of hyperbole and unclarified language in this "review" is staggering.

Your post is humourous to me. Especially so, when so many people on here, and across the internet actually AGREE with this guy, and are praising him for having the guts to get up and say what's on all of their minds.

You have the audacity to say that the thread should have been locked, so all the people within this thread agreeing with this review should be not be able to voice their opinions?

This review is VALID. There is not ONE concern with the game, there are MANY. Reused environments is just one of a whole boatload of problems people have with this game. It is of course, one of the most shocking considering the level of the developer behind it, but it is still but one in a field of many issues. 

You can say you like it, you can call him out for not sharing your opinion. But don't be so arrogant to claim the review or the thread should just be disregarded. 

I totally agree with his score. I would give this game 25%. I hated it. Everything seemed thrown together, nothing connected, it was just a rushed, quick grab for money. If you can ignore all the flaws and still see some kind of gem behind it all then great, you didn't waste your money. 

But a lot of people, are feeling like they have wasted their cash on this game, and there is no doubt that it has done irreversible damage to Bioware's reputation as a game developer. Furthermore, it's completely shattered their credibility as an RPG developer in my books. This is not a role playing game, it is some sort of cinematic, interactive movie, action based hybrid, and to be honest, it doesn't do any of those things very well. It's mediocre in all of those departments. 

[sestrensaz]

Zzgashi wrote...

Usually a score that low is reserved for games that are unplayably buggy.

Which, at present, DA2 is.

[Ariella]

sestrensaz wrote...

Zzgashi wrote...

Usually a score that low is reserved for games that are unplayably buggy.

Which, at present, DA2 is.

Considering that DA2 seems to be running fine on more than a few people's systems, I think trying to present the game as completely unplayable period is disingenious at best.

[Special_Agent_Goodwrench]

sestrensaz wrote...

Zzgashi wrote...

Usually a score that low is reserved for games that are unplayably buggy.

Which, at present, DA2 is.

DA2 plays significantly smoother and has less major glitches than DA:O on the release. I'm not sure how widespread the problems are, but considering my luck, I'd say DA2 is far from unplayable. Very far.

Modifié par DrunkDeadman, 25 mars 2011 - 04:57 .

[MCPOWill]

DA-2 is an 8.5/10 in my book. There is just as much soul as any other Bioware game. The only problem is the aim to make money off a property is also apparent as it shows up with the recycled maps, game breaking bugs, and controversy, otherwise it is just as well written and fine a story as a Bioware game should be.

[Pileyourbodies]

As i play on PC i've not encountered many of the problems he mentioned like the achievements(Giving ratings off of those is just stupid) nor the button mashing as we PC players need only press one button to basic attack till somethings dead. His points are valid for himself. I however like the lack of a central antagonist makes the world feel real. It is very hard to point to one person or thing in reality and say thats the bad guy, its happened a few times in history but those are the exceptions. His review was valid but he was harsh on the score.

[UnstableMongoose]

RohanD wrote...


Your post is humourous to me. Especially so, when so many people on here, and across the internet actually AGREE with this guy, and are praising him for having the guts to get up and say what's on all of their minds.

You have the audacity to say that the thread should have been locked, so all the people within this thread agreeing with this review should be not be able to voice their opinions?

This review is VALID. There is not ONE concern with the game, there are MANY. Reused environments is just one of a whole boatload of problems people have with this game. It is of course, one of the most shocking considering the level of the developer behind it, but it is still but one in a field of many issues. 

You can say you like it, you can call him out for not sharing your opinion. But don't be so arrogant to claim the review or the thread should just be disregarded. 

I totally agree with his score. I would give this game 25%. I hated it. Everything seemed thrown together, nothing connected, it was just a rushed, quick grab for money. If you can ignore all the flaws and still see some kind of gem behind it all then great, you didn't waste your money. 

But a lot of people, are feeling like they have wasted their cash on this game, and there is no doubt that it has done irreversible damage to Bioware's reputation as a game developer. Furthermore, it's completely shattered their credibility as an RPG developer in my books. This is not a role playing game, it is some sort of cinematic, interactive movie, action based hybrid, and to be honest, it doesn't do any of those things very well. It's mediocre in all of those departments. 

The thread-closing thing was clearly hyperbole, I apologize if I wasn't clear on that, my every word tends to drip with sarcasm. Basically, I was calling the reviewer out on giving the game an extremely negative score for the hell of it, using puerile tactics, and over-generalizing everything. Basically, Gamecritics is just a site where rage takes precedence over analysis, and just like at IGN, you aren't required to qualify your outlandish opinions (except IGN's reviews are usually inflated and occasionally deflated, where GC's are usually very much artifically deflated and very rarely inflated) and I was trying to make the point that people post a link full of generalizations and utterly ludicrous statements and think that just because it's a link, it's somehow more valuable than a forum post full of generalizations and utterly ludicrous statements. Basically, the GC review is several paragraphs long and could have been summed up in the statement:  "I liked no aspects of the game and was determined not to enjoy it so much that I posted three articles about how I hated it before I even posted my review. I will now bull**** unqualified statements with no examples other than the magic flying Templar effect and assume that this results in a score of 2.5." And honestly, if a game is considered verbatim by the author to be a complete failure in all aspects, wouldn't that make it a zero? Where are the points even coming from? He certainly didn't have a single positive statement to make about DA2.

And to stop clarifiying my own opinions and to address yours, since when the hell did one game that you can't even find a true majority to characterize as "bad" mean that a developer was tanked? This is the exact same sort of blanket mentality with no sense of reference or need to explain yourself that the ******-poor article on Gamecritics is guilty of. It's perfectly fine to give DA2 a 2.5 out of 10, it's something called an opinion, which most people have, and which very few people tend to agree with exactly. However, when someone overgeneralizes, makes several egregious errors, makes no apology, and expects their word to be law, any reasonable person takes issue. 

Modifié par UnstableMongoose, 25 mars 2011 - 05:47 .

[fallingseraph]

http://fronttowardsg...ragon-age-2-pc/

6.5/10

[Elthraim]

If you agree with this article and/or score and hate the game so much, why are you bothering to post ad nauseum on the forums about it? Remove the game from your hard drive, break the disc (if you have one, I suppose you could print a picture of it and burn it in effigy if you don't), delete your save games, and move on.

It's a computer game.  Your opinions might be valid, but your anger and frustration are entirely unwarranted.

I know what it feels like to be cruelly disappointed by something, but at some point in your lives you will have to realize that disappointment is primarily a product of inflated expectations and selective memory.

If you have constructive points of feedback that you feel BioWare needs to hear, there is a place for that in another post (with something like 57 pages, last time I looked). Simply because you dislike a game as much as you clearly do (and, by the way, whoever used the term 'butthurt' struck a chord) does not mean that everyone (or even the majority, silent or otherwise) agrees with you.

The game could have been better, but that ship has sailed. I, for one, am thoroughly enjoying it for what it does offer (and, please, allow your outrage to subside before you say, "It offers nothing but FAIL!"). And, by the way, I've played every BioWare game (minus Jade Empire) since the original Baldur's Gate. I'm certainly not a 'casual Modern Warfare' gamer and I enjoy the combat in DA2 quite a bit more than the combat in DA:O.

Modifié par Elthraim, 25 mars 2011 - 05:55 .

[fallingseraph]

I think the point is, voicing an opinion may help drive the machine into the direction of fulfilling the holes that are the complaints.

Not saying anything would be like accepting this as is even though you don't like it.

Communication on a community forum, OMG REALLY?

[HighlandBerserkr]

I personally think the characters are better in DA 2 than In Origins, but that's just a personal opinion, but for someone to think that NONE of the characters are written well and are "shallow" that's just ludicrous, he looses all credibility right there.

[RaenImrahl]

HighlandBerserkr wrote...

I personally think the characters are better in DA 2 than In Origins, but that's just a personal opinion, but for someone to think that NONE of the characters are written well and are "shallow" that's just ludicrous, he looses all credibility right there.

Interesting point.  I'd say character quality is about 50-50 so far for me, although I've done only one playthrough and really only concentrated on a few in DA2.  There were some enjoyable archetypes in DAO that I am sure they avoided repeating in DA2... the stoic yet lovable Sten comes first to mind. 

[RohanD]

HighlandBerserkr wrote...

I personally think the characters are better in DA 2 than In Origins, but that's just a personal opinion, but for someone to think that NONE of the characters are written well and are "shallow" that's just ludicrous, he looses all credibility right there.

Nope, he doesn't lose credibility at all. In fact he gains it for being damn honest imo. I thought the characters in DA2 were hollow and boring, perhaps with the exception of Varric. 

It wasn't exactly the archetypes themselves, but it was the writing and execution behind them that just didn't provide enough impact. 

I just didn't care about any of them. At all. 

[HighlandBerserkr]

RohanD wrote...

HighlandBerserkr wrote...

I personally think the characters are better in DA 2 than In Origins, but that's just a personal opinion, but for someone to think that NONE of the characters are written well and are "shallow" that's just ludicrous, he looses all credibility right there.

Nope, he doesn't lose credibility at all. In fact he gains it for being damn honest imo. I thought the characters in DA2 were hollow and boring, perhaps with the exception of Varric. 

It wasn't exactly the archetypes themselves, but it was the writing and execution behind them that just didn't provide enough impact. 

I just didn't care about any of them. At all. 

Aveline was not Hallow, she was an incredible friend with a dry sense of humour, Her and Verric were very well done and the friendship that grew seemed very genuine to me, but hey that's just me I am an adult not a child

[RohanD]

HighlandBerserkr wrote...

RohanD wrote...

HighlandBerserkr wrote...

I personally think the characters are better in DA 2 than In Origins, but that's just a personal opinion, but for someone to think that NONE of the characters are written well and are "shallow" that's just ludicrous, he looses all credibility right there.

Nope, he doesn't lose credibility at all. In fact he gains it for being damn honest imo. I thought the characters in DA2 were hollow and boring, perhaps with the exception of Varric. 

It wasn't exactly the archetypes themselves, but it was the writing and execution behind them that just didn't provide enough impact. 

I just didn't care about any of them. At all. 

Aveline was not Hallow, she was an incredible friend with a dry sense of humour, Her and Verric were very well done and the friendship that grew seemed very genuine to me, but hey that's just me I am an adult not a child

The last part of your statement is actually very counter productive as it proves, without a doubt, that you are quite childish, thereby calling into question the basis for all of your opinions. 

[RohanD]

fallingseraph wrote...

I think the point is, voicing an opinion may help drive the machine into the direction of fulfilling the holes that are the complaints.

Not saying anything would be like accepting this as is even though you don't like it.

Communication on a community forum, OMG REALLY?

^ this

[Cybermortis]

The fact that Aveline and Varric are often touted as examples of the good characters in the game says a great deal. They are the first two companions you get (after your sibling), stay with you throughout the game and have viable reasons for staying with Hawke.

I don't think the problem with the companions is that they were not well thought through. Rather it is that for whatever reason we simply don't get to know their backstories unless it directly relates to the quest they are sending you on.

[kinna]

RohanD wrote...

HighlandBerserkr wrote...

I personally think the characters are better in DA 2 than In Origins, but that's just a personal opinion, but for someone to think that NONE of the characters are written well and are "shallow" that's just ludicrous, he looses all credibility right there.

Nope, he doesn't lose credibility at all. In fact he gains it for being damn honest imo. I thought the characters in DA2 were hollow and boring, perhaps with the exception of Varric. 

It wasn't exactly the archetypes themselves, but it was the writing and execution behind them that just didn't provide enough impact. 

I just didn't care about any of them. At all. 

All I can say is that is your loss. I feel very sorry for you.

[sestrensaz]

DrunkDeadman wrote...

sestrensaz wrote...

Zzgashi wrote...

Usually a score that low is reserved for games that are unplayably buggy.

Which, at present, DA2 is.

DA2 plays significantly smoother and has less major glitches than DA:O on the release. I'm not sure how widespread the problems are, but considering my luck, I'd say DA2 is far from unplayable. Very far.

If you go friendship with Isabela or Sebastian, then yes it becomes unplayable.  That bug seems to affect almost everyone - there are probably more who played through the game without even realising they were gimped most of the way through.  For me and lots of other people, however, the debuff has stacked so high the game becomes utterly unplayable. 

My character at present has -50% damage resistance, I die in like 2 hits... it's a joke.  My attack speed is so slow by the time I've done 1 staff combo Anders/Merrill have shot 2 full combos... this isn't something just affecting me and a sparse handful of people, it's a huge widespread problem and even moreso for console owners since we cannot mod our saves and just fix the glitch ourselves like PC users.

Seriously, the game shouldn't have been shipped with a bug this obvious.  At present it's unfixable beyond starting over and going rival with Isabela and Sebastian instead which I do not want to do after sinking 60 hours into Act 1 and 2 already.

I hate to be harsh, but the fact you consider it luck that you haven't encountered a boat load of bugs speaks volumes... I'm happy that you didn't have a terrible experience with the game, but so many others have and as such I feel it is only right to label the game unplayable when there is just as much (if not more) chance new players will encounter game breaking bugs themselves rather than have a lucky plain saling playthrough like yourself.

Modifié par sestrensaz, 25 mars 2011 - 05:21 .

[raziel316randy1]

I agree with pretty much everything his review says except for the rating of 2.5/10.

I'm enjoying the game so far. It's not as good as the original or awakenings but to me it's still FUN and that's what matters the most. I'm currently on the ancient rock wraith on act 1 so maybe my opinion will change as I continue to play.

My biggest problem with this is being stuck in the same city for the entire game ( I'm really hoping that what the review says is not entirely true and you're not stuck in the same city for the entire game) and recycling the environments (So many times I've entered a dungeon like area and I think that I've ended up in the wrong area somehow as I've seen this area before).

The main story also seems to be going no where. So far all I'm really doing is completing little quests for people. (Hopefully that changes as I continue playing the game). Which I don't mind much. However, it would be very usfull if there were a more detailed recap of the quests in your journal (perhaps a FULL description of events that have transpired so far throughout the quest). Often I'm handling 5–10 quest at once and I have no idea WHY I'm completing these quests as I forget what the "quest giver" originally said regarding the quest when I originally took it three days ago.

There's also a few bugs that I have experienced so far with anders regroup spell (how did they miss such an obivious bug),  characters not atacking at times, some auras not turning on when specified through "tactics" (which has been a problem since the original dragon age. This should have been fixed by now), difficulity scaling of some bosses (for example, ancient rock wraith seems impossible on hard and a breeze on normal) and a few other minor things. The load time is anoying also but meh.

Aside from that, so far it's an entertaining game for me none the less.

I would give it a 8.5/10 unless I experience a game breaking bug. Only then it merits the 2.5/10

Modifié par raziel316randy1, 25 mars 2011 - 06:28 .

[AkiKishi]

raziel316randy1 wrote...

I agree with pretty much everything his review says except for the rating of 2.5/10.

I'm enjoying the game so far. It's not as good as the original or awakenings but to me it's still FUN and that's what matters the most. I'm currently on the ancient rock wraith on act 1 so maybe my opinion will change as I continue to play.

My biggest problem with this is being stuck in the same city for the entire game ( I'm really hoping that what the review says is not entirely true and you're not stuck in the same city for the entire game) and recycling the environments (So many times I've entered a dungeon like area and I think that I've ended up in the wrong area somehow as I've seen this area before).

The main story also seems to be going no where. So far all I'm really doing is completing little quests for people. (Hopefully that changes as I continue playing the game). Which I don't mind much. However, it would be very usfull if there were a more detailed recap of the quests in your journal (perhaps a FULL description of events that have transpired so far throughout the quest). Often I'm handling 5–10 quest at once and I have no idea WHY I'm completing these quests as I forget what the "quest giver" originally said regarding the quest when I originally took it three days ago.

There's also a few bugs that I have experienced so far with anders regroup spell (how did they miss such an obivious bug),  characters not atacking at times, some auras not turning on when specified through "tactics" (which has been a problem since the original dragon age. This should have been fixed by now), difficulity scaling of some bosses (for example, ancient rock wraith seems impossible on hard and a breeze on normal) and a few other minor things. The load time is anoying also but meh.

Aside from that, so far it's an entertaining game for me none the less.

I would give it a 8.5/10 unless I experience a game breaking bug. Only then it merits the 2.5/10

Do you really think they would lie about something like that?

[sestrensaz]

Indeed, they were not lying and you are pretty much in the city the whole time with a handful of exceptions.

However, I never experienced that as a bad thing.  DA2 isn't DAO - this isn't about an epic cross-country journey to save the world, it's about a single person's life and how their choices impacted those around them and the city they live in.  I think a lot of people went into DA2 determined for it to be grander and more epic in scale than DAO, and when it was a more insular and personal story; instantly branded it as rubbish and could see nothing but faults.  I suspect the majority of people who really enjoyed DA2 were people who either hadn't played DAO or aren't ye olde RPG fans.  Those people it seems, went into DA2 expecting something they kinda have no right to expect - it's Bioware's game, not theirs.  Call me a heathen, but I think I was actually enjoying DA2 more than DAO - go figure!

Anyway, if I hadn't encountered the game breaker I did, I would be standing from the rooftops telling everyone how much I love this game - if it hadn't have broken and made further progress impossibly difficult, I would definitely be rating it at an 8 or 9 out of 10. The only non-bug element that has irked me so far is the environment recycling - if different areas genuinely looked different, the immersion into the story would have been amazing and I would be confidently proclaiming 10/10 - no joke.

But with the bugs... well, I will just say I am incredibly disappointed.

Modifié par sestrensaz, 25 mars 2011 - 07:20 .

[raziel316randy1]

BobSmith101 wrote...

raziel316randy1 wrote...

I agree with pretty much everything his review says except for the rating of 2.5/10.

I'm enjoying the game so far. It's not as good as the original or awakenings but to me it's still FUN and that's what matters the most. I'm currently on the ancient rock wraith on act 1 so maybe my opinion will change as I continue to play.

My biggest problem with this is being stuck in the same city for the entire game ( I'm really hoping that what the review says is not entirely true and you're not stuck in the same city for the entire game) and recycling the environments (So many times I've entered a dungeon like area and I think that I've ended up in the wrong area somehow as I've seen this area before).

The main story also seems to be going no where. So far all I'm really doing is completing little quests for people. (Hopefully that changes as I continue playing the game). Which I don't mind much. However, it would be very usfull if there were a more detailed recap of the quests in your journal (perhaps a FULL description of events that have transpired so far throughout the quest). Often I'm handling 5–10 quest at once and I have no idea WHY I'm completing these quests as I forget what the "quest giver" originally said regarding the quest when I originally took it three days ago.

There's also a few bugs that I have experienced so far with anders regroup spell (how did they miss such an obivious bug),  characters not atacking at times, some auras not turning on when specified through "tactics" (which has been a problem since the original dragon age. This should have been fixed by now), difficulity scaling of some bosses (for example, ancient rock wraith seems impossible on hard and a breeze on normal) and a few other minor things. The load time is anoying also but meh.

Aside from that, so far it's an entertaining game for me none the less.

I would give it a 8.5/10 unless I experience a game breaking bug. Only then it merits the 2.5/10

Do you really think they would lie about something like that?

lie, no. exaggerate yes.

I mean...it's seem pretty obivious that it's NOT a good idea to have an entire game which spans 30–60 hours in one small city. Surely you get to visit other smaller towns, explore mountain sides, venture off to kill darkspawn etc.

I'm still on act 1 so I'm not very far into the game and I don't really know what to expect in terms of visiting new locations.

Modifié par raziel316randy1, 25 mars 2011 - 07:06 .

[raziel316randy1]

sestrensaz wrote...

Indeed, they were not lying and you are pretty much in the city the whole time with a handful of exceptions.

If I hadn't encountered the game breaker I did, I would be standing from the rooftops telling everyone how much I love this game - if it hadn't have broken and made further progress impossibly difficult, I would definitely be rating it at an 8 or 9 out of 10. The only non-bug element that has irked me so far is the environment recycling - if different areas genuinely looked different, the immersion into the story would have been amazing and I would be confidently proclaiming 10/10 - no joke.

But with the bugs... well, I will just say I am incredibly disappointed.

What game breaker did you encounter? Is it the one regarding Isibel's(sp?) friendship? Let me know so I can try to avoid the bug that broke your game...

Modifié par raziel316randy1, 25 mars 2011 - 07:12 .