458 réponses à ce sujet

[Merced652]

Zzgashi wrote...

Usually a score that low is reserved for games that are unplayably buggy. He has lots of legitimate complaints in the written review, but overall he comes across as very butthurt. Did a Bioware employee insult him?

More likely to get a point across, and to engender hate from frothy mouthed fanbois. 

[Cutlass Jack]

Pyrate_d wrote...

All I get from this post is "I just looked at the score and decided his review sucked"

STOP READING SO MUCH INTO THE SCORE. LOOK AT THE REVIEW. HE'S RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING.

Sounds like you spent less time reading my post than you did writing in caps. I read his review. It was terrible and it was biased. A professional review covers the good as well as the bad. He ignored/downplayed the good and exaggarated the bad.

It reads like he's crying more about it not being Origins 2.0 and it takes away from what few accurate points he had.

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 24 mars 2011 - 12:24 .

[_Aine_]

Review had some fair points, stated rather melodramatically. Score given? Unrealistic.

He basically was saying that because some aspects failed for him ( and many people agree, for what it is worth <with the points made, not the score he boiled it down to>) that the game was an epic fail.

I hope he doesn't mind if I therefore use the same logic. His overall rating smacked of sour grapes and nerd-rage. Therefore, I think his entire review fails on the basis of that failing.

Wow, it *does* make it much easier when you become an extremist! The power of the internet is great indeed.

/snark off.

And for the record, I am a DA fan who has also been fairly transparent (while hopefully diplomatic) about some of the areas I feel the game were better *and* worse than DA:O. But this, and articles and threads like it? Drama for its own sake. Talking about crap graphics and yet using a stunning mage screenshot?? ok.....

NOT WINNING. Sorry Charlie.

[CaptainVanguard]

I remember a time that a review was something I ignored because truthfully, I played the game for me.

I dont care what some fancy paid reviewer has to say about it, I liked it, im entitled to and by every right anyone else is who enjoyed it aswell.

Just because other people didnt doesnt give them a right to shoot it down, especially not without some constructive feedback.

The mans entire rant was about not having DA Origins 2 and it was clear that obviously he didnt appriciate that sequals tend to be "different" from the origional for obvious reasons. A good sequal isnt just a recycled mass-effect and thank god it wasnt.

[MingWolf]

His review seems to chime with my general criticisms for the game in almost every point, despite the 2.5. I mean 2.5 seems a little too harsh...

[DarkSpiral]

Pyrate_d wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Wasn't a very good review. And that score tells me he's not very competant as a professional reviewer. 2.5/5 sure. 2.5/10 the game shouldn't barely be able to run on its own.

All I get from this post is "I just looked at the score and decided his review sucked"

STOP READING SO MUCH INTO THE SCORE. LOOK AT THE REVIEW. HE'S RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING.

No he isn't.  The writing is top notch, he just doesn't like it.  The artisitc quality of the areas are top notch, he just doesn't like it.  The rehash of the map is....well that actually that really does suck.  I think pretty much everyone agrees that Bioware very badly dropped the ball on that one.

And, yes the score is exaggerated and unporfessional.  People keep saying don't concentrate on the score, read the review.  So...the score isn't part of the review then?  A blatantly skewed, subjective, unprofessional part?  I don't have agree or disagree with any of the opinions he has, but I certainly can disapprove of the blantant unporfessionalism.

Modifié par DarkSpiral, 24 mars 2011 - 12:32 .

[Pyrate_d]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Sounds like you spent less time reading my post than you did writing in caps. I read his review. It was terrible and it was biased. A professional review covers the good as well as the bad. He ignored/downplayed the good and exaggarated the bad.

It reads like he's crying more about it not being Origins 2.0 and it takes away from what few accurate points he had.

There was nothing good about DA2, so I don't think there was much to cover.

And then you go into the "change is good" fallacy that we often see on these forums. Change isn't good or bad. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. The change from origins to DA2 was bad. If you disagree, you have no taste, and don't matter in the slightest.

[Cutlass Jack]

Pyrate_d wrote...

There was nothing good about DA2, so I don't think there was much to cover.

And then you go into the "change is good" fallacy that we often see on these forums. Change isn't good or bad. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. The change from origins to DA2 was bad. If you disagree, you have no taste, and don't matter in the slightest.

Funny, I'm feeling the same way about your opinion after reading the above. There's no point in having an intelligent discussion with you I see.

[Merced652]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Pyrate_d wrote...

There was nothing good about DA2, so I don't think there was much to cover.

And then you go into the "change is good" fallacy that we often see on these forums. Change isn't good or bad. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. The change from origins to DA2 was bad. If you disagree, you have no taste, and don't matter in the slightest.

Funny, I'm feeling the same way about your opinion after reading the above. There's no point in having an intelligent discussion with you I see.

You don't agree with his opinion and that relates to intelligent discussion being pointless. Hmmm, knowing exactly how this forum works i'd say that was you calling him retarded for his opinion. classy. 

[DarkSpiral]

Pyrate_d wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Sounds like you spent less time reading my post than you did writing in caps. I read his review. It was terrible and it was biased. A professional review covers the good as well as the bad. He ignored/downplayed the good and exaggarated the bad.

It reads like he's crying more about it not being Origins 2.0 and it takes away from what few accurate points he had.

There was nothing good about DA2, so I don't think there was much to cover.

And then you go into the "change is good" fallacy that we often see on these forums. Change isn't good or bad. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. The change from origins to DA2 was bad. If you disagree, you have no taste, and don't matter in the slightest.

Ah yes, now I see why you're so dramtic about your defenss of that pathetic review.  Birds of a feather.

[UltimaFullmetal]

That score is ridiculous and he is clearly upset that it's not Origins 2. The game isn't perfect, but a score like that should be reserved for completely unplayable pieces of crap, not sequels that don't go where you think they should.

[Pyrate_d]

I wish the people defending DA2 weren't doing any damage, but they actually are.

Modifié par Pyrate_d, 24 mars 2011 - 12:34 .

[Haxas]

"Disclosures: This game was obtained via retail store and reviewed on the Xbox 360. Approximately 22 hours of play were devoted to the single-player mode, and the game was completed. There are no multiplayer modes."

22 Hours?

Did he even do any of the sidequests or read the dialogue?

Sorry, that's bull.

Overglorifying Origins is all that is happening here. I laugh at his technical complaints, this game runs 5x better than Origins ever could on 360.

[Merced652]

Clearly hes been brainwashed by 4chan or hes a fellow codexer.

[RaenImrahl]

A poorly-written review which parrots the points already raised by many long before. And ALL writing that starts with a poorly paraphrased line from Hamlet should be ignored. Merely an attempt by the author to justify his rants from earlier:

http://www.gamecriti...y-dragon-age-ii
http://www.gamecriti...n-age-ii-part-2

Modifié par RaenImrahl, 24 mars 2011 - 12:36 .

[Merced652]

Haxas wrote...

"Disclosures: This game was obtained via retail store and reviewed on the Xbox 360. Approximately 22 hours of play were devoted to the single-player mode, and the game was completed. There are no multiplayer modes."

22 Hours?

Did he even do any of the sidequests or read the dialogue?

Sorry, that's bull.

Overglorifying Origins is all that is happening here. I laugh at his technical complaints, this game runs 5x better than Origins ever could on 360.

Read dialogue? Huh? This game is fully voiced sweetheart. The only thing you need to read is a picture. Alos, 22 hours is probably just about average for people who don't frivalously waste time in game. 

[Pandaman102]

Score really is far too low, DA2's more like the wallflower at homecoming rather than a blender disguised as a fleshlight like the 2.5 implies. He does have some valid points though, so I wouldn't disagree with his entire review.

[1varangian]

Then again DA2 a sequel. And a blatant attempt at milking the cash cow after Origin's success. Short development cycle, shorter story, many corners cut in development, aggressive marketing, day 1 DLC etc. And changing the setting and gameplay to attract a new audience at the cost of alienating the established fans...

It just might deserve a 2.5 in that context.

[Pyrate_d]

RaenImrahl wrote...

A poorly-written review which parrots the points already raised by many long before. And ALL writing that starts with a poorly paraphrased of a line from Hamlet should be ignored. Merely an attempt by the author to justify his rants from earlier:

http://www.gamecriti...y-dragon-age-ii
http://www.gamecriti...n-age-ii-part-2

Very clever how you use some irrelevant crap to deflect the content of the review. 

I understand the impulse to try to find excuses for DA2 and for Bioware, but it's ultimately misguided.

[Vormaerin]

Merced652 wrote...

You don't agree with his opinion and that relates to intelligent discussion being pointless. Hmmm, knowing exactly how this forum works i'd say that was you calling him retarded for his opinion. classy. 

Since his opinion is that anyone who doesn't agree with him is showing a lack of taste and is irrelevant, I think stating that conversation beyond that point is a waste is entirely reasonable.

If he wanted to discuss the validity of the analysis, then there would be a valid  "opinions differ" basis.  If he wants to launch ad hominems at anyone who doesn't agree with him, then its best to just ignore him.

[Cutlass Jack]

Merced652 wrote...

You don't agree with his opinion and that relates to intelligent discussion being pointless. Hmmm, knowing exactly how this forum works i'd say that was you calling him retarded for his opinion. classy. 

No I'm saying its pointless to have a discussion with anyone who thinks the opinion of someone who doesn't agree with him doesn't count.

But interesting attempt to turn it around. You did read what I responded to yes?


Edit: Vormaerin nailed it precisely while I was writing this.

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 24 mars 2011 - 12:41 .

[Paeyne]

The review is extremely well written. It is easy to tell that every word was chosen carefully.

Is its tone overly harsh?... absolutely... especially in contrast to the many other reviews at the other end of the spectrum that praise DA2 to the hilt and sound like press releases by EA.

Is the score 2.5/10 a fair estimation of the game? No... I don't think so. Even with all its faults I don't think the game deserves a score that low. It is getting peoples attention though, which was probably the intent.

Is the reviewer wrong? I would have to say no to this too. Substantively the points he writes about are factual and correct.

Given the polarization of the reactions and some of the fluffy reviews by many others in the industry, I think it was just a matter of time before something like this came out.

Sometimes people feel they need to shout to be heard. That does not necessarily make them wrong.

[Merced652]

Vormaerin wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

You don't agree with his opinion and that relates to intelligent discussion being pointless. Hmmm, knowing exactly how this forum works i'd say that was you calling him retarded for his opinion. classy. 

Since his opinion is that anyone who doesn't agree with him is showing a lack of taste and is irrelevant, I think stating that conversation beyond that point is a waste is entirely reasonable.

If he wanted to discuss the validity of the analysis, then there would be a valid  "opinions differ" basis.  If he wants to launch ad hominems at anyone who doesn't agree with him, then its best to just ignore him.

Funny, its almost like thats what nearly everyone who disagreed with the reviewer happened to do. Total mindjob right?

[DarkSpiral]

Pyrate_d wrote...

RaenImrahl wrote...

A poorly-written review which parrots the points already raised by many long before. And ALL writing that starts with a poorly paraphrased of a line from Hamlet should be ignored. Merely an attempt by the author to justify his rants from earlier:

http://www.gamecriti...y-dragon-age-ii
http://www.gamecriti...n-age-ii-part-2

Very clever how you use some irrelevant crap to deflect the content of the review. 

I understand the impulse to try to find excuses for DA2 and for Bioware, but it's ultimately misguided.

??

Excuse me, I need to read Raen's comment again.

..
..
..
..
..

Okay, I've done that.  Where, precisely, did he defend DA2?

[Pyrate_d]

It's like someone who thinks that Armageddon is a better movie than Taxi Driver. It's a perfectly valid opinion, but they're still wrong. And there's really no point in arguing with a person who inhabits such a lower plane of existence.