260 réponses à ce sujet

[randName]

Al Rashid wrote...

There are many non-linear games that don't have any level-scaling. In Baldur's Gate 2 you could go anywhere, but some enemies were harder and you had to come back and deal with them later. I think it makes much better gameplay.

Edit: What I'm trying to say is I don't think there is anything wrong with running into enemies you can't defeat and having to come back when you're stronger.

I like both, and I don't get the issue people have with scaling; esp. scaling that is varied, and defined, and not just keeping everything at your level.

Or one area scales from 1-10, and other from 5-25, and other is always 10, and other is always 15, an other scales from 5 directly to 10 (say that it adds one more powerful character if you wait too long) and so on.

For games like BG2 are really fun as you are lower level, but I don't like it once you are higher than the area, since it just becomes you wading through enemies like nothing; sure its fun, but when the enemies are supposed to be scary, but ain't I dislike it.

Or I think mutants in FO3 are level10 up, and this I like; and that the normal grunts mostly are level 10 enemies, but then they add harder enemies against you, with masters, and then supermasters and so on as you level up, but you can always run into these earlier in the game; since they are also placed and not just spawned. (could be mods, since I play a modded FO3). & Here I think the scaling works better than in BG2 once you are above the level of the area. (I don't like it when level 3 characters can go through areas that are planned for level 20 characters due to scaling).

& this is esp. true in games with HP Scaling, as if the enemies don't scale they suddenly won't be able to do nothing against you since you now have so much more HP then them ~ I normally turn off HP scaling based on level for games due to this (if possible, as with mods for FO3 and FONV etc).

Modifié par randName, 25 mars 2011 - 06:33 .

[Baelyn]

I love all of the people saying its a good review by justifying it because they agreed with it, and then saying that the higher reviews are wrong because they didn't agree with it.

Was it well written? Yes.

Do I agree with what he says? No. This doesn't make it a bad review nor a good one. Just one that I simply disagree with completely. Just the same as saying an IGN review that gave it an 85/100 is a bad review that was obviously paid off by EA because you don't agree with it.

[Merced652]

Al Rashid wrote...

I thought that this was the review:
http://www.rpgcodex....tent.php?id=195

"Dragon Age has flaws, and if you focus on them, you'll miss a pretty good role-playing game. It's a Bioware game, which means that it has a certain set of features that Bioware has developed into a trademark design over the last decade. However, Bioware has managed to improve and evolve that design significantly, keeping the strong story-focus, while loading in a wide range of player choices and paths, which makes it the best Bioware RPG and one of the best role-playing games in years despite the flaws."

Thats cute, trying to pass off the origins review as DA2s. 

[bestplayerever]

Baelyn wrote...

I love all of the people saying its a good review by justifying it because they agreed with it, and then saying that the higher reviews are wrong because they didn't agree with it.

Was it well written? Yes.

Do I agree with what he says? No. This doesn't make it a bad review nor a good one. Just one that I simply disagree with completely. Just the same as saying an IGN review that gave it an 85/100 is a bad review that was obviously paid off by EA because you don't agree with it.

Which parts you don't agree with and what's your take then? Is he lying?

[CakesOnAPlane]

Was the reviewer even paying attention to the game?

- "Secondly, it would be nice if you could just hand over the relic when Isabella brings it back."

That's exactly what you try to do, but the Qunari require more because they are Qunari not Human. You can't just demand that the characters in the game conform to what you think would be 'nice'; isn't the whole point of RPG's to play a role in a defined world?

Probably too busy coming up with his hilarious and witty comments (helpfully written in bold) to notice.

[Persephone]

Baelyn wrote...

I love all of the people saying its a good review by justifying it because they agreed with it, and then saying that the higher reviews are wrong because they didn't agree with it.

Was it well written? Yes.

Do I agree with what he says? No. This doesn't make it a bad review nor a good one. Just one that I simply disagree with completely. Just the same as saying an IGN review that gave it an 85/100 is a bad review that was obviously paid off by EA because you don't agree with it.

Pretty much this. I thought both reviews on RPGC (On DAO and DA2) were well written. I agree with neither though.

[Al Rashid]

CakesOnAPlane wrote...

Was the reviewer even paying attention to the game?

- "Secondly, it would be nice if you could just hand over the relic when Isabella brings it back."

That's exactly what you try to do, but the Qunari require more because they are Qunari not Human. You can't just demand that the characters in the game conform to what you think would be 'nice'; isn't the whole point of RPG's to play a role in a defined world?

Probably too busy coming up with his hilarious and witty comments (helpfully written in bold) to notice.

They require more because that's how Bioware designed the game.  I don't think anyone would have a problem if the Qunari just took the relic and left.

[Kastagir]

It was refreshing to see such a critical review. By "critical" I don't mean negative, I mean critical - exhaustive and explanatory. This is the kind of review that can help people decide whether or not to buy the game - or help people understand what all the disappointment is about. If "press a button and something awesome happens" is enough for you, you'll probably still buy the game even after reading the review. If you expect more out of a game, whether or not it is a sequel to a relatively successful title, this review does a fair job of assessing the failures of Dragon Age 2.

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

[This post will include all the spoilers which was included in the original post]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

I'd like to hear...or well, read your points.
Last time I checked, Darkspawn didn't fall from the sky...

Sure. Let me go through the points one by one. I will of course paraphrase the points made so as not to have to write 5 pages here =) And I'll also skip all filler talk in between actual points, since while it adds flavour to the reading experience, it's not relevant in the end.

* Not being able to bring about care for dying people in the beginning - DA2, plot-related
* Nobody in Kirkwall is bothered about you/Bethany being a mage - DA2, plot-related
* Blood magic is just a skill point - DA2, though I don't see how this is very important compared to the next point
* Nobody cares about you using blood magic - Both games
* Always get similar results with different flavour - Both games, outside the Landsmeet and forward your choices in DAO are mostly flavour in the end as well
* Not being able to stop templars from taking Bethany - DA2, plot-related
* Complaints that putting points into secondary stats isn't viable - Both, and the issue is smaller in DA2 than in DAO
* Inability to miss completely - DA2
* Implying that there is no persuasion options in DA2 aside from using companions - Outright false, the system is just changed (3 kinds of persuasion + companions instead of DAO's 2, but less difficulty thresholds)
* classes having less weapon options - DA2
* Poor talent/spell balance - Both games
* Enemy reinforcements - DA2
* Legendary magical weapons of yesterday are worse than vendor mass produced items tomorrow - Both games
* Rampant need to switch gear constantly due to level scaling - Both games
* Removed damage resistance and armour penetration - DA2
* Junk inventory items, ie vendor trash - Both games (and I'd personally say it's a bigger issue in DAO what with crafting components eating up the little inventory space you have, though that's an issue with the crafting and not the junk per se)
* Skill cooldowns - Both games
* Most quests are in the end related to killing - Both games
* Random cutscene power will show some enemies are worth sparing while most aren't - Both games
* You'd never choose to duel instead of the big fight at the end of act 2 since biger battles are more fun - Both games, if you have that mentality...... I guess a person who feels that way would fail the Landsmeet on purpose? Odd complaint.
* Why would you choose not to fight at the end of act 2? - Same as the point above this one
* Isabela not telling you about the artifact until it's "too late" - DA2, plot-related
* All areas are passages - Both games, a few exceptions such as DAO Lothering
* Exploration feels weak with quest markers - Both games (why doesn't this person turn them off?)
* Reused dungeons - DA2, definitely

See how so many complaints that don't tie directly into the game's story line but is complaints about how the game works as a game, are the same for both games? Many of them, I wouldn't even call them issues, but they sure pad out that review fine.

Not to mention, several of those plot-related "issues" are in DAO as well (just not those exact issues of course since it's a different story). Not getting the choice you'd like to pick is a problem that comes up in pretty much every rpg. Maker knows it happened to me many times in DAO, too. In a way, it's a good thing that we can't always get exactly what we want too, makes the story seem more feasible that it's not all rainbows and bunnies in the end no matter how much we try. But of course, not all plot related complaints were about that, so I'll stop going off on this tangent =)

Long post is long!

Good write up. You just summed up why I didnt like Origins.

[CakesOnAPlane]

Al Rashid wrote...

CakesOnAPlane wrote...

Was the reviewer even paying attention to the game?

- "Secondly, it would be nice if you could just hand over the relic when Isabella brings it back."

That's exactly what you try to do, but the Qunari require more because they are Qunari not Human. You can't just demand that the characters in the game conform to what you think would be 'nice'; isn't the whole point of RPG's to play a role in a defined world?

Probably too busy coming up with his hilarious and witty comments (helpfully written in bold) to notice.

They require more because that's how Bioware designed the game.  I don't think anyone would have a problem if the Qunari just took the relic and left.

But my point is that it would probably go against the code of the Qunari to just let her go. So the Qunari would have a problem, hence they demand her too. It's logical for them, perhaps not for us as humans.

The beliefs of the Qunari shouldn't be changed just so that there's a 'nice' option - the whole point of the act seems to be about the issues of the Qunari code of honour and how it clashes with other beliefs.

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

Merkwürdigliebe wrote...

Steven83 wrote...

As if VD can actually make a better RPG! Everyone's a critic, but when the challenge is out for those to make a playable product, they rather stand back and play classic old games and grumble why today's games are too dumb for them.

If you're so smart, make your own games then.

www.irontowerstudio.com/
http://en.wikipedia....ge_of_Decadence

He actually is working on it already.

Yep and the demo was a lot better than DA 2's.

[bas273]

Baelyn wrote...

I love all of the people saying its a good review by justifying it because they agreed with it, and then saying that the higher reviews are wrong because they didn't agree with it.

Was it well written? Yes.

Do I agree with what he says? No. This doesn't make it a bad review nor a good one. Just one that I simply disagree with completely. Just the same as saying an IGN review that gave it an 85/100 is a bad review that was obviously paid off by EA because you don't agree with it.

You're right of course. The problem with some reviews with very high scores (90+) is that they don't even mention some of DA2's flaws. Like the recycled areas, the game's length (compared to DA:O), the lack of choices and the waves of enemies.
I can agree with someone who rates this game with 95/100, as long as he mentions some of the flaws and comes up with good arguments why (in his opinion) the good outweighs the bad.
However a lot of reviewers haven't even completed this game (or rushed through it) and go with the hype and only mention the good stuff. It's your job as a game reviewer to mention both the good and bad aspects of a game, it's your job to provide (constructive) criticism. Many mainstream websites these days only praise games and don't dare to provide criticism (especially AAA titles). And that's bad for the overall quality of videogames .

Modifié par bas273, 25 mars 2011 - 08:04 .

[Baelyn]

bas273 wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

I love all of the people saying its a good review by justifying it because they agreed with it, and then saying that the higher reviews are wrong because they didn't agree with it.

Was it well written? Yes.

Do I agree with what he says? No. This doesn't make it a bad review nor a good one. Just one that I simply disagree with completely. Just the same as saying an IGN review that gave it an 85/100 is a bad review that was obviously paid off by EA because you don't agree with it.

You're right of course. The problem with some reviews with very high scores (90+) is that they don't even mention some of DA2's flaws. Like the recycled areas, the game's length (compared to DA:O), the lack of choices and the waves of enemies.
I can agree with someone who rates this game with 95/100, as long as he mentions some of the flaws and comes up with good arguments why (in his opinion) the good outweighs the bad.
However a lot of reviewers haven't even completed this game (or rushed through it) and go with the hype and only mention the good stuff. It's your job as a game reviewer to mention both the good and bad aspects of a game, it's your job to provide (constructive) criticism. Many mainstream websites these days only praise games and don't dare to provide criticism (especially AAA titles). And that's bad for the overall quality of videogames .

I can whole-heartedly and completely say that I agree with this 100%.

But you do have to be careful about "flaws." What one person calls a "flaw" (faster, sped up combat just as an example) another may call a "plus."

EDIT- Punctiatonz iz hurd

Modifié par Baelyn, 25 mars 2011 - 08:14 .

[moilami]

An excellent review. Had I read that review before I got my sig edition I would had probably cancelled it and sent a sixpack of beer to the reviewer thanking him of good lols and money saved.


Edit: I was talking about different review I saw.

Modifié par moilami, 25 mars 2011 - 09:38 .

[JabbaDaHutt30]

TJPags wrote...

Very well written review.

And very accurate.

*edit - well, except for the fictional end conversation.  I see it more like this:

EA guy: And what did we learn?
Laidlaw:  That people aren't ready for our awesomeness yet.
EA guy:  true.  But they still bought it, right?
Laidlaw:  Yup, they did.  And eventually, they will see how wonderful it is.
EA guy:  Good.  Now, when will DA3 be coming out?  Christmas?

... BUTTON-AWESOME!!!

[Altima Darkspells]

Baelyn wrote...

I love all of the people saying its a good review by justifying it because they agreed with it, and then saying that the higher reviews are wrong because they didn't agree with it.

Was it well written? Yes.

Do I agree with what he says? No. This doesn't make it a bad review nor a good one. Just one that I simply disagree with completely. Just the same as saying an IGN review that gave it an 85/100 is a bad review that was obviously paid off by EA because you don't agree with it.

Most of the 'good' reviews tend to gloss over the immense flaws within the game, which is not something reviewers should do.

And then you get reviews like form the Escapist that rated the game a 10/10.  The mere fact that BioWare reused every dungeon (not the location, but the dungeon itself) should keep it from being perfect.

So yes, people like some of these low scoring reviews because they actually have the testicular fortitude to punish BioWare for their shoddy design, instead of closing their eyes and pretending it's not there.

[FearMonkey]

The obsolete “to hit chance” mechanic is gone. In your grandpa's RPGs, unsuccessful attacks missed their target. In Dragon Age 2 they merely cause less damage (glancing blows). Your primary stat (one for each class; might as well make the system even more ‘welcoming’ and call it DAMAGE!!!) determines your base damage and your chance to do extra damage. Hovering your cursor over your attack rating displays a breakdown, for example 85% vs normal enemy, 70% vs enemy lieutenant, 55% vs enemy boss. What does it mean for you? A system where you always hit is an HP game, so you’ll be hitting the “bosses” aka HP behemoths for a very, very long time.

My favorite part of the review.

[moilami]

FearMonkey wrote...

The obsolete “to hit chance” mechanic is gone. In your grandpa's RPGs, unsuccessful attacks missed their target. In Dragon Age 2 they merely cause less damage (glancing blows). Your primary stat (one for each class; might as well make the system even more ‘welcoming’ and call it DAMAGE!!!) determines your base damage and your chance to do extra damage. Hovering your cursor over your attack rating displays a breakdown, for example 85% vs normal enemy, 70% vs enemy lieutenant, 55% vs enemy boss. What does it mean for you? A system where you always hit is an HP game, so you’ll be hitting the “bosses” aka HP behemoths for a very, very long time.

My favorite part of the review.

LOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!!

I have read a different review. I was wondering why the hell I don't remember that kind of paraghraph. I went to check the article and saw it was different.

Here is maybe my favorit part of the review I read:



It's true. If you manage to get through the
entire game without at some point going "**** this ****" and rushing
everything, skipping dialogue and whatever or using cheats I dare you
then you are a ****ing mutant psychopath on MDMAs. There is something so
fundamentally wrong with you that it cannot just be attributed to mere
drug problem, mutation, mental illness or profanity. This is an
unplayable game. Dragon Age II is at its best when it isn't played at
all. The cutscenes can sometimes be exciting and sort of fun to watch,
but actually getting to these fun, exciting cutscenes is another beast
altogether and I'm going to tell you why.



http://rpgcodex.net/...pic.php?t=57406

Modifié par moilami, 25 mars 2011 - 09:37 .

[orbit991]

CakesOnAPlane wrote...

Was the reviewer even paying attention to the game?

- "Secondly, it would be nice if you could just hand over the relic when Isabella brings it back."

That's exactly what you try to do, but the Qunari require more because they are Qunari not Human. You can't just demand that the characters in the game conform to what you think would be 'nice'; isn't the whole point of RPG's to play a role in a defined world?

Probably too busy coming up with his hilarious and witty comments (helpfully written in bold) to notice.

No, its to play in a world of choices and consequences.

[Cadaveth]

CakesOnAPlane wrote...

Was the reviewer even paying attention to the game?

- "Secondly, it would be nice if you could just hand over the relic when Isabella brings it back."

That's exactly what you try to do, but the Qunari require more because they are Qunari not Human. You can't just demand that the characters in the game conform to what you think would be 'nice'; isn't the whole point of RPG's to play a role in a defined world?

Sounds pretty much like a bad, long-shot excuse to me.

[Impmacaque]

Baelyn wrote...

I love all of the people saying its a good review by justifying it because they agreed with it, and then saying that the higher reviews are wrong because they didn't agree with it.

Was it well written? Yes.

Do I agree with what he says? No. This doesn't make it a bad review nor a good one. Just one that I simply disagree with completely. Just the same as saying an IGN review that gave it an 85/100 is a bad review that was obviously paid off by EA because you don't agree with it.

What exactly do you "not agree with"? The RPGcodex review is based entirely on objective flaws in Dragon Age 2. These aren't up for discussion. 

>Game has inexcusable, major, game-breaking bugs. Fact.
>Game re-uses the same environments ad nauseum. Fact.
>Game has an extremely limited, shallow gear/inventory system. Fact.
>Game is composed mostly of unrelated "filler" quests with little cohesion or central focus in theme. Fact.
>RPG progression elements are inexplicably dumbed down from DA:O. Fact.
>Despite the pretense of choice, the game's plot is entirely linear and immutable. Fact

This isn't a matter of "oh well I disagree with his review durr", because these complaints are not matters of opinion. As a fanbase, we both expect and deserve more than the rushed, dumbed down product we paid $60 for. We already know the Bioware devs are capable of developing a great game with the franchise (refer to DA:O) - the fact that DA2 is what it is makes it painfully obvious that the game was a shameless attempt to capitalize on the success of the original game for profit.

[Persephone]

Impmacaque wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

I love all of the people saying its a good review by justifying it because they agreed with it, and then saying that the higher reviews are wrong because they didn't agree with it.

Was it well written? Yes.

Do I agree with what he says? No. This doesn't make it a bad review nor a good one. Just one that I simply disagree with completely. Just the same as saying an IGN review that gave it an 85/100 is a bad review that was obviously paid off by EA because you don't agree with it.

What exactly do you "not agree with"? The RPGcodex review is based entirely on objective flaws in Dragon Age 2. These aren't up for discussion. 

>Game has inexcusable, major, game-breaking bugs. Fact.
>Game re-uses the same environments ad nauseum. Fact.
>Game has an extremely limited, shallow gear/inventory system. Fact.
>Game is composed mostly of unrelated "filler" quests with little cohesion or central focus in theme. Fact.
>RPG progression elements are inexplicably dumbed down from DA:O. Fact.
>Despite the pretense of choice, the game's plot is entirely linear and immutable. Fact

Haven't encountered a single game breaking bug in 4 playthroughs.

The rehashed enviroments bothered me too but not as much as most.

I liked the gear/inventory system just fine.

I loved the Secondary and Companion quests. Much more than in DAO.

Dunno about RPG elements being dumbed down, I could RP my character much better than the Warden though.

DAO 's plot was linear and immutable as well. Except for MS Dos like Epilogue slides.

[cotheer]

Persephone wrote...

Haven't encountered a single game breaking bug in 4 playthroughs.

The rehashed enviroments bothered me too but not as much as most.

I liked the gear/inventory system just fine.

I loved the Secondary and Companion quests. Much more than in DAO.

Dunno about RPG elements being dumbed down, I could RP my character much better than the Warden though.

DAO 's plot was linear and immutable as well. Except for MS Dos like Epilogue slides.

<_<

[The Brigand]

Persephone wrote...

DAO 's plot was linear and immutable as well.

I don't think you quite understand what people mean when they call a videogame nonlinear.

[Persephone]

The Brigand wrote...

Persephone wrote...

DAO 's plot was linear and immutable as well.

I don't think you quite understand what people mean when they call a videogame nonlinear.

Oh, I do. I've played many linear and so called non linear games. I love DAO but in all my +20 playthroughs I ended up with Archie dead and epilogue slides telling me the supposed consequences of my actions.