203 réponses à ce sujet

[tariq071]

Fair review, they rated game even higher that i would have.

[Chuvvy]

Dubya75 wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Its funny how the reviews we agree with seem more objective to us and less 'bought' than others...

Maybe it's because we so desperately want the game to be awesome. We want it to be a 9.5/10 title that everyone loves.
When we see those positive reviews, we get angry because we know they're not true.
We identify better with negative reviews because if we were totally honest with ourselves, we'd agree that almost all the intelligent criticisms are true.

Yeah that, or there's this crazy thing called varying opinions.

[B3taMaxxx]

neppakyo wrote...

I went back to the DA mainpage, and this giant pop up assaulted my eyes, with all those 9/10 and such positive reviews..

Made my eyes bleed.

 Then after the ambulance showed up to cart yet another teen who had slit his wrist...........................

Modifié par B3taMaxxx, 30 mars 2011 - 04:18 .

[neppakyo]

I wish I was a teen again, then all these old injuries wouldn't hurt lol

[nicethugbert]

DTKT wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

DungeonLord wrote...

The beauty of the WIRED review is that A LOT of people will see it. THAT makes it extremely important. A lot of the other reviews can be swept under the rug, but not this one. Score one for the DA2 SUCKS crowd.

I disagree the "core" of the game is solid. The companion stuff was ok, but there wasn't enough of it. Pretty much everything else was poor or limited in execution, including the scaled twitch combat.

Yeah, that Wired review is going to really make an impact with it's ****ing about: " You’ll be settling disputes between mages and templars  and assassinating a cadre of criminals, all sprinkled with a potpourri of
obscure names like Ashaad and Feynriel that run together."

Oh noes!  Obscure names!  Oh noes!  The poor criminals!

You are totally missing his point. The author mentions that DAII throws character of character without giving any context or progressing the characters through out the story. They are disposable one shot usage NPC.

The names arent the problem.

Except, that's not what the review says at all.

That review is entirely slanted bull**** because the author is describing exactly what goes on in other games and gives other games a passing mark for it and gives DA2 a failing mark for the same.  The reviewer is a hack: "It’s a shame, because the game’s predecessor, Dragon Age: Origins, was absolutely fantastic. ... Upon entering an encounter, just start spamming magic spells: Since your health and mana automatically regenerate after every battle, there’s little need to worry about resource management."

DA:O and DA2 combat are basically the same except that DA2 movement is faster and instead of spell combo's you get cross-class combos.  You can spam in either game, you just do it faster in DA2.

Quick way to spot a hack, statments are low on fact, high on negative adjectives and negative adverbs.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 30 mars 2011 - 04:59 .

[DTKT]

nicethugbert wrote...

DTKT wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

DungeonLord wrote...

The beauty of the WIRED review is that A LOT of people will see it. THAT makes it extremely important. A lot of the other reviews can be swept under the rug, but not this one. Score one for the DA2 SUCKS crowd.

I disagree the "core" of the game is solid. The companion stuff was ok, but there wasn't enough of it. Pretty much everything else was poor or limited in execution, including the scaled twitch combat.

Yeah, that Wired review is going to really make an impact with it's ****ing about: " You’ll be settling disputes between mages and templars  and assassinating a cadre of criminals, all sprinkled with a potpourri of
obscure names like Ashaad and Feynriel that run together."

Oh noes!  Obscure names!  Oh noes!  The poor criminals!

You are totally missing his point. The author mentions that DAII throws character of character without giving any context or progressing the characters through out the story. They are disposable one shot usage NPC.

The names arent the problem.

Except, that's not what the review says at all.

That review is entirely slanted bull****.  There isn't a single fact in it.  The author does not make a case at all.  He is describing exactly what goes on in other games and gives other games a passing mark for it and gives DA2 a failing mark for it.  The reviewer is a hack: "It’s a shame, because the game’s predecessor, Dragon Age: Origins, was absolutely fantastic. ... Upon entering an encounter, just start spamming magic spells: Since your health and mana automatically regenerate after every battle, there’s little need to worry about resource management."

Playing on Normal, and that was my experience. Isn't that simply his own experience? Why knock it ?

[nicethugbert]

DTKT wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

DTKT wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

DungeonLord wrote...

The beauty of the WIRED review is that A LOT of people will see it. THAT makes it extremely important. A lot of the other reviews can be swept under the rug, but not this one. Score one for the DA2 SUCKS crowd.

I disagree the "core" of the game is solid. The companion stuff was ok, but there wasn't enough of it. Pretty much everything else was poor or limited in execution, including the scaled twitch combat.

Yeah, that Wired review is going to really make an impact with it's ****ing about: " You’ll be settling disputes between mages and templars  and assassinating a cadre of criminals, all sprinkled with a potpourri of
obscure names like Ashaad and Feynriel that run together."

Oh noes!  Obscure names!  Oh noes!  The poor criminals!

You are totally missing his point. The author mentions that DAII throws character of character without giving any context or progressing the characters through out the story. They are disposable one shot usage NPC.

The names arent the problem.

Except, that's not what the review says at all.

That review is entirely slanted bull****.  There isn't a single fact in it.  The author does not make a case at all.  He is describing exactly what goes on in other games and gives other games a passing mark for it and gives DA2 a failing mark for it.  The reviewer is a hack: "It’s a shame, because the game’s predecessor, Dragon Age: Origins, was absolutely fantastic. ... Upon entering an encounter, just start spamming magic spells: Since your health and mana automatically regenerate after every battle, there’s little need to worry about resource management."

Playing on Normal, and that was my experience. Isn't that simply his own experience? Why knock it ?

Take another look at my post because I was editting it while you were posting.

So, you're reading your experience into the review now.  On top of that it depends on difficulty setting for you, so you can solve the problem by upping the difficulty setting.  Wow, a game has to suck if you have to adjust the difficulty setting.

[DTKT]

nicethugbert wrote...

DTKT wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

DTKT wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

DungeonLord wrote...

The beauty of the WIRED review is that A LOT of people will see it. THAT makes it extremely important. A lot of the other reviews can be swept under the rug, but not this one. Score one for the DA2 SUCKS crowd.

I disagree the "core" of the game is solid. The companion stuff was ok, but there wasn't enough of it. Pretty much everything else was poor or limited in execution, including the scaled twitch combat.

Yeah, that Wired review is going to really make an impact with it's ****ing about: " You’ll be settling disputes between mages and templars  and assassinating a cadre of criminals, all sprinkled with a potpourri of
obscure names like Ashaad and Feynriel that run together."

Oh noes!  Obscure names!  Oh noes!  The poor criminals!

You are totally missing his point. The author mentions that DAII throws character of character without giving any context or progressing the characters through out the story. They are disposable one shot usage NPC.

The names arent the problem.

Except, that's not what the review says at all.

That review is entirely slanted bull****.  There isn't a single fact in it.  The author does not make a case at all.  He is describing exactly what goes on in other games and gives other games a passing mark for it and gives DA2 a failing mark for it.  The reviewer is a hack: "It’s a shame, because the game’s predecessor, Dragon Age: Origins, was absolutely fantastic. ... Upon entering an encounter, just start spamming magic spells: Since your health and mana automatically regenerate after every battle, there’s little need to worry about resource management."

Playing on Normal, and that was my experience. Isn't that simply his own experience? Why knock it ?

Take another look at my post because I was editting it while you were posting.

So, you're reading your experience into the review now.  On top of that it depends on difficulty setting for you, so you can solve the problem by upping the difficulty setting.  Wow, a game has to suck if you have to adjust the difficulty setting.

Isnt the "Normal" difficulty setting the intended difficulty for the majority of players. By, you know, what the "normal" settings implies?

Either way, let's just drop it for now. I agree with his review. You dont. We have obviously diverging sentiments and opinions on DAII. And that's fair.  

[Alpr]

TJSolo wrote...

Alpr wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Alpr wrote...

It's funny how people think everyone hates DA2 and feel awesome about themselves for everything bad said about DA2.

Waage25 wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Its funny how the reviews we agree with seem more objective to us and less 'bought' than others...

Even if you like this game there is no way in hell it is a 10 out of 10 game.

Even if you hate this game there is no way in hell it is a 5 out of 10 game.

You did it wrong.

You did it wrong.

Are you having a problem cutting and pasting text? All I see is my comment twice, where is you reply?

Are you having a problem copying and pasting text? All I see is my comment twice, where is you reply?

[Everwarden]

Cutlass Jack wrote...
Or maybe its because we prefer reviews that validate our own opinion and like to dismiss differing opinions as unobjective or unintelligent.

Depends on the review. A review that is positive and mentions the flaws isn't necessarily bought, even if it's nicer to the game than I would be. A review like we saw from The Escapist is quite obvious shilling. No serious, objective reviewer could give DA2 a 100% score. 

[SuperMedbh]

Funny how numbers and overall comments are more important than the particulars to so many. In fact, while I enjoyed DA2, I agree with most of the reviewer's comments. A chaotic storyline that one becomes apathetic about, bewildering "eh, what?" ending, claustrophobic and annoyingly glitchy.

But I also agree about the fantastic modeling/art, wonderful dialog/voice acting, and some scenes that really pulled at your heart.

About the only thing I'd disagree with is the combat. I felt that way playing the demo, then I got the mod to put it on Hard. Really Hard is the new Normal, at least as far as DA2 is concerned. Anything else, and combat becomes hard only in the sense of trying to click on something that hasn't died already. But it's lots of fun once you actually have to pull combos for the tougher beasties.

5/10? No, not for me. But all that means is that I value different things than the reviewer, not that he was wildly off base.

[KLUME777]

Ive seen a review as low as 2. And a no. of 6's, 7's and 8's. DA2 is not the game DAO was.

[DungeonLord]

Some people will defend this game and that's their right. The rest of us will explain why the game fails to live up to our expectations.

I think the biggest problem is that people put bioware on a pedestal and expected something magical. A game that would whisk them away into a world full of wonders, interesting exploration and dramatic intrigue. A game you could get lost in.

Instead we got a game that is passable but nothing special. When you ****** off a large segment of your core demographic by letting them down like that, with a game that's supposed to be a sequel no less, you simply have to accept the consequence that they won't sing your praise.

DA2, as a sequel, should have eclipsed DA:O in every respect. It should have been bigger, grander and have really blown our socks off.
People would forgive a game that then turned out to be same-y but still good. However there is no mercy for a full price game that utterly disappoints on so many levels and also tarnishes the brand with which many fell in love.

[skyrend]

Disappointing scores mount for DA2, which have seemingly gotten worse after the suspiciously mistake-riddled early reviews.

[nikolokolus]

Unfortunately I think Bioware has finally been "EAed" ... DA2 isn't rotten, but it does feel rushed and really formulaic, with some really nice graphics and good voice acting that can almost at times distract you from the fact that they recycled every area 10 times over and bombard you with a boat-load of fetch quests which masquerade as a story.

It's really too bad, I've been playing their games ever since Baldur's gate and they've all been titles worth looking forward to (well maybe minus Neverwinter Nights's single player campaign ... which was really mediocre). Hopefully the next game gets a proper development cycle.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Radwar wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Wired? Haha, I haven't trusted their integrity for YEARS. It only takes one interview where they don't check their facts...

Hmmm, I've got this funny feeling that if Wired had given a good score you would be saying that it was a great review.

Well your funny feeling must be gas. My comment was based on not having a great deal of faith in Wired's writers due to past experience with the mag, nothing more. My feelings about the game were summed up here if you're interested in reading my opinions rather than, say, assuming what they are based on a small comment about a magazine.

Get off your high horse.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 30 mars 2011 - 08:47 .

[Pygmali0n]

Very telling statement in this review:

'In Dragon Age II, you have to mash a button for each attack. This feels like more of an action game, which is an improvement.'

As I thought, the dedicated button mashers don't like the game either - it fails as action as well as RPG. Mixing bad ingredients together to make something new does not = awesome.

[Firky]

^ Horses for courses, though. I was really impressed with how the tactical "traditional" RPG combat was combined with the action elements which, blood aside, I thought were fairly subtle.

[Johnsen1972]

Hopefully the dragon teams wakes up and draw some consequences.

But I fear they still sit in their offices thinking they made the best RPG of the year...

[nicethugbert]

DTKT wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

DTKT wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

DTKT wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

DungeonLord wrote...

The beauty of the WIRED review is that A LOT of people will see it. THAT makes it extremely important. A lot of the other reviews can be swept under the rug, but not this one. Score one for the DA2 SUCKS crowd.

I disagree the "core" of the game is solid. The companion stuff was ok, but there wasn't enough of it. Pretty much everything else was poor or limited in execution, including the scaled twitch combat.

Yeah, that Wired review is going to really make an impact with it's ****ing about: " You’ll be settling disputes between mages and templars  and assassinating a cadre of criminals, all sprinkled with a potpourri of
obscure names like Ashaad and Feynriel that run together."

Oh noes!  Obscure names!  Oh noes!  The poor criminals!

You are totally missing his point. The author mentions that DAII throws character of character without giving any context or progressing the characters through out the story. They are disposable one shot usage NPC.

The names arent the problem.

Except, that's not what the review says at all.

That review is entirely slanted bull****.  There isn't a single fact in it.  The author does not make a case at all.  He is describing exactly what goes on in other games and gives other games a passing mark for it and gives DA2 a failing mark for it.  The reviewer is a hack: "It’s a shame, because the game’s predecessor, Dragon Age: Origins, was absolutely fantastic. ... Upon entering an encounter, just start spamming magic spells: Since your health and mana automatically regenerate after every battle, there’s little need to worry about resource management."

Playing on Normal, and that was my experience. Isn't that simply his own experience? Why knock it ?

Take another look at my post because I was editting it while you were posting.

So, you're reading your experience into the review now.  On top of that it depends on difficulty setting for you, so you can solve the problem by upping the difficulty setting.  Wow, a game has to suck if you have to adjust the difficulty setting.

Isnt the "Normal" difficulty setting the intended difficulty for the majority of players. By, you know, what the "normal" settings implies?

Either way, let's just drop it for now. I agree with his review. You dont. We have obviously diverging sentiments and opinions on DAII. And that's fair.  

You're going to hold it against a game the fact you prefer to play in hard mode instead of normal?  That makes alot of sense.  Not.

You may agree with the review after having played the game and read your impressions into the review.  But, a person who has not played the game is being done a disservice by reading this review because there is nothing objective about it and he doesn't even try.  It is nothing more than sentiment passed off as fact.  Other reviews explain how the game works then the reviewer opines on the mechanism.  This allows the reader to decide for themselves how they like the game based upon objective information.But that wouldn't pass the childish test and it would be work.  Some reviews even explain their scoring methodology.  Wow!  Way to much work.  Objectivity is hard work.  It's nothing a hack cares to do.

[nicethugbert]

Pygmali0n wrote...

Very telling statement in this review:

'In Dragon Age II, you have to mash a button for each attack. This feels like more of an action game, which is an improvement.'

As I thought, the dedicated button mashers don't like the game either - it fails as action as well as RPG. Mixing bad ingredients together to make something new does not = awesome.

There is no button mashing in the PC version.  You have auto-attacks just like DA:O.  I heard that the button mashing in xbox is because of a missing file, not developer intent or design.

[DKJaigen]

A very subjective review i rate it 2/10.

[B3taMaxxx]

DKJaigen wrote...

A very subjective review i rate it 2/10.

 Some people play few games................... /sad 

[Tom Jolly]

The reivew accurately represents a great number of my complaints.  

[Vilegrim]

Rockpopple wrote...

So you were cherry-picking only the positive reviews. Now you're cherry-picking the negative reviews. You seem to have a hard time seeing things as they are, "sport".

In any case, I don't need the opinions of some op-ed to validate how I feel about the game, especially after playing it for over 100 hours. If some people do - if they need that - that's their business, really.

And not to fight, but I'm not even gonna begin with this Origins hero-worship crap again. Completely not worth it.

how about reviews from sources that don't have a huge section of the magazin/site made up of adverts for EA games and thus a financial incentive not to any the sponsor?