397 réponses à ce sujet

[topster88]

Well wrote...

topster88 wrote...

Well wrote...

So your saying they invaded my computer and they can tell how far I have got in the game?

IIRC they check to see how many achievements people who own DA2 have and check to see if they have the one that you get when you beat the game. So to be fair, they aren't looking at anything anyone with internet access can't see anyway.

Sounds reasonable.I still don't believe that 50% dont finish.

I do. I didn't. I stopped playing a little bit after the "big twist" near the end and I just never had the urge to play it since.

[Alex Kershaw]

I think your thread loses credibility on the 'EA paid the reviewers' part... Do you have any evidence of this? An 82 is still a very low score for Bioware - their previous worst game was Jade Empire with an 89, making DA2 indisputably their worst RPG by quite a considerable margin. You don't have to then say that EA paid the reviewers - I personally think the metacritic score is fair enough considering the game, despite being a major disappointment, was still fun to play.

Modifié par Alex Kershaw, 01 juin 2011 - 11:30 .

[topster88]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

I think your thread loses credibility on the 'EA paid the reviewers' part... Do you have any evidence of this? An 82 is still a very low score for Bioware - their previous worst game was Jade Empire with an 89, making DA2 indisputably their worst RPG by quite a considerable margin. You don't have to then say that EA paid the reviewers - I personally think the metacritic score is fair enough considering the game, despite being a major disappointment, was still fun to play.

Read Greg Tito's review on Escapist and tell me EA didn't grease his palms. I dare you.

[Brockololly]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

I think your thread loses credibility on the 'EA paid the reviewers' part... Do you have any evidence of this? An 82 is still a very low score for Bioware - their previous worst game was Jade Empire with an 89, making DA2 indisputably their worst RPG by quite a considerable margin. You don't have to then say that EA paid the reviewers - I personally think the metacritic score is fair enough considering the game, despite being a major disappointment, was still fun to play.

The whole bit of EA paying reviewers is likely a bit much but the fact that the early reviews from the likes of The Escapist and PC Gamer were mind numbingly positive was a bit much. I wouldn't be shocked if they got early access to those games for review in exchange for a favorable score.

I mean, from The PC Gamer review:

The best RPG combat ever. Not gaming's best story, but maybe its best storytelling. Darker, sexier, better.

Or The Escapist review which has to be one of the most embarrassing things ever written:

Bottom Line: A pinnacle of role-playing games with well-designed mechanics and excellent story-telling, Dragon Age II is what videogames are meant to be.
Recommendation: Buy it, steal it, beat up your little brother so you can play it.

Add in how many other review sites like Giant Bomb did not get the game in advance and yet PC Gamer and Escapist did? Fact is, gaming sites and magazines live off of getting exclusives. So if you crucify a game from one publsher or developer, do you think its possible that publisher or developer might not let you in on their next big game or story or advertise on your site?

Modifié par Brockololly, 01 juin 2011 - 11:39 .

[marshalleck]

Was it PC Gamer or Escapist that called DA2 game of the decade? ROFL.

Sure.

[tishyw]

Atakuma wrote...

Well wrote...

That 50% number the first time I heard it I had to laugh.How they could actually come up with that legitmately I have no idea.Guesstamation doesn't equal fact.

They have technology that tracks what players do in the game, it is a fact.

Not all players, it can be disabled, which I always do because I think how I play my game is none of their nosy business.
I also think relying on this information is a bad thing, because eventually it leads to the marketing team designing the game, which in turn leads to streamlining the crap out of everything and eventually all games being the same.

Origins was unique, which is what most people loved about it.  The influence from the marketing department was fairly obvious in DA2.

[topster88]

tishyw wrote...

Origins was unique, which is what most people loved about it.  The influence from the marketing department was fairly obvious in DA2.

Actually Origins was a spiritual sccessor to Baldur's Gate (disappointly so, but that's another matter altogether)

With DA2 it's like they want to remove any and all influence BG had on the series. And surprise surpirse, a lot of people hate it.

[Chromie]

marshalleck wrote...

Was it PC Gamer or Escapist that called DA2 game of the decade? ROFL.

Sure.

PC Gamer.

[Elhanan]

topster88 wrote...

Read Greg Tito's review on Escapist and tell me EA didn't grease his palms. I dare you.

Not able to confirm or deny. But I noticed that he did not like TW2 as much, either; curious considering all the like accusations that followed....

[bossk-office]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

I think your thread loses credibility on the 'EA paid the reviewers' part ... Do you have any evidence of this?

Of course there is no evidence (was that a serious question?), but ... as someone who works in IT/gaming publishing, I can say that even though I’m not accusing EA of anything I do fully understand the OP because such deals are not unheard of. 

In fact I’m proud to work for a company that has had TWO of our gaming mags fold over the years because we could not be bought while certain competitors could, and got more ads

[Kroepoek]

As long as they'll make money with the current method they're using, they won't change. Yeah, they might throw in another map for the sake of it, and tweak the combat. But after reading posts on this forum, people actually believe in another shapeshift.

Same ol crap with EA.

[neppakyo]

I'm thinking DA2 is the result of horribly handling metadata from origins. Too many companies are relying on it. If I am able to, I turn off anything thats able to send information, or block it with my firewall.

Relying on metadata is making devs lazy and having bad design decisions. I'll also add focus groups suck arse as well.

[RangerSG]

tishyw wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Well wrote...

That 50% number the first time I heard it I had to laugh.How they could actually come up with that legitmately I have no idea.Guesstamation doesn't equal fact.

They have technology that tracks what players do in the game, it is a fact.

Not all players, it can be disabled, which I always do because I think how I play my game is none of their nosy business.
I also think relying on this information is a bad thing, because eventually it leads to the marketing team designing the game, which in turn leads to streamlining the crap out of everything and eventually all games being the same.

Origins was unique, which is what most people loved about it.  The influence from the marketing department was fairly obvious in DA2.

I don't buy that number either, and I played much of DA:O with it turned off as well. 

Honestly, I'd say if the OP has *constructive* criticism, than make it. But any appeal to metacritic's fan votes is a waste of time. PC Gamer has been trading favorable reviews for exclusives for over a decade, so I ignore them. But honestly, DA2 isn't as bad as the vocal protestors make it out to be. It's just not as good as it should've been. It's a failure to meet expectations (due to time constraints and bad advice from the marketing department) rather than a failure as such.

[neppakyo]

RangerSG wrote...

I don't buy that number either, and I played much of DA:O with it turned off as well. 

Honestly, I'd say if the OP has *constructive* criticism, than make it. But any appeal to metacritic's fan votes is a waste of time. PC Gamer has been trading favorable reviews for exclusives for over a decade, so I ignore them. But honestly, DA2 isn't as bad as the vocal protestors make it out to be. It's just not as good as it should've been. It's a failure to meet expectations (due to time constraints and bad advice from the marketing department) rather than a failure as such.

I say it is pretty bad. It is an average game, but for a bioware game, pretty close to their worse.

Act II was the shining gem in that game. Act I and Act III were horrible. 

[RangerSG]

neppakyo wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

I don't buy that number either, and I played much of DA:O with it turned off as well. 

Honestly, I'd say if the OP has *constructive* criticism, than make it. But any appeal to metacritic's fan votes is a waste of time. PC Gamer has been trading favorable reviews for exclusives for over a decade, so I ignore them. But honestly, DA2 isn't as bad as the vocal protestors make it out to be. It's just not as good as it should've been. It's a failure to meet expectations (due to time constraints and bad advice from the marketing department) rather than a failure as such.

I say it is pretty bad. It is an average game, but for a bioware game, pretty close to their worse.

Act II was the shining gem in that game. Act I and Act III were horrible. 

I won't argue that for Bioware, it's a bad game. And yes, possibly their worst since the early days. But again, that speaks to expectations rather than abject suckiness. I've critiqued elements here in more than one place. But when I hear appeals to metacritic, that speaks of 'troll.'

[Elhanan]

Fix1o0 wrote...

As long as they'll make money with the current method they're using, they won't change. Yeah, they might throw in another map for the sake of it, and tweak the combat. But after reading posts on this forum, people actually believe in another shapeshift.

Same ol crap with EA.

Conjecture; we know thy name....

[Caralampio]

I think the number of players that hated DA2, especially in comparison with DAO are not the vast majority. Polls would seem to place them around half, which still should be worrisome for Bioware. I believe they do read critic and are sensible to it, whenever one creates something one is anxious to know how it is accepted.

That much said, I doubt that we will see a return to DAO standards in future games. Game designers hate to backtrack, it is like an admission of failure. Perhaps they will fix a couple of things.

There is also a strong tendency to "dumb down" sequels. Better graphics and visual effects (eye candy), simpler game play. Less choices to make, and simpler, for example no need to think much about your armor and even less about your companions' armor. This is also seen in ME2, which is even more dumbed down from ME1 than DA2 is dumbed down from DAO.

[neppakyo]

RangerSG wrote...

I won't argue that for Bioware, it's a bad game. And yes, possibly their worst since the early days. But again, that speaks to expectations rather than abject suckiness. I've critiqued elements here in more than one place. But when I hear appeals to metacritic, that speaks of 'troll.'

I'd say its worse than the sonic game

And with metacritic, if you factor out the '0,1 and 10' ratings you get a better idea. Forums across the web that deal with gaming, its almost universal for the apathy and dislike for DA2.

[neppakyo]

Caralampio wrote...

There is also a strong tendency to "dumb down" sequels. Better graphics and visual effects (eye candy), simpler game play. Less choices to make, and simpler, for example no need to think much about your armor and even less about your companions' armor. This is also seen in ME2, which is even more dumbed down from ME1 than DA2 is dumbed down from DAO.

While that's true, more people enjoyed ME2 over DA2 due to a more polished game, decent story and fun combat.

I agree, and I have hope that whats been said for ME3 is putting more back in, but generally speaking the streamlining in ME2 was done much much better than DA2.

If im making sense hehe

[marshalleck]

neppakyo wrote...

If im making sense hehe

Negative

DA2 was more of an RPG and a better game, with better writing than ME2

ME2 was a complete disaster

okay not completely, they made good technical improvements to the game engine

Modifié par marshalleck, 02 juin 2011 - 02:51 .

[erynnar]

Ulous wrote...

I personally like Dragonage 2, there are things I would change about it but the same could be said of any game I play, would I expect the developers to change the next game to suit me? No not at all! Why should others potentially suffer because of my opinion?

With the above in mind it is clear to me that the majority of people only speak out when being negative or when they feel let down and dissapointed, with that said all the people that are being negative about DA2 are the minority because the people that love it wont come on the internet to tell anyone, they will just be enjoying the game and looking forward to the next one.

Make someone happy and they will tell two people, make someone unhappy and they will tell ten people.

Ultimately it is my hope that ANY of the negativity isn't getting through, as I do not want a minority full of hate to dictate how developers make games. I am happy for a developer to make a game as they see fit, if I like the look of the game I will buy it, if I don't then I have the power and right to NOT buy that game.

Keep up the good work Bioware.


------------------------------------

I get the distinct feeling that is what happened with DAO on the forums, though the sales of same (unlike DA2) did not reflect the negative comments and feedback on DAO. I personally was too busy playing and enjoying it. I will not make that mistake with DA2. If that makes me negative, so be it.

And as to minority...I am not so sure that is true. But only sales on DLC and DA3 will likely tell us if it really is a minority or not (sales so far point to, no, but only time will tell).

And I think you're right about people who loved the game. It certainly seems to be true for DAO.

Modifié par erynnar, 02 juin 2011 - 03:00 .

[Chromie]

neppakyo wrote...

Caralampio wrote...

There is also a strong tendency to "dumb down" sequels. Better graphics and visual effects (eye candy), simpler game play. Less choices to make, and simpler, for example no need to think much about your armor and even less about your companions' armor. This is also seen in ME2, which is even more dumbed down from ME1 than DA2 is dumbed down from DAO.

While that's true, more people enjoyed ME2 over DA2 due to a more polished game, decent story and fun combat.

I agree, and I have hope that whats been said for ME3 is putting more back in, but generally speaking the streamlining in ME2 was done much much better than DA2.

If im making sense hehe

Well Mass Effect 2 took out uncharted planets well the Mako..imo it's for the better. Half the levels. Only up to 30 but in Mass Effect 1 it was just a lot of crap fluff talents. In the end ME2 was an excellent sequel and DA2 took out a lot that it didn't need to.

[Elhanan]

neppakyo wrote...

I'd say its worse than the sonic game

And with metacritic, if you factor out the '0,1 and 10' ratings you get a better idea. Forums across the web that deal with gaming, its almost universal for the apathy and dislike for DA2.

Zounds! An almost universal score exists that registers apathy and dislike after filtering out the other extreme scores! And the number is .....

[neppakyo]

marshalleck wrote...

DA2 was more of an RPG and a better game, with better writing than ME2

ME2 was a complete disaster

okay not completely, they made good technical improvements to the game engine

I found ME2 a lot more fun to play, and I agree about the RPG portion. I think the writing was better in ME2 than DA2, but thats an opinion of mine.

I will say that Shepard is kick-ass compared to hawke.

[neppakyo]

Elhanan wrote...

neppakyo wrote...

I'd say its worse than the sonic game

And with metacritic, if you factor out the '0,1 and 10' ratings you get a better idea. Forums across the web that deal with gaming, its almost universal for the apathy and dislike for DA2.

Zounds! An almost universal score exists that registers apathy and dislike after filtering out the other extreme scores! And the number is .....

Wrong.

Its 42.

Its always 42.