212 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I think the reviews tend to be a bit harsh, because they're not giving much credit to Bioware for the stuff they always get right. The dialogue is generally well written, even if some of the plot doesn't make sense, and playing RPGs from other companies reminds me how good at VO Bioware have been since KotOR.

The problem is that although the writing is better than, say, the writing in Other M or Modern Warfare 2, it's not as good as DA2's WRPG competition. In terms of writing quality, New Vegas was better, Witcher 2 was better, Dragon Age: Origins was better, and Mass Effect 2 was better.

In terms of dialogue DA2 was just as good as DAO if not better (it could have done with more interaction but what we got was great) and better than ME2. ME2's story was shallow really shallow just like most of its other elements (rpg, combat), what it did get right was the characterisation of some of its companions.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

Morroian wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I think the reviews tend to be a bit harsh, because they're not giving much credit to Bioware for the stuff they always get right. The dialogue is generally well written, even if some of the plot doesn't make sense, and playing RPGs from other companies reminds me how good at VO Bioware have been since KotOR.

The problem is that although the writing is better than, say, the writing in Other M or Modern Warfare 2, it's not as good as DA2's WRPG competition. In terms of writing quality, New Vegas was better, Witcher 2 was better, Dragon Age: Origins was better, and Mass Effect 2 was better.

In terms of dialogue DA2 was just as good as DAO if not better (it could have done with more interaction but what we got was great) and better than ME2. ME2's story was shallow really shallow just like most of its other elements (rpg, combat), what it did get right was the characterisation of some of its companions.

Let's put it this way: there weren't any lines in any of the other games I mentioned that made me cringe. This made me cringe. Varric is awesome, though. The game would have been a lot better if it was a spin-off about Varric.

[MorrigansLove]

The one word that clarifies and connotes Dragon Age 2's failure is: Restriction. Too much restriction.

Modifié par MorrigansLove, 20 juin 2011 - 11:31 .

[Night Prowler76]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Night Prowler76 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

I didn't say I agree with what they did. They rushed the game out to cash in, because doing another game like Origins was not a finacialy viable option.

DAO not financially viable ?
That's just ridiculous.

No dev studio will devote 5+ years of dev time to a single game nowadays. With production costs being ridiculously high. Forget it.

Bethesda does, Duke Nukem et.

As I've said before, no they don't. And do people honestly believe Duke Nukem Forever was planned on taking 13.5 years? 

  Bethesda has been working on Skyrim since Oblivions release, that is over 5 years dev time, look it up.

[Morroian]

Night Prowler76 wrote...

Bethesda has been working on Skyrim since Oblivions release, that is over 5 years dev time, look it up.

I thought Todd Howard said they've been working on it since Fallout 3.

[Bryy_Miller]

Night Prowler76 wrote...
  Bethesda has been working on Skyrim since Oblivions release, that is over 5 years dev time, look it up.

Once again.

I was saying that no company spends five years working on a single title. Meaning they have other games coming out.

If you are going to argue, please read the thread.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 21 juin 2011 - 01:03 .

[Anathemic]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
Besides, Blizzard Entertainment didn't start off as a billion-dollar company, I know shocker isn't it?

... they also were not in the position they are now. 

Honestly, at this point, you're just trying to be right.

They were in an even worst position than BioWare is right now. Where you there at the first announcement of StarCraft at E3? They had to completely scrap the project dedicated another year to redesigning the engine to make it it's own game instead of a reskinned Warcraft 2.

[csfteeeer]

Anathemic wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

I didn't say I agree with what they did. They rushed the game out to cash in, because doing another game like Origins was not a finacialy viable option.

DAO not financially viable ?
That's just ridiculous.

No dev studio will devote 5+ years of dev time to a single game nowadays. With production costs being ridiculously high. Forget it.

Herp Derp, World of Warcraft, StarCraft 2, Diablo 3

Herp, Derp, not the same thing.<_<

You said "No dev studio....", I dunno 'bout you but I consider Blizzard Entertainment a dev studio

Then there's also Duke Nukem Forever, but that epic failed, but still ti took more than 5 years to develop.

Also I don't see how it can't relate. Blizzard puts long ass development time for their games and they always always get good (and currently ongoing) rewards for their work. Why can't BioWare do the same?

This!.
i don't care if i wait, it's not like i don't have anything else to play (i'm currently addicted to TW2 and i will probably be reported missing once i get Skyrim)

[Bryy_Miller]

Anathemic wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
Besides, Blizzard Entertainment didn't start off as a billion-dollar company, I know shocker isn't it?

... they also were not in the position they are now. 

Honestly, at this point, you're just trying to be right.

They were in an even worst position than BioWare is right now. Where you there at the first announcement of StarCraft at E3? They had to completely scrap the project dedicated another year to redesigning the engine to make it it's own game instead of a reskinned Warcraft 2.

So how does this help your argument rather than hurt it?

BioWare, according to Wikipedia, only has a revenue of $17 million a year and only 800 employees.
Blizzard has 4,600 (possibly more by now).

According to common sense, Blizzard has to make more just to pay their people, let alone fund their games. 

Comparing BioWare to Blizzard is a fallacy at best, and a strawman at most.

[Anathemic]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
Besides, Blizzard Entertainment didn't start off as a billion-dollar company, I know shocker isn't it?

... they also were not in the position they are now. 

Honestly, at this point, you're just trying to be right.

They were in an even worst position than BioWare is right now. Where you there at the first announcement of StarCraft at E3? They had to completely scrap the project dedicated another year to redesigning the engine to make it it's own game instead of a reskinned Warcraft 2.

So how does this help your argument rather than hurt it?

BioWare, according to Wikipedia, only has a revenue of $17 million a year and only 800 employees.
Blizzard has 4,600 (possibly more by now).

According to common sense, Blizzard has to make more just to pay their people, let alone fund their games. 

Comparing BioWare to Blizzard is a fallacy at best, and a strawman at most.

The dev team for the original StarCraft was a couple hundred. Before StarCraft Blizzard has only been able to hit the 1 million sale mark, a great feat for its time but compared to now it's pathetic with all the console sales and whatnot.

My point is that Blizzard's production of the original StarCraft was under in way worse conditions that BioWare is now, hell BioWare's current postion compared to Blizzard back then is like a happy rainbow playground. If Blizzard can pull off a genre-changing game with less tech, smaller team, and smaller budget, why can't BioWare do the same if not then atleast strive to be?

[hoorayforicecream]

Anathemic wrote...

The dev team for the original StarCraft was a couple hundred. Before StarCraft Blizzard has only been able to hit the 1 million sale mark, a great feat for its time but compared to now it's pathetic with all the console sales and whatnot.

Starcraft's original team was not a couple hundred. It was a little over a hundred people, and that includes voice actors, QA, tech support, sales, marketing, legal, business development, manufacturing and battle.net support - most of whom never actually did any development.

My point is that Blizzard's production of the original StarCraft was under in way worse conditions that BioWare is now, hell BioWare's current postion compared to Blizzard back then is like a happy rainbow playground. If Blizzard can pull off a genre-changing game with less tech, smaller team, and smaller budget, why can't BioWare do the same if not then atleast strive to be?

Because it's a totally different market now than it was 13 years ago. In 1998, Konami released Metal Gear Solid , considered by many to be one of the best games of all time. The team for that was around 40 people, not counting the 18 voice actors.

Games now require a much larger commitment than they did in 1998. You can't build a AAA blockbuster game with 40-100 people anymore. It just isn't possible. It costs a lot more just to get to mediocre nowadays. People would never accept a game with PS1 graphics today, so instead of needing 10-20 artists, now you need 80-100, because it takes a lot longer to model a 20,000 polygon Sarah Kerrigan than it does to model a 200 polygon Kerrigan. You need a lot more programmers now, because now you need a physics engine, and a particle effects system, and an engine team, a graphics team, a console-specific team, a localization team, etc. And you need more designers, because now the scripting requirements are much greater... now you need to have the camera angles set, you need the facial animations timed right, you need to have all of the different systems designed right and balanced. And because the team's grown so much, you need a bunch of producers to keep everyone productive and make sure all the tasks are being done and all the workers still on schedule.

I said earlier in this very thread that Blizzard tends to be the exception, and not the rule in the game industry. A lot of people wish they could be Blizzard, but there really isn't anyone else who can be. Not even ex-Blizzard devs can compete with Blizzard (Look up Flagship Studios, Castaway Entertainment, Red 5 Studios, ArenaNet, and Runic Games). The only comparable studio to Blizzard is probably Valve, and they share a key similarity beyond their "when it's done" attitude - they both have massive cash inflow because of their megalithic online game presence.

Bioware's done a lot with their products, and I'm very pleased with what they've done, but using Blizzard as an example is like saying all swimmers should just be more like Michael Phelps and they'd win all the gold medals too. Trying to say that today's game market is still the same as the market from 13 years ago is just plain foolish.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 21 juin 2011 - 05:25 .

[bobthecrusher]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
Besides, Blizzard Entertainment didn't start off as a billion-dollar company, I know shocker isn't it?

... they also were not in the position they are now. 

Honestly, at this point, you're just trying to be right.

Sooo....are you saying that you're not trying to be right?

So, you're admitting inacurracies?

Ok, I will, from this point onward, consider everything you say to be wrong, as you are (by admission) not trying to be right.

Also: Good games take time. Nothing good (especially not good RPGS) ever come from 2 years of development (besides Halo, and that's the only game Bungie worked on, so ti doesn't really count)

[Bryy_Miller]

bobthecrusher wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
Besides, Blizzard Entertainment didn't start off as a billion-dollar company, I know shocker isn't it?

... they also were not in the position they are now. 

Honestly, at this point, you're just trying to be right.

Sooo....are you saying that you're not trying to be right?

So, you're admitting inacurracies?

Ok, I will, from this point onward, consider everything you say to be wrong, as you are (by admission) not trying to be right.

That's entirely not what I meant, and I have a hard time believing you are not just trying to be a troll.

Anathemic is trying to "win the conversation" by clinging to anything she can, in this case, her personal beliefs (and ignorance) about how video games are made. 

But if this is just going to turn into a "Why can't BioWare be Blizzard" argument, I'm out.

[KnightofPhoenix]

A harsher review than I would have given, though I don't really focus on the numerical grade. The text more or less ringed true to my ears.

I personally rate DA2 as the weakest RPG I have ever played, for a whole mess of reasons. Easily in fact.

Hopefully, Bioware will do better in the future. Not that I am hanging my hopes around it, fortunately there are alternatives now.

[bobthecrusher]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

bobthecrusher wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
Besides, Blizzard Entertainment didn't start off as a billion-dollar company, I know shocker isn't it?

... they also were not in the position they are now. 

Honestly, at this point, you're just trying to be right.

Sooo....are you saying that you're not trying to be right?

So, you're admitting inacurracies?

Ok, I will, from this point onward, consider everything you say to be wrong, as you are (by admission) not trying to be right.

That's entirely not what I meant, and I have a hard time believing you are not just trying to be a troll.

Anathemic is trying to "win the conversation" by clinging to anything she can, in this case, her personal beliefs (and ignorance) about how video games are made. 

But if this is just going to turn into a "Why can't BioWare be Blizzard" argument, I'm out.

I disagree that she was clinging to 'anything' she was making her point, and you've made yours.

This is a why can't Bioware be Bioware conversation. Because i don't like what they're starting to lean towards. I like thinking in RPG's and there's starting to be less and less of that every time they make a game. Saying that making a game that is (by simply being Bioware) is expected to have at least 20-50 hours of gameplay in 2 years is completely reasonable is simply not feesable to me.

[Aloren]

Alex the Droog wrote...
However, if we look at the user score it currently sits at 4.2/10, and 3.9/10 for the PS3 version. I refuse to accept this is a '4Chan Raid' as most user reviews are around the 3-6 mark, and give justified paragraphs about the issues with the game.

I took a minute to count how many users gave the game 3 or less on one page (on xbox). And that's about a half of the reviews. Now maybe the game wasn't as good as Origins, but 3 or less ? a 4 average ? Still kinda looks like a raid to me... especially considering that on other websites the user scores are very different and much closer to the reviews.

[erynnar]

Aloren wrote...

Alex the Droog wrote...
However, if we look at the user score it currently sits at 4.2/10, and 3.9/10 for the PS3 version. I refuse to accept this is a '4Chan Raid' as most user reviews are around the 3-6 mark, and give justified paragraphs about the issues with the game.

I took a minute to count how many users gave the game 3 or less on one page (on xbox). And that's about a half of the reviews. Now maybe the game wasn't as good as Origins, but 3 or less ? a 4 average ? Still kinda looks like a raid to me... especially considering that on other websites the user scores are very different and much closer to the reviews.

Which page? By date, or usefulness? Or by activity? Metacritic has many ways of sorting the reviews. If by date, for instance, with the most recent reviews...well there was a flame war started by DA2 fans when Witcher 2 came out which had fans of Witcher 2 responding (ie cutting and pasting with a little creative editting) posting scathing reviews with a "0" score in retaliation.

No offense, but your counting of one page of reviews on DA2, does not a 4chan conspiracy make. However, sales + reviews and forum respsonse...those are three things I can look at for a better bigger picture, if you will. Acurrate? Completely? Probably not. But it does give a clearer picture of DA2 imho. *shrug*

[Zarathiel]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Night Prowler76 wrote...
  Bethesda has been working on Skyrim since Oblivions release, that is over 5 years dev time, look it up.

Once again.

I was saying that no company spends five years working on a single title. Meaning they have other games coming out.

If you are going to argue, please read the thread.

What you're saying has no relevance to this discussion.

Perhaps it's you who should read the thread.

Bryy_Miller wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

DAO not financially viable ?
That's just ridiculous.

No
dev studio will devote 5+ years of dev time to a single game nowadays.
With production costs being ridiculously high. Forget it.

Well, except Bethesda [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/uncertain.png[/smilie]

They tend to come out with games quite often. I think we're confusing "single game" with "single game for the entire company".

Specifically this part, in which you bring up a point that is completely irrelevant to this topic, and which you repeat in the quote above.

In the five years it took to make DAO, Bioware also finished up and released Jade Empire. They began work on SWTOR. They completely made Mass Effect 1 AND 2. There isn't even a single small period of time during those five years when you can say DAO was the only game being worked on. Yet you bring up this "single game for the entire company for 5 years" point in relation to DAO, when it doesn't relate at all.

Your point may be correct. There may not be any companies who spend five years on a single game. But it doesn't matter, because it has nothing to do with how Skyrim's dev cycle compares to DAO's.

[Fast Jimmy]

Zarathiel wrote...

Your point may be correct. There may not be any companies who spend five years on a single game. But it doesn't matter, because it has nothing to do with how Skyrim's dev cycle compares to DAO's.

This. I was about to rant off on this lack of logical argument myself.

[Aloren]

erynnar wrote...

Which page? By date, or usefulness? Or by activity? Metacritic has many ways of sorting the reviews. If by date, for instance, with the most recent reviews...well there was a flame war started by DA2 fans when Witcher 2 came out which had fans of Witcher 2 responding (ie cutting and pasting with a little creative editting) posting scathing reviews with a "0" score in retaliation.

No offense, but your counting of one page of reviews on DA2, does not a 4chan conspiracy make. However, sales + reviews and forum respsonse...those are three things I can look at for a better bigger picture, if you will. Acurrate? Completely? Probably not. But it does give a clearer picture of DA2 imho. *shrug*

I'm not offended.
I counted the first and last page, by date. That's 200 hundred reviews out of 800 for the 360 versions, I thought that was enough. The results were about the same for the 1st and last page, so about 100 reviews with 3 or less out of  200. Notice I never mentioned 4chan, I just said it felt "kinda like a raid". Whether people gave 3 or less in retaliation cause it's not origins, or in retaliation cause some other criticized The Witcher, it's still in retaliation and the effect is the same as a raid. 

The user score on Gamespot is 8 , with about 2000 votes, on IGN it's 7,9 with about 1000, on jeuxvideo.fr (French website), it's 15/20 with 200 reviews. All these are very close to the pro reviews. That's why I think the user score on Metacritic isn't really what it should be.

[Alex Kershaw]

Persephone wrote...

Still.do.not.care.

Critics are as reliable as doomsayers announcing the world is going to end on *Insert date* because *Insert ridiculous omen/biblical reference/gibberish*.

Frankly, I disagree with many ratings Bioware games have received. While I love the BG series as well as ME2, IMO they redefine the word overrated with their over the top ratings.

And these days, while an excellent game, TW2 is hyped to the point of overrated worship.

So yeah, critics.......LOL.

It's interesting how it's only those who liked Dragon Age II who all of a sudden feel critics (professionals paid to compare games to the thousands of other games they have played) are useless.

[Alex Kershaw]

Aloren wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Which page? By date, or usefulness? Or by activity? Metacritic has many ways of sorting the reviews. If by date, for instance, with the most recent reviews...well there was a flame war started by DA2 fans when Witcher 2 came out which had fans of Witcher 2 responding (ie cutting and pasting with a little creative editting) posting scathing reviews with a "0" score in retaliation.

No offense, but your counting of one page of reviews on DA2, does not a 4chan conspiracy make. However, sales + reviews and forum respsonse...those are three things I can look at for a better bigger picture, if you will. Acurrate? Completely? Probably not. But it does give a clearer picture of DA2 imho. *shrug*

I'm not offended.
I counted the first and last page, by date. That's 200 hundred reviews out of 800 for the 360 versions, I thought that was enough. The results were about the same for the 1st and last page, so about 100 reviews with 3 or less out of  200. Notice I never mentioned 4chan, I just said it felt "kinda like a raid". Whether people gave 3 or less in retaliation cause it's not origins, or in retaliation cause some other criticized The Witcher, it's still in retaliation and the effect is the same as a raid. 

The user score on Gamespot is 8 , with about 2000 votes, on IGN it's 7,9 with about 1000, on jeuxvideo.fr (French website), it's 15/20 with 200 reviews. All these are very close to the pro reviews. That's why I think the user score on Metacritic isn't really what it should be.

Considering Bioware's previous lowest CRITIC Metacritic score is 89/100, a CRITIC score of 82/100 on Metacritic is poor by a considerable margin. It's less than Final Fantasy XIII. I don't see how arguing about the user scores changes this; it seems to simply be a way for people who liked Dragon Age II to change the subject from 'it did badly critically on metacritic' to 'the user reviews are fake', when that isn't even the main issue.

Modifié par Alex Kershaw, 21 juin 2011 - 04:56 .

[Atakuma]

Alex Kershaw wrote...


Considering Bioware's previous lowest CRITIC Metacritic score is 89/100, a CRITIC score of 82/100 on Metacritic is poor by a considerable margin. It's less than Final Fantasy XIII. I don't see how arguing about the user scores changes this; it seems to simply be a way for people who liked Dragon Age II to change the subject from 'it did badly critically on metacritic' to 'the user reviews are fake', when that isn't even the main issue.

All this means is that DA2 did worse critically than most Bioware games, it did not however do poorly by any other standards.

[Nozybidaj]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Still.do.not.care.

Critics are as reliable as doomsayers announcing the world is going to end on *Insert date* because *Insert ridiculous omen/biblical reference/gibberish*.

Frankly, I disagree with many ratings Bioware games have received. While I love the BG series as well as ME2, IMO they redefine the word overrated with their over the top ratings.

And these days, while an excellent game, TW2 is hyped to the point of overrated worship.

So yeah, critics.......LOL.

It's interesting how it's only those who liked Dragon Age II who all of a sudden feel critics (professionals paid to compare games to the thousands of other games they have played) are useless.

Nah, I knew the "professional" reviewers were useless long before DA2.

[aftohsix]

 So one critic gives the game a 2.5 out of 10 (I'd like to point out Mr. Galloway gave Splatterhouse a higher score...) it somehow show that the people who don't like the game are in fact a majority?

Yeah... no.