433 réponses à ce sujet

[Raxtoren]

wasnt just GOTY by IGN egeravri, when all the developer yearly get to vote for GOTY, Fallout 3 won, so developers themself think F3 was atleast a 9.

[benmue]

Dont take this 1 review so seriously seeing as the reviews i trust who have never let me down gave it a 93% aka IGN/Gamespy and Gametrailers

[Seifz]

I also like how they rated NWN1 higher than DA:O and then said that DA:O's story and dialogue were two of its biggest negatives. Ha.

[Badface]

I read the NWN review. Its big innovations were the toolset and multiplayer. That's a reasonable basis for a 9/10.



In my opinion.

[IAGTTBleed]

"EDGE disapproves, -2 points..."

[egervari]

Seifz wrote...

I also like how they rated NWN1 higher than DA:O and then said that DA:O's story and dialogue were two of its biggest negatives. Ha.

LOL, that's hilarious. NWN's campaign was utter trash.

[Raxtoren]

Badface wrote...

I read the NWN review. Its big innovations were the toolset and multiplayer. That's a reasonable basis for a 9/10.

In my opinion.

It also took away the party system which was so beloved from Baldurs gate and their fans.

[Seifz]

So a game that ships with multiplayer capabilities but absolutely no multiplayer content and a horrible, terribly boring single-player campaign deserves an "almost perfect" score that's way above average? Really? No.

[egervari]

Raxtoren wrote...

wasnt just GOTY by IGN egeravri, when all the developer yearly get to vote for GOTY, Fallout 3 won, so developers themself think F3 was atleast a 9.

Yeah, that magazine is clearly a joke.

I remember lots of people had their opinions on Super Mario Galaxy, clearly an amazing game from level design, to imagination to art style to musical score. Anyone who didn't think that was one of the best games of the year was clouded IMO. Yet, so many people came out against it, even though they didn't play it, or they had genre-biased going through their head, or had "kiddie" art style bias, etc.

This seems like a very similar thing with this magazine. Just a huge genre-bias.

[Jack Momo]

I don't understand where the 360 hate comes from...



I have not played the PC version, but I am almost done with my first 360 playthrough (on nightmare) and have found the game to be fantastic fun. Interface has been wonderful... graphics and textures not the best I've seen, but definitly no the worst either.



I also found that I feel the exact opposite about the raised points in the Edge review which makes me wonder if I live in a alternate dimension from some people...

[egervari]

Raxtoren wrote...

Badface wrote...

I read the NWN review. Its big innovations were the toolset and multiplayer. That's a reasonable basis for a 9/10.

In my opinion.

It also took away the party system which was so beloved from Baldurs gate and their fans.

Agreed. I couldn't have been more disappointed with NWN. I was almost heartbroken when I was younger It was so many steps down. I never cared much for the multiplayer experience of it, and like you said, there simply wasn't any content there as I bought it on the first day it came out many years ago. 

I don't understand how the reviewers can review a game with no content other than the crappy single player content and come out with a "9/10" verdict.

[Raxtoren]

Wonder what EDGE will give GOTY this year...

For me personally its either Uncharted 2 or Dragon Age.

But who knows, mayby killzone or resident evil picks that up...

[egervari]

Jack Momo wrote...

I don't understand where the 360 hate comes from...

I have not played the PC version, but I am almost done with my first 360 playthrough (on nightmare) and have found the game to be fantastic fun. Interface has been wonderful... graphics and textures not the best I've seen, but definitly no the worst either.

I also found that I feel the exact opposite about the raised points in the Edge review which makes me wonder if I live in a alternate dimension from some people...

Yeah, I think the graphics in this game are great. They are definitely better than Mass Effect's... so I don't know what people's problem is. I just played mass effect for a second time only a few week's ago... because they had a sale on steam for 9.99 so I got it for the PC even though I have it on the X360. I liked the PC version a lot more admittedly. Still, playing dragon age just after my run through mass effect has made me extremely skeptical on what the reviewers are comparing the graphics to...

[Reiella]

Seifz wrote...

I also like how they rated NWN1 higher than DA:O and then said that DA:O's story and dialogue were two of its biggest negatives. Ha.

Well different things.  Quite possibly different reviewers too.  But independant of that just the expectations of the game.

For me, the campaign wasn't the big thing about NWN, it was always the toolset and the mechanics implementation.

For Dragon Age Origins though, the story is far more important and the dialogue.

[egervari]

Reiella wrote...

Seifz wrote...

I also like how they rated NWN1 higher than DA:O and then said that DA:O's story and dialogue were two of its biggest negatives. Ha.

Well different things.  Quite possibly different reviewers too.  But independant of that just the expectations of the game.

For me, the campaign wasn't the big thing about NWN, it was always the toolset and the mechanics implementation.

For Dragon Age Origins though, the story is far more important and the dialogue.

For which Dragon Age is absolutely fantastic in

[Seifz]

Reiella wrote...

Seifz wrote...

I also like how they rated NWN1 higher than DA:O and then said that DA:O's story and dialogue were two of its biggest negatives. Ha.

Well different things.  Quite possibly different reviewers too.  But independant of that just the expectations of the game.

For me, the campaign wasn't the big thing about NWN, it was always the toolset and the mechanics implementation.

For Dragon Age Origins though, the story is far more important and the dialogue.

If you're going to give a game 9/10, which is almost perfect and apparently well above average, then it better have a damn good campaign.  The toolset was useless to 99% of the players and there wasn't any user-made content when the reviewer was writing his review.  All he had to go on was the single-player campaign, the technology itself, and the game's potential.  The first sucked, the second was outstanding but buggy as hell, and the third was nothing more than speculation.  That's a 9/10?  I don't think so.

If doesn't matter which reviewer wrote the reviews.  What matters is that Edge Magazine rated NWN1 much, much, much, much higher than DA:O and then panned DA:O for having too much story and dialogue (which, to be frank, was pretty much the entire point of the game).  That's not at all consistant.

[Seraosha]

Good news guys! Been reading through the rest of dear old Edge and guess what made Internet Game of the Month? Dragon Age Journeys! They much prefer it to the '70 largely mirthless hours' of DA apparently, heh.

You're reading ridiculously far into things when you get a mixed bag of RPG scores and arbitrarily decide that that provides 'perspective' though. Here's some perspective. Fallout got marked down less than Oblivion for reusing an old, tired and buggy Oblivion engine. You wouldn't know that from the scores.

As for KoToR, BioWare was the first developer in about two decades to make a good game set in the Star Wars universe. It was BIG news and also a genuinely excellent western console rpg. Also, where's Arx Fatalis? That game was made by the same guys who did Ultima and that was distinctly average. As for Oblivion, that game is a thing of beauty, but mostly the BioWare community hates that kind of open world rpg where the story making is up to you.

Bringing up your list of favourite rpgs from the last decade and sticking Edge review scores on them is meaningless. It doesn't prove anything about Edge's opinion of western rpg's. Trufax.

Modifié par Seraosha, 22 novembre 2009 - 03:14 .

[Hilda1007]

I would expect a magazine reviewer to be able to give a balanced opinion, not just his/her own opinion. That is poor journalism. The fantasy genre does seem to be ignored by a lot of reviewer (most of the world seems to prefer Call of Duty type games - pity! they are just recruitment tools for the military...) I sometimes watch Playr of Gameface on TV hoping for a preview of review of any upcoming fantasy game. I haven't seen anything about Dragon Age on those programs. They just go on and on about Football sims/Need for Speed/Army games. ho... hum. Stopped watching those programs. My point is that it gives you an idea of the general media's opinion of fantasy games.

[egervari]

Seraosha wrote...

Good news guys! Been reading through the rest of dear old Edge and guess what made Internet Game of the Month? Dragon Age Journeys! They much prefer it to the '70 largely mirthless hours' of DA apparently, heh.

You're reading ridiculously far into things when you get a mixed bag of RPG scores and arbitrarily decide that that provides 'perspective' though. Here's some perspective. Fallout got marked down less than Oblivion for reusing an old, tired and buggy Oblivion engine. You wouldn't know that from the scores.

As for KoToR, BioWare was the first developer in about two decades to make a good game set in the Star Wars universe. It was BIG news and also a genuinely excellent western console rpg. Also, where's Arx Fatalis? That game was made by the same guys who did Ultima and that was distinctly average. As for Oblivion, that game is a thing of beauty, but mostly the BioWare community hates that kind of open world rpg where the story making is up to you.

Bringing up your list of favourite rpgs from the last decade and sticking Edge review scores on them is meaningless. It doesn't prove anything about Edge's opinion of western rpg's. Trufax.

These are all very shallow reasons to give scores honestly, and even if they aren't shallow in your opinion, it doesn't make sense for 1 reason to dictate an entire score for a game.

Most people don't play rpgs for graphics. I have found no such fault with fallout 3 or dragon age. They are both beautiful games, and more importantly, they have a sense of style and a fantastic art direction - which matters a hell of a lot more than graphics.

Second of all, fps games are ALWAYS going to have better graphics and physics than rpgs. Why? Because that's pretty much more than half of the programming effort. Granted FPS games are a lot more cinematic than they used to be, they are not nearly as complex to build and test as rpgs.

Fallout 3 did in fact have a big overhaul to the engine - many, many things were upgraded compared to oblivion, including the usage of the vats system and the fps aspects, among many other things. I don't know about you, but washington DC, in all its ruin, was beautiful and overwhelmingly creepy and atmospheric and worked well enough to put the player "there". 

Gameplay is where a big part of the score should come from. There are tons of great games with crappy graphics that are way more enjoyable. Sure graphics help, but it's not essential. Good game designers will make a game that is fun to play when the graphics engine is mocked up or is in it's early stages. Some developers use 2d mock engines that are cheap to implement to get a proof of concept, because it's cheap to build. Games developed in this way are usually very good to play. FPS don't have to do this - because innovation is not nearly as important as graphics and physics.

When reviewing a game, you have to keep this in mind. You have to review a game based on what it sets out to do, and every genre is going to be different in this respect.

As for Kotor... giving it a good score because of the past failures to use the license properly doesn't make sense. Granted the license makes the game better, if still would have been a great game if they used their own license. Bioware has shown us that they can make great games without using licenses. So if Kotor was not star wars, would it also have gotten 6/10 like the other games on that list?

I think the list of scores I posted is extremely relevant, unlike what you say. When their scores are so far off the mark of other reviewers, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that they have lost their minds and/or they have biased and/or unskilled reviewers at Edge magazine.

Also, the part about bioware vs. bethesda is just stupid. I loved oblivion and fallout 3, and I loved all the Infinity engine games and most bioware games. A think a lot of people are in this camp, even if we aren't the loudest on the forums. Kind of reminds me of the few crazy people that don't want a public option and believe in all the fear mongering. They are clearly a small minority, yet they news media covers them as if they were a majority. That's probably true for people that like bioware and hate oblivion - a small crowd who feel they have to pick one and not both.

[mufuti7]

kungfusam wrote...

Maybe the reason you've never heard of Edge is due to fact that its decent mag rather then some trash that rates every game 9/10

I mean none of you have a decent example of why it deserves a higher score, other then the fact that Bioware made

Just except that Dragon Age is a fanboy game, only fanboys are enjoying, only fanboys could enjoy it

Why do you need an explanation why this game is great?
Great gameplay and storytelling cannot be measured in numbers, you have to feel it.
If you cant enjoy this game, your loss, but saying this is a 'fanboy' game makes you look so stupid. and sound like an edge fanboi.

I am glad for you though, that at least one of the many irrelevant game magazines on this world was able to support your narrow view of this game.

[Reiella]

Seifz wrote...

If you're going to give a game 9/10, which is almost perfect and apparently well above average, then it better have a damn good campaign.  The toolset was useless to 99% of the players and there wasn't any user-made content when the reviewer was writing his review.  All he had to go on was the single-player campaign, the technology itself, and the game's potential.  The first sucked, the second was outstanding but buggy as hell, and the third was nothing more than speculation.  That's a 9/10?  I don't think so.

If doesn't matter which reviewer wrote the reviews.  What matters is that Edge Magazine rated NWN1 much, much, much, much higher than DA:O and then panned DA:O for having too much story and dialogue (which, to be frank, was pretty much the entire point of the game).  That's not at all consistant.

Which is a good reason why you should read a review instead of say just looking at the numbers.

Although, I'm sorry that you seem to think that people should all have the same opinions .

[Seifz]

Reiella wrote...

Seifz wrote...

If you're going to give a game 9/10, which is almost perfect and apparently well above average, then it better have a damn good campaign.  The toolset was useless to 99% of the players and there wasn't any user-made content when the reviewer was writing his review.  All he had to go on was the single-player campaign, the technology itself, and the game's potential.  The first sucked, the second was outstanding but buggy as hell, and the third was nothing more than speculation.  That's a 9/10?  I don't think so.

If doesn't matter which reviewer wrote the reviews.  What matters is that Edge Magazine rated NWN1 much, much, much, much higher than DA:O and then panned DA:O for having too much story and dialogue (which, to be frank, was pretty much the entire point of the game).  That's not at all consistant.

Which is a good reason why you should read a review instead of say just looking at the numbers.

Although, I'm sorry that you seem to think that people should all have the same opinions .

I would, but the review isn't available online and I'm not paying the ridiculous import price for the magazine.  One issue of Edge Magazine here costs more than an entire year's worth of most other gaming magazines.  Besides that, I'm not sure that I want to support them with my money.

In any case, I have read excerpts from the review that were posted in this thread.  They largely complain that there's too much dialogue and story, and that all of it is poorly written, and that the 360 graphics suck.  I'm not sure how to respond to that except to say that I can't at all imagine how they found NWN1 worthy of a much higher mark, given what they're saying about DA:O.  Talk about bad writing and bad graphics (even for their time)!

In the end, though, the rating system exists to make comparisons between games.  If that wasn't the case, then the numerical rating would have no meaning.  Thus, it needs to be consistantly applied.  As far as I can tell, that's not the case here.

[PhantoMSouljaX]

Twitchmonkey wrote...

While I have only played DA on the PC, if the console versions are anything like it, there is no way they deserve less than a 7. I just can't respect that opinion.

I own the console version and the only difference from console and PC versions are PC has superior graphics and the top down camera,so you be the judge.

[Reiella]

Seifz wrote...

In the end, though, the rating system exists to make comparisons between games.  If that wasn't the case, then the numerical rating would have no meaning.  Thus, it needs to be consistantly applied.  As far as I can tell, that's not the case here.

Here's the thing, the numerical rating has no meaning.  They're just something milked for the metacritic scores, something to help people who have already made the decision to buy a game justify buying it.  Something that the publishers can use to consider how their game was 'critically recieved'.  It's all tripe.

I remember fun reviews from EGM, round robin, different reviewers, different scores.  For the same game, in the same magazine, at the same time.  It's ok.  People have different opinions it happens.

I mean BioShock [fun question for folks, why would bioshock be in RPG at Steam?] has a higher metaCritic rating than Dragon Age Origins, is it a better game?  Oblivion has a higher metacritic score as well, is it a better game?  Grand Theft Auto 3, also higher...  The number is largely meaningless, even more so if you don't know what went into that number.

[Seifz]

Reiella wrote...

Seifz wrote...

In the end, though, the rating system exists to make comparisons between games.  If that wasn't the case, then the numerical rating would have no meaning.  Thus, it needs to be consistantly applied.  As far as I can tell, that's not the case here.

Here's the thing, the numerical rating has no meaning.  They're just something milked for the metacritic scores, something to help people who have already made the decision to buy a game justify buying it.  Something that the publishers can use to consider how their game was 'critically recieved'.  It's all tripe.

I remember fun reviews from EGM, round robin, different reviewers, different scores.  For the same game, in the same magazine, at the same time.  It's ok.  People have different opinions it happens.

I mean BioShock [fun question for folks, why would bioshock be in RPG at Steam?] has a higher metaCritic rating than Dragon Age Origins, is it a better game?  Oblivion has a higher metacritic score as well, is it a better game?  Grand Theft Auto 3, also higher...  The number is largely meaningless, even more so if you don't know what went into that number.

If the number is meaningless, then they should stop publishing it entirely.