433 réponses à ce sujet

[Sereaph502]

Giving FPS games high scores while they give RPGs low scores.



Easy tell sign that a gaming magizine is biased.

[kungfusam]

Anrim wrote...

kungfusam wrote...

Well Edge has always been about the more mature gamer, the ones that care about the actual gameplay

can see why you wouldn't agree with them

... because Halo 3 is very popular amongst mature gamers.
~bursts out laughing~

Edge review games, not the people who play them, though I'm sure if they did the Dragon Age would have scored alot lower

[Anrim]

kungfusam wrote...

Anrim wrote...

kungfusam wrote...

Well Edge has always been about the more mature gamer, the ones that care about the actual gameplay

can see why you wouldn't agree with them

... because Halo 3 is very popular amongst mature gamers.
~bursts out laughing~

Edge review games, not the people who play them, though I'm sure if they did the Dragon Age would have scored alot lower

...? Ok.
So... Halo 3 has revolutionary gameplay, meant for mature gamers but it's okay that it's meant for 14 year old boys because DA:O fans are immature?

Modifié par Anrim, 25 novembre 2009 - 09:20 .

[immateriaux]

That's a really interesting score, be interested to read their comments now.



I'm only part way into the game but finding it very, very tedious so far - companion AI seems not to have improved much from NWN, characters not reacting to getting hit etc. and having to be meticulously micro-managed. Fights seem to all revolve on the same strategy. As mentioned very earlier, the setting is cliched and confined, plus the story arc dominates to too high a degree, leaving little in the way of pure wandering or exploration. Cut-scenes are intrusive and over-long. So far, this game has been my biggest disappointment of the year so far - though I will stick with it a bit more in the hope some improvements occur. "5" seems harsh given the obvious fact that a lot of work went into the game but perhaps that effort was mis-directed. And actually I'd probably just rate it a "6" so far myself.

[GravityParade]

The real problem with fallout 3? "threeeeeeeeedooooooooooooooooooog !! hey kids, here's a serious question for ya. have you ever seen .... a tree??? NOOOO NOOOO not those shriveled black things..."



"bongo bongo bongo I dont want to leave the Congo no no no no no noooooo .... bingo bangle bungle im so happy in the jungle i refuse to go"



"I'm Tickled Pink the moon is yellow and Im your fellow once more ...."



Yes, even a year later, the awfully annoying sounds of GNR haunt me.

[Mikey_205]

Playing it on my 360 and I'd give it an 8. I'd give Mass Effect on my 360 a 9.5. I can imagine giving DA:O a 10 on PC but I doubt it would make an impact on Mass Effect.



The controls are really crappy on the Xbox 360. On hard I can think of numerous occasions where having a move here command would have made the combat so much easier. I can tell it would work a lot better to click each of my characters and right click an enemy than aim at them and accidently cast force field on myself more times than I can count.



But theres no way it deserves less than an 8 because its ambitious to dumb down such a complex PC game to console level and it controls just like KoTOR just the combat is a lot harder.



I'd also have to subtract some points for bad texture work it looks amazing one second then the next I'm seeing N64 box mandolins in Denerim market.

[ZetaCrossfire]

Im on the 360 version and i haven't seen glitches or this claim of poor gameplay. I find it outstanding in fact 9.5/10 The only problem i have seen so far is twice on my first play though during a cur scene the character tried to talk but nothing came out. People are just to uptight.

[JaegerBane]

Anrim wrote...
...? Ok.
So... Halo 3 has revolutionary gameplay, meant for mature gamers but it's okay that it's meant for 14 year old boys because DA:O fans are immature?

Just ignore him Anrim, he's been whinging on here for the last few days. None of us know what his deal is.

[Hurrrr]

JaegerBane wrote...

Anrim wrote...
...? Ok.
So... Halo 3 has revolutionary gameplay, meant for mature gamers but it's okay that it's meant for 14 year old boys because DA:O fans are immature?

Just ignore him Anrim, he's been whinging on here for the last few days. None of us know what his deal is.

Hey, halo 3 was pretty damn good.

I remember the first time I played the Halo series and looked up,  "I have to get there!?, thats MILES away".

3 was just the same damn thing only more money than god was thrown at it, its the most perfectly produced videogame yet made, cant think of anything even close 0.o

Edge, though saying DA:O is average is undeserving of fanboi rants the like of which zelda/mw fans are liable to throw. Its pretty much what the game deserves, and I say that as someone who has been playing constantly for 4 days. I love it, but its not gonna draw people who dont like RPGs to the genre k? Disagree? Also, as mentioned above the combats repetitive at any level and liable to some of the most inane strategies yet seen in a video game. Force field tank + AOE anybody?

Edge is damn respectable and certainly doesn't care about money in the same way gamespot for instance would. Anyway...


TLDR - DA:O = so stfu and stop slating one of the few good mags.

[Raxxman]

Hurrrr wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

Anrim wrote...
...? Ok.
So... Halo 3 has revolutionary gameplay, meant for mature gamers but it's okay that it's meant for 14 year old boys because DA:O fans are immature?

Just ignore him Anrim, he's been whinging on here for the last few days. None of us know what his deal is.

Hey, halo 3 was pretty damn good.

I remember the first time I played the Halo series and looked up,  "I have to get there!?, thats MILES away".

3 was just the same damn thing only more money than god was thrown at it, its the most perfectly produced videogame yet made, cant think of anything even close 0.o

Edge, though saying DA:O is average is undeserving of fanboi rants the like of which zelda/mw fans are liable to throw. Its pretty much what the game deserves, and I say that as someone who has been playing constantly for 4 days. I love it, but its not gonna draw people who dont like RPGs to the genre k? Disagree? Also, as mentioned above the combats repetitive at any level and liable to some of the most inane strategies yet seen in a video game. Force field tank + AOE anybody?

Edge is damn respectable and certainly doesn't care about money in the same way gamespot for instance would. Anyway...


TLDR - DA:O = so stfu and stop slating one of the few good mags.

I agree, but I'd also say that most Valve games come with an incredible level of polish unseen in this day and age. It's a shame when they raised the bar, nobody else seemed to step up to the plate.

[TheDoverDemon]

Hurrrr wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

Anrim wrote...
...? Ok.
So... Halo 3 has revolutionary gameplay, meant for mature gamers but it's okay that it's meant for 14 year old boys because DA:O fans are immature?

Just ignore him Anrim, he's been whinging on here for the last few days. None of us know what his deal is.

Hey, halo 3 was pretty damn good.

I remember the first time I played the Halo series and looked up,  "I have to get there!?, thats MILES away".

3 was just the same damn thing only more money than god was thrown at it, its the most perfectly produced videogame yet made, cant think of anything even close 0.o

Edge, though saying DA:O is average is undeserving of fanboi rants the like of which zelda/mw fans are liable to throw. Its pretty much what the game deserves, and I say that as someone who has been playing constantly for 4 days. I love it, but its not gonna draw people who dont like RPGs to the genre k? Disagree? Also, as mentioned above the combats repetitive at any level and liable to some of the most inane strategies yet seen in a video game. Force field tank + AOE anybody?

Edge is damn respectable and certainly doesn't care about money in the same way gamespot for instance would. Anyway...


TLDR - DA:O = so stfu and stop slating one of the few good mags.

I regret bringing up Halo 3 specifically, because like you said, "Halo 3 was pretty damn good" (at least in terms of multiplayer).  I simply ment to show that people make mistakes (at least I think it was a mistake).  Halo 3 was pretty good (i'd give it an 8/10), but a 10/10?  I don't think so.  Edge isn't the only publication who did this though, Eurogamer, OXM, EGM, X-Play, and 1Up also gave it a 10/10 (or the equivalent).  I also disagree with Edge awarding Halo: Combat Evolved, Super Mario Galaxy and LittleBigPlanet perfect scores.  Dragon Age isn't perfect but I think that a 5/10 is a little harsh (I would personally give it a 8/10).  But like I said earlier, at the end of the day it's just someone's onpinion.  Edge does have great opinion and news pieces though.  Their most recent piece on the Japanese game industry was exquisite.

[Oriflam88]

I'm sorry if my english is not correct ,)

Everyone is entitled to his opinion. I don't care if someone thinks DA:O is worth a 5 or a 1 because he can't stand fantasy or tactical fights, it's his right to do so. Eventually, if you want to share your opinion, you do it on a blog, or a forum...

However, a professionnal review is not supposed to be made by a random consumer, but by a journalist. Last time I checked, Edge was a magazine, so its reviewers are journalists. And when a journalist writes an article, if he respects ethics, there is some things he will do : be sure that he knows what he's talking about, and try to be as objective as possible.
Now some will say "but everything, in the end, is subjective"... that's just too easy, even if the reviewer is influenced by his own opinions, that does not prevent him to write something detached from them and take in consideration all the various opinions and tastes of the people he's writing to, because journalists are not writing for themselves.
What I mean is that a movie critic who dislikes comedies will not say that a comedy is crap because he did not laugh, he will say that if you're not into comedy, don't go because you're sure to be bored, and if you love that kind of movie this one will please you (or not if its really bad ). A car reviewer who likes Porsches will not convince his readers to burn all *insert any monospace*, he will say that if you're looking for a family car it's a great choice (or not)...
This is why journalists have a responsability towards their readers : we assume their are capable and objective people, so we can trust them (well that's juste theory, of course we don't exactly do that, but we give more value to their writings than to some random blog or an advice written on the men's room wall).

What annoys me in Edge's review, it's that the reviewer really doesn't care : "Hey I hate when there's a story in videogames, I could just read a book, and when you need to think before acting, well I don't call that a game but work." Was it really hard to say : "if you do not like storytelling games or micro managing, the game is not for you, but if you do go for it" ? He could even have said that no, even if you do like stories with elves and dwarves and micro-managing, avoid the game because it's linear and boring and unchallenging... I don't think it's true but at least he could think about the readers who do like those things in a game and tell them what to do.
I could have understood a 5/10 if the reviewer had been really harsh on graphics, the classic story (which I don't mind : a classic story, well told, and a great lore is all I need) or other things that are facts... But here he sounds just like those people who bought the game because the advert was bloody, but can't enjoy the game because they've never played anything else than FPS and a couple of Final Fantasy. The guy did not took his responsability, he did not do his job as a journalist. Maybe he's really good at writing articles about videogame business and trends, but then he should stick to that.

Modifié par Oriflam88, 26 novembre 2009 - 01:58 .

[happyfinesad]

Oriflam88 wrote...

I'm sorry if my english is not correct ,)

Everyone is entitled to his opinion. I don't care if someone thinks DA:O is worth a 5 or a 1 because he can't stand fantasy or tactical fights, it's his right to do so. Eventually, if you want to share your opinion, you do it on a blog, or a forum...

However, a professionnal review is not supposed to be made by a random consumer, but by a journalist. Last time I checked, Edge was a magazine, so its reviewers are journalists. And when a journalist writes an article, if he respects ethics, there is some things he will do : be sure that he knows what he's talking about, and try to be as objective as possible.
Now some will say "but everything, in the end, is subjective"... that's just too easy, even if the reviewer is influenced by his own opinions, that does not prevent him to write something detached from them and take in consideration all the various opinions and tastes of the people he's writing to, because journalists are not writing for themselves.
What I mean is that a movie critic who dislikes comedies will not say that a comedy is crap because he did not laugh, he will say that if you're not into comedy, don't go because you're sure to be bored, and if you love that kind of movie this one will please you (or not if its really bad ). A car reviewer who likes Porsches will not convince his readers to burn all *insert any monospace*, he will say that if you're looking for a family car it's a great choice...
This is why journalists have a responsability towards their readers : we assume their are capable and objective people, so we can trust them (well that's juste theory, of course we don't exactly do that, but we give more value to their writings than to some random blog or an advice written on the men's room wall).

What annoys me in Edge's review, it's that the reviewer really doesn't care : "Hey I hate when there's a story in videogames, I could just read a book, and when you need to think before acting, well I don't call that a game but work." Was it really hard to say : "if you do not like storytelling games or micro managing, the game is not for you, but if you do go for it" ?
I could have understood a 5/10 if the reviewer had been really harsh on graphics, the classic story (which I don't mind : a classic story, well told, and a great lore is all I need) or other things that are facts... But here he sounds just like those people who bought the game because the advert was bloody, but can't enjoy the game because they've never played anything else than FPS and a couple of Final Fantasy. The guy did not took his responsability, he did not do his job as a journalist. Maybe he's really good at writing articles about videogame business and trends, but then he should stick to that.

I think you absolutely nailed it. Couldn't have said it better.

[Anrim]

Hurrrr wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

Anrim wrote...
...? Ok.
So... Halo 3 has revolutionary gameplay, meant for mature gamers but it's okay that it's meant for 14 year old boys because DA:O fans are immature?

Just ignore him Anrim, he's been whinging on here for the last few days. None of us know what his deal is.

Hey, halo 3 was pretty damn good.

I remember the first time I played the Halo series and looked up,  "I have to get there!?, thats MILES away".

3 was just the same damn thing only more money than god was thrown at it, its the most perfectly produced videogame yet made, cant think of anything even close 0.o

Edge, though saying DA:O is average is undeserving of fanboi rants the like of which zelda/mw fans are liable to throw. Its pretty much what the game deserves, and I say that as someone who has been playing constantly for 4 days. I love it, but its not gonna draw people who dont like RPGs to the genre k? Disagree? Also, as mentioned above the combats repetitive at any level and liable to some of the most inane strategies yet seen in a video game. Force field tank + AOE anybody?

Edge is damn respectable and certainly doesn't care about money in the same way gamespot for instance would. Anyway...


TLDR - DA:O = so stfu and stop slating one of the few good mags.

So if you don't like FPS games, the under developed, generic world of Halo will
convert you? No, no, no. I'm sorry, but you don't see the fallacy in your words.
I COULD argue Bioshock, or even Fallout 3 might sway hardcore RPG fans
into the shooter genre but NEVER Halo. I've played Halo, I play all genres, really.
(Love Tekken 6 btw) but trying to defend the "Halo 10/10, DA:O 5/10" by saying
that DA:O isn't accessible to FPS fanbois is just... I don't want to flame you so I'll
leave it up to your imagination.

[hero 2]

Wot Raxtoren has wroten is this wot is here:->

Edge is like the most respected magazing in the business (along Famitsu)

Gaming magazines went out with tie-dye t-shirts. Get over it/them.

[xailewis]

Let's be clear, Edge is a great magazine. In the U.K there is only Edge
and GamesTM who have interesting articles. Edge is consistently well
written, has very good interviews and is generally not aimed at 14 year
olds, unlike all the other game magazines I have seen.



In most magazines a 7/10 means average, in Edge 5/10 means average. Now
I do not agree that DA:O is average, I am enjoying it a great deal, but
for me it would be an 8/10, based on how much I am enjoying it. Edge
obviously did not enjoy it as much as me. But it is all subjective,
most of you will no doubt disagree with me when I say Oblivion was to
me a 4/10 game, I absolutely hated it. Not enough fun (for me), the
Oblivion world sections were horrible, far to big and not enough
direction, dreadful acting/script. But that is just my opinion. Edge
always say the review (text) is what is important, rather than the
number at the end of it, but people always obsess over the number. If
you enjoy it, who cares what any other person/magazine/website says?
Edge just gave Assassins Creed II an 8, but I have no intention of
buying that as it does not appeal to me. Make your own mind up.

[Derengard]

Is this a 5 despite of some merits, like "oh, I've never come across so bad tactical fights", or in concordance with all parts, like "oh, the dialogue, oh the character, oh the textures,..."?

Modifié par Derengard, 26 novembre 2009 - 08:32 .

[Drake Sigar]

xailewis wrote...

Let's be clear, Edge is a great magazine. In the U.K there is only Edge
and GamesTM who have interesting articles. Edge is consistently well
written, has very good interviews and is generally not aimed at 14 year
olds, unlike all the other game magazines I have seen.

But you can understand our concerns when they appear to be giving every overrated shooter under the sun a superb score.

[kungfusam]

Dragon Age is the perfect 5/10



I can see people loving it and hating for all the same reasons, its boring and safe, but very few RPGs actually do that these days, most being set in space, with lazer guns

[Derengard]

Seems I have picked the golden choice, playing a Dalish elf on first start. I deliberately took that Origin, because it seemed rather unlikely, and found it very nice. Only now that I'm in the Circle Tower I get a feeling for what all the complaints were about. All this fighting can get very dry after a while. I like the bits of lore, however. And I liked some of the characterisations since the first trailers.

[Seraosha]

happyfinesad wrote...

Oriflam88 wrote...

I'm sorry if my english is not correct ,)

Everyone is entitled to his opinion. I don't care if someone thinks DA:O is worth a 5 or a 1 because he can't stand fantasy or tactical fights, it's his right to do so. Eventually, if you want to share your opinion, you do it on a blog, or a forum...

However, a professionnal review is not supposed to be made by a random consumer, but by a journalist. Last time I checked, Edge was a magazine, so its reviewers are journalists. And when a journalist writes an article, if he respects ethics, there is some things he will do : be sure that he knows what he's talking about, and try to be as objective as possible.
Now some will say "but everything, in the end, is subjective"... that's just too easy, even if the reviewer is influenced by his own opinions, that does not prevent him to write something detached from them and take in consideration all the various opinions and tastes of the people he's writing to, because journalists are not writing for themselves.
What I mean is that a movie critic who dislikes comedies will not say that a comedy is crap because he did not laugh, he will say that if you're not into comedy, don't go because you're sure to be bored, and if you love that kind of movie this one will please you (or not if its really bad ). A car reviewer who likes Porsches will not convince his readers to burn all *insert any monospace*, he will say that if you're looking for a family car it's a great choice...
This is why journalists have a responsability towards their readers : we assume their are capable and objective people, so we can trust them (well that's juste theory, of course we don't exactly do that, but we give more value to their writings than to some random blog or an advice written on the men's room wall).

What annoys me in Edge's review, it's that the reviewer really doesn't care : "Hey I hate when there's a story in videogames, I could just read a book, and when you need to think before acting, well I don't call that a game but work." Was it really hard to say : "if you do not like storytelling games or micro managing, the game is not for you, but if you do go for it" ?
I could have understood a 5/10 if the reviewer had been really harsh on graphics, the classic story (which I don't mind : a classic story, well told, and a great lore is all I need) or other things that are facts... But here he sounds just like those people who bought the game because the advert was bloody, but can't enjoy the game because they've never played anything else than FPS and a couple of Final Fantasy. The guy did not took his responsability, he did not do his job as a journalist. Maybe he's really good at writing articles about videogame business and trends, but then he should stick to that.

I think you absolutely nailed it. Couldn't have said it better.

See, I saw it differently. I think the reviewer speaks like someone who can see that WRPG's as a genre are beginning to stagnate and stutter in the same way JRPG's have. Dragon Age is a game we've played a million times before in slightly different flavours and making it wordier than all it's predecessors doesn't change that.

The BioWare RPG is becoming an institution unto itself not unlike Final Fantasy. Sure, they'll always be decent rpg's, but I don't expect them to set the world alight. They're the rpg lovers rpg. That's it. When BioWare come up with something that turns the genre on its head or otherwise reinvigorates it, then it'll get its Edge 10.

[JaegerBane]

Hurrrr wrote...
Hey, halo 3 was pretty damn good.

I remember the first time I played the Halo series and looked up,  "I have to get there!?, thats MILES away".

3 was just the same damn thing only more money than god was thrown at it, its the most perfectly produced videogame yet made, cant think of anything even close 0.o

This is raw nonsense. I happen to have a soft spot for the Halo franchise too - it comes under far too much criticism simply because of marketing and stereotyping - but to claim 3 is actually the 'most perfectly produced videogame yet' is stunningly absurd. Halo 3 was a polished shooter, no more, no less. It wasn't anywhere near 'perfect' for reasons ranging from a restrictive carrying system and dubious AI all the way up to an unsatisfying storyline and ending, not to mention that technically it fell behind somewhat and contributed little, if anything, to the genre.

In short, while it deserved a good grade, it didn't deserve such a grade in comparison to what DA:O got, by virtue of the fact that it simply didn't do enough. Besides, your criteria for a good game is pretty daft. Large maps and big budgets? give me a break.

Edge, though saying DA:O is average is undeserving of fanboi rants the like of which zelda/mw fans are liable to throw. Its pretty much what the game deserves, and I say that as someone who has been playing constantly for 4 days. I love it, but its not gonna draw people who dont like RPGs to the genre k? Disagree? Also, as mentioned above the combats repetitive at any level and liable to some of the most inane strategies yet seen in a video game. Force field tank + AOE anybody?

Edge is damn respectable and certainly doesn't care about money in the same way gamespot for instance would. Anyway...

TLDR - DA:O = so stfu and stop slating one of the few good mags.

What you've posted here doesn't actually constitute an argument. You've missed out all the justifications and pretty much just posted an extremely long-winded version of 'I'm right and your wrong because I say so'. Whether you choose to use 'inane strategies' is a pretty silly reason for branding a game anything, as it's you who's choosing to do it.

Whether or not it will bring people to the genre is debatable, but frankly, I'm not sure what dictates whether a game can do this. RPGs tend to draw certain folk just the same as all the other genres do. I'm fairly sure hyper-complex RTSs like Supreme Commander and Sins of a Solar Empire will not bring many to the RTS genre, but does that mean they're rubbish? Don't be so silly. DA:O was clearly designed for existing RPG fans.

I don't mind a debate, but if you're just going to post rubbish like 'I'm right and your wrong because I say so' then it may have been worth it to just practice what you preach and not bothered posting.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 27 novembre 2009 - 12:10 .

[Inhuman one]

Well if they want to bring new people to the genre they should introduce new gameplay. I dont consider the tactics to be new gameplay, its more of an excuse to not give the companions a good AI. They rely on the player to function properly.



I really think its about time that horse riding becomes standard in medievalish games or RPG's of any period where horses where the main form of transportation and still a tool of war.



Its a very different style of combat and it could be made really interesting. Knights could charge with a lance, horse archers could circle around their enemies while firing arrows, spearmen could thrust their spear into a horse as it charges, etc.



Horses could have at least been shown at the cinematic battles to give the idea they are there.



Loghain's forces could have been cavalry, that would have made sense.

[immateriaux]

The Horse Riding in "Two Worlds" (on PC, and fully patched) was spot on - you could charge, swing at enemies, horse could be killed from underneath you, etc. That's the best I've seen it done so far.