433 réponses à ce sujet

[Raxtoren]

remember, developers voted Fallout 3 as GOTY last year, what did EDGE give it? 7/10.

Oblivion was goty 2006 also, what did they give it? 8/10

Mass Effect was considered GOTY on the xbox360 in 2007 (after halo3) and what did it get? 7/10.

Clealry they are not in line with what the market and consumers think.

And thats fine, they should speak their opinion, but when you trash all rpg's then clearly you can't be taken serious anymore. No, I didnt think DAO was a 5 and F3 was a 7. And im not alone.

Its ridiculous, and childish to give DAO a 5, I dont care about "personal opinions" if you give DAO a 5 you let the wrong person review it. End of story.

[kansadoom]

Zenthar Aseth wrote...

kansadoom wrote...

Magilicotti wrote...

Who the hell has a magazine subscription?

Let me rephrase, who the hell pays for a magazine subscription? Those are just the things you get free when signing up with various organization and websites.

Well With the PC gamer subscription in the UK you get a really cool mouse that is usually worth £45

What mouse is that?

the roccat kova gaming muse and I made a mistake its not worth £45 but £49.99

[addiction21]

daem3an wrote...

Raxxman wrote...
Combat sucks, if you think the combat is good/great you're either; A. Very bad at RTS games, B. Easily pleased, or C. not that smart.

Calling people stupid and making assumptions doesn't lend credibility to your opinion.

Your wrong. His is the only opnion that matters and therefore it is fact. If you do not agree you are
A. A sheep
B. Like cool-aid
C. Braindead
D. A fanboy
E. all of the above

[daem3an]

addiction21 wrote...

daem3an wrote...

Raxxman wrote...
Combat sucks, if you think the combat is good/great you're either; A. Very bad at RTS games, B. Easily pleased, or C. not that smart.

Calling people stupid and making assumptions doesn't lend credibility to your opinion.

Your wrong. His is the only opnion that matters and therefore it is fact. If you do not agree you are
A. A sheep
B. Like cool-aid
C. Braindead
D. A fanboy
E. all of the above

My mistake. Carry on.

[addiction21]

daem3an wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

daem3an wrote...

Raxxman wrote...
Combat sucks, if you think the combat is good/great you're either; A. Very bad at RTS games, B. Easily pleased, or C. not that smart.

Calling people stupid and making assumptions doesn't lend credibility to your opinion.

Your wrong. His is the only opnion that matters and therefore it is fact. If you do not agree you are
A. A sheep
B. Like cool-aid
C. Braindead
D. A fanboy
E. all of the above

My mistake. Carry on.

I applaude your sensibility for realizing raxxman has all the answers and is never wrong.

I reward you with 2 waffles. (toppings and syrup cost extra please see the  in the corner if you wish to order some)

Modifié par addiction21, 21 novembre 2009 - 04:42 .

[daem3an]

Brilliant. I'm making breakfast as we speak!

[Blank Syndrome]

So now it's suddenly all a matter of opinion again. Oh, you guys! You're just impossible!

[addiction21]

daem3an wrote...

Brilliant. I'm making breakfast as we speak!

Take 1 cooked waffle.
Place Bacon (chopped or strips) on top with.
Add fried or scrambled eggs.
Add sausage
Then using a second waffle place on top to make on heart stopping artery clogging breakfast sandwhich.

Also something about reviews being overrated and should not be the end all be all of your decision or opnion of a game.

[Raxxman]

I applaud you for getting my nick confused with the opening poster, making some bastardisation. Unless you are in fact, insulting some as yet silent protagonist.



It really adds weight to your argument, more so that we're on opposite sides of opinion here.



But hey don't let that get in the way of you feeling intellectually superior to me.

[MerinTB]

Uhm, I'll add to the chorus -



what is Edge? I've never heard of it. And I used to work in two different gaming stores and, more recently, a chain bookstore with a huge selection of magazines -

of course, that bookstore didn't carry PC Gamer, either, so ...

[addiction21]

Raxxman wrote...

I applaud you for getting my nick confused with the opening poster, making some bastardisation. Unless you are in fact, insulting some as yet silent protagonist.

It really adds weight to your argument, more so that we're on opposite sides of opinion here.

But hey don't let that get in the way of you feeling intellectually superior to me.

I apologize and will correct it in a moment.

And if not dismissing others opnions and arguements outright because they are not the same as the ones I hold makes me intellectually superior to you so be it.

Have a nice day.

[PurpleChair]

daem3an wrote...

I've just read the Edge review, and I think part of the problem was that it focuses on the 360 version. Aside from that, it basically just cites all of the problems that I've been noticing over the last two weeks of play.

So what exactly are the problems they have with it? Some quotes would be helpful.

In a nushell:

PROS
- Wide range of story paths and puzzle solutions
- Detailed world (in terms of the background, lore, etc)
- PC controls are quite good
- Decent range of class skills/character roles/etc
- Some of the environments look really great

CONS
- Generic Tolkien-esque setting
- Far too much terrible dialogue (they REALLY seemed to hate it)
- Console controls are terrible
- Console versions use blurry, low-res textures
- "Gruesome" motion capture and character modelling
- Combat features too much tedious micromanagement

Personally, I'd agree with most of that, although I think they're being far too harsh about the dialogue (I've only noticed a handful of really bad lines, which is impressive for such a wordy game) and I have no complaints about the motion capture/character model stuff.

But it sounds like their 'primary' review copy was the 360 version, and I wonder how much that has influenced the review? In the section about bad dialogue, there's a lot of references to the main character blurting out random lines of dialogue (like saying "All over now!" when he unlocks a door). That kinda thing happens sometimes in my game, but it's never as bad as they make it sound here. Makes me wonder if the console version triggers those little one-liners more often?

Not enjoying a game isn't the same as thinking it's a terrible product.
FFXIII is certain to be a stellar product, but I don't particularly
like that style of game.

No, I still totally disagree. If you played Final Fantasy XIII and you didn't like it, I would expect you to give it a bad review. What's important is that you describe your experiences with the game and explain why you didn't like it. Otherwise, what are you even reviewing? How can someone judge the quality of a product if they put aside their personal experience of it? It makes no sense to me at all.

[Zenthar Aseth]

PurpleChair wrote...

CONS
- Generic Tolkien-esque setting
- Far too much terrible dialogue (they REALLY seemed to hate it)

LOL! Too much dialogue? Gotcha! Suddenly it all makes sense..

And generic Tolkien-esque setting? That's what I was talking about when I said it should be rated for what it is... Dragon Age WANTS to be "generic".. that's why it doesn't have playable pink elephants and aliens... if you list that as a con, you should not be reviewing the game. It's like having CoD4's major CON being "First person shooter"

[Blank Syndrome]

Eh, I guess, but it's a con if they think it's a con. In fact, I LIKE Tolkien-esque settings and I didn't think Dragon Age's was particularly good among them.

[PurpleChair]

No, not "too much dialogue"... too much TERRIBLE dialogue. They thought it was really badly written (for the most part) and the voice-acting unusually poor, considering the good performances many of the artists had given in other games.

[Reiella]

PurpleChair wrote...

No, I still totally disagree. If you played Final Fantasy XIII and you didn't like it, I would expect you to give it a bad review. What's important is that you describe your experiences with the game and explain why you didn't like it. Otherwise, what are you even reviewing? How can someone judge the quality of a product if they put aside their personal experience of it? It makes no sense to me at all.

Quite, it's ok not to like something.  Even if you totally don't get it.  Complaining that the Speed Racer movie had overly simplified plot that villified corporations, for instance, is valid, but just makes one wonder if the reviewer understood the goal .

But that again is why the -text- of the review is far more important than just a flat score.  Fans as a whole are too wrapped up in the scores to try to validate their game-fandom-ness as being more relevant/important than another game's fandom-ness [macrosociology ftw!], and reviewers do the same because it's expected and it does give them that nice immediate one word summary.  Even if it doesn't do their review justice

[Zenthar Aseth]

PurpleChair wrote...

No, not "too much dialogue"... too much TERRIBLE dialogue. They thought it was really badly written (for the most part) and the voice-acting unusually poor, considering the good performances many of the artists had given in other games.

Okay. The Edge sucks. It does, if it has this reviewer in it. TERRIBLE dialogue? Badly written? Bad voice acting? Get the hell out of here. Those are the strong points of DAO  by and far.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

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

No they aren't. They are just a bunch of overhyped nerds. People only think they are ''respected'' because people like you keep repeating it like a mantra.

[daem3an]

PurpleChair wrote...
No, I still totally disagree. If you played Final Fantasy XIII and you didn't like it, I would expect you to give it a bad review. What's important is that you describe your experiences with the game and explain why you didn't like it. Otherwise, what are you even reviewing? How can someone judge the quality of a product if they put aside their personal experience of it? It makes no sense to me at all.

Well, as others above said, a majority percentage of a quality review should lean towards more objective, measurable criteria. Subjective opinion plays a role but it should be a minor one, no more than 20% IMO. That way I can still rate the graphics, voice acting, sound quality, writing etc. as excellent, and also include that I find jrpg combat tedious and repetitive, or wrpg combat complex and unintuitive. I like Gametrailer reviews for this exact reason. They're very open about what they like and don't like, but they score mostly based on Presentation, Gameplay and Story.

[LFDog]

To the original subject of the Edge review.



I've noticed that "reporters" (with what I expect is little or poor journalism skills) find it more "edgy" to pan a game based upon subjective criteria then do their work and actually analyze the game. (pardon the "edgy" pun)



Sure they may be on tight schedules, but one review of DA that I read online panned the game because the reporter was obviously bored with the genre of fantasy. They even suggested that it wasn't worth the 30 hours it took to play the game..... yup.... 30 hours. Are you kidding me?



It would be like a book critic reading the first two chapters of a book, deciding they didn't like the subject matter and then commenting on the writing style, innovation, etc.



Edge's review is not an assessment that I respect. While I often do rely on reviews when looking for new games, I tend towards those sites where PLAYERS post reviews and comments. I read some positive and some negative and then decide.



Edge should review their own reviewers to determine if they have played the game through and if they are objective enough to be journalists.

[Reiella]

daem3an wrote...

Well, as others above said, a majority percentage of a quality review should lean towards more objective, measurable criteria. Subjective opinion plays a role but it should be a minor one, no more than 20% IMO. That way I can still rate the graphics, voice acting, sound quality, writing etc. as excellent, and also include that I find jrpg combat tedious and repetitive, or wrpg combat complex and unintuitive. I like Gametrailer reviews for this exact reason. They're very open about what they like and don't like, but they score mostly based on Presentation, Gameplay and Story.

No, it should not.  These objective measurable criteria are ultimately subjective.

"It got 5 points for using over 4096x4096 texturemaps."  A issue that may be objective, but doesn't really say much of anything since it is a hard measurable quality, that may not even impact the reality of how the game's visuals look.

"It got 5 points for having a minimum fps of 60" A good goal, and that is actually something that comes up subjectively [when you care if it goes from 27 to 60, and if it does lock the FPS, where it does ].

"5 more points for the game taking 500 mb on the disc."

"-5 points because the main campaign can be completed in under 8 minutes." [Morrowind reference, sorry, :P]

Presentation, Gameplay, and story are all subjective review points, and I personally dislike Gametrailer reviews because they have this nasty tendancy to review a game for one platform, and say it's for another platform.  When trying to advice folks which platform had the better version .

[Blank Syndrome]

When did writing become an objective quality? There's simply no way to measure it except grammatically, which is itself largely inconsequential artistically.

[Terwox_]

Breath in... and out... Slowly... And again... Breath in... and out.



This topic needs a chill pill. Edge is just yet another bunch off people with their own opinion. Which is perfectly fine, they don't need anymore defending than Bioware does. The general opinion among the RPG'ers is that Dragon Age is at least a good game. And no, I haven't heard about Edge before now, and neither do I have any desire to find out anything more about them either. I like Dragon Age, and no matter what their opinion off the game is, that won't change.

[Blank Syndrome]

Terwox_ wrote...

Breath in... and out... Slowly... And again... Breath in... and out.

This topic needs a chill pill. Edge is just yet another bunch off people with their own opinion. Which is perfectly fine, they don't need anymore defending than Bioware does. The general opinion among the RPG'ers is that Dragon Age is at least a good game. And no, I haven't heard about Edge before now, and neither do I have any desire to find out anything more about them either. I like Dragon Age, and no matter what their opinion off the game is, that won't change.

I like this stance.

This is a good stance.

[Raxxman]

PurpleChair wrote...

No, not "too much dialogue"... too much TERRIBLE dialogue. They thought it was really badly written (for the most part) and the voice-acting unusually poor, considering the good performances many of the artists had given in other games.

While I agree with the other cons (TBH I was amazed at how 'Tolkien' the setting is),  I don't really agree with the voice acting. I've only noticed 1 single voice which wasn't great, and that's that of the queen, she sounds like she's reading lines.

As for the quality of the dialogue, it has some highlights, but I can see how it gets a bit of a panning by going back to the monologue system. Makes it feel like people are talking at you, not to you at times.