163 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

FaWa wrote...

He makes lots of good points. But he needs to make his voice more interesting in order for people to really realize the message he's trying to give.

Sadly, I doubt it would help.  Too many people are determined to hate him and anything he has to say.

Overall I liked the series.  He definitely makes good points about the weaknesses of the game.  Interestingly, he (like me) seemed to like it a lot more than ME2.

[Mr.House]

FaWa wrote...
But he needs to make his voice more interesting in order for people to really realize the message he's trying to give.

That he can't get the lore right and likes to nit pick?

[Mr.House]

iakus wrote...


Sadly, I doubt it would help.  Too many people are determined to hate him and anything he has to say.

If he didn't get facts wrong and didn't nit pick, then people would not complain.

[MorrigansLove]

Why does Bodahn tell you something he should have told you 3 years before once the timeskip ends?

I can't remember what it is because I haven't played the game for so long.

[MorrigansLove]

People didn't like the Rageaholics review because they thought he swore too much. People don't like Smudboys plot analysis because he gets a few things wrong. Sounds like YOU are the guys nitpicking...

Modifié par MorrigansLove, 02 septembre 2011 - 07:55 .

[TEWR]

MorrigansLove wrote...

Why does Bodahn tell you something he should have told you 3 years before once the timeskip ends?

I can't remember what it is because I haven't played the game for so long.

He tells you that Varric finally sold the last of the treasure from the expedition and gives you the funds you earned (which really wasn't much. You just broke even really if you didn't pick up the 20 or so sovereigns in the Thaig). Varric wanted to find the right buyers. There's nothing wrong with that.

[TEWR]

MorrigansLove wrote...

People didn't like the Rageaholics review because they thought he swore too much. People don't like Rageaholics review because he gets a few facts wrong. Sounds like YOU are the guys nitpicking...

I liked the Rageaholics review. I didn't mind the swearing, as I believe swearing emphasizes a point if it's used appropriately.

I wouldn't expect someone who makes a review for Rageaholics to be incredibly calm. Would be too weird and funny and ironic.

What facts he did get wrong were very few and far between. Smudboy is just wrong on a ****load of things.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 10 septembre 2011 - 05:14 .

[MorrigansLove]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...

People didn't like the Rageaholics review because they thought he swore too much. People don't like Rageaholics review because he gets a few facts wrong. Sounds like YOU are the guys nitpicking...

I liked the Raveaholics review. I didn't mind the swearing, as I believe swearing emphasizes a point if it's used appropriately.

I wouldn't expect someone who makes a review for Rageaholics to be incredibly calm. Would be too weird and funny and ironic.

What facts he did get wrong were very few and far between. Smudboy is just wrong on a ****load of things.

I wouldnt swear if I was you, mate. I swore and I got banned for it!

Thanks for replying to both my posts in a sensible manner.

[TEWR]

MorrigansLove wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...

People didn't like the Rageaholics review because they thought he swore too much. People don't like Rageaholics review because he gets a few facts wrong. Sounds like YOU are the guys nitpicking...

I liked the Raveaholics review. I didn't mind the swearing, as I believe swearing emphasizes a point if it's used appropriately.

I wouldn't expect someone who makes a review for Rageaholics to be incredibly calm. Would be too weird and funny and ironic.

What facts he did get wrong were very few and far between. Smudboy is just wrong on a ****load of things.

I wouldnt swear if I was you, mate. I swore and I got banned for it!

Thanks for replying to both my posts in a sensible manner.

It's a habit I can't break. I swear a lot. But I try my best to use swearing in as few posts as possible. And you're welcome.

[Tpiom]

Mr.House wrote...

FaWa wrote...
But he needs to make his voice more interesting in order for people to really realize the message he's trying to give.

That he can't get the lore right and likes to nit pick?

What nitpicks are you talking about exactly? That the family didn't do anything for the years the game decided to advace in time? The characters decisions? That there is no "rise to power" struggle? Many of the things he point out are killing the game, for me and others...

The ones that don't breaks the foruth wall like calling it plot items, you can't advance the main story without doing certain side quests.

I feel that Bioware have more to say about the obvious flaws such as reused maps, being to equip your characters and choices not matter (they lied to us in the marketing videos) than these things.

Modifié par Tpiom, 02 septembre 2011 - 08:26 .

[Travie]

That the game skipped forward 3 years after the expedition doesn't mean Hawke and company moved into the estate 3 years after the expedition. Plus, there are all sorts of proceedings and hearings, along with deals that have to be made, to ensure the Hawke family gets back their estate.

He didn't imply it took them 3 years to move in, he made the point that moving in could have taken 2 weeks and the time skip seemed arbitrary and unnecessary. Did they describe the hearings and really explain what he had been doing for 3 years? Only the the most basic of ways, making the time skip--again--seem unnecessary.


You disagreeing with some of his points does not mean all of his points are invalid.

Its still a great commentary, and has a lot of value.

I agree completely with his point, "Dragon Age 2 is a great example of how time skips should NOT be used." He describes this very well at the end of the second part.

[Russalka]

Perhaps he needs to read the Dragon Age wiki more?

[Tpiom]

Russalka wrote...

Perhaps he needs to read the Dragon Age wiki more?

Are you saying you must read the wiki in order to understand the game? 

Modifié par Tpiom, 02 septembre 2011 - 08:52 .

[Russalka]

Not necessarily, but it helps with knowing certain details, some of which this person missed.

EDIT: Oh and of course, most of the information there comes from the codex anyhow.

Modifié par Russalka, 02 septembre 2011 - 08:55 .

[element eater]

^^ yeh he does get some info, nitpicks and i dont always agree with his conclusions and bugs simply cant be used in a plot analysis not sure why he does that, Its like me saying ac had a terrible plot because the game wouldnt instal on ps3 properly.
but he makes some pretty fair statements imo especially regarding me2's central plot and anders actions in da2

Modifié par element eater, 02 septembre 2011 - 09:12 .

[Travie]

Russalka wrote...

Not necessarily, but it helps with knowing certain details, some of which this person missed.

EDIT: Oh and of course, most of the information there comes from the codex anyhow.

Those few missed plot points didn't really affect his conclusions, so its more then silly to say they undermined the integrity of the commentary.

[Stanley Woo]

This thread is starting to get a little confrontational. Whether you agree or disagree with the review/analysis, let's try to be excellent to each other, okay? Thanks.

[Travie]

Stanley Woo wrote...

This thread is starting to get a little confrontational. Whether you agree or disagree with the review/analysis, let's try to be excellent to each other, okay? Thanks.

Nah, you must be reading it wrong. 

I write all my comments while riding a unicorn through a field of flowers, I thought that was implied. 

[TEWR]

Travie wrote...

That the game skipped forward 3 years after the expedition doesn't mean Hawke and company moved into the estate 3 years after the expedition. Plus, there are all sorts of proceedings and hearings, along with deals that have to be made, to ensure the Hawke family gets back their estate.

He didn't imply it took them 3 years to move in, he made the point that moving in could have taken 2 weeks and the time skip seemed arbitrary and unnecessary. Did they describe the hearings and really explain what he had been doing for 3 years? Only the the most basic of ways, making the time skip--again--seem unnecessary.


You disagreeing with some of his points does not mean all of his points are invalid.

Its still a great commentary, and has a lot of value.

I agree completely with his point, "Dragon Age 2 is a great example of how time skips should NOT be used." He describes this very well at the end of the second part.

You're right! It makes perfect sense for a Chantry priest and her Templar guard who want to stay under the radar to begin causing trouble 2 weeks later! My god, how could I have been so blind? [/sarcasm]

I don't agree with how Bioware handled the 3 year time skips or how they told the story of Hawke's Rise to Power, but given that Petrice and Varnell are trying to stay under the radar, enough time had to pass before they could act again. The three year time skips were necessary, but they weren't used properly. All they needed to really do was imply Hawke did something during those years, and much of the backlash would've disappeared. Interestingly enough, there was cut dialogue of Varric actually saying something that implied Hawke wasn't a lazy good-for-nothing.

Now, I don't want to turn this into a "what I would've done thread", so let me just state that I would've also had each Act's main plot connect to the overarching plot of the Mage-Templar conflict and try to build it up in ways that DAII didn't.

And given that the Qunari were still around years later, it was the perfect time for them to start everything. People were on edge, and when people are on edge they're easier to goad. A couple of weeks or even months wouldn't have meant much for the story and wouldn't have made much sense. It took Hawke and his family two weeks to get from Gwaren to Kirkwall. It would take longer for Qunari from Par Vollen or Seheron to reach Kirkwall. At least a few months, but add into that storms that could decimate ships and battles with pirates that may require the ships to be repaired, it could take even longer.

It's a horrible commentary. He either deliberately doesn't mention or forgets that the saar-qamek gas is a poison that turns non-Kossith against one another before it kills them, which is why the fanatics attack Hawke in that quest. They're not thinking clearly because the gas is causing them to be unable to, and even after Hawke stops the gas from releasing any more it's still in the air.

He gets the lore and story wrong and makes up flaws with the story that don't actually exist (like the taint, Bethany in the Deep Roads, and Ser Wesley to name a few), and I'm a person who absolutely hated DAII. It's mediocre, and I hate mediocre games.

That doesn't mean I hate anyone who likes DAII. What they find to be a great game I may not, and it's as simple as that.

[TEWR]

Stanley Woo wrote...

This thread is starting to get a little confrontational. Whether you agree or disagree with the review/analysis, let's try to be excellent to each other, okay? Thanks.

duly noted Bill

[Travie]

He gets the lore and story wrong and makes up flaws with the story that don't actually exist (like the taint, Bethany in the Deep Roads, and Ser Wesley to name a few), and I'm a person who absolutely hated DAII. It's mediocre, and I hate mediocre games.

1. He doesn't get the taint 'wrong' he just says that Bethany/carver contracting the taint could have been done much better, which it definitely could have.
2. Bethany in the deep roads was poorly done, don't see what he got wrong there.

He did screw up Ser Wesley and his role, but thats pretty minor, no?

His main points focused on the lack of choice and the poor writing all around, points I hope would be well-taken for any devs who watched. (I hope, hope, hope)

[Barry Bathernak]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...

People didn't like the Rageaholics review because they thought he swore too much. People don't like Rageaholics review because he gets a few facts wrong. Sounds like YOU are the guys nitpicking...

I liked the Raveaholics review. I didn't mind the swearing, as I believe swearing emphasizes a point if it's used appropriately.

I wouldn't expect someone who makes a review for Rageaholics to be incredibly calm. Would be too weird and funny and ironic.

What facts he did get wrong were very few and far between. Smudboy is just wrong on a ****load of things.

LIST THEM,if you say he wrong on "a ****load of things" then list them since i watched it i only saw 1-3 things all small.but seriously if you say he's wrong to such a high degree then LIST IT.

[Texhnolyze101]

does anyone really care about what smudboy says...i mean REALLY?

[TEWR]

Travie wrote...

He gets the lore and story wrong and makes up flaws with the story that don't actually exist (like the taint, Bethany in the Deep Roads, and Ser Wesley to name a few), and I'm a person who absolutely hated DAII. It's mediocre, and I hate mediocre games.

1. He doesn't get the taint 'wrong' he just says that Bethany/carver contracting the taint could have been done much better, which it definitely could have.
2. Bethany in the deep roads was poorly done, don't see what he got wrong there.

He did screw up Ser Wesley and his role, but thats pretty minor, no?

His main points focused on the lack of choice and the poor writing all around, points I hope would be well-taken for any devs who watched. (I hope, hope, hope)

He said it came out of nowhere. It didn't. You can clearly see that Bethany/Carver are weak and barely able to keep up when you meet Sandal.

Could it have been done better? Sure, but the same could be said for many things in Origins. I didn't get a sense of the Blight's true evil since I never actually saw the damage the Darkspawn do prior to the endgame. Supposedly villages are destroyed by the Blight and the land is tainted, yet we see none of that.

He also talks about statues of the Paragons, but those were above the Primeval Thaig. When you actually enter the primeval Thaig, Bartrand wonders where the Paragon statues are. he did get the golem point right though, as that's something I've brought up before. It's not necessarily a contradiction of lore though, since Caridin had a vision of what to do. We don't really know if he actually built the Anvil, as he never directly states he did. He says he built many things in his time, but what allowed him to become a Paragon was the Anvil itself.

I do agree with the Lyrium idol point, but that's something that was made clear when the game was released. Most of his "good points" are things that have already been said, so it's nothing new and just some of the same.

Wesley may be a minor error, but since he related Wesley's contraction of the Blight disease to the sibling's death when he/she contracts the Blight disease, it becomes a major error because his point is wrong and the he forgot the lore. Side note: I do admit The Deep Roads Expedition should've been at least an hour and a half long.

I do agree about the sibling death in the beginning. That too is something that was said when the game came out. The devs basically ask us to metagame to be able to care about our siblings. I think they should've both lived, and that would've helped the plot even more. The game just heaps death on the player.

Now, I'm still watching his commentary, but so far I'm not liking his commentary.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 02 septembre 2011 - 09:53 .