283 réponses à ce sujet

[Dormiglione]

Mr Fixit wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

@Mr Fixit: the person writing this review isn't the same person who wrote the review that praised DAII.

I realize that, of course. But it's curious how all the guys that got to review DA2 at launch were coincidentally those that enjoyed the game. Then, all of a sudden, after some time passed, some other reviewers started popping out of hiding painting a different picture.

Just an observation, that's all

In my opinion you made a good observation. I wondered myself, why do most of the major site that praised DA2 now coming out with a complete different view of the game. Sure, all different persons writing the new reviews. Still, how comes to that difference?

I agree with the article. For me DA2 is a huge disappointment. Loved DAO, was not happy with the changes in Awakening, but accepted it, but DA2 disappointed me.

[culletron1]

Mr Fixit wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

@Mr Fixit: the person writing this review isn't the same person who wrote the review that praised DAII.

I realize that, of course. But it's curious how all the guys that got to review DA2 at launch were coincidentally those that enjoyed the game. Then, all of a sudden, after some time passed, some other reviewers started popping out of hiding painting a different picture.

Just an observation, that's all

As soon as I saw that Charles Onyett hadn't reviewed DA2 on IGN I knew something was up... He is their go to RPG guy and reviewed both origins and awakening. 

And I totally agree with the article he wrote... After DA2 I was quite down about the direction of RPGs. However after playing the witcher 2,  DEx and Skyrim and from what I've so far played of TOR I think that DA2 is an abberation and thankfully not a representation of the future direction of RPGs...

Modifié par culletron1, 15 décembre 2011 - 12:40 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Savber100 wrote...

Which makes me wonder why EA would want to publish Amalur since it seems to be a reflection of DA:O with more old-school RPG elements than DA2 EVER had. Maybe its success will prompt Bioware to return the franchise to its roots.

Amalur's a reflection of the old Ultima series, not Dragon Age. NPC schedules, day/night cycle, reactions to crime, the choice of fighting guards or agreeing to go to jail, enemies that don't scale to the PC's level, all Ultima. And graphically it's going full-colour high fantasy instead of the medieval fantasy brown we've been seeing too much of lately. The skill system is unique, it's not party based, it's not D&D based, it looks unique.

EA's publishing it because it looks good. And because Ian Frazier's awesome and knows his RPGs.

[Fast Jimmy]

Imagine something like this...


You have a favorite burger joint. They have been making delicious burgers for decades and you remember going there since you were a kid.

Your favorite burger they make there, the Dragon Burger, is the bees knees, in your opinion. Its fantastic, its great, you've gone there to eat it a dozen times a dozen times! (That's 144 times, for anyone keeping math). Its got juicy meat, tasty bacon, succulent cheese, all the great toppings... its not perfect, exactly. The bun can get a little soggy and the fries are pretty standard... but that's a small price to pay for an AMAZING burger!

So you hear they are coming out with a new burger. To be specific, a new DRAGON burger. Its going to be meatier, tastier, better than the Dragon burger by far! Don't worry, they've heard about your bun and fry complaints, and will fix everything!

So you show up on the day of the unvelining... only to find things very wrong.

The complaints about the bun and fries? Well, since they were a source of problems, they just got rid of both. The burger is now "naked" and comes with no sides. If you pay extra, you can get some toast.

Also, the burger joint found out that people were allergic to tomatoes, lettuce and other toppings, and others were lactose intolerant to the cheese, so they went ahead and took iff all the toppings. After all, it needs to appeal to more people, so the burger joint can get on the map and spread its glorious burgers to the world.

Alright... but who needs that bun, fry, or toppings crap? Its still the BURGER that counts!

Except the big surprise, the big selling point... its a tofu burger! Tofu can be prepared in a delicious manner, is extremely healthy, it has great benefits and something you would have tried on your own... if only it wasn't labeled as the Dragon Burger, and promised to be meatier!

SO you storm out, confused, angry and still hungry. And you stop at McD's and get a BigMac. The BigMac is a great burger, two all beef patties, special sauce, sesame seed blah, blah, blah... but it doesn't capture your imagination the same way the old Dragon Burger did. You were pulling for that mom-and-pop-shop burger joint and just can't see how they could take your favorite burger and turn it into something that is so far removed from your classic that it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

I even like soy burgers and soy in general. And the soy lovers out there can't understand why people are so angry that just because the burger joint wants to do something unique, healthy and delicious, that people are so riled up. "A soy burger is still a burger, people. Its not that different. Its not like they made it Catfish of Duty platter or anything."

People are upset because we all loved our burger joint. And if they keep putting out soy burgers, it will turn into a hippie cafe, where drastically fewer people will eat, the patrons will constantly be talking about how much they love political struggles and eventually the owner has to close because they can't make any money unless they charge extra for sides that used to come free of charge with the meal.

That's my two cents about the Dragon Burger.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 15 décembre 2011 - 01:00 .

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Imagine something like this...


You have a favorite burger joint. They have been making delicious burgers for decades and you remember going there since you were a kid.

Your favorite burger they make there, the Dragon Burger, is the bees knees, in your opinion. Its fantastic, its great, you've gone there to eat it a dozen times a dozen times! (That's 144 times, for anyone keeping math). Its got juicy meat, tasty bacon, succulent cheese, all the great toppings... its not perfect, exactly. The bun can get a little soggy and the fries are pretty standard... but that's a small price to pay for an AMAZING burger!

So you hear they are coming out with a new burger. To be specific, a new DRAGON burger. Its going to be meatier, tastier, better than the Dragon burger by far! Don't worry, they've heard about your bun and fry complaints, and will fix everything!

So you show up on the day of the unvelining... only to find things very wrong.

The complaints about the bun and fries? Well, since they were a source of problems, they just got rid of both. The burger is now "naked" and comes with no sides. If you pay extra, you can get some toast.

Also, the burger joint found out that people were allergic to tomatoes, lettuce and other toppings, and others were lactose intolerant to the cheese, so they went ahead and took iff all the toppings. After all, it needs to appeal to more people, so the burger joint can get on the map and spread its glorious burgers to the world.

Alright... but who needs that bun, fry, or toppings crap? Its still the BURGER that counts!

Except the big surprise, the big selling point... its a tofu burger! Tofu can be prepared in a delicious manner, is extremely healthy, it has great benefits and something you would have tried on your own... if only it wasn't labeled as the Dragon Burger, and promised to be meatier!

SO you storm out, confused, angry and still hungry. And you stop at McD's and get a BigMac. The BigMac is a great burger, two all beef patties, special sauce, sesame seed blah, blah, blah... but it doesn't capture your imagination the same way the old Dragon Burger did. You were pulling for that mom-and-pop-shop burger joint and just can't see how they could take your favorite burger and turn it into something that is so far removed from your classic that it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

I even like soy burgers and soy in general. And the soy lovers out there can't understand why people are so angry that just because the burger joint wants to do something unique, healthy and delicious, that people are so riled up. "A soy burger is still a burger, people. Its not that different. Its not like they made it Catfish of Duty platter or anything."

People are upset because we all loved our burger joint. And if they keep putting out soy burgers, it will turn into a hippie cafe, where drastically fewer people will eat, the patrons will constantly be talking about how much they love political struggles and eventually the owner has to close because they can't make any money unless they charge extra for sides that used to come free of charge with the meal.

That's my two cents about the Dragon Burger.

In my experience, as a huge fan of McDonald's (I know, not a good thing), the special Mac sauce is what makes the burger. It's why I go there and not to Burger King, Wendy's, or even Taco Bell. It gives the burger a certain distinction amongst burgers. 

It's not that I don't enjoy your typical hamburger, but if given the choice, I'll always throw that special sauce on top.

 
Edit: Got lost in this delicious metaphor, the "Mac Sauce" is intended to represent the actual Origin stories. For myself, at least.

Modifié par Il Divo, 15 décembre 2011 - 01:11 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Il Divo wrote...
 
Edit: Got lost in this delicious metaphor, the "Mac Sauce" is intended to represent the actual Origin stories. For myself, at least.

LOL Right? I feel like I need to chomp down on a tasty burger for lunch now.

[HanabPacal]

Morroian wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

Thoughts?

NOTE: Keep in mind that the person that wrote this was different from the DA2 reviewer's who scored DA2 an "8.5". 

Big deal this is just more bandwagon jumping by sites trying to appear relevant. Its odious, I'd have more respect for a site that sticks to its original opinion whether positive or negative.

No offense, Morroian, but I recall you being one of the most vociferous proponents/perpetuators of the theory that those who didn’t like DA2 were just a “vocal minority”.  Now, if that were truly the case then there couldn’t be any bandwagon on which to jump – as the site would be pandering to a very small, almost miniscule, portion of its readership.  That would hardly be worth their time or effort.  Although, we both know that “vocal minority” is almost always claimed by fans (of everything) as an attempt at a catch-all excuse in order to deflect criticism, and as a judgment on those who dislike thing “X”.  And we also know that in the case of DA2 “vocal minority” does not accurately apply to those who disliked it, as evidenced by the available feedback.  However, even though the dislike of DA2 is not confined to a “vocal minority”, this still isn’t a jump to the “bandwagon” by IGN for a number of reasons.
 
You need to keep in mind that this is the end of the year and that at the end of the year many sites/magazines do retrospective pieces covering both positives and negatives.  IGN isn’t scrabbling for relevance; plenty of people read the articles/reviews on the site.  If anything DA2 would fit that bill much more closely as the game is currently only relevant to the handful of people on the BSN that continue to argue over it.  In addition, there is not going to be any site, any newspaper, or any magazine that has every reviewer/employee in complete agreement about a review regarding any form of entertainment.  I can guarantee that not every employee of The Chicago Sun-Times is in complete agreement with every movie review penned by Roger Ebert.  Also, there is no journalistic rule (either written or unwritten) which states that a newspaper, magazine or website cannot publish a follow-up piece which sits in opposition to an earlier piece – especially regarding critical viewpoints on entertainment.  Even a writer who initially gave a glowing review can change their mind and present a contrary opinion, it’s just necessary to detail why their opinion has changed. 
 
I think that you are both smart enough and aware enough (from reading through your posts you are certainly not someone that others would think of as dumb) to realize that this is the case.  Unfortunately, for some reason, where DA2 is concerned you allow how you want things to be, override how things really are.  There was/is nothing odious about this article, not in the least.  I also don’t believe that every single positive review of DA2 was bought with advertising space/revenue.  People on both sides of the argument vehemently cling to extremist viewpoints (without ever considering the more neutral possibilities) in an attempt to have reality match their outlook.  Interestingly enough, many also do this in an attempt to make the other side look extremist – which is rather funny, but not in a good way.        

[TEWR]

Mr Fixit wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

@Mr Fixit: the person writing this review isn't the same person who wrote the review that praised DAII.

I realize that, of course. But it's curious how all the guys that got to review DA2 at launch were coincidentally those that enjoyed the game. Then, all of a sudden, after some time passed, some other reviewers started popping out of hiding painting a different picture.

Just an observation, that's all

Actually, that's a good observation. It is kinda interesting how the people who were upset are now able to come out and give their honest take on the game.

[Plaintiff]

HanabPacal wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

Thoughts?

NOTE: Keep in mind that the person that wrote this was different from the DA2 reviewer's who scored DA2 an "8.5". 

Big deal this is just more bandwagon jumping by sites trying to appear relevant. Its odious, I'd have more respect for a site that sticks to its original opinion whether positive or negative.

No offense, Morroian, but I recall you being one of the most vociferous proponents/perpetuators of the theory that those who didn’t like DA2 were just a “vocal minority”.  Now, if that were truly the case then there couldn’t be any bandwagon on which to jump – as the site would be pandering to a very small, almost miniscule, portion of its readership.  That would hardly be worth their time or effort.  Although, we both know that “vocal minority” is almost always claimed by fans (of everything) as an attempt at a catch-all excuse in order to deflect criticism, and as a judgment on those who dislike thing “X”.  And we also know that in the case of DA2 “vocal minority” does not accurately apply to those who disliked it, as evidenced by the available feedback.  However, even though the dislike of DA2 is not confined to a “vocal minority”, this still isn’t a jump to the “bandwagon” by IGN for a number of reasons.
 
You need to keep in mind that this is the end of the year and that at the end of the year many sites/magazines do retrospective pieces covering both positives and negatives.  IGN isn’t scrabbling for relevance; plenty of people read the articles/reviews on the site.  If anything DA2 would fit that bill much more closely as the game is currently only relevant to the handful of people on the BSN that continue to argue over it.  In addition, there is not going to be any site, any newspaper, or any magazine that has every reviewer/employee in complete agreement about a review regarding any form of entertainment.  I can guarantee that not every employee of The Chicago Sun-Times is in complete agreement with every movie review penned by Roger Ebert.  Also, there is no journalistic rule (either written or unwritten) which states that a newspaper, magazine or website cannot publish a follow-up piece which sits in opposition to an earlier piece – especially regarding critical viewpoints on entertainment.  Even a writer who initially gave a glowing review can change their mind and present a contrary opinion, it’s just necessary to detail why their opinion has changed. 
 
I think that you are both smart enough and aware enough (from reading through your posts you are certainly not someone that others would think of as dumb) to realize that this is the case.  Unfortunately, for some reason, where DA2 is concerned you allow how you want things to be, override how things really are.  There was/is nothing odious about this article, not in the least.  I also don’t believe that every single positive review of DA2 was bought with advertising space/revenue.  People on both sides of the argument vehemently cling to extremist viewpoints (without ever considering the more neutral possibilities) in an attempt to have reality match their outlook.  Interestingly enough, many also do this in an attempt to make the other side look extremist – which is rather funny, but not in a good way.

Don't you think it's a tiny bit odd that all the review magazines/websites that initially provided positive reviews are suddenly churning out negative "retrospectives"?

Sure, journalists might have differing opinions, that's to be expected. And there's no law saying they can't publish disparate articles, but I've never encountered a publication that backpedalled so desperately as these ones are now. In fact, except in the rare event where they're forced to print a retraction, most publications never do such a thing.

"It's a different journalist" isn't really an excuse, because all publications are expected (and should be expected) by both their readers and their sponsors to present a united front. If there were differing views among the staff on the merits of Dragon Age 2, then they should've been presented in the initial review, for the sake of being candid and honest with their audience, whose game-purchasing decisions may very likely be effected by what they read.

Which I think is sort of Morroian's point. This sudden and drastic shift in opinion is 'odious' because all it shows is that they aren't trustworthy.

Personally, I try not to read reviews, because I don't want my opinion to be coloured by what I read or hear from others.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 15 décembre 2011 - 02:07 .

[Plaintiff]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Mr Fixit wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

@Mr Fixit: the person writing this review isn't the same person who wrote the review that praised DAII.

I realize that, of course. But it's curious how all the guys that got to review DA2 at launch were coincidentally those that enjoyed the game. Then, all of a sudden, after some time passed, some other reviewers started popping out of hiding painting a different picture.

Just an observation, that's all

Actually, that's a good observation. It is kinda interesting how the people who were upset are now able to come out and give their honest take on the game.

Assuming it is their honest take on the game. It's equally likely that they're, as Morroian said, simply joining on the bash fest in the interests of maintaining readership. They could also be making a deliberate attempt to provoke discussion.

There's really no way of knowing.

[brightblueink]

Mr Fixit wrote...

I find it very interesting that all those reviewing mags and sites that originally praised DA2 to no end, suddenly feel that the game is disappointing. Where were they 9 months ago, when their timely reviews actually meant something to the prospective buyer?

I know most of the people here are probably using this to support the "Bioware paid off the reviewers!" conspiracy theory or "They just say what people will want to hear!"--both of which I wouldn't be surprised to find out have a kernal of truth--but I've got another theory.

Reviewers (much like game developers, heh) often have to work on a deadline. When it comes right down to it, even if they love video games--as I'm sure most do--it's still a job for them. They have to sit down and play through ba game and write up an opinion while it's still relevant. They probably don't have the leisure that fans do of discovering every nook and cranny, playing through every side quest and reading every codex entry. Instead, they probably have to be selective about what side quests they pick up and that sort of thing. And a lot of the game's flaws--the fetch quests, the waves 'o ninjas in the streets at night, that damn warehouse--might not be quite as apparent if you're speeding through the game, while a lot of (in my opinion) the game's strengths, like the skill trees, more distinct classes, better combat on the console, more ambiguous and experimental plot and less cluttered inventory are probably brought into sharper focus.

Not to mention that players like us have the luxury of avoiding real stinkers of a game because of bad reviews or word of mouth...or occasionally just because the box itself just screams "WASTE OF TIME!" If it's your job to play video games, it doesn't matter if you know the odds are "Big Action Movie: The Licensed Game" is going to be terrible and full of bugs because it was rushed to come out when the film did, or that "Obvious Shoddy Rip-Off of Popular Series" is...an obviously shoddy rip-off of a popular game. You HAVE TO play it. HAVE TO. It makes sense to me that, in comparison, Dragon Age II probably wouldn't seem like that bad of a game. Yes, it has flaws, but it's far more redeemable than a lot of other games out there.

Meanwhile, the people on gaming sites and magazines that are now saying "Dragon Age II was a disappointment" aren't the ones that originally reviewed the game. It's possible that they played DAII just because it's their job to play games, but it's also possible that DAII was actually a game they played in their free time for fun. That might explain why the flaws are put in sharper focus. This isn't a game they were forced to play. This is something that was supposed to be FUN, dammit--why was it such a disappointment? etc, etc.

Not to mention that, as a side-note, I think game scores are pretty much meaningless these days and the only reason they matter at all is because gaming companies put so much weight on the metacritic score. Anything that gets a 7/10 is considered bad. But...it's a freaking 7/10! That's not GREAT, but that's still solidly on the upper side of the scale. You don't even see the lower half of it anymore because of how pointless the scores are these days. If you read the reviews, a lot of those "8.5" ones still point out the game's flaws.

Ugh, I'm rambling again, but yeah, I think there's plenty of reasons why a game might get an 8.5 and later be called a disappointment. I'm sure some of it might be advertising dollars/being a sheep and such, too, but I doubt that's the whole story.

[Il Divo]

brightblueink wrote...

Not to mention that, as a side-note, I think game scores are pretty much meaningless these days and the only reason they matter at all is because gaming companies put so much weight on the metacritic score. Anything that gets a 7/10 is considered bad. But...it's a freaking 7/10! That's not GREAT, but that's still solidly on the upper side of the scale. You don't even see the lower half of it anymore because of how pointless the scores are these days. If you read the reviews, a lot of those "8.5" ones still point out the game's flaws.

Game scores really are the most useless thing to come to critical reviews. Particularly when not everyone uses the same scale, it really doesn't tell you anything about the qualities of a game, where its various strengths and weaknesses are, etc. It's just a device used to fuel advertising campaigns and let fans rage/cheer when their favorite game is praised/attacked.

[HanabPacal]

Plaintiff wrote...

HanabPacal wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

Thoughts?

NOTE: Keep in mind that the person that wrote this was different from the DA2 reviewer's who scored DA2 an "8.5". 

Big deal this is just more bandwagon jumping by sites trying to appear relevant. Its odious, I'd have more respect for a site that sticks to its original opinion whether positive or negative.

No offense, Morroian, but I recall you being one of the most vociferous proponents/perpetuators of the theory that those who didn’t like DA2 were just a “vocal minority”.  Now, if that were truly the case then there couldn’t be any bandwagon on which to jump – as the site would be pandering to a very small, almost miniscule, portion of its readership.  That would hardly be worth their time or effort.  Although, we both know that “vocal minority” is almost always claimed by fans (of everything) as an attempt at a catch-all excuse in order to deflect criticism, and as a judgment on those who dislike thing “X”.  And we also know that in the case of DA2 “vocal minority” does not accurately apply to those who disliked it, as evidenced by the available feedback.  However, even though the dislike of DA2 is not confined to a “vocal minority”, this still isn’t a jump to the “bandwagon” by IGN for a number of reasons.
 
You need to keep in mind that this is the end of the year and that at the end of the year many sites/magazines do retrospective pieces covering both positives and negatives.  IGN isn’t scrabbling for relevance; plenty of people read the articles/reviews on the site.  If anything DA2 would fit that bill much more closely as the game is currently only relevant to the handful of people on the BSN that continue to argue over it.  In addition, there is not going to be any site, any newspaper, or any magazine that has every reviewer/employee in complete agreement about a review regarding any form of entertainment.  I can guarantee that not every employee of The Chicago Sun-Times is in complete agreement with every movie review penned by Roger Ebert.  Also, there is no journalistic rule (either written or unwritten) which states that a newspaper, magazine or website cannot publish a follow-up piece which sits in opposition to an earlier piece – especially regarding critical viewpoints on entertainment.  Even a writer who initially gave a glowing review can change their mind and present a contrary opinion, it’s just necessary to detail why their opinion has changed. 
 
I think that you are both smart enough and aware enough (from reading through your posts you are certainly not someone that others would think of as dumb) to realize that this is the case.  Unfortunately, for some reason, where DA2 is concerned you allow how you want things to be, override how things really are.  There was/is nothing odious about this article, not in the least.  I also don’t believe that every single positive review of DA2 was bought with advertising space/revenue.  People on both sides of the argument vehemently cling to extremist viewpoints (without ever considering the more neutral possibilities) in an attempt to have reality match their outlook.  Interestingly enough, many also do this in an attempt to make the other side look extremist – which is rather funny, but not in a good way.

Don't you think it's a tiny bit odd that all the review magazines/websites that initially provided positive reviews are suddenly churning out negative "retrospectives"?

Sure, journalists might have differing opinions, that's to be expected. And there's no law saying they can't publish disparate articles, but I've never encountered a publication that backpedalled so desperately as these ones are now. In fact, except in the rare event where they're forced to print a retraction, most publications never do such a thing.

"It's a different journalist" isn't really an excuse, because all publications are expected (and should be expected) by both their readers and their sponsors to present a united front. If there were differing views among the staff on the merits of Dragon Age 2, then they should've been presented in the initial review, for the sake of being candid and honest with their audience, whose game-purchasing decisions may very likely be effected by what they read.

Which I think is sort of Morroian's point. This sudden and drastic shift in opinion is 'odious' because all it shows is that they aren't trustworthy.

Personally, I try not to read reviews, because I don't want my opinion to be coloured by what I read or hear from others.

While I understand what you are saying, you also appear to be stuck in that rut of projecting how you want things to be rather than considering that the issue is more than a simplistic black and white affair. 
 
As to your first point, you see that some people on the opposite side of the DA2 argument from you and Morroian are arguing exactly the opposite.  Both sides are presenting the situation so that it aligns with their own feelings.  You’ve attributed the current viewpoint to “bandwagon hopping” while the others attribute the current viewpoint to associates of the website now being allowed to publish their true feelings after initially being forced to publish “bought” reviews.  Both arguments can, and do, sound logical when presented against a backdrop of corroborative bias.  However, neither side looks as though they are even attempting to look past how they want things to be.  Has it ever occurred to anyone that not every staff writer of any given publication has a chance to play every game before a review is posted/published?  New games are being released all the time; it would be unrealistic in the extreme to expect each reviewer to play them all, especially within such a stringent time constraint.  That’s only one thing to consider outside of the “but I like or I don’t like DA2” attitudes.  Another thing to consider is that maybe the initial positive review wasn’t bought with advertising/enticements but was IGN pandering to what they thought would be gushing approval over another Bioware game.  There’s nothing to support that, so it has the same hard evidence backing it up which the other theories do – i.e. none at all.  
 
The thing is, Plaintif, nobody is desperately backpedaling.  These end of year retrospectives are coming out many months after the release and subsequent furor surrounding DA2.  Any desperate backpedaling would have been close to the point of contact, not well after the issue has all but dissolved into the ether (except on the BSN).  As I stated in my response to Morroian, DA2 is not relevant at the current time – it’s certainly not a topic which is going to pull in thousands of extra hits for the site.  Skyrim, EA’s Origin, Piracy, DRM and Ubisoft’s almost insane attitude and persistence with UPlay would all be relevant topics that could be argued (anecdotally and circumstantially) as pandering if there were a change of viewpoint and would substantially increase site activity.
 
Also, we’re talking about critical looks at video games being published on a website dedicated to video games, not world news being reported by a major newspaper.  Although, in a perfect world, entertainment reporting (regardless of the medium) would present differing viewpoints (if they exist) upon initial publication of a review rather than only the thoughts of the person assigned the task.  However (and unfortunately), that’s not how things work in the arena of entertainment reporting – especially on the internet.  Of course, if the original reviewer had changed his/her mind and did a follow-up piece then he/she would need to explain why.  As it stands, IGN did nothing wrong by publishing this piece.  They also did nothing “sudden and drastic” by offering a different viewpoint many months after the fact.
 
I don’t particularly like a lot of gaming journalism, or entertainment journalism in general.  However, proposing and/or perpetuating empty conspiracy theories in order to ‘support’ your bias (that’s a general ‘your’) of a game doesn’t take any positives steps to actually addressing those issues; rather it merely comes off as an extremist attempt to discredit opposing viewpoints and appear that you are right.        

Modifié par HanabPacal, 15 décembre 2011 - 04:00 .

[eroeru]

Still disagree. I find DA2 a far more disappointing let-down than this guy does.

Nothing was good about it, save the writing... Some of it was evil...

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

Re: the whole gaming review thing, I think that brightblueink's point that we need to remember that early reviews are on tight deadlines is spot on. Keep in mind that this is the review system that consistently gives games like MW3* top marks. Stuff like fake choices, bad multiplayer, rushed side-quest design, and so on tends to get overlooked. There's also a significant tendency for extremely hyped big-budget games to get rated excessively high.

*I.e., games designed for a single short play-through with minimal exploration.

[HanabPacal]

brightblueink wrote...

Mr Fixit wrote...

I find it very interesting that all those reviewing mags and sites that originally praised DA2 to no end, suddenly feel that the game is disappointing. Where were they 9 months ago, when their timely reviews actually meant something to the prospective buyer?

I know most of the people here are probably using this to support the "Bioware paid off the reviewers!" conspiracy theory or "They just say what people will want to hear!"--both of which I wouldn't be surprised to find out have a kernal of truth--but I've got another theory.

Reviewers (much like game developers, heh) often have to work on a deadline. When it comes right down to it, even if they love video games--as I'm sure most do--it's still a job for them. They have to sit down and play through ba game and write up an opinion while it's still relevant. They probably don't have the leisure that fans do of discovering every nook and cranny, playing through every side quest and reading every codex entry. Instead, they probably have to be selective about what side quests they pick up and that sort of thing. And a lot of the game's flaws--the fetch quests, the waves 'o ninjas in the streets at night, that damn warehouse--might not be quite as apparent if you're speeding through the game, while a lot of (in my opinion) the game's strengths, like the skill trees, more distinct classes, better combat on the console, more ambiguous and experimental plot and less cluttered inventory are probably brought into sharper focus.

Not to mention that players like us have the luxury of avoiding real stinkers of a game because of bad reviews or word of mouth...or occasionally just because the box itself just screams "WASTE OF TIME!" If it's your job to play video games, it doesn't matter if you know the odds are "Big Action Movie: The Licensed Game" is going to be terrible and full of bugs because it was rushed to come out when the film did, or that "Obvious Shoddy Rip-Off of Popular Series" is...an obviously shoddy rip-off of a popular game. You HAVE TO play it. HAVE TO. It makes sense to me that, in comparison, Dragon Age II probably wouldn't seem like that bad of a game. Yes, it has flaws, but it's far more redeemable than a lot of other games out there.

Meanwhile, the people on gaming sites and magazines that are now saying "Dragon Age II was a disappointment" aren't the ones that originally reviewed the game. It's possible that they played DAII just because it's their job to play games, but it's also possible that DAII was actually a game they played in their free time for fun. That might explain why the flaws are put in sharper focus. This isn't a game they were forced to play. This is something that was supposed to be FUN, dammit--why was it such a disappointment? etc, etc.

Not to mention that, as a side-note, I think game scores are pretty much meaningless these days and the only reason they matter at all is because gaming companies put so much weight on the metacritic score. Anything that gets a 7/10 is considered bad. But...it's a freaking 7/10! That's not GREAT, but that's still solidly on the upper side of the scale. You don't even see the lower half of it anymore because of how pointless the scores are these days. If you read the reviews, a lot of those "8.5" ones still point out the game's flaws.

Ugh, I'm rambling again, but yeah, I think there's plenty of reasons why a game might get an 8.5 and later be called a disappointment. I'm sure some of it might be advertising dollars/being a sheep and such, too, but I doubt that's the whole story.

Great post, brightblueink.  I wish I had seen this before writing my reply to Plaintiff as I would have directly ‘piggybacked’ off some of your points.  Anyway, very nicely stated. 

[syllogi]

Maybe the combat was better on console, but as a PC player, I felt like they went in the wrong direction by taking away choice of strategy, and especially as a mage, the spell selection sucks because of the way talent trees work in DA2. And as a warrior or rogue, I got to the two or three skills that helped me kill stuff fast and I used them for the whole game, with no variation. That's boring. Simpler, and maybe more fun for other people, but not for me.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Mr Fixit wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

@Mr Fixit: the person writing this review isn't the same person who wrote the review that praised DAII.

I realize that, of course. But it's curious how all the guys that got to review DA2 at launch were coincidentally those that enjoyed the game. Then, all of a sudden, after some time passed, some other reviewers started popping out of hiding painting a different picture.

Just an observation, that's all

IMO, most of the game review industry is afraid to call a spade a spade at launch... they don't want to be blacklisted by a major publisher for trashing a "AAA" release and threatening its sales.

[Plaintiff]

HanabPacal wrote...

While I understand what you are saying, you also appear to be stuck in that rut of projecting how you want things to be rather than considering that the issue is more than a simplistic black and white affair. 
 
As to your first point, you see that some people on the opposite side of the DA2 argument from you and Morroian are arguing exactly the opposite.  Both sides are presenting the situation so that it aligns with their own feelings.  You’ve attributed the current viewpoint to “bandwagon hopping” while the others attribute the current viewpoint to associates of the website now being allowed to publish their true feelings after initially being forced to publish “bought” reviews.  Both arguments can, and do, sound logical when presented against a backdrop of corroborative bias.  However, neither side looks as though they are even attempting to look past how they want things to be.  Has it ever occurred to anyone that not every staff writer of any given publication has a chance to play every game before a review is posted/published?  New games are being released all the time; it would be unrealistic in the extreme to expect each reviewer to play them all, especially within such a stringent time constraint.  That’s only one thing to consider outside of the “but I like or I don’t like DA2” attitudes.  Another thing to consider is that maybe the initial positive review wasn’t bought with advertising/enticements but was IGN pandering to what they thought would be gushing approval over another Bioware game.  There’s nothing to support that, so it has the same hard evidence backing it up which the other theories do – i.e. none at all.  
 
The thing is, Plaintif, nobody is desperately backpedaling.  These end of year retrospectives are coming out many months after the release and subsequent furor surrounding DA2.  Any desperate backpedaling would have been close to the point of contact, not well after the issue has all but dissolved into the ether (except on the BSN).  As I stated in my response to Morroian, DA2 is not relevant at the current time – it’s certainly not a topic which is going to pull in thousands of extra hits for the site.  Skyrim, EA’s Origin, Piracy, DRM and Ubisoft’s almost insane attitude and persistence with UPlay would all be relevant topics that could be argued (anecdotally and circumstantially) as pandering if there were a change of viewpoint and would substantially increase site activity.
 
Also, we’re talking about critical looks at video games being published on a website dedicated to video games, not world news being reported by a major newspaper.  Although, in a perfect world, entertainment reporting (regardless of the medium) would present differing viewpoints (if they exist) upon initial publication of a review rather than only the thoughts of the person assigned the task.  However (and unfortunately), that’s not how things work in the arena of entertainment reporting – especially on the internet.  Of course, if the original reviewer had changed his/her mind and did a follow-up piece then he/she would need to explain why.  As it stands, IGN did nothing wrong by publishing this piece.  They also did nothing “sudden and drastic” by offering a different viewpoint many months after the fact.
 
I don’t particularly like a lot of gaming journalism, or entertainment journalism in general.  However, proposing and/or perpetuating empty conspiracy theories in order to ‘support’ your bias (that’s a general ‘your’) of a game doesn’t take any positives steps to actually addressing those issues; rather it merely comes off as an extremist attempt to discredit opposing viewpoints and appear that you are right.

Well I understand that it's not viable in a practical sense to have multiple reviews. And I don't believe there's any sort of underhanded poltiics going on in the seedy world of gaming journalism. But I don't think it's too much to ask that magazines/websites take a look back at their previous articles and go "Hey, this is kind of at odds with something we printed earlier".

Journalists are individuals, but as I said earlier, it's in a publication's best interests to stick to its guns and maintain a united front. Otherwise it looks like they either lied, can't make up their minds, or allowed one of their journalists to throw another under a bus by writing an article that makes their predecessor look like a fool or a liar.

[nikkylee]

syllogi wrote...

And as a warrior or rogue, I got to the two or three skills that helped me kill stuff fast and I used them for the whole game, with no variation. That's boring. Simpler, and maybe more fun for other people, but not for me.

I played on the console, and while I appreciate and prefer a few things about the new combat I had the same problem. I would use the 3-4 skills on my little hotbar-wannabe, and that was it. Maybe against a boss I'd actually pull up the radial menu, sometimes. But fighting the 500 low-HP enemies that was most of the game was basically just Special Move 1, Attack, Attack, Attack, Special Move 2, Attack. Next. Special Move 3, Attack, Attack, Attack, Special Move 1, Attack, Attack, Attack.... etc. I liked the faster combat (maybe slow it down a bit, though), and the non-shuffling... but it just didn't need to be thought out like Origin's combat did. Maybe if I turned the difficulty up to Nightmare, but I get SO BORED with the wave fighting I just end up turning it back down to get past it.

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

Plaintiff wrote...

But I don't think it's too much to ask that magazines/websites take a look back at their previous articles and go "Hey, this is kind of at odds with something we printed earlier".

I would assume that their viewpoint is that they would rather be at odds with their earlier review than at odds with the actual experiences of people who played the game.

[jds1bio]

csfteeeer wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Nobody ever uses that .gif right, and it always amuses me.

ah but many people don't know what it means, they don't need to know, and removing it's context(since it doesn't need it), i used it well.

Ignorance is not bliss, unfortunately.  I hope that in 2012 every internet meme takes an arrow to the knee and just goes away.

But related to the IGN article, we've all had months of reflection and several other RPGs to play to contrast with Dragon Age II.  I do think the combat system and talent trees are better in DA2 than DAO, and yet it didn't translate to a positively better gaming experience overall, but it should have.  And having equipment depend on two specific attributes per class really put a damper on attribute customization, while other RPGs managed to use different character build mechanics altogether.  This article just affirms that BioWare and the Dragon Age franchise have been put "on notice" by the various RPG communities that live and breathe on the Internet.

I still think that BioWare is on to something with the companion relationship mechanics though.  If they find a way to make them work towards building an evolving relationship inside a contiguous block of adventure (i.e. no time skips), and tailor relationship consequences to success/failure and completion rates of things like secondary quest objectives, the player will be able to participate in weaving an interesting role-playing tapestry.