283 réponses à ce sujet

[craigdolphin]

I do think it'd be better retrospective journalism if such articles did explictly address views expressed by the same publication in previous articles on the topic if those views are at odds with the current perspective. Nonetheless, the article gets a lot right IMO.

[HanabPacal]

Plaintiff wrote...

[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.

While I very much would like to see the reviewing/reporting of video games move to a coherent, standardized format where all the rules and guidelines are laid out in simple language so that everyone knows the what’s and the why’s,  I’m a little bit more flexible when it comes to entertainment publications offering opposing opinions. 
 
See, I don’t hold a publication hostage to the (for the most part very subjective) review/opinion of any individual writer as I understand the various and sundry factors at play when creating and presenting one.  I don’t feel that a different opinion, either one published at the same time or one published after the fact, is intrinsically indicative of any type of foolishness, lying or inability to make up one’s mind.  I simply see that the publication/website has writers with differing tastes, differing backgrounds, differing tolerances for gameplay mechanics, differing outlooks for what they consider to be important, etc.
 
I don’t believe that there is any reason in the world that we should demand that any entertainment publication put on a united front about a game, movie, book, etc.  I believe that we, as individuals, should show a modicum of understanding that these entertainment publications are made up of individuals with their own opinions concerning these sources of entertainment.  And, rather than condemning a publication/website for allowing differing opinions to be voiced, we should embrace that variety.  Because from there, from that variety, from that abundance, we can then get a better, clearer picture of what the game, the movie, the book has to offer, regardless of where that opinion was published. 
 
I get the feeling that you’re buying into the old wives tale that having a united front automatically equates to strength across the board, regardless of the subject and/or situation.  While it definitely does for something like staging a revolution, it’s hardly necessary or intrinsically beneficial with regard to entertainment reporting.  It only becomes necessary and/or beneficial if you (that’s a general ‘you’) insist it to be so.  If you choose for it to be an issue then it becomes one.  Just remember, the same can be said for a publication, website, developer, publisher, etc. that puts on airs of a united front when there is evidence which runs contrary to their published, one-voice opinion.

[Realmzmaster]

If I am not wrong Game Informer sometimes has two reviewers on an AAA game. The main reviewer writes the review and gives his/her opinion. If the second reviewer is at odds with the first reviewer his/her comments are written in a side bar with the main review. Now this may not be practical for all games, but on the major releases maybe it should be.

Also if a different reviewer of the same magazine , website etc is going to give a different take on the game in a retrospective review then he/she should state why he/she is at odds (if possible) with the first review. Otherwise it does look like the first reviewer is getting thrown under the bus for whatever reason.

Individuals are always going to differ in their opinion, but as long as those reasons are clearly articulated there should be no problem. You may not agree with the opinion, but at least the reasons for the opinion are expressed.

[Killjoy Cutter]

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.

And that just about sums up why DA2 was such a letdown.

[Giubba]

focusing on a painfully limited set of recycled dungeons and explorable areas

Agree

forcing me to talk to the same people so many times that many
interactions felt as mundane as waiting in line for a morning cup of
coffee. By the game's end all sense of wonder and discovery was
completely wrecked by Dragon Age II's limited scope, which felt like an
origin story from the first game puffed up into a 40 hour experience.

Disagree on this point

Dragon Age II was an intermediate step for the franchise, and lacked the clear focus and ambition normally found in BioWare games like Mass Effect

I can completly agree on this sentence

For the rest i agree with who said that witcher 2 fellatio in the middle of the article was annoying.

[craigdolphin]

Personally, I feel that we need a review aggregation site that does things rather differently than metacritic or the curent magazine-specific approach.

Here's my idea.

Imagine a website that collects professional review scores and grading systems from game reviewers all over the web. If available, conversions from letter grades to numerical grades (or vice versa) are listed for the reviewer based on the publication's poliy.

Users log into the site and submit their own review scores and grading system for some games they've played. The user also specifies how they want their own letter grades to be interpreted/converted into numerical grading systems (e.g., percentages, stars, x out of y, etc).

Then, the site compares the user's opinion/scores with those of the professional reviewers for games in common, using the users settings to account for differences in grading system etc. Then the site lists reviewers that have reviewed a game of interest to the gamer by descending order of similarity in opinion to that gamer, with links to the original source.

This would make it easier to find reviews of a game of interest that are more likely to align with the user's opinion than the current system.

Heck, user reviews themselves could be submitted to the site, and other users might end up finding more in common with them than the pros. This would put the acid on the professionals to be more accurate in their assessment or else become a numerically quantifiable irrelevance in the opinion industry.

Essentially, it'd be a highly personalized metacritic that would prioritize like-minded reviewers, and help users discover sources that they trust more easily.

[LinksOcarina]

Not going to happen craig...most websites, including the one I work for, tend to revere metacritic as a "point of prestige." because so many people use it now. It becomes a numbers games in that way, so you actually have to read the reviews to get the meat of the opinion, rather than a score-tag.

As for the article...better than most IGN-written materials at least. I honestly don't get why everyone is giving so much verbal fellatio to The Witcher 2, which at best was a mediocre sequel with shiny new polish and good voice acting.

And honestly, I know Dragon Age II is not the best of the year, but it was among the most unique because it did shy away from the whole "singular epic i'm the chosen one" thing that is very tiring a this point. Still, that is personal taste, which is why i'm hoping my future prediction does come true in the long run, and when i'm older I can look back and smile about all of this.

[craigdolphin]

No, maybe it won't happen. Butit would be great if it did and, if it worked as described, could end up being a metacritic killer. I sure as heck would use it

And, no disrespect, but however great your reviews might be, I rather think that your take on TW2 would likely put your reviews rather far down my personalized list of reviewers on my hypothetical review agrregate site. I think TW2 was the RPG of the year, and Skyrim a darned-close second. I want to learn about the opinions of reviewers who share MY tastes, not yours. And I'm sure the reverse would be true also.

[LinksOcarina]

craigdolphin wrote...

No, maybe it won't happen. Butit would be great if it did and, if it worked as described, could end up being a metacritic killer. I sure as heck would use it

And, no disrespect, but however great your reviews might be, I rather think that your take on TW2 would likely put your reviews rather far down my personalized list of reviewers on my hypothetical review agrregate site. I think TW2 was the RPG of the year, and Skyrim a darned-close second. I want to learn about the opinions of reviewers who share MY tastes, not yours. And I'm sure the reverse would be true also.

No disrespect, yet you diss my tastes and the site I work for? You might as well said f*ck you, that would of saved a lot of typing.

We gave Witcher 2 a 9/10, and Skyrim an 8/10, if it matters. Both the PC versions were reviewed by the same writer and he did enjoy them a lot. If I had to review them they would be an 8 and 7 respectively from my experience. Hell, for Skyrim I wrote a six page editorial on why it was a fun game but not GOTY material, and got a lot of flak for that because I apparently nit-picked the fact that the skill-tree system is fundamentally flawed and the games lore and quest-lines were devoid of any emotional weight.

One more thing, good reviewers don't have personalized tastes when they write. I love RPG's and strategy games, but my job when I review something is to critically judge it based on its good points, bad points, artistic value, story value, etc. My personal tastes shouldn't matter, and to objectively write a review, I need to keep all of that out of the window. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 15 décembre 2011 - 08:43 .

[craigdolphin]

LinksOcarina wrote...

craigdolphin wrote...

No, maybe it won't happen. Butit would be great if it did and, if it worked as described, could end up being a metacritic killer. I sure as heck would use it

And, no disrespect, but however great your reviews might be, I rather think that your take on TW2 would likely put your reviews rather far down my personalized list of reviewers on my hypothetical review agrregate site. I think TW2 was the RPG of the year, and Skyrim a darned-close second. I want to learn about the opinions of reviewers who share MY tastes, not yours. And I'm sure the reverse would be true also.

No disrespect, yet you diss my tastes and the site I work for? You might as well said f*ck you, that would of saved a lot of typing.

We gave Witcher 2 a 9/10, and Skyrim an 8/10, if it matters. Both the PC versions were reviewed by the same writer and he did enjoy them a lot. If I had to review them they would be an 8 and 7 respectively from my experience. Hell, for Skyrim I wrote a six page editorial on why it was a fun game but not GOTY material, and got a lot of flak for that because I apparently nit-picked the fact that the skill-tree system is fundamentally flawed and the games lore and quest-lines were devoid of any emotional weight.

One more thing, good reviewers don't have personalized tastes when they write. I love RPG's and strategy games, but my job when I review something is to critically judge it based on its good points, bad points, artistic value, story value, etc. My personal tastes shouldn't matter, and to objectively write a review, I need to keep all of that out of the window. 

Whoa there pardner!
1. How can I diss your site if I don't even know which site you work for?
2. I did not mean to diss your opinion at all.

I do not share your previously stated opinion about the Witcher 2, so I would be less inclined to value your opinion about, say, TW3 than I would of another person who liked TW2 as much as I did. That's not saying your opinion 'sucks', that's saying 'you have different tastes than I do' so your opinion on game X is probably not going to be aligned with mine. They're two totally different concepts. It may turn out that more people share your opinion than mine, and that's totally fine. But if I want to know whether to buy a game or not, I want to get information from people with similar tastes to me.

I'm sorry if that offends you. And rather surprised you took it that way. But I do not think it's a bad thing for reviewers to have their history of opinion easily tracked so that your readers would have a context to judge your reviews by.  And it might mean that you get less irate reader commentary if people with opposing tastes are not being led to your review without understanding your history too.

And you may be able to sucessfully turn off your personal subjective opinion (dunno if that's true or not as I don't know you from adam), but many game reviewers indisputably allow their personal preferences to color their reviews. And I'm not opposed to that at all, provided that the audience can read those reviews in the context of that history.

And not to burst your bubble, but IMO the average readers barely would notice the byline on most reviews. Heck, I barely pay attention to the name of the website. So it is extremely unlikely that many would be able to recall the history of reviews by that person to judge whether they found them to be reliable or not.

But: to be clear. I don't know who you are, or what organisation you work for. I honestly did not mean to diss you or your company and I apologize for causing you any offense. I didn't think it would be controversial to note that people can have differing tastes, accept that those tastes will color anyones impression of a game, or that it would make sense for readers to pay the most attention to reviews from people who generally share their tastes. I'm not really sure why this touched a nerve with you.

Mods...please feel free to delete my posts if you deem them to have violated forum rules, or if you deem that I dissed linkocarina as alleged. Thank you.

Modifié par craigdolphin, 15 décembre 2011 - 09:08 .

[LinksOcarina]

It'd fine dude, the wording was a bit off in your post, it read like you were being very dismissive towards everything and almost made it a personal attack.

No worries I understand. I apologize if it seemed the same way back.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 15 décembre 2011 - 09:13 .

[craigdolphin]

That was definitely not how I intended my post to be expressed. Sorry for the miscommunication. My academic supervisor back-in-the-day always said I wrote in 'dolphinese'....a curse that still bites me to this day

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

At the risk of being on-topic, I just got done eating a Big Mac. Never felt better.

[LinksOcarina]

heh, well I have dyslexia and poor handwriting as it is, trust me I can relate, usually have to get through several edits to make it presentable.

If you are interested in the website I guess PM me or something i'll send a link your way. Otherwise no harm done.

But back on topic, I still think people tend to miss the point of what Dragon Age II is supposed to be, mainly a narrative story not an epic one. And yeah its not the best in the world, but it's still damn fun and sets up a lot of the games in the future.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 15 décembre 2011 - 09:26 .

[Travie]

The problem was never articulating the problems with DA2, many times many people have done that well, it was getting the developers to listen to them.

I hope this will help on that front.

[rak72]

Savber100 wrote...


Also Ethereal Writer, you might want to listen to the Polish VA instead... It;s pretty good.

If I get the Wicher on Steam, will it let me play it in Polish, or will it automaticly install it in english?

[TMZuk]

Mhm.

I loathed the combat in DA2. Stupid exploding bodies, overdone cartoon-like movements, utterly inane abilities. Also, I dislike the conversation wheel with a vengeance. It makes no sense to me in an RPG.

When I play PnP games, I decide 100 % what my character will say, and how. I roleplay. The limitations of single-player video-games means I cannot do that. However, presenting me with several well written options to choose from is the next best thing. Giving me a wheel, with small icons for dummies, and it is like watching an interactive movie. I cannot roleplay anymore.

The author of the article makes some good points, but I have to disagree with several of his conclusions.

Modifié par TMZuk, 16 décembre 2011 - 12:38 .

[jbrand2002uk]

 
BioWare's legacy had something to do with it. Baldur's Gate II is one of my favorite all-time games, and that definitely influenced my expectations. Before Dragon Age II was released, I thought of the franchise as a return to the fantasy role-playing style of old with a few modern conveniences. That meant a long journey full of unexpected discoveries and strange new worlds, where I'm free to follow along with the main plot or go off on my own and uncover unexpected treasures.

This snippet from the review linked by the OP shows me why this person's opinion cannot be taken seriously, He went in with expectations based on previous BW titles reviewing it clearly based on what he wanted it to be rather than what it is. The most important thing for a reviewer is to review honestly and neutraly this was clearly not the case as highlighted by the section in bold therefore his opinion holds no weight with me 

[Darth Death]

Killjoy Cutter 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

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.

Sad that people can't just do their jobs without someone constantly pulling the strings. The truth is never to be heard initially, but always until later. 

[Deadmac]

Travie wrote...
The problem was never articulating the problems with DA2, many times many people have done that well, it was getting the developers to listen to them. I hope this will help on that front.

Irony. Did BioWare avtually learn something about their fanbase? Do they care?
I don't think they care enough.

Regardless about what the opposition says, I think BioWare is too busy with innovation rather than consistency. "Star Wars: Knights of The Old Republic" was evolved into "Star Wars: The Old Republic". Even though fans were against the MMO idea, BioWare gave everyone the finger and did it anyway. If I were a confident betting man, I would say they are doing it again. "Dragon Age III" will be a MMO. Instead of making a third act to their franchise, I think BioWare is turning them all into multiplayer games. Once they turn the "Dragon Age" franchise into an MMO, single player "Dragon Age: Origin" fans will be ignored just like the single player "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic" fans. Even though BioWare will pretend to show empathy, I truely think they are too motivated by money.

Single-Player Game
(1) $7.00 DLC = Handful of items. When game companies were into creating expansions, you got over a 100+ items for half the main game's price. $30 for full game and $20 for expansion sets. Now, its $60 for full game and $7 for three items.

(1) $60 Main Game = You pay an additional $7.00 per dlc, so you can get critial elements to the main storyline. If you are not getting the full game at the register, technically the consumer is getting ripped off.

MMOs
(1) $60 Main Game = You pay $60 for a copy of a game, which you cannot use without a $100+ subscription fee.

(2) $150 Collector's Edition = You pay $150 for a copy of a game, which you cannot use without a $100+ subscription fee.

Modifié par Deadmac, 15 décembre 2011 - 10:44 .

[craigdolphin]

jbrand2002uk wrote...
 this person's opinion cannot be taken seriously, He went in with expectations based on previous BW titles reviewing it clearly based on what he wanted it to be rather than what it is.

If DA2 was a new franchise by a new developer then that would be a valid point. If DA2 was meant to be asessed completely on its own merits without any other context, then EA wouldn't have slapped a biog Bioware logo on every piece of marketing for the game. Nor would they have called it Dragon Age 2: they would have called it a chapter in the life of Kirkwall or somesuch.

The fact is that sequels are all the rage with publishers because they cash in on the expectations and mindshare set by the earlier installments. Similarly, the value of branding stems from the customer's experience with previous products by the manufacturer. This cuts both ways for Bioware. They would not have sold as many copies of DA2 without the name Bioware associated with it, nor the name Dragon Age and the good will generated by DAO. IMO, it is both natural and fair for reviewers to comment on their expectations based on these contextual elements.

[craigdolphin]

Deadmac wrote...

Travie wrote...
The problem was never articulating the problems with DA2, many times many people have done that well, it was getting the developers to listen to them. I hope this will help on that front.

Irony. Did BioWare avtually learn something about their fanbase? Do they care?
I don't think they care enough.

Regardless about what the opposition says, I think BioWare is too busy with innovation rather than consistency. "Star Wars: Knights of The Old Republic" was evolved into "Star Wars: The Old Republic". Even though fans were against the MMO idea, BioWare gave everyone the finger and did it anyway. If I were a confident betting man, I would say they are doing it again. "Dragon Age III" will be a MMO. Instead of making a third act to their franchise, I think BioWare is turning them all into multiplayer games. Once they turn the "Dragon Age" franchise into a MMO, single player "Dragon Age: Origin" fans will be ignored just like the single player "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic" fans.

Ye gods. What an appalling thought

Modifié par craigdolphin, 15 décembre 2011 - 10:36 .

[Deadmac]

craigdolphin wrote...
Ye gods. What an appalling thought

Don't get me wrong. I am a capitalist.

Even though I am in full support of finding ways to make revenue and profit, I am also someone who thinks that money can sometimes overshadows 'having fun'.

When it comes to creating a franchise, innovation and consistancy need to be balanced. Once theme consistancy is lost, due to innovation, you lose the feeling in which you originally conceived. "Dragon Age II" doesn't feel like "Dragon Age: Origins"; thus, BioWare focused too much time on innovation.

Modifié par Deadmac, 15 décembre 2011 - 11:07 .

[Deadmac]

---

Modifié par Deadmac, 15 décembre 2011 - 10:52 .

[addiction21]

Deadmac wrote...

Regardless about what the opposition says, I think BioWare is too busy with innovation rather than consistency. "Star Wars: Knights of The Old Republic" was evolved into "Star Wars: The Old Republic". Even though fans were against the MMO idea, BioWare gave everyone the finger and did it anyway.

Oh and here I was thinking it was Lucas that owned the rights to StarWars. Thank you for clearing that up...

Deadmac wrote...

Don't get me wrong. I am a capitalist.

Really?

Modifié par addiction21, 15 décembre 2011 - 11:55 .