190 réponses à ce sujet

[Icinix]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

The Aussies are just mad that DA:O doesn't have Blight Kangaroos and Dog isn't a dingo.

You're damn right we're mad!!!
The best thing we've had lately is a 12 second shot of a kangaroo in the opening episode of FlashForward!!!!!

[Foxd1e]

That guy who slammed Tolkien earlier really stirred up a hornet's nest sheesh. It's 4am here and I need to pass out but I want to lay one more thing out there for you guys to think about first.

Sure theoretically 8.4 should be a spectacular score for Dragon Age:Origins instantly putting it into the very above average/great echelon of games. Sadly though it's not the case. Gaming reviewers place games universally on a scale between 1 and 10 sure, they have varying degrees of measuring it but it all works out the same ( 1-5, 1-10, 1-100). Now if you go and look at Metacritic, or take any game review and browse their scores you'll find out that games are usually scored between 6 and 10. Games that fall below that mark are reserved for atrocities that stain the face of gaming forever, So if you use the scale of 6 and 10 to rate games, reserving 5 and below for the worst games of all time then your average becomes around 7 and 8.

If your still with me on that then the game reviewer's scale looks something like this
6- Is really a bad game that you shouldn't play
7- Is a mediocore game that some diehard fans of a franchise might find enjoyable
8.0-8.4- Is a good game but usually has a lot of problems still worth a playthrough, and will most likely please a genre fan.
8.5-8.9- A very good game, only a few issues, real problems.
9- The most varied catergory in gaming, all sorts of must play games hit different scales of 9
9-9.4 are great games that everygamer will play or should play.
9.5-9.9 are games that are pretty much as good as they get for their genre, Genre champions that will most likely win game of the year for their genre.
10- A perfect game.

I think that's a pretty acurate interpretation of the modern game review scale. They should really just drop 1-5 because most people won't play a 6 or 7 let alone those. So after this I hope you will see why I believe a 8.4 is a little unfair and harsh for Dragon Age when it is clearly a 9.0-9.4 caliber at the least.


EDIT:Haha ok guys, I hate talking out of my ass and I was pretty sure I was about accurate in my last post but I double-checked my work anyways, ok so the site I used for my theory has been around since the beginning of the internet, a site most people consider the most reliable source for reviews on the internet, Gamespot.
Ok so I went the review database for gamespot and they have 223 pages of games reviewed, now out of those 223 pages guess how many pages of games reviewed fall into the 6 and 10 catergory? 164, so pretty much most of the games we will ever play are rated between 6 and 10. The 5.9 cutoff starts partway down on page 164. Ok well I hope that shows the skewed spectrum of reviewing that goes on.

RE-EDIT: Ok curious I took one step further and checked the 5.0 cut-off, it's page 192, 192 pages out of 223 on Gamestop are games rated between 5 and 10 on a scale of 1-10. Lol I think I rest my case.

Modifié par Foxd1e, 02 novembre 2009 - 10:12 .

[Pansyrocker]

Icinix wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

The Aussies are just mad that DA:O doesn't have Blight Kangaroos and Dog isn't a dingo.

You're damn right we're mad!!!
The best thing we've had lately is a 12 second shot of a kangaroo in the opening episode of FlashForward!!!!!

Actually, I heard they are localizing it.  Morrigan's mom is supposed to be a really pissed off wallaby instead of a dragon and they filled Redcliffe with flies so you could do the Aussie salute.

Even supposed to be dropbears in the Korcari Wilds.

[allothernamesweretaken]

Foxd1e wrote...

That guy who slammed Tolkien earlier really stirred up a hornet's nest sheesh. It's 4am here and I need to pass out but I want to lay one more thing out there for you guys to think about first.

Sure theoretically 8.4 should be a spectacular score for Dragon Age:Origins instantly putting it into the very above average/great echelon of games. Sadly though it's not the case. Gaming reviewers place games universally on a scale between 1 and 10 sure, they have varying degrees of measuring it but it all works out the same ( 1-5, 1-10, 1-100). Now if you go and look at Metacritic, or take any game review and browse their scores you'll find out that games are usually scored between 6 and 10. Games that fall below that mark are reserved for atrocities that stain the face of gaming forever, So if you use the scale of 6 and 10 to rate games, reserving 5 and below for the worst games of all time then your average becomes around 7 and 8.

If your still with me on that then the game reviewer's scale looks something like this
6- Is really a bad game that you shouldn't play
7- Is a mediocore game that some diehard fans of a franchise might find enjoyable
8.0-8.4- Is a good game but usually has a lot of problems still worth a playthrough, and will most likely please a genre fan.
8.5-8.9- A very good game, only a few issues, real problems.
9- The most varied catergory in gaming, all sorts of must play games hit different scales of 9
9-9.4 are great games that everygamer will play or should play.
9.5-9.9 are games that are pretty much as good as they get for their genre, Genre champions that will most likely win game of the year for their genre.
10- A perfect game.

I think that's a pretty acurate interpretation of the modern game review scale. They should really just drop 1-5 because most people won't play a 6 or 7 let alone those. So after this I hope you will see why I believe a 8.4 is a little unfair and harsh for Dragon Age when it is clearly a 9.0-9.4 caliber at the least.

So, you're saying you've already played it?

[Giant Panther]

Its Bhaal not Baal

[Foxd1e]

allothernamesweretaken wrote...


So, you're saying you've already played it?

Hahaha no I wish, I just have a gaming-nose you could say. Pretty good at educated-guessing what games will be before I play them, it's pretty fun and I'm usually right on the money. There have been a couple of surprises over the years.

Modifié par Foxd1e, 02 novembre 2009 - 09:35 .

[- Archangel -]

Icinix wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

The Aussies are just mad that DA:O doesn't have Blight Kangaroos and Dog isn't a dingo.

You're damn right we're mad!!!
The best thing we've had lately is a 12 second shot of a kangaroo in the opening episode of FlashForward!!!!!

Have faith...

The kangeroo was back in the last episode of FlashForward.

[Lucy Glitter]

Yeah, as people have stated, Aussie reviewers are very harsh critics, which is surprising. I don't really care, to be honest, the guy just doesn't seem to like RPGs as much, so his review was harsher.

[Gothor01]

I'm wondering if they're going to take the lazy way out for the PC review, or if it's going to score higher. It saddens me that they've reviewed the console version first, while the PC version is hopefully the superior one.

[Foxd1e]

Gothor01 wrote...

I'm wondering if they're going to take the lazy way out for the PC review, or if it's going to score higher. It saddens me that they've reviewed the console version first, while the PC version is the superior one.

fixed

[Kakimori]

Pansyrocker wrote...

He is irrelevant in the modern sense.

You don't think with the exposure we have now and the saturation of fantasy he has become obsolete?

He didn't invent elves. He didn't invent dwarves or wizards.

Most of what he did was modernize german/nordic myths and place them in the form of novels and do a lot of fleshing out of things I don't really care about and I don't think most people steal from. 

Language different from old english, old german, and old norse, etc.

He made fantasy acceptable. That's all I really give him credit for. Making the genre legit.

He will be obsolete when the English language is obsolete.  But I will not try to dissuade you; the opinion is yours by right.

[Pansyrocker]

Kakimori wrote...

Pansyrocker wrote...

He is irrelevant in the modern sense.

You don't think with the exposure we have now and the saturation of fantasy he has become obsolete?

He didn't invent elves. He didn't invent dwarves or wizards.

Most of what he did was modernize german/nordic myths and place them in the form of novels and do a lot of fleshing out of things I don't really care about and I don't think most people steal from. 

Language different from old english, old german, and old norse, etc.

He made fantasy acceptable. That's all I really give him credit for. Making the genre legit.

He will be obsolete when the English language is obsolete.  But I will not try to dissuade you; the opinion is yours by right.

You're acting like he's Shakespeare or James Joyce?

I'll be honest, I've only read 3 or 4 Tolkien books, but he didn't really impress.

Am I missing something? What makes him amazing to you?

Not being a jerk, really curious?

[Lao Dan]

Lacan2 wrote...

Deran2 wrote...

Lacan2 wrote...

After reading the review, I was disappointed with a few things:

1) LOTR. I hate LOTR, so damn bland. I really hope this guy saw more LOTR in Dragon Age than there truly is in the game.
2) Enemies blindly charge. Seems there's no enemy AI.

I was glad to hear reinforcement on the storyline, which (aside from characterization) is the most important thing. He said this is the next best thing to BG3, so I'm happy on that count.

LOTR is bland? Ummm...Excuse me? You do realize LOTR is the only reason games like this exist, right? Tolkien's writing can get annoying at times, but bland? Really?

It was good for its day, just like the Canterbury Tales. But they're not good anymore; the genre has evolved. Black and white characters like Frodo and Gandalf just don't cut it anymore; enemies like Sauron need to be more deep like Irenicus to keep us hooked.

Wow.  I have to disagree with the black and white comment.  A major theme of the book is the corruption of the ring on "good" characters, esp. Boromir and Frodo. Is Gollum black or white? Galadriel has a sinister side, Denethor is a very complex character, Eomer is hardly a white knight etc. etc. etc.

I don't feel the story to be dated, but then again I read a lot of Ancient Greek translations in college and found relevance in them.  Sorry if this is overly academic, but I think some times people are so insistant on experiencing something new and fresh that they fail to appreciate what makes classics classic.  Yes LotR was written by a British linguist few of us would personally relate to, but there is a reason people will be reading it in two hundred years.  

*getting off of soapbox*

Modifié par Lao Dan, 02 novembre 2009 - 09:57 .

[HighlandBerserkr]

Obidex wrote...

Listen as much as I LOVE me some Tolkien the saying ,"There is nothing new under the sun." is entirely too true..much of the races of his world are borrowed or modeled after mythical creatures of ages past. Now his lore, story, and world are entirely unique but I just have to point that out

Mostly from Norse mythology:D

[Kakimori]

His knowledge of English was incredible...not merely the modern forms, but the Anglo-Saxon roots which are at the instinctual core of our own usage. He helped edit the OED, he is almost the single cause that Beowulf is considered a serious piece of literature, and for years he was one of the preeminent Anglo-Saxon scholars in the world. He knew more about English than nearly anyone who lives today.



The world of Middle-Earth is something that has not since been duplicated in breadth or authenticity. He not only wrote the history of the world, he did it in such a way as to be convincing. 'The Silmarillion' is no less a work of literature than the Bible. His books may not be so obviously exciting as modern literature, and his timeless language, like the rocks and stones, may seem mossy and weathered to modern sensibilities, but long after the fancies of today have faded into shadow, Tolkien's words will be remembered.



I could go on, but I neither want to bore people, nor to write a thesis.

[Kakimori]

To see just how deep his writings on Middle-Earth are, visit here and spend a few hours:

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/



Despite being constantly updated for years, it is still far from completion.

[Pansyrocker]

Lao Dan wrote...

Lacan2 wrote...

Deran2 wrote...

Lacan2 wrote...

After reading the review, I was disappointed with a few things:

1) LOTR. I hate LOTR, so damn bland. I really hope this guy saw more LOTR in Dragon Age than there truly is in the game.
2) Enemies blindly charge. Seems there's no enemy AI.

I was glad to hear reinforcement on the storyline, which (aside from characterization) is the most important thing. He said this is the next best thing to BG3, so I'm happy on that count.

LOTR is bland? Ummm...Excuse me? You do realize LOTR is the only reason games like this exist, right? Tolkien's writing can get annoying at times, but bland? Really?

It was good for its day, just like the Canterbury Tales. But they're not good anymore; the genre has evolved. Black and white characters like Frodo and Gandalf just don't cut it anymore; enemies like Sauron need to be more deep like Irenicus to keep us hooked.

Wow.  I have to disagree with the black and white comment.  A major theme of the book is the corruption of the ring on "good" characters, esp. Boromir and Frodo. Is Gollum black or white? Galadriel has a sinister side, Denethor is a very complex character, Eomer is hardly a white knight etc. etc. etc.

I don't feel the story to be dated, but then again I read a lot of Ancient Greek translations in college and found relevance in them.  Sorry if this is overly academic, but I think some times people are so insistant on experiencing something new and fresh that they fail to appreciate what makes classics classic.  Yes LotR was written by a British linguist few of us would personally relate to, but there is a reason people will be reading it in two hundred years.  

*getting off of soapbox*

You can't use the Greeks as an excuse. Plato and Homer and even Aristophanes had more to them than the issues I felt from Tolkien.

Corruption is more than just doing the right or wrong thing. People, from a psychological perspective, have drives they fight. 

Think Dexter.

Plus, you have to look at censorship. Even Mark Twain was held back from writing anything with real depth by the culture at the time.

Couching something in cheap metaphors or being unable to publish it limits your modern relevance.

Read Twain's rejected works. He dealt with a lot of relevant issues and those works were censored. 

By the very prevalence of Tolkien's work, you can determine the watered down nature of it..

[Alienraptor]

The one achievement of Tolkien's that has yet to be matched and I think will certainly stand alone for ages to come is the completeness of the world that he imagined. The history is well-realized and thorough, and the depth of his invented languages (drawn from his academic expertise) is, to my knowledge, unrivaled.

Whenever I play a game, read a book, or watch a film or TV series based in an invented world, I wonder to myself how complete it is. Is there a creation myth; are those vaguely foreign-sounding names part of a sensible language or merely ad hoc; what's behind that hill?

[Lao Dan]

Seeing the interest in this topic I think I will start a Group about Tolkien and his impact on DAO if anyone is interested should be up in ten minutes or so.

[Pansyrocker]

Kakimori wrote...

His knowledge of English was incredible...not merely the modern forms, but the Anglo-Saxon roots which are at the instinctual core of our own usage. He helped edit the OED, he is almost the single cause that Beowulf is considered a serious piece of literature, and for years he was one of the preeminent Anglo-Saxon scholars in the world. He knew more about English than nearly anyone who lives today.

The world of Middle-Earth is something that has not since been duplicated in breadth or authenticity. He not only wrote the history of the world, he did it in such a way as to be convincing. 'The Silmarillion' is no less a work of literature than the Bible. His books may not be so obviously exciting as modern literature, and his timeless language, like the rocks and stones, may seem mossy and weathered to modern sensibilities, but long after the fancies of today have faded into shadow, Tolkien's words will be remembered.

I could go on, but I neither want to bore people, nor to write a thesis.

So I guess it depends on why you read?

I'm a musician, but not a technical musician. I know people who get thrilled over music theory, just like mathematicians do over new proofs.

That does nothing for me.

It's sort of soulless. 

It's the spiritual aspect that grabs me, even if the music itself is sung by someone tone deaf and the chords are just g, d, and a?

[Foxd1e]

Even though the Tolkien debate has essentially taken over the thread, I just want to say to anyone who is still interested in why me and some others were bothered by IGN giving an 8.4 to Dragon Age that I updated my big post above on the modern scale of gaming. I used a hip gaming site that is not unlike IGN, and you can see that even though games are measured by 1-10 scaling that roughly 85% of the games reviewed in the history of the industry fall between the upper half. Which in turn makes an 8.4 not so spectacular for Dragon Age as it should be. An 8.4 on an unskewed scale would be about early 9s on the scale reviewers have inadvertantly created.

[HighlandBerserkr]

@Pansyrocker



I really enjoy me some Tolkien and definitely understand what he contributed to the fantasy genre, nut i have to agree with you on most points:)

[Kakimori]

It's true that no small part of my enjoyment of him comes from my enjoyment of his language. But I must disagree when you call it soulless...I suspect that it simply boils down to the fact that your musical theory can be another's spiritual songs. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and not everyone will appreciate Tolkien, just as not everybody enjoys eating kimchi. Whether he is irrelevant to you is one thing. Whether he is irrelevant objectively is another.

[Pansyrocker]

HighlandBerserkr wrote...

@Pansyrocker

I really enjoy me some Tolkien and definitely understand what he contributed to the fantasy genre, nut i have to agree with you on most points:)

Then I hereby declare you a genius and infallible!

You may kiss my ring, good sir!

[Catsith]

The same score for graphics and sound.. really? The graphics aren't spectacular... a 7.5/10 is fair enough, but the same for sound baffles me after watching streams of this game for hours. The voice acting is far better than I expected, even from minor NPCs. He also lowered it because of the environmental sounds, which is absurd in my opinion.. they are just as nice and immersive as in BG2 or NWN from what I've heard. Oh well.