190 réponses à ce sujet

[slaveydavey]

Pansyrocker wrote...

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He will be obsolete when the English language is obsolete.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?

By god, I'd rather read Tolkien than Shakespeare or Joyce

[dynas2001]

lets hope they get their reviews up soon then!

[Darpaek]

These schmucks didn't even spell Bhaal right in the first paragraph (and they were referring to the TITLE of a video game, not just a character within said video game...)

And they're still holding out for BG3?  What?  Are they trying to score "net cred" with the RPG crowd to elevate their crappy review?  Beyond the practicalities of licensing, etc - you became a God.  What are you gonna do?  Wander around the planes whacking planetars?  Play the abandoned lovechild of the bhaalspawn and Aerie?  WTF is wrong with these people?!  Let's take all the bad genes of the Anglo-Saxon race and dump on an island and let em brew for a century.  Stupid Aussies.

slaveydavey wrote...
By god, I'd rather read Tolkien than Shakespeare or Joyce

::Shudder::

[Foxd1e]

The one thing that still boggles my mind..... Why would IGN even IGN AU let someone who doesn't care for rpgs that much review Dragon Age. DA:O really is a huge title and should be reviewed by someone very comfortable with the genre.

[Foxd1e]

DP sry

Modifié par Foxd1e, 02 novembre 2009 - 04:04 .

[AviramG]

no rpg has replayability of 10..



actually if i was rating DA i'd give it a replayability of maybe 2. chess has replayability.. master of orion 2 has replayability. RPGs? give me a break. one playthrough and you know the story already. the only thing that can save an rpg is a *GREAT* combat engine

[Darpaek]

I dunno. It makes sense to me. IGN isn't an RPG site, it's a video game site. If I was IGN, I wouldn't want an RPG fanboy to review RPGs because their review wouldn't be fair to the average video game consumer.



It seems to me that this reviewer though IS an RPG fanboy, or at least trying to pass himself off as one.



Although I agree with the reviewer about some of the sound issues. Some of the voiceovers in the videos made me wince. I'm sure it won't bother me as much 20 hours into gameplay, but I was glad to see I wasn't the only person who had noticed that.

[Jacks-Up]

ROFL at all of you. 

Really I find it amusing what when DAO get a high reveiew everyone jups on and says "OMG this will be great look at the reviews"  but the min somone gives it a less than perfect score you're " OMG he suck and doesn't know anything bla bla bla"  because God forbid anyone actually criticize the game

[Jacks-Up]

FKSSR wrote...

I agree the graphics aren't the level of new FPS, but that's because it's a RPG. RPGs should not have the same standards for graphics considering the amount of time put into their stories and worlds, instead.

The Graphics are dated even for and RPG they look like something from 2004.  If you want to see an RPG with intense graphics look no further than Demon's Souls.

[Death Breeze]

The graphics actually looked alright to me for such an intensive game, but i guess there's better graphics out there.

[MikeSunrider]

Dam Wookie wrote...

MikeSunrider wrote...

He was a bit under-educated about his fantasy though. Everyone knows Dragon Age is a Dark Fantasy and he still managed to call it High Fantasy just because it had dwarves and elves (Also the reason why he linked it to Lotr. Dwarves and Elves)

Silly Silly reviewer. But most of his points had merit.

Pedantic nitpicking on semantics. You clearly have no idea how the English language works. Not only that but you are wrong. The game has been linked to Lotr not just due to dwarves and elves but due to the situations they find themselves in. This as happened in a number of reviews now.

Sure go ahead and say I clearly have no idea whatsoever. It's what the reviewer stated. And I don't give a rats about what the other reviewers have compared it with. It was about this particular review. It's stupid to compare every bit of fantasy to Lotr. 

Lord of the Rings was hardly the precedent on this kind of story-developing ideas, it just laid the foundations for the typical western fantasy archtypes.

Why don't you practice your high and mighty stance somewhere else?

The fact of the matter is. They compare it with Lotr cause they know nothing else about anything fantasy related. Hell maybe Conan if you're lucky and that's because of the movies as well. (Note I haven't mentioned anything about Forgotten Realms etc, cause that should be a given with how many games came out in that setting)

[Itkovian]

I have to admit that this review has quite a few factual errors.

The Bioware bit at the beginning is obvious, naturally, but there is more.

For example, how DAO was influenced by EA at the start of its development. There's an obvious flaw with that theory.

Then there's the similarities with LOTR including the "plight of the downtrodden elves"? In LOTR the Elves are certainly not downtrodden. Fading away? Certainly, but they are certainly not downtrodden, nor former slaves or victims of racism.

Itkovian

[wrexingcrew]

I tend to like IGN AU much more than IGN, in significant part because their reviewers seem more critical/independent. I doubt I'll agree with the score after playing the game, but that's fine. I do take issue with the factual problems and the unusually sloppy writing in this particular case, though. Cam Shea is great, but Patrick Kolan (the reviewer) isn't one of my favorites.

[Foxd1e]

Ok Bioware I'll defend you here... *Puts on Helmet and picks up training sword and shield*

Ok

At Aviram *Bops on the head* Dragon Age: Origins has 6 completely different stories to play the game, tons of choices that vary the gameplay and can alter the outcome of the entire game, it has a ton of sidequests and DLC aside from the Mainquest that could take you 120 hours in a single playthrough. So that's like 800 hours of gameplay there 6 Origins w/ complete playthroughs including DLC. If any RPG got a 10 for replayability I'd say this one has a good shot for it.

At Darpaek *Bops on the head* Ok I don't follow you, are you telling me when you read a review for a genre you like you want a reviewer who doesn't understand the genre strongpoints? I suppose when you got car shopping at a Toyota dealer you would want the salesman to know about Mustangs? Any professional review site or magazine will give popular/big games of a certain genre to their experienced reviewer for that genre so that they can give a proper review. At what point did you think that guy enjoyed rpgs when the only rpg that he could admit that he liked was a sci-fi-ish shooter rpg?

At Jacks-up *Bops on the head* There's no fanboyism but give a game it's do. I'm not saying that everyone should like Dragon Age because it's by Bioware and I bought it so I hope it's good, that would be a pretty lame reason and also probably your assumption. It's more of knowing what the games strong and weakpoints are and feeling that the reviewer was overly critical in his reasoning because he didn't get his BG3. Dragon Age is going to be an awesome game, you can quote me on it, After extensively researching this game and seeing the gameplay during the Warden's Quest it would take some pretty sneaky hidden **** to change my opinion much on this game because I believe it will own up. We'll just have to wait and see, but if it does own up, open your eyes and give the game it's due for going above and beyond.

[HighlandBerserkr]

Story and Characters are the two MOST important parts of any video game for me, then music, and it seems Dragon Age is not lacking in that respect whatsoever.

[pudknocker]

I didn't think it was a bad review, especially since it was for a console. 8.4 is a pretty good score for an RPG on a console. I'm waiting for the IGN PC review. I'm thinking it will be around 9.0 to 9.2 This is a niche game folks and while I could care less about the graphics as long as the gameplay is solid, there are a lot of people out there that just want something shiny with some bells and whistles they haven't seen before.

[tzeraph1]

As someone said, one individual's thoughts about the game. Guess we all have to see the result for ourselves before we can make our own judgement. But so far, Bioware has'nt dissapointed me.



But I also enjoy critical reviews, it give me more than a reviewer that just go with the flow and hype a game he really didnt enjoy.

[team56th]

There are some inherent problems with RPGs in general that Dragon Age: Origins does little to address. Enemies feature little in the way of tactics. In fact, they just charge at you and that's about it. Obviously defence-favouring foes will keep their distance and that requires tactics too, but pure dice-based roll playing almost always feels like the tabletop game that the art department is trying to convince you it's not.

*facepalm*

On that, whereas Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale existed in the Forgotten Realms, well before Peter Jackson could lay influence on how Orcs should look and what constitutes an epic battle sequence. That's right – We're inferring that Dragon Age: Origins does come across as a Lord of the Rings-lite at times. It's frustrating that, in the previous eight years or so, the creative process has been so heavily stunted by Hollywood that it's lost the delicate originality of so many 2D Dungeons & Dragons RPGs.



Given that work started on Dragon Age: Origins some five years ago (or more, even – given the game's unveiling in 2004), clearly the direction of the story and the character designs have been heavily influenced by EA's other big gaming brand at the time.

*infinite facepalm*

(In case you don't know why this deserves infinite facepalm, Dragon Age universe was established by the writers of Bioware before the company was acquired by EA, and by the time EA got it the game was already in production, which means that most of the settings and gameplay designs are all set and are not going to have complete overhaul unless something bad happens.)

But given that it's a wholly similar experience to its lineage, Dragon Age: Origins is still arguably inferior to 2000's Bioware masterpiece. Why? Perhaps it's the idea that 2D design at its best utterly squashes middle-of-the-road 3D environments that have already been superseded by competitors.

:|



Look, negative reviews are acceptable when they have point. If he said something like 'it plays great but looks bad' at least that could have been acceptable. But this... it is just laughable and deserves lots of facepalm, seriously. It didn't even go through a proper fact check.

[team56th]

There are some inherent problems with RPGs in general that Dragon Age: Origins does little to address. Enemies feature little in the way of tactics. In fact, they just charge at you and that's about it. Obviously defence-favouring foes will keep their distance and that requires tactics too, but pure dice-based roll playing almost always feels like the tabletop game that the art department is trying to convince you it's not.

*facepalm*

On that, whereas Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale existed in the Forgotten Realms, well before Peter Jackson could lay influence on how Orcs should look and what constitutes an epic battle sequence. That's right – We're inferring that Dragon Age: Origins does come across as a Lord of the Rings-lite at times. It's frustrating that, in the previous eight years or so, the creative process has been so heavily stunted by Hollywood that it's lost the delicate originality of so many 2D Dungeons & Dragons RPGs.



Given that work started on Dragon Age: Origins some five years ago (or more, even – given the game's unveiling in 2004), clearly the direction of the story and the character designs have been heavily influenced by EA's other big gaming brand at the time.

*infinite facepalm*

(In case you don't know why this deserves infinite facepalm, Dragon Age universe was established by the writers of Bioware before the company was acquired by EA, and by the time EA got it the game was already in production, which means that most of the settings and gameplay designs are all set and are not going to have complete overhaul unless something bad happens.)

But given that it's a wholly similar experience to its lineage, Dragon Age: Origins is still arguably inferior to 2000's Bioware masterpiece. Why? Perhaps it's the idea that 2D design at its best utterly squashes middle-of-the-road 3D environments that have already been superseded by competitors.

:|



Look, negative reviews are acceptable when they have point. If he said something like 'it plays great but looks bad' at least that could have been acceptable. But this... it is just laughable and deserves lots of facepalm, seriously. It didn't even go through a proper fact check.

[Darpaek]

The review site isn't a frikkin salesman - in fact, it's the exact opposite. I'd prefer the guy who's gonna tell me about the gaming WITHOUT selling it to me.. If I wanna choose between a Toyota and a Ford, I'm not going to the Ford guy for an impartial review. I'm going to ask my mechanic who has a broad knowledge of both Toyota and Ford, plus lots of other brand.



And seeing as the reviewer couldn't stop humping on Baldur's Gate's leg, I think it's fair that he's either an RPG fan or trying to pass himself off as an RPG fan to his audience.

[Amberite]

I have to say, I have no problem with critical reviews, but reading this article I have to agree that this reviewer loses a lot of his credibility with some of the stuff he wrote. He has several very glaring factual errors, and he also seems to let his personal bias affect his judgment pretty heavily, which is a big no-no when it comes to reviewing anything. Reviewers are supposed to judge whatever they're reviewing as impartially as they can, and set aside their own personal qualms. This reviewer didn't seem to do that, and that really hurts his case.

[Foxd1e]

If I defend my point anymore they'll probably just lock this thread but bottom line, I want someone that knows what their talking about when reviewing games, not someone who pretends they do with an opinion. There was a lot of factors he didn't figure into his score and that is what I mean, he could be an rpg fanboy but he's not an rpg veteran.

[TheRealIncarnal]

It's not that the score isn't good, it's that the review has no important content in it!



I've honestly never seen a weaker review for a game.

[Ashbery]

That is a weak effort, 2 pages for a huge RPG and mentions next to nothing about the games positive elements.He also mentioned MassEffect in every paragragh.

[HeathenKing]

IGN gave both Halo3 and GoW2 a 9.5. Obviously they haven't a clue what makes a decent game. IGN's reviews are laughable to me.