85 réponses à ce sujet

[krol146]

Jacks-Up wrote...

krol146 wrote...

Jacks-Up wrote...

krol146 wrote...

Jacks-Up wrote...

krol146 wrote...

Guys, they didnt dumb the AI down on the consoles, just the number of enemies. And its not like youre only facing 3 or 4 enemies on the console, ive already seen gameplay with at least 10 enemies at a time.

Well reguardless if they did that than shame on them.

If Uncharted 2 can have a helicopter firing at you, bad guys firing at you all while the building you're in is literally collapsing than there was no need.

Not the same at all, and Uncharted 2 never had more than 6-8 enemies at once, and the heli is prescripted (or whatever the technical term is)

Oh and i just remembered a dev post that said he saw the PS3 version running with 16 enemies on screen, and he wasnt even sure it was the maximum number. So again, its not like the console versions only have 5 enemies at a time.

Than you Obviously never played or Finished Uncharted 2.

Yes i have. And to top it off, Uncharted 2 has ****** poor AI.

You don't even lie good.  Bitterness really doesn't suit you.

I cant even take you seriously anymore. If you dont believe, then add me on PSN.

The_King_of_K

[TheMadCat]

I'm curious Jacks, exactly what type of "tactics" were you expecting in what is in reality a turn-based cRPG? From everything I've seen and read the actual tactics seem fine for this type of game.

[Jacks-Up]

BoomWav wrote...

Jacks-Up wrote...

O111 wrote...

I am  confused. I don't think  DA:O shouldn't have any tactical or strategy based elements I don't like thinking.
But indeed, I do wonder how I came here just to troll. Just a few months back the DA:O forums were a place where only Fanboys resided and no one said anything criticizing about the game
Now it has criticism.
I'm part of the problem. I'll remove myself from this thread..

Fixed

This is rude and unjustified. You come arround and start a thread about how a review whined about ALL THE RPGs ever released and try to make some kind of point out of it. You're NEVER clear on what you're trying to say or achieve by posting this here. You haven't even played the game to confirm it.

Then, when someone asks why posts like yours are tolerated by the community, you start messing with his words and try to make him looks stupid. Before you made that last post, did you even considered that maybe you were a bit hasty in your judgement? Or maybe a bit pessimist? You know, even people that expect to enjoy this game may prove right sometimes.

And what was his original post but rude and unjustified? He wasn't asking anything just insulting, I only strike once struck get over it and I think I was very clear with the paragraph I took from the review.

No I haven't played the game yet I was just commenting on the review of somone that has played the game, nothing more aside from defending consoles hardware capabilities.

[Jacks-Up]

Amyntas wrote...

It's simply not true that the AI is weak or enemies go "berserk". I'm only a few hours into the game, but I've already noticed that enemy spellcasters try to run away from melee classes, enemy rogues attack your healers etc. I must say the AI is pretty solid.

Good to hear.

[Xaemoon]

Jacks-Up wrote...

All of my threads are successful.

Ya'll postin' in a troll thread.

[KCFender]

Troll.

I'm not even good at spotting trolls, but this guy is pure unabashed antagonism.

Would you want a turn-based game? This game shows just as much strategy as the Baldur's Gate series. If that doesn't interest you, then I don't know why you're even looking at this game.

Yes, the grunts will charge at you in large numbers. That seems to be the only complaint he/she has made that has any sense or merit, and I find it silly.

[SheffSteel]

Jacks-Up wrote...

SheffSteel wrote...

Jacks-Up wrote...

the AI isn't complicated

- and you know this how / because...?

From the review what the whole thread is about.  pl try to keep up.

Because one reviewer does not see a thing, you conclude that that thing does not exist?  pl try to think.

[Jacks-Up]

KCFender wrote...

Troll.
I'm not even good at spotting trolls, but this guy is pure unabashed antagonism.
Would you want a turn-based game? This game shows just as much strategy as the Baldur's Gate series. If that doesn't interest you, then I don't know why you're even looking at this game.
Yes, the grunts will charge at you in large numbers. That seems to be the only complaint he/she has made that has any sense or merit, and I find it silly.

LOL I find it interesting that anyone who has anything criticizing to say or agrees with anything criticizing about the game get labeled a troll,  under that same analogy I could say anyone who like the game is just a Fanboy.

Really think of it this way if only Fanboys reviewed the game and gave it all 10s than there's going to be less improvements next time around.  In the long run it's better to be honest and except criticism.

Look how many Fanboys attacked that IGN reviewer even tho he had valid arguments and had actually played the game. Would you prefer if he just gave it a 10 even tho it doesn't deserve it and let BioWare not fix there flaws?

[Jacks-Up]

SheffSteel wrote...

Jacks-Up wrote...

SheffSteel wrote...

Jacks-Up wrote...

the AI isn't complicated

- and you know this how / because...?

From the review what the whole thread is about.  pl try to keep up.

Because one reviewer does not see a thing, you conclude that that thing does not exist?  pl try to think.

I didn't conclude anything just made on Observation on a reviewers conclusion. pl follow your own advise.

[KCFender]

There's criticism and then there's people who throw up bland and generalized arguments while using words like "fanboy".

M'kay?

[KCFender]

There's criticism and then there's people who throw up bland and generalized arguments while using words like "fanboy".

M'kay?

[Jacks-Up]

KCFender wrote...

There's criticism and then there's people who throw up bland and generalized arguments while using words like "fanboy".
M'kay?

Kettle Black my friend.

If you can't handle Honest criticism or less than perfect reviews might I suggest not reading them.

[SheffSteel]

Jacks-Up wrote...

I didn't conclude anything just made on Observation on a reviewers conclusion...

So, if one reviewer says that they did not see interesting AI, and other reviewers write that they did see it, what are we to think? Which is more likely, that they reviewed different games, or that one was less observant?

[KCFender]

Stop bumping your own thread.

You've called people liars for no reason. I haven't. So please don't call me the kettle to your pot. If I am a kettle, I'm a very colorful one.

This thread is going nowhere, except for you to start insulting people. That happened before I got here, and it's happening now.

[Jacks-Up]

KCFender wrote...

Stop bumping your own thread.
You've called people liars for no reason. I haven't. So please don't call me the kettle to your pot. If I am a kettle, I'm a very colorful one.
This thread is going nowhere, except for you to start insulting people. That happened before I got here, and it's happening now.

So you tell me stop bumping my thread by bumping it yourself?  

You're a colorful kettle are you? ROFL your words not mine but whatever floats your boat.  I think you need to lie down and take a chill pill.

[O111]

Oh don't say that KCFender, I think we should discuss in depth about Dragon Age: Tactics. I'd especially encourage everyone to post their suggestions on how to make the game better so that the devs can fix it before release.

In the least everyone should threaten to cancel their pre-orders.



Personally I'd like to see a DLC called Dragon Age: Chess Masters. Only for the hardcore players, in fact the only difficulty available shall be Nightmare. If this DLC won't be made I swear I'll cancel my pre-order!

[Jacks-Up]

SheffSteel wrote...

Jacks-Up wrote...

I didn't conclude anything just made on Observation on a reviewers conclusion...

So, if one reviewer says that they did not see interesting AI, and other reviewers write that they did see it, what are we to think? Which is more likely, that they reviewed different games, or that one was less observant?

You would have look at them and the points they both made and see which one has more merrit or if they both do.  If they simply say it's good or bad without a reason might not want to take it to heart that much. 

Just because one review is bad (Or in this case not as good) and the other is good doesn't mean they can't both be right and doesn't mean they both can't be wrong.

[Hammyofdoom]

As quoted from IGN...



"Gameplay

This linear RPG that isn’t really linear at all - dialogue choices and your actions govern the fate of everything, and the combat is deeply gratifying, thinking-cap stuff."



IGN UK gave it a 9.2

[S0ndor]

Might I just say that the IGN AU review is one of the worst written reviews I have ever read in my entire life.

Let's think about this for a sec.

-The review is 2 pages long.

-The first page talks a bit about the setting and the origins.

- Without discussing any key gameplay mechanincs and storytelling features it moves on to page 2.

- Page 2 is dedicated to listing the game's shortcomings.

- Notice that alot of the things listed on page 2 are direct contradictions to the things most reviewers have been saying up intill now.

- From the closing comments it becomes overwhelmingly clear that the reviewer didn't do more than one playthrough.



The review is too short, lacks any logical structure and anyone who doesn't already know Dragon Age will walk away from this review being none the wiser.



Just look at the questions in the comments section:



"Uhm so is it like turn-based?"

"Can you save?" <<(WTF)

"Is there any MP or Co-op?"

"So is this an RPG or an RPG-lite like Fable?"



A review that doesn't answer these basic questions is clearly written by a complete, incompetent noob and should never be quoted in any way, by anyone, ever.

[KCFender]

"You're a colorful kettle are you? ROFL your words not mine but whatever floats your boat."



I'd love to hear why you think that's funny. But maybe not. Maybe you better keep that to yourself.



And yes, these are some wonderful criticisms of the game you're making. I think it's been proved yet again that you're more interested in trolling than critiquing.



And, believe me, I'm quite "chilled". You're the one going around falsely accusing other posters of being liars just because they don't agree with you. Why don't both of us agree to make sure our next post has something constructive to say. Good luck.

[Vasharai]

Never trust IGN reviews, they are often extremely biased and unfairly scored. Many great games were dismissed as average or poor because of some minuscule issues that most gamers won't even notice, while other games get very high scores simply because of fanboyism *Cough*Halo*Cough*.



Well, actually, don't believe reviews in general, every review is a little bit biased, as a good portion of most is personal opinion. And that's the problem with game reviews, the reviewer may not enjoy what you do, and they tend to put down what they don't enjoy. So what could be a bore to them could be a blast for you.



Personally, regardless of the lack of enemy tactics is true or not, I plan to play through the game on the hardest difficulty, as I'm tired of playing games where the gameplay is just a minigame between each cutscene before the conclusion. If I wasn't so strapped for cash from my schooling, I would go pick up Demons Souls simply because it's supposed to be brutally difficult, which is a feature I miss from older games, a challenge.

[Murphys_Law]

Sorry, I lost all respect for that reviewer the moment he mentioned Mass Effect and KOTOR as "revolutionary" games.  Apparently, putting RPG elements in a science fiction setting is "revoluntionary".  Frankly, my biggest issue with both of those games is the combat severaly lacks RPG-style depth and I am hoping Mass Effect 2 puts a lot more "deep strategic RPG" elements and less "ZOMG PEWPEW GEARS OF WAR FPS" elements.  I don't see how either game is "revoluntionary", as that title should only be reserversed for a select few games for it to make any sense (apparently he thinks a "revoluntionary game comes out every 6 months).  Also I had a hard time finding the review parts in that "review". 

At least 1/3 of the review was spent talking about the good old days and I almost gagged from nostalgia overdose.  I also find it hillarious that he mentions some themes in Dragon Age that he states are from Lord of the Rings.  SURPRISE, SURPRISE, pretty much every freaking fantasy game/book/movie has elements from the Lord of the Rings (hello, the movie follows the book almost excatly and guess which one came first?).  You know how like the reviewer's precious Mass Effect has a ton of themes from Star Wars.  The "conclusion" was laughable at best, he acts like his opinion on the fantasy genre is somehow factual for us all and that fantasy RPGs will surely die unless they undergo a complete change.  Where was the concluding statements about the game instead of some half-assed doomsayer rant?  Then you scroll down to the little point analysis and really the only things he dock were sound and graphics, both of those numbers were way lower then I have seen from any other reviewer.  He is probably just like most idiots and tries to compare an RPG graphics to an FPS game and go hohoho this graphics are teh suxor!  He is also never explained how excatly the AI is bad and never said what difficulity he played on (a key element on figuring out why the AI was so bad).  Sad part is he probably blew through the game on easy, to get the review done in time, then goes on to write about how the AI was bad .  Thank you OP (even though you are an obvious troll) for getting me to read that review and remeber why I only read PC Gamer for my video game reviews and not these absolute garbage "video game" websites "reviews".

[SheffSteel]

The IGN UK review (9.2 score) said that every combat could potentially kill you, and I don't think they meant in the trivially obvious sense either.

[RooksBailey]

O111 wrote...

Personally I'd like to see a DLC called Dragon Age: Chess Masters. Only for the hardcore players, in fact the only difficulty available shall be Nightmare. If this DLC won't be made I swear I'll cancel my pre-order!

LOL!  I'll go for that!

The recent IGN UK review might make everyone happy:

"Still, no matter the armaments, tactics play the biggest part in
combat. You can have the biggest, baddest, unique-armour clad nutcases
ever to accept missions from people wearing exclamation marks, but if
you don't lead them into battle with any kind of plan they will perish
with depressing ease. This doesn't mean that the game is hard, however
- think of the combat as a kind of angry man's chess [], a puzzle
to be figured out with wit and cunning as much as fireballs and +7
swords. If things become too much, a quick escape to the options menu
can dynamically change the difficulty, but be warned that Origins
remains a challenging game."

[Black_Warden]

Murphys_Law wrote...

Sorry, I lost all respect for that reviewer the moment he mentioned Mass Effect and KOTOR as "revolutionary" games.  Apparently, putting RPG elements in a science fiction setting is "revoluntionary".  Frankly, my biggest issue with both of those games is the combat severaly lacks RPG-style depth and I am hoping Mass Effect 2 puts a lot more "deep strategic RPG" elements and less "ZOMG PEWPEW GEARS OF WAR FPS" elements.  I don't see how either game is "revoluntionary", as that title should only be reserversed for a select few games for it to make any sense (apparently he thinks a "revoluntionary game comes out every 6 months).  Also I had a hard time finding the review parts in that "review". 

i actually agree with just about all of what you said, except the part where you state your issues about ME and KOTOR. I understand that you didn't like the combat, but i think judging an RPG based on it's combat doesn't make that much sense. To me, i see RPG and i think "ok, this game is story -focused, not action/combat/killing focused." The combat in either of those games may not have been revolutionary, but i still think of KOTOR as one of the best stories told in a game ever (opinion, not statement of fact) and i thought ME did a very good job of taking inspiration from other sci-fi stories without copying them, and itself was also very well done plot-wise.

And to bring it back on topic, i believe the combat in this game will be quite satisfying, and that the enemy AI will be pretty good (again, opinion) but for me, that's not even at the top of the list of why i think this game will be great. i think judging this or any game based on only one aspect of it is shortsighted and pointless.

Modifié par Black_Warden, 02 novembre 2009 - 08:59 .