185 réponses à ce sujet

[Trajan60]

adam_nox wrote...

Trajan60 wrote...

I agree with Edge's review as they're one of the few critics in gaming that haven't yet sold out and gotten in bed with developers. Edge actually gives an honest opinion instead of one that just fellates the same devs that throw advertising dollars at them.

no they fellate halo and bill gates.  They may not be influenced by ad revenue, but they are certainly horribly biased.

I'm probably going to be attacked for defending Halo, but it is one of the finest examples of FPS done right. It's success speaks for itself. I suspect your hatred for critics that liked Halo is based more on your hatred for the FPS genre than your hatred for the Halo franchise itself.

[Darpaek]

No one who likes FPS's is going to give you a hardtime for giving Halo a shoutout. I love FPS, but I hate console FPS and I still lost dozens of hours of my life to Halo and weed in college.

[Sam -stone- serious]

themaxzero wrote...

Edges scoring system.

5 = mediocre
6 = competent
7 = very good
8 = excellent
9 = outstanding
10 = revolutionary

Halo 3 - 10/10
Halo ODST - 9/10
Gears of War - 8/10
Gears of War 2 - 9/10
GTA San Andreas - 9/10
GTA IV - 10/10

I have no problems with harsh reviews. But anyone who says GTA 4, Gears of War, of the Halos are revolutionary are insane. There is no other word.

How can DAO be bagged as generic yet Halo 3 be considered revolutionary? I mean it boggles the mind.

There is a double standard at Edge.

If you went a little further down my post you would see that they give their scores based either within the genre itself (which is almost always mentioned) or the game as a whole that it -will- take the industry forward. DAO  will not be "copied", does not do anything that others have not done better before and with far less money and resources and the gameplay mechanics themselves come from 10 years back. What you LIKE is of little consequence compared to what IS.

To him i assume its threat because he believes he will probably be
exposed to another excessively cliche and closed environment.

BUT HALO 3 WAS REVOLUTIONARY!

For an FPS  and a console one at that? Arguably yes. HALO  has been copied to death and has taken the industry for the genre forward since it first came. The ONLY  other FPS of such quality and forward thinking is Half Life 2 which it also got a perfect 10.

Besides the games you are trying to bash got universaly hyped and accepted unlike DAO which has split gamers in half.

Modifié par Sam -stone- serious, 16 décembre 2009 - 09:53 .

[CBGB]

[double post - sorry!]

Modifié par CBGB, 17 décembre 2009 - 02:09 .

[CBGB]

I like crude insults and ad-hominem attacks as much as the next guy, but back to the original post:the Edge review is grossly out-of-place.

How do you judge a 'good' review?

Asking 'do they like the same things I like, and to the same degree?' won't tell you when a reviewer will split from your opinions. Many players here would agree with my own high marks for BG, Halo, and Half-Life, but then would be suddenly miffed at my low score for Oblivion.

A much better review gives you an accurate sense of what you might like about a game, not just what the reviewer liked or didn't.

Usually, I want a good story and good dialog, and I'm happy I bought DAO after reading general praise for both. But I also liked Far Cry, which has neither. IGN and Gamespy gave it mediocre reviews, but they explained enough of its strengths and weakness so I knew what I would get: a video Twinkie, without depth but a few hours of fun play.



The Edge reviews fails on all counts. Its criticisms say more about the reviewer than the game, and it claims matters of personal taste are universal truths, like this:

'"For the first ten hours it feels like every other step triggers an inept cutscene, and the crimes against writing here are many and severe."

I've cringed at the writing in dozens of games, but DAO isn't one of them, as other reviewers note. Instead of saying what the Edge did above, without example or explanation, they might have warned, "Fans of fast action may find themselves impatient with frequent cutscenes."


And I may step on some toes here, but like the Edge, I'm not a fan of Dan Brown:
"... in one of many scenes so clumsily scripted you almost wish you were reading a Dan Brown novel - which at least has the decency to be easy to set alight."

... yet I do like the writing in DAO. Are we even reading the same text? Is there a single moment in a Dan Brown novel (I've read only the first two) that adopts a different voice, as DAO does for dozens of amusing tidbits like 'The Culture of Ferelden" codex?


"With such absurdities to mouth it's no wonder the cast put in such staid and limp performances."

Now I know we're not playing the same game. Sure, opinions differ, but reviewers should keep theirs in perspective. For comparison, look at Command & Conquer Tiberium, for which I found the acting disappointing. Here are the reviews from the first two pages of Google search on the game and 'acting':
'hammy'
'******-poor'
'not too bad'
'not what I would call top-notch'
'wonderfully hammy'
and
'bad'

These differ, but they aren't all over the map. One person's 'hammy' (and bad) is another's 'wonderfully hammy,' yet no one seems to be claiming Oscars. A player reading any of these isn't going to expect to moved to tears. Now let's try the same thing for DAO:

'top-notch'
'my favorite thing'
'so good that players want to stop and listen'
'incredible'
and even the two critical reviews are specific: one has a subtitle of 'tired voice acting,' but on reading, he criticizes the 'lazy' choice of so many British accents and admits 'the voice acting is actually quite good.'
the other calls it 'hammy' when specifically discussing 'intimate' scenes, a fair criticism.

How's that compare with the Edge's assessment?
"...some of the most awful performances we've ever witnessed in a videogame"

A different view isn't necessarily wrong, but reviewers who make sweeping accusations as if the whole world agreed with them do their readers a disservice. DAO, and anyone considering buying DAO, deserves better.



[Edit: added Italics for readability and white space for kicks]

Modifié par CBGB, 16 décembre 2009 - 10:33 .

[Chragen]

Problem with reviews in general is that it's the opinion of one person and even if it is a 5 page review. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters to the general public(and a lot of the people who write the developers paychecks in the videogame industry...) is the score.

I personally really dislike a numerical score and I feel reviews in general can be really hit and miss depending on who wrote the review. Which is why I prefer a more round table discussion and not a review.

If you give Dragon Age to someone who only plays FPS shooters and has hardly played a RPG in his life, then most likely you will end up with a biased review and a bad score no matter if the game is good or bad. Of course you can get the opposite effect to with the reviewer being so fond of the genre that the reviewer will overlook flaws and not give a neutral opinion on the game.

But in a more round table review you get to hear the sides of several people and unless the game is actually really ****e then you should get both sides of the story and a much fairer review.



But seeing how Edge is Edge and they have had a general bias towards story heavy/Non multi player games for ages I guess we can just ignore them and hope that they would get couple editors that have played more than just Halo for the last 5 years.

[OfficialBlu]

Lol who cares. Edge sucks

[fluffyamoeba]

CBGB wrote...

How's that compare with the Edge's assessment?
"...some of the most awful performances we've ever witnessed in a videogame"

A different view isn't necessarily wrong, but reviewers who make sweeping accusations as if the whole world agreed with them do their readers a disservice. DAO, and anyone considering buying DAO, deserves better.

If you read on a bit, it becomes apparent that the criticism of the voice acting is based on the soundset he picked for the PC and the dwarf merchant you meet in lothering. It's a bit like criticising the graphics of an entire game because the first crate you saw had a crappy texture.

[fro7k]

[deleted]

Modifié par fro7k, 16 décembre 2009 - 11:50 .

[Yalision]

   Critics today serve very poorly in their jobs. Archaic rating systems don't translate well over time, nor are they based on any tangible evidence that justifies a mathematical statistic. Critics should give us the good and the bad and put games on pedestals when awards are being distributed, not before. Preemptive numbers encourage most readers to skip review content to peak at a game's "score" before simply closing their website window or magazine. That said, I could care less for any single poor review score. Not only does it discredit the reliability of the source when the score is not on par with a game's actual merit, it also discredits a publication entirely when an average consensus of 58 journalists rate the game a 9.0.

    Let the children pout. Their stupidity is nothing in the mass praise of this game. :happy:

[spernus]

Game critics are useless and I never bother with the written review itself.

I just don't take these people seriously and I have every reason to act this way.

Some of you would be floored to discover how many of them never played a PC game in their life.How can they properly judge shooters or rpg by only be subjected to console rpgs or shooters? How can the industry grow to be mature if critics do not properly punish silly,juvenile plots? Writing is an aftertough and critics mostly look at the gameplay to judge or score a game.

This is why you are better off making an action or shooting game and why most of them are highly rated.Edge must be like everyone else,where they will put priority on gameplay.It doesn't matter if voice acting or the plot of Bayonetta is coherent if it play great(stories in fighting game are given the free pass plain and simple).Metal gear solid 2 was heavily criticized for it's silly story and look at the metacritics score.

You can't really have great gameplay with an rpg,so this is where stories or VA or whatever else will be judged more severely.Dragon age will be punished for it's voice acting,but Resident evil 4 VA was disregarded when it had so many great ideas or solid shooting+boss battles(with uni dimensional characters and the typical atrocious Capcom writing).

[Yalision]

You can't really have great gameplay with an rpg

This, sir, is why you fail.

[spernus]

Yalision wrote...

You can't really have great gameplay with an rpg

This, sir, is why you fail.

Depend on your own definition of great gameplay,does it not?  

[Yalision]

spernus wrote...

Yalision wrote...

You can't really have great gameplay with an rpg

This, sir, is why you fail.

Depend on your own definition of great gameplay,does it not?  

   Well you staked a claim, not a "Well I have yet to experience gameplay in an RPG that I personally prefer, so I can understand X, Y, and Z." RPG gameplay comes in all sorts, action (Fable series), turn based (many Japanese RPGs), click-action based (Dragon Age, Diablo), hack 'n' slash (Elder Scrolls series), shooters (Fallout, Mass Effect) etc. These are just a handful of little examples that come to mind immediately.

   It was as if your statement defines what should be expected of how an RPG to play, as though the industry does not innovate. So what is it that pre-determines that an RPG can't have great gameplay? Perhaps it is a personal preference, but then to prefer no RPG's gameplay would be not to prefer the breed of gameplay found in many other genres too. Your comment just seemed very short sighted.

Modifié par Yalision, 17 décembre 2009 - 12:55 .

[thegreateski]

To answer the OP's question.

No.

No they're not.


They gave Fable 2 a "9" For !$@#s sake.

Modifié par thegreateski, 17 décembre 2009 - 01:04 .

[MorseDenizen]

@Sam -stone- serious Mate I'm not a flamer or a basher but edge talk A LOT of utter Boll*cks, to put it really bluntly I own, have owned or played practically all the games on the above list and this I have to say there's some pretty heavy favouritism towards games with a more action orientated gameplay than the rpg genre, I actually played the Witcher unEnhanced, and it seriously drew me in, as did Diablo, Dragon Age:Origins and Fallout. Despite a number of technical flaws they may have had, they were mostly pretty damn groundbreaking games (time will tell for DA:O of course). To my memory Edge has consistently bashed RPG player for years (chin scratchers we were called if i remember rightly). The thing is, that if you got a mag and do reviews be impartial those ratings are preposterous any way you cut it mate. I actually looked for serious flaws in DA:O as i played it and found very very few that detracted from the game in order to score 5/10, patches or out of the box. I honestly cant see why youre speaking up for the mag and not simply being a littler more objective about the game, the mag has the reviewing skills of a Georgie Best on the p*ss review of Eric Satie's "Gymnopaedies" when it comes to RPG's, the train has sailed so to speak gone over their 'eads. Make of it what you will, this is just my point of view after experience with the games rather than taking it gospel from a mag (not saying u did that, but i hope you know what i mean)

[themaxzero]

Sam -stone- serious wrote...

If you went a little further down my post you would see that they give their scores based either within the genre itself (which is almost always mentioned) or the game as a whole that it -will- take the industry forward. DAO  will not be "copied", does not do anything that others have not done better before and with far less money and resources and the gameplay mechanics themselves come from 10 years back. What you LIKE is of little consequence compared to what IS.

For an FPS  and a console one at that? Arguably yes. HALO  has been copied to death and has taken the industry for the genre forward since it first came. The ONLY  other FPS of such quality and forward thinking is Half Life 2 which it also got a perfect 10.

Besides the games you are trying to bash got universaly hyped and accepted unlike DAO which has split gamers in half.

Tell how did Halo bring the genre forward? What great features did Halo introduce? Halo was ultra hyped yet turned out a generic shooter. And yes there was a backlash against GTA 4 and Halo 3 in particular for the outrageous scores on generic, derivative games.

Halo wasn't copied, Halo WAS the copy. Or have you never heard of Quake, HL1(+counterstrike), Doom, UT, Tribes, TF?

On Consoles it was not even the first. Goldeneye? Perfect Dark? Turok?

Modifié par themaxzero, 17 décembre 2009 - 08:35 .

[Sam -stone- serious]

MorseDenizen i have said my thoughts about the game several times already. Of course in this mess of a million threads its lost so if you want i can list why i feel the game deserves a 5. Of course you can just head over to metacritic and eurogamer and read just about any negative review and you will know right away where i belong and why i feel DAO is a HUGE dissapointment.

Themaxzero i have originals of Goldeneye, perfect dark, turok and turok 2, timesplitters (all three of them), quake, doom, HL1, orange box and MANY more. I stand by my opinion that Halo 1 and 3 did "something" as well as those older games. It offered its own "treasure" to the table. Besides all of them games you say have recieved at minimum 9s and were praised universaly (Edge included). I cant really speak of what HALO brought to the table in the same manner that i cant really say what Half Life brought to the table but i know that when you play them you feel that the games are head and shoulders above the rest just like those older games were in their time (and even today and personally Perfect Dark still is my favourite FPS for a multitude of reasons).

Modifié par Sam -stone- serious, 17 décembre 2009 - 01:35 .

[Gracchio]

Magic Zarim wrote...

True enough. Well let me add my opinion on european game reviewers:

The Edge: Never heard of 'em. Must be a UK thing.
EuroGamer: Acts all big like they're the next nest thing after sliced bread. Clueless on gamereviewing. Sound like The Edge is much like EuroGamer.

They sell bread in slices nowadays? Man i'm getting old.

[themaxzero]

Sam -stone- serious wrote...

MorseDenizen i have said my thoughts about the game several times already. Of course in this mess of a million threads its lost so if you want i can list why i feel the game deserves a 5. Of course you can just head over to metacritic and eurogamer and read just about any negative review and you will know right away where i belong and why i feel DAO is a HUGE dissapointment.

Themaxzero i have originals of Goldeneye, perfect dark, turok and turok 2, timesplitters (all three of them), quake, doom, HL1, orange box and MANY more. I stand by my opinion that Halo 1 and 3 did "something" as well as those older games. It offered its own "treasure" to the table. Besides all of them games you say have recieved at minimum 9s and were praised universaly (Edge included). I cant really speak of what HALO brought to the table in the same manner that i cant really say what Half Life brought to the table but i know that when you play them you feel that the games are head and shoulders above the rest just like those older games were in their time (and even today and personally Perfect Dark still is my favourite FPS for a multitude of reasons).

You say its 'heads and shoulders' above yet you can't point out the improvements. If it's so obviously brilliant then it should be easy to point out the improvements.

Its quite clear to me that Edge has a double standard for cRPGs compared to FPS. A cRPG has to ultra polished with groundbreaking innovation and genre defining importance to just get a 9. Whereas as a FPS can be a decent generic knockoff to get the same score (hi Gears of War). Halo 3 is a particularily annoying example since it has 0 innovations and is completely derivative yet its considered one of the best games of all time (according to Edge).

What a joke.

*Edit*

Just for the record i'm looking at Metacritic now. Dragon's Age PC is pretty much universally loved. Even the most maligned version (the 360 version) has only 2 'average' reviews. From Eurogamer and Edge.

In particular I loved Eurogamers review of Halo 3:

http://www.eurogamer...s/halo-3-review

Pretty much the entire single-player game is a direct continuation of
the winning formula we saw in the Master Chief's second outing.

From the lovely piece of design at the outset where the game determines
your look-inversion preference in-game (a staple since the original
Halo, and still no less wonderful for it) through to the physics of the
world and the majority of the weapon arsenal, almost everything is
familiar.

And yet, hype machine aside, cutting through the crap about console
wars and the like, what we find in Halo 3 is quite simply this - the
best game yet in one of the best FPS franchises of the era. Better than
either of its predecessors, Halo 3 still can't quite escape the
category of flawed masterpiece - but this time around, the flaws are so
minor that even the most churlish of reviewers would be hard pressed to
mark the game down.

Ie its flawed, its overhyped but we don't dare not give it a 10. Right.

Modifié par themaxzero, 17 décembre 2009 - 02:36 .

[Sam -stone- serious]

themaxzero wrote...
You say its 'heads and shoulders' above yet you can't point out the improvements. If it's so obviously brilliant then it should be easy to point out the improvements.

I didnt say i cant in the sense "i dont know", i said i cant in the sense that its not proper and because what i find good can be someone elses "crap".

Its quite clear to me that Edge has a double standard for cRPGs compared to FPS. A cRPG has to ultra polished with groundbreaking innovation and genre defining importance to just get a 9. Whereas as a FPS can be a decent generic knockoff to get the same score (hi Gears of War). Halo 3 is a particularily annoying example since it has 0 innovations and is completely derivative yet its considered one of the best games of all time (according to Edge).

What a joke.

Its a little more complicated than simply double standards as we all got more than just double standards. I have no doubt in my mind that for example that Forza motorsport 3 is an awesome piece of driving pleassure but if i am faced with a mediocre RPG i will lap up the mediocre RPG in a heartbeat over Forza 3 and not feeling sorry one bit. The fact of the matter however is that the RPG i got is -still- a mediocre game non the less despite the fact that i will probably enjoy it more than will Forza. 

*Edit*

Just for the record i'm looking at Metacritic now. Dragon's Age PC is pretty much universally loved. Even the most maligned version (the 360 version) has only 2 'average' reviews. From Eurogamer and Edge.

Of course the PC version is absolutely adored. I wonder what Edge thinks of it?

Problem of the matter is that this game (Halo 3) hass an average press score of 94. For dragon age PC  i could give an extra score point compared to the console travestys but what -isn't- there is true for any format. 

[themaxzero]

Sam -stone- serious wrote...

themaxzero wrote...
You say its 'heads and shoulders' above yet you can't point out the improvements. If it's so obviously brilliant then it should be easy to point out the improvements.

I didnt say i cant in the sense "i dont know", i said i cant in the sense that its not proper and because what i find good can be someone elses "crap".

Its quite clear to me that Edge has a double standard for cRPGs compared to FPS. A cRPG has to ultra polished with groundbreaking innovation and genre defining importance to just get a 9. Whereas as a FPS can be a decent generic knockoff to get the same score (hi Gears of War). Halo 3 is a particularily annoying example since it has 0 innovations and is completely derivative yet its considered one of the best games of all time (according to Edge).

What a joke.

Its a little more complicated than simply double standards as we all got more than just double standards. I have no doubt in my mind that for example that Forza motorsport 3 is an awesome piece of driving pleassure but if i am faced with a mediocre RPG i will lap up the mediocre RPG in a heartbeat over Forza 3 and not feeling sorry one bit. The fact of the matter however is that the RPG i got is -still- a mediocre game non the less despite the fact that i will probably enjoy it more than will Forza. 

*Edit*

Just for the record i'm looking at Metacritic now. Dragon's Age PC is pretty much universally loved. Even the most maligned version (the 360 version) has only 2 'average' reviews. From Eurogamer and Edge.

Of course the PC version is absolutely adored. I wonder what Edge thinks of it?

Problem of the matter is that this game (Halo 3) hass an average press score of 94. For dragon age PC  i could give an extra score point compared to the console travestys but what -isn't- there is true for any format. 

The average for Dragon Age PC is 91. Eurogamer gave that an 8. Edge didn't bother.

Of all the Halo 3 reviews the only two that seems not like fanboi jerkoffs is :

http://www.gamecriti...m/halo-3-review

The review that had the balls to give Halo 3 a shocking....7/10. He still had a bunch of screaming fanbois in his comments.

The other was Yahtzees (he matches my feelings to a tee-bloody funny too):

http://www.escapistm...uation/8-Halo-3

Both reviews didn't say Halo 3 was bad. Just average.

Modifié par themaxzero, 17 décembre 2009 - 02:59 .

[Sam -stone- serious]

themaxzero wrote...

The average for Dragon Age PC is 91. Eurogamer gave that an 8. Edge didn't bother.

Of all the Halo 3 reviews the only two that seems not like fanboi jerkoffs is :

http://www.gamecriti...m/halo-3-review

The review that had the balls to give Halo 3 a shocking....7/10. He still had a bunch of screaming fanbois in his comments.

The other was Yahtzees (he matches my feelings to a tee-bloody funny too):

http://www.escapistm...uation/8-Halo-3

Both reviews didn't say Halo 3 was bad. Just average.

Which brings us nicely to the part where we say "different strokes for different folks". As i have said before i really couldnt care less of what "critics" may say (especially now that i am well aware that i have 10 times more experience than most of them) but my real problem with most critics today is that their reviews rarely matches their end score. I read a a "bad" review and i see a 9 plastered in the end of it. Ahhhh what?  How? Why? When?

However some critics find some problems especially critical to slash whole points from this fact alone. Lets take myself for example.

Example: DAO has no exploration at all. FACT = -1 point
                  DAO has absolutely no freedom (even some basic one) within and around itself. FACT = -2 points
                  DAO has severely unbalanced gameplay (combat to movement to classes to skills to dialogue, everything is messed up) mechanics. FACT = -1 point
                 
Thats 4 points slashed immediately from the end score because of those flaws that cant be fixed with a patch or an expansion or even moding and in such a grandly designed (visually) game and by a company that has preety much established the "modern western"  RPG its a dissapointment. The last point i slash simply because of sheer dialogue incoherence and overall bad voice acting and minor flaws here and there that all together just highlight the bigger problems even more. If i was a critic and happened to write a review i would make quite sure to point out AND score these problems instead of merely pointing them out.