185 réponses à ce sujet

[Lohe]

i dont know. at least they have got advertising the cheapest way.

Modifié par Lohe, 17 décembre 2009 - 03:26 .

[themaxzero]

Sam -stone- serious wrote...

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.

Overall bad voice acting? No freedom AT ALL? SEVERLY unbalanced gameplay?

None of those are facts at all they are purely subjectives opinions (if not just plain wrong). Opinion does not = fact.

The fact that you say that none of these problems can be fixed even though the whole campaign assets will be released through the toolset boggles the mind. Thats just plain wrong. Now THAT is a fact.

Protip: NEVER argue in absolutes.

Its going to be very difficult to debate someone who's 'facts' are plain inaccuracies.

[Sam -stone- serious]

themaxzero wrote...

Overall bad voice acting? No freedom AT ALL? SEVERLY unbalanced gameplay?

None of those are facts at all they are purely subjectives opinions (if not just plain wrong). Opinion does not = fact.

The fact that you say that none of these problems can be fixed even though the whole campaign assets will be released through the toolset boggles the mind. Thats just plain wrong. Now THAT is a fact.

Protip: NEVER argue in absolutes.

Its going to be very difficult to debate someone who's 'facts' are plain inaccuracies.

Yes no freedom AT  ALL -within and around itself- (dont forget that) which is a FACT. SEVERELY  unbalanced gameplay which is FACT (cone of cold = the spell to end all spells FACT, AI completely off the scale in terms of stupidity for both enemies and party FACT, badly judged level scaling that even punishes players for doing certain places earlier FACT and a mirriad more). Voice acting that out of the main cast (and not all of them) is bad, bad, plain bad and detract from the feel of the game. These are not subjective, they are facts and as you see the more people play the game the more they post about this because it IS  something it stands out as, well, a fact.

Where exactly are the inaccuracies? 

[Templ]

LOL @ this thread.

[FlintlockJazz]

Guys, let it go now. This thread has been going on long enough, the guys at Edge must be laughing their heads off at the amount of publicity you're giving them. Let's just let it die, and move on.

[SirJarenTor]

Sam -stone- serious wrote...

themaxzero wrote...

Overall bad voice acting? No freedom AT ALL? SEVERLY unbalanced gameplay?

None of those are facts at all they are purely subjectives opinions (if not just plain wrong). Opinion does not = fact.

The fact that you say that none of these problems can be fixed even though the whole campaign assets will be released through the toolset boggles the mind. Thats just plain wrong. Now THAT is a fact.

Protip: NEVER argue in absolutes.

Its going to be very difficult to debate someone who's 'facts' are plain inaccuracies.

Yes no freedom AT  ALL -within and around itself- (dont forget that) which is a FACT. SEVERELY  unbalanced gameplay which is FACT (cone of cold = the spell to end all spells FACT, AI completely off the scale in terms of stupidity for both enemies and party FACT, badly judged level scaling that even punishes players for doing certain places earlier FACT and a mirriad more). Voice acting that out of the main cast (and not all of them) is bad, bad, plain bad and detract from the feel of the game. These are not subjective, they are facts and as you see the more people play the game the more they post about this because it IS  something it stands out as, well, a fact.

Where exactly are the inaccuracies? 

It's a tile based game, not an Open World game, that's just how it is.  I fail to see how that can be a negative in any objective sense.  Free Roaming is unnecessary, so why have it as part of game play?  There's no legitimate reason.

Yes, there are a small handful of spells that are over or underbalanced.  Anyone who's played ANY RPGs, especially any MMOs expects that there are things that slip through the cracks like that.  A flaw?  Yes, of course, but by no means is it severe, especially amongst it's peers.

I have had no issues with level scaling at any point, and I've done each of the main quest areas in various order.  So... either the reviewer doesn't know what he's doing and is blaming the game or... well I dunno.

Non-Party member voice acting... aside from the PC voice (which is always a little over the top in Bioware games), aside from the voices being relatively generic, I don't see what the problem is.  Every vendor needs a complete personality and dedicated voice actor?  Preposterous.  Once you've gone through an area a couple times you don't even hear them anymore.  How is that a serious problem?

What does seem ridiculous, is the amount of weight that's being given to some of these things, and your defense of them as valid.  Less than stellar vendor voices?  OH NO!  Crime against humanity!  I can't go anywhere like Fallout 3?  HORROR!

I could see Halo moving the genre forward (even if it was too slow paced for my PC and Unreal Tournement tastes), but not Halo 3.  Halo 3 is the ultra polished version of the first.  If what you really care about is polish, then OK, but almost all of the real gameplay decisions were made in that first one.  Scoring DragonAge based on polish, I could probably see a 5-6 given some of the graphics concessions and scripting bugs, along with spell and class balancing.  But overall?  No, certainly not.

[Sam -stone- serious]

SirJarenTor wrote...

It's a tile based game, not an Open World game, that's just how it is.  I fail to see how that can be a negative in any objective sense.  Free Roaming is unnecessary, so why have it as part of game play?  There's no legitimate reason.

A lot of games are tile based and yet offer a level of freedom than actually makes sense or is enough to not feel completely in the hands of the game draging you around like a dog on a short leash. Its completely detracting that such a rich (if cliche) world has so few going on in it and even less for you to discover.

Yes, there are a small handful of spells that are over or underbalanced.  Anyone who's played ANY RPGs, especially any MMOs expects that there are things that slip through the cracks like that.  A flaw?  Yes, of course, but by no means is it severe, especially amongst it's peers.

Its not the only one and yes alone as a flaw is not a big deal but this is one of the many such flaws that seem to drown the game. Stupid AI, forced difficulty and gimmicky encounters to present a level of false "epicness" that all of them together make a big flaw.

I have had no issues with level scaling at any point, and I've done each of the main quest areas in various order.  So... either the reviewer doesn't know what he's doing and is blaming the game or... well I dunno.

I think being punished with a Tier 1 item instead of a Tier 7 from the same quest just because i did said quest a little earlier is mighty stupid if you ask me. And thats just an example of the dreadful level scaling system in a -tile based- game. 

Non-Party member voice acting... aside from the PC voice (which is always a little over the top in Bioware games), aside from the voices being relatively generic, I don't see what the problem is.  Every vendor needs a complete personality and dedicated voice actor?  Preposterous.  Once you've gone through an area a couple times you don't even hear them anymore.  How is that a serious problem?

We dont expect for every secondary character to be different or have a personality but in the case of DAO they are especially bad. Its especially true when you put them in contrast with the main characters who are sound most of them, Alistair, Oghren and Loghain in particular are great, but the rest of the secondary characters are so bad that its insulting even and especially when they force their dialogue upon you. Baldurs Gate 2 is a 10 year old game and has far and away the best spoken dialogue along with Planescape that its not even funny and non of them force their "bad" dialogue upon you.

What does seem ridiculous, is the amount of weight that's being given to some of these things, and your defense of them as valid.  Less than stellar vendor voices?  OH NO!  Crime against humanity!  I can't go anywhere like Fallout 3?  HORROR!

Again we are not expecting to see everything in perfect detail nor expect the kind of freedom as in Fallout 3 in a tile based game. Being draged like a mut on a short leash however and being forced to listen to every bad dialogue i can think off is particularly bad though.

[themaxzero]

Sam -stone- serious wrote...

themaxzero wrote...

Overall bad voice acting? No freedom AT ALL? SEVERLY unbalanced gameplay?

None of those are facts at all they are purely subjectives opinions (if not just plain wrong). Opinion does not = fact.

The fact that you say that none of these problems can be fixed even though the whole campaign assets will be released through the toolset boggles the mind. Thats just plain wrong. Now THAT is a fact.

Protip: NEVER argue in absolutes.

Its going to be very difficult to debate someone who's 'facts' are plain inaccuracies.

Yes no freedom AT  ALL -within and around itself- (dont forget that) which is a FACT. SEVERELY  unbalanced gameplay which is FACT (cone of cold = the spell to end all spells FACT, AI completely off the scale in terms of stupidity for both enemies and party FACT, badly judged level scaling that even punishes players for doing certain places earlier FACT and a mirriad more). Voice acting that out of the main cast (and not all of them) is bad, bad, plain bad and detract from the feel of the game. These are not subjective, they are facts and as you see the more people play the game the more they post about this because it IS  something it stands out as, well, a fact.

Where exactly are the inaccuracies? 

How is voice acting outside of the main cast being considered (just by you mainly) being bad a FACT? How could how someones voice come down to a fact and not be purely subjective? Cone of Cold has already been nerfed so I don't know how you can still call it an issue.

You keep saying the game has no freedom yet you can do the major allies questlines in any order with multiple solutions to each. The solutions have effect for your character, companions and the further down the line. The ending has a huge number of permutations. What type of freedom are you exactly looking for? What do you wish you could do but can't? The funny thing is the very scaling you are railing against gives MORE Freedom not less. If Orzammar for example was FIXED at lvl 14+ then you wouldn't be able to head there straight out of Lothering thereby cutting your options not increasing them.

You keep saying the word fact when all I see are opinions. You can keep calling your opinions facts but it does not make it true.  When people talk about their opinions on voice acting and game balance balance as being fact I have to wonder if they are ready to see another point of view. Of all the discussions I have had on this forums (especially on game balance) you are the only person arrogant enough to call opinion as fact.

Modifié par themaxzero, 17 décembre 2009 - 06:10 .

[VanDraegon]

Sam -stone- serious wrote...

 ...Voice acting that out of the main cast (and not all of them) is bad, bad, plain bad and detract from the feel of the game. These are not subjective, they are facts and as you see the more people play the game the more they post about this because it IS  something it stands out as, well, a fact.

That is a completely asinine claim regarding the VA. It is not a fact, not matter how many times you say it is. It can be nothing but subjective. I did not think the VA was bad, any of it. Some was better than others, but none of it was bad. That proves right there what you say is a fact, is in fact, not.

Modifié par VanDraegon, 17 décembre 2009 - 06:15 .

[Besetment]

Its obvious that very few of you read Edge because if you did you would know that the score is never meant to be taken as a representation of the merits of a game without the written review and that it is highly context sensitive. In the past many readers have chimed in to say that Edge scores should be removed entirely as it is impossible to distill the essense of a game down to a number between 1 and 10. All that does is diminish the efforts of the people that make it.

With regard to the written review: Edge is long past its peak which in my humble opinion was around the time of 'The Girl Issue' but its still arguably one of the best and most consistently well written print publications on videogaming. I guess that says more about the lack of well written videogame journalism but there you have it. DA:O does have some very bad writing in parts, plundering the monomyth as Bioware writers often seem wont to do. It is hackneyed and seems content with aping genre tropes which it lifts judiciously from A Song of Ice and Fire and the Lord of the Rings films. It does feel derivative but I've played many Bioware games and I can't explain exactly how it works but Bioware has this incredible knack for making derivative and cliche very enjoyable. Does that make sense? Perhaps its all in the execution or perhaps the things that I feel matter don't really matter that much if I can suspend my sense of disbelief so easily. Shrugs.

Gameplay wise it does some things that come from the school of bad game design such as: pop up mobs; providing the player with an infinite supply of consumables making some talents all but redundant; random drops in a single player game with no respawning enemies.

If you look at it objectively the game is essentially Neverwinter Nights 2 sans the D&D license. Some things it does better and in some areas its just worse. I still feel that Mask of the Betrayer is the best rpg released since Torment and in that respect I don't feel that Dragon Age really does anything better except look alot prettier.

And in so far as I can be critical of the game I also have to say that despite its many failings I found it to be the most enjoyable game I've played this year give or take. The point I'm making is that I like the game despite its problems but I can understand why some people would end up on the other side of the fence just as easily and with just as little basis in rationality. I can't objectively measure how much I like a game and I don't think Edge ever does so in its reviews.

I think Edge stressed too much the failures of the writing however. The trailers definitely set this up to be horrendously written and I was expecting the worst so my expections did in some measure change the way I 'read' the game. Aside from things like romance which are traditionally done very poorly in videogames, Dragon Age does weirdly enough represent one of Bioware's better written efforts. It has some of their best writing to date at least but I don't know whether thats a compliment to the game or a knock on its writers.

So how would I go about explaining if other people will like it? I don't think I could say. If you played Baldur's Gate 2 and Neverwinter Nights 2 and you enjoyed these games then you will likely enjoy Dragon Age because its very much cut from the same cloth and has many of same flaws. It is assumed that you can get past those flaws to enjoy the game.

If you have low tolerance for pop up mobs, repeat save/reloads, sub Mills and Boon quality romance etc then you may not be able to get past all of that and find something to like on the other side. I think it depends on just how much patience you have for the idiosyncracies of the genre up to this point in time.

Its like 24 (tv series) or CSI. Theres a tonne of things wrong with it and at times it can be shamelessly embarassing. You know that you have to suspend your sense of disbelief to be able to enjoy it. You know they are going to do that thing where they take a CCTV frame and then zoom in and 'enhance' the image and then pull a number plate off a reflection in a puddle. You know that you have to suppress your inner nerd that yells 'thats a bunch of crap!' and just go with it. Either you are one of those people who can do that or you are one of those people where it bugs you and you just can't let it go for long enough to enjoy the show.

Modifié par Besetment, 17 décembre 2009 - 09:57 .

[UBER GEEKZILLA]

MAN THE FACT EDGE THINKS BOYANETTA IS REVOLUTIONARY AND DRAGON AGE IS MEDIOCORE IS RIDICULOUS

edge is obvisly ruled over by shooter freaks who hate good plots and give a game a bad review if stuff isnt blowing up every 2 seconds

[Besetment]

UBER GEEKZILLA wrote...

edge is obvisly ruled over by shooter freaks who hate good plots and give a game a bad review if stuff isnt blowing up every 2 seconds

You've never read Edge have you?

[Gecon]

I think all I need to know about a review of DA is that its 5/10. No need to tell me anything else. The only way to do such a low rating is if you are no fan of true roleplaying games in the first place and therefore shouldnt bother to rate them.

The further evidence how riddiculously the reviewer rated other games only helps the point, but doesnt come as any surprise. That was exactly what was to be expected from someone who rates the maybe best roleplaying game of the decade, but at least member of the top 3 of them, as 5/10.

And no, if you're fan of Diablo and other action roleplaying games, that doesnt matter.

[Sam -stone- serious]

themaxzero wrote...

How is voice acting outside of the main cast being considered (just by you mainly) being bad a FACT? How could how someones voice come down to a fact and not be purely subjective? Cone of Cold has already been nerfed so I don't know how you can still call it an issue.

Because the main characters stand head and shoulders above the "rest" and that is not something to be argumented on. The secondary characters leave a bitter taste to the mouth with their subpar performance which is the exact opposite of what was going on with Baldurs Gate 2 and Torment. Cone of Cold is the spell to end all spells in its -nerfed- form and dont stick to it alone, i have provided many other problems to be added all together to make a big problem.

You keep saying the game has no freedom yet you can do the major allies questlines in any order with multiple solutions to each. The solutions have effect for your character, companions and the further down the line. The ending has a huge number of permutations. What type of freedom are you exactly looking for? What do you wish you could do but can't? The funny thing is the very scaling you are railing against gives MORE Freedom not less. If Orzammar for example was FIXED at lvl 14+ then you wouldn't be able to head there straight out of Lothering thereby cutting your options not increasing them.

You think that being able to chose your path as you wish from a VERY limited selection of choices is freedom? After we have seen what other (and older) tile based games have given us? Its a direct comparison i am making here mate, i dont speak out of thin air. What about the freedom within the gameplay mechanics? The story and the world itself that have no impact in gameplay terms as you move and act? I am sure you can make direct comparisons to other games and understand what i am talking about. What type of freedom am i looking for? The one that does not have me on a short leash perhaps?  If i want to kill somebody, anybody, just because he looks at me funny then let me. If i want to burn, molest, summon demons in the middle of citys, play actual thief, get into every empty house, deal with the consequences of wearing fenced goods, PLEASE  just let me.

In Baldurs Gate 2 whenever i leveled up or got some new toy i had multiple ends and leads to go and act exactly as i wished within the games boundaries and everything DID  matter within gameplay terms. A  game that it too is a tile based game. This is also not something subjective, DAO  does NOT  have BG2 kind of freedom despite both of them being tile based games. Even Neverwinter Nights left you as much choice as you would possibly want within its tile based structure.  

You keep saying the word fact when all I see are opinions. You can keep calling your opinions facts but it does not make it true.  When people talk about their opinions on voice acting and game balance balance as being fact I have to wonder if they are ready to see another point of view. Of all the discussions I have had on this forums (especially on game balance) you are the only person arrogant enough to call opinion as fact.

I have just givent you direct comparisons between similar structured games to prove to you that what i speak off is not my opinion but pure facts. The only thing that we can argue about is the voice acting. The rest, there is just nothing to argue about. One similar game has them all(BG2), the other does not(DAO). We dont argue about it, its a fact. 

As for the games balance, i think you have missed the threads that open one after another about it. I can count 4 already in the first page.

[TehDertex]

There is no point as discussing a thing as this since it's all based on personal opinions and no end will come to this.



And Edge obviusly watched the points on which BioWare pressed oh so hard when they were introducing the game (Did DA not get introduced for it's great story, voice acting, and whatnot?) and judged mainly on those things which were at certain points not all that great (que fans going "Liar, it was perfect and awesome")



While those whom played and enjoyed liked the game for what it is. (some more for fanboyism then others) But I find that Edge really pointed out the bad things that were all pressed of what the whole game was about, surely if DA would've had more hype over the combat they would've talked more about that.



In the end it is jsut the review of one magazine and if you like the game and find their opinion stupid why put effor in a thread like this? It is as it is let it pass over, you like the game, they don't. I like french fries, other people think they're crap, I don't go on some rampage trying to say how they're stupid for not liking french fries.





Just my two scents for this neverending topic.

[themaxzero]

Sam -stone- serious wrote...

Because the main characters stand head and shoulders above the "rest" and that is not something to be argumented on. The secondary characters leave a bitter taste to the mouth with their subpar performance which is the exact opposite of what was going on with Baldurs Gate 2 and Torment. Cone of Cold is the spell to end all spells in its -nerfed- form and dont stick to it alone, i have provided many other problems to be added all together to make a big problem.

You think that being able to chose your path as you wish from a VERY limited selection of choices is freedom? After we have seen what other (and older) tile based games have given us? Its a direct comparison i am making here mate, i dont speak out of thin air. What about the freedom within the gameplay mechanics? The story and the world itself that have no impact in gameplay terms as you move and act? I am sure you can make direct comparisons to other games and understand what i am talking about. What type of freedom am i looking for? The one that does not have me on a short leash perhaps?  If i want to kill somebody, anybody, just because he looks at me funny then let me. If i want to burn, molest, summon demons in the middle of citys, play actual thief, get into every empty house, deal with the consequences of wearing fenced goods, PLEASE  just let me.

In Baldurs Gate 2 whenever i leveled up or got some new toy i had multiple ends and leads to go and act exactly as i wished within the games boundaries and everything DID  matter within gameplay terms. A  game that it too is a tile based game. This is also not something subjective, DAO  does NOT  have BG2 kind of freedom despite both of them being tile based games. Even Neverwinter Nights left you as much choice as you would possibly want within its tile based structure.  

I have just givent you direct comparisons between similar structured games to prove to you that what i speak off is not my opinion but pure facts. The only thing that we can argue about is the voice acting. The rest, there is just nothing to argue about. One similar game has them all(BG2), the other does not(DAO). We dont argue about it, its a fact. 

As for the games balance, i think you have missed the threads that open one after another about it. I can count 4 already in the first page.

I think your memory is gone. You couldn't go around kill everything in BG2 or molest every you met. I suggest you play BG1/2 again and try to kill every person you meet. You might be in for a surprise.

You say you have given me examples but you have not given me a single game in which you can do everything you say you can. You sure couldn't in BG2.

So there goes one of your 'facts'. Strike one.

Voice acting which you have already allowed can be argued so not a fact. Strike two.

If you think a 8 second freeze on a 15 second CD that is subject to difficulty and rank based duration reductions is the be all and end all of spells then you are just plain wrong. Not a fact. Strike 3.

There reason there are so many balance threads is because everyone understands balance is subjective and open to debate. If everyone in those threads took your stance that they were 100% factually correct without debate then those threads would be awfully short if not non existant. Strike four but  you are already out.

So since all your facts turn out to be just opinions or just plain wrong I guess you have your work cut out.

Modifié par themaxzero, 18 décembre 2009 - 07:56 .

[themaxzero]

TehDertex wrote...

There is no point as discussing a thing as this since it's all based on personal opinions and no end will come to this.

And Edge obviusly watched the points on which BioWare pressed oh so hard when they were introducing the game (Did DA not get introduced for it's great story, voice acting, and whatnot?) and judged mainly on those things which were at certain points not all that great (que fans going "Liar, it was perfect and awesome")

While those whom played and enjoyed liked the game for what it is. (some more for fanboyism then others) But I find that Edge really pointed out the bad things that were all pressed of what the whole game was about, surely if DA would've had more hype over the combat they would've talked more about that.

In the end it is jsut the review of one magazine and if you like the game and find their opinion stupid why put effor in a thread like this? It is as it is let it pass over, you like the game, they don't. I like french fries, other people think they're crap, I don't go on some rampage trying to say how they're stupid for not liking french fries.


Just my two scents for this neverending topic.

I agree its all opinion yet Sam seems to think his opinion is 100% fact. I am comfortable with opposing opinions but when some says their opinion is unarguable fact I have to take issue.

[Sam -stone- serious]

themaxzero wrote...

I think your memory is gone. You couldn't go around kill everything in BG2 or molest every you met. I suggest you play BG1/2 again and try to kill every person you meet. You might be in for a surprise.

You say you have given me examples but you have not given me a single game in which you can do everything you say you can. You sure couldn't in BG2.

Oh yes i could and my memory is certainly not gone considering that i play through the game right now on an unofficial Hi-Res mod. I could go into the noble order of the radiant heart and start wreaking havoc while meeting with the whatever consequences i was prepared to meet. I  could go into the government district and simply slaughter the lot of the without being restricted by anything. I could kill even my own teamates "just because" and if i happened to have AI on i would even see my comrade defending himself. I could go into windspear hills and kill the person who welcomed me in his hut as well as his doughter and I  COULD  DO  THAT  EVEN  WITH  KEY  CHARACTERS and then i was met with a message telling me that i killed a key figure of the game who was important to the development of the story. I could go into a tavern and mind control anyone i wished to become my temporary pawn, i could summon bears among them and see them hunt the people because they are hungry and guards trying to fend them off. I could go into almost every damn house i could see and do whatever the hell i wished with the game. I can tell you even more of what i am able to do in this 10 year old game.

So there goes one of your 'facts'. Strike one.

I think you have never played BG2 to tell me such but you just got counter attacked.

Voice acting which you have already allowed can be argued so not a fact. Strike two.

True enough but not "stike two" since you can agree that the main cast is head and shoulders above the rest of the subpar secondary performers. "dwarven craft, fine dwarven craft"......i swear this has to rate as the worst performance i have ever heard in a video game and he was not the only one.

If you think a 8 second freeze on a 15 second CD that is subject to difficulty and rank based duration reductions is the be all and end all of spells then you are just plain wrong. Not a fact. Strike 3.

If spells of a higher level are of much less use and less worth than an AOE  freeze (prone to be shuttered) and damage to everyone it catches then i see it as a problematic FACT and you STILL  cling to it like its the only thing i said so no strike three for you.

There reason there are so many balance threads is because everyone understands balance is subjective and open to debate. If everyone in those threads took your stance that they were 100% factually correct without debate then those threads would be awfully short if not non existant. Strike four but  you are already out.

How subjective is stupidity then? I see 100 yards away a room full of enemies which i know for a fact that i cant beat them head on because it is designed to be like this. What do i do? I pull them in one by one without the others caring what is happening to their comrade but hey if they -do- care then the encounter will be getting impossible. Whats this?  Oh its a mother spider which i have to do the -same- trick 10 times in a row in order to kill her?  Oh crap. What now?  Is this an item that if went and got it 4 levels later it would be a Tier 7 item instead of a Tier 1?? Oh scrap....i did it again.....not the games fault right....<_<. I can talk for days for the mirriads of such stupid and idiotic moments of DAO and it would not be enough. Try to defend it as you will, its not an opinion. They ARE  stupid and gimmicky and forced no matter what way you see it. Thats a FACT whether you like it or not. 

So since all your facts turn out to be just opinions or just plain wrong I guess you have your work cut out.

I say that you have never played either and any of the games i have mentioned to even begin to tell me that i am wrong or what i say is an opinion or you simply never got through the first dungeon even which still counts as very limited experience for you. The FACT  that you somehow happen to be sure that i cant do what i wish in BG2 is proof enough and it IS a tile based game as well. A 10 year old one at that as well.

[RetrOldSchool]

Sam -stone- serious wrote...

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 
                 

Well we can apply that to Star Wars KOTOR too:
The exploration is basically the same in KOTOR as in DA:O, the freedom is pretty much the same too. As for game balance I can't really remember but I remember that I ended up using some powers a lot and other powers less, because of some powers being a lot better, so in reference to the Cone of Cold-thing you've mentioned, I guess that KOTOR was plagued with that as well.

However, in both KOTOR and DA:O I dont think those flaws (well I dont consider that fact I can't kill anyone when I want to in neither of the games a flaw though) are big enough to warrant that kind of point deduction, but I guess that's very individual.

But that's not my problem with Edge, (even though, based on that, they shouldn't have given KOTOR 9/10) I think a reviewer should be fair and if the reviewer feel the flaws are that great then ofc that should be shown in the score.

BUT if the reviewer (like me) doesnt feel those flaws are that horrible, then I see no wrong with a high score.

Back to topic: Edge scored Eternal Sonata 7/10, a game with abyssmal writing, incredibly convoluted story and horrible voice acting. A game that is so linear that you can't even go back to previously visited towns if you don't backtrack full dungeons (or access the teleportation device, which you can only do on your 2nd playthrough). Also the cutscenes aren't only numerous, they're looooong and terribly scripted and slow, with awkward pauses and weird hand gestures.

Regarding VO and story is of course my opinion, but I think it's pretty safe to say that if you knock DA:O on those things....

(I like JRPG's, but Eternal Sonata was horrible IMO)
If you dont take my word for it, check this video (please do, its a 6min long cutscene about glowing agogos...)

[Sam -stone- serious]

Well we can apply that to Star Wars KOTOR too:
The exploration is basically the same in KOTOR as in DA:O, the freedom is pretty much the same too. As for game balance I can't really remember but I remember that I ended up using some powers a lot and other powers less, because of some powers being a lot better, so in reference to the Cone of Cold-thing you've mentioned, I guess that KOTOR was plagued with that as well.

I agree with this but KOTOR  was the first RPG  to be in the world of SW ever so its mechanics could be swallowed that its just this though i felt i was "restricted" over there as well. If i was not such a SW junkie-fanboy i probably would not have "forgiven" these flaws as well and i would just throw the game out of the window. The powers you say that some were more useful than others, not really, all powers were exceptional in their max rank (since the new power always overwrites the old one) and i found myself using as much force push as force lightning for example. I DO  recongnize the faults however though in the case of SW  they are not nearly as severe even if it is a 6 year old game. In 6 years time i was expecting improvement rather than serve us the same old, same old and then somehow WORSE???? How is that possible?

However, in both KOTOR and DA:O I dont think those flaws (well I dont consider that fact I can't kill anyone when I want to in neither of the games a flaw though) are big enough to warrant that kind of point deduction, but I guess that's very individual.

The world of Dragon Age has been used to bits. Its overly familiar and this is exactly the problem. Such games should have a much grander environment for exploration and much more freedom within its sandbox tile based maps. These worlds are far too rich to do otherwise. Even second rate and unknown developers did this in their games. Some managed to do it, others did not but they tried. DAO 's development shows that it was not even considered to offer any type of interactivity for the player. No cause and effect. No action and reaction. Nothing. Its just you and the story and you have no say of your actions unless you go into a predetermined conversation for you to make a choice of a sort.

But that's not my problem with Edge, (even though, based on that, they shouldn't have given KOTOR 9/10) I think a reviewer should be fair and if the reviewer feel the flaws are that great then ofc that should be shown in the score.

The game got a 9 when it came out back in 2003 and it was the first ever SW RPG that did something right. The second game got a 7 which was more of the same but for me had a better story because it was much more personal (this is specificaly my opinion). Then came Jade Empire that had the exact same mechanics but in a real time combat mechanism which also got a 7. Now we have more of the same yet again in a different coat but in an overly familiar environment and with the mechanics back to the very first KOTOR. For a game that comes out now its bad....from Bioware too.....REAL  bad.

BUT if the reviewer (like me) doesnt feel those flaws are that horrible, then I see no wrong with a high score.

Me neither but obviously this reviewer (which i agree with) in the end believes that the game takes RPG  games more than a few years back. Lots of (overly familiar) style, little substance.

Back to topic: Edge scored Eternal Sonata 7/10, a game with abyssmal writing, incredibly convoluted story and horrible voice acting. A game that is so linear that you can't even go back to previously visited towns if you don't backtrack full dungeons (or access the teleportation device, which you can only do on your 2nd playthrough). Also the cutscenes aren't only numerous, they're looooong and terribly scripted and slow, with awkward pauses and weird hand gestures.

Regarding VO and story is of course my opinion, but I think it's pretty safe to say that if you knock DA:O on those things....

(I like JRPG's, but Eternal Sonata was horrible IMO)
If you dont take my word for it, check this video (please do, its a 6min long cutscene about glowing agogos...)

I  really cant comment on Eternal Sonata since i have no patience of dealing with this kind of "kiddy"  looks  AND  BEFORE  SOMEONE  TRIES  TO  MANGE  ME  FOR  THIS  let me say that i absolutely ADORE  games like Disgaea, Dragon Quest 8, Breath of Fire 5 and many other such looking games. I could be wrong with Eternal Sonata but i am not drawn to it and give it a go.

PS. The video you posted was horrendous at best in more ways than just the voice acting to which i see is typical "bad" anime dubs. If i had the option of turning on the original japanesse voices then yes i could give it a try.

Modifié par Sam -stone- serious, 18 décembre 2009 - 12:50 .

[Skellimancer]

DQ8 9/10

Morrowind 6/10

[themaxzero]

For the record I have played every single game Bioware have ever made. At least you didn't call it a fact.

I did make one mistake though I thought freedom meant  you  killed as in Role playing not as in randomly killing any NPC for no reason like some rabid dog. You can do that in DAO too but you have to do the extra step of making NPCs hostiles, before you kill them, only to reload an earlier save because you broke the game. No DAO does not support every vapid idea that enters your head. In that case, yes, the freedom is limited.
Freedom (or how much there is) is also something that is subjective. Could you side with Jon Irenicus? Could you save Yoshi? Could you side with Bodhi tell the end? No, but you could randomly kill fluff NPCs so its okay. Honestly. I prefer storyline freedom to just how well the game deals with me want to randomly kill everything. But hey its just my opinion.

Good to see you agreed that VO opinion is not fact now to work on the other 'facts'.

How subjective is stupidity then? I see 100 yards away a room full of enemies which i know for a fact that i cant beat them head on because it is designed to be like this. What do i do? I pull them in one by one without the others caring what is happening to their comrade but hey if they -do- care then the encounter will be getting impossible. Whats this? Oh its a mother spider which i have to do the -same- trick 10 times in a row in order to kill her? Oh crap. What now? Is this an item that if went and got it 4 levels later it would be a Tier 7 item instead of a Tier 1?? Oh scrap....i did it again.....not the games fault right..../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png. I can talk for days for the mirriads of such stupid and idiotic moments of DAO and it would not be enough. Try to defend it as you will, its not an opinion. They ARE stupid and gimmicky and forced no matter what way you see it. Thats a FACT whether you like it or not.

Maybe I missed something but could you please redo that paragraph to something readable. You may be able to talk for days but if its anything like that paragraph you would be only one who would read it.

Modifié par themaxzero, 18 décembre 2009 - 01:29 .

[KEMKA]

Sam -stone- serious wrote...
DAO 's development shows that it was not even considered to offer any type of interactivity for the player. No cause and effect. No action and reaction. Nothing. Its just you and the story and you have no say of your actions unless you go into a predetermined conversation for you to make a choice of a sort.

What do you mean when you say 'interaction' here?

About your post earlier when you mention being able to kill everything en-masse in BG - personally I don't see how this makes a game 'better'. In your -opinion- it is, but I wouldn't say it's -fact- that a game that allows you this kind of freedom is better?
I've never played BG 1 or 2, so I don't know how it works in those games, but in Morrowind you had that kind of freedom. The problem I find with this kind of thing is that it is never accounted for *realistically* - for example say you slay a father and daughter, what about the family? in real life maybe they would take revenge? Would the authorites find out, would you be on the run? etc etc I don't think there is the technology about at the moment to be able to give you that amount of freedom in an RPG and *seriously* make it so that it has an effect on your gameplay.
I can understand why you would like to have that amount of freedom, but after you've gone around killing X amount of people, what does it really do? Honestly, what's the point? if you went round slaughtering people willy-nilly in any game, I want it to be realistically accounted for - your game plot should change from that point on the accomodate what you've done.
I hope I'm making sense? sorry if my spelling is lame also,
Kate

[Sam -stone- serious]

themaxzero wrote...

For the record I have played every single game Bioware have ever made. At least you didn't call it a fact.

I did make one mistake though I thought freedom meant  you  killed as in Role playing not as in randomly killing any NPC for no reason like some rabid dog. You can do that in DAO too but you have to do the extra step of making NPCs hostiles, before you kill them, only to reload an earlier save because you broke the game. No DAO does not support every vapid idea that enters your head. In that case, yes, the freedom is limited.
Freedom (or how much there is) is also something that is subjective. Could you side with Jon Irenicus? Could you save Yoshi? Could you side with Bodhi tell the end? No, but you could randomly kill fluff NPCs so its okay. Honestly. I prefer storyline freedom to just how well the game deals with me want to randomly kill everything. But hey its just my opinion.

This is why i said "in gameplay terms" more than once. If i wanted to talk only for story freedom i would have said so from the very start. And yes i like experimenting in such games, almost all of them have it and especially in the case of Bioware who had to give up the DnD licence they needed a new world based on the forgoten realms/ LotR/ Medieval high/dark/black fantasy that did give them the freedom to design the game in the same tamplate as BG and NWN. Its what such a world calls for. In BG2 i could go into the temple of Helm and summon a Balor in the middle just to see what would happen and there was much action and reaction, cause and effect. Non of which is available in DAO. Do you see now that what i was talking about was indeed a fact?  Preference is one thing, gameplay designs and additions quite another.

As for you question of whether you could side with Irenicus or Bohdi till the end?  Did you ask yourself?  Do -they- want to side with you?  Since all characters, your own party included, could betray you at any moment if you did something that was tottaly against their morals (as i have learned from an angry paladin with a holy avenger in his hands for droping down from 10 reputation). Of course the question for Yoshi does relate heavily upon John Irenicus and his will to side with you or not.

Maybe I missed something but could you please redo that paragraph to something readable. You may be able to talk for days but if its anything like that paragraph you would be only one who would read it.

Let me make a very small list of what i am talking about and you will understand.

Stupidity = the fact that you can kill a room full of any type of enemy simply by pulling them one by one while the other retards in the room are just looking like idiots.
Forced = the exact above situation but as an added effect you know for a fact that you cant hope to just storm the place and kill them all mano a' mano therefore you are forced into the above stupidity and there is nothing -legitimate- you can do to counter it.
Gimmicky = the fact that most battles drag on artificially in order to induce some sort of false epic feeling. The spider queen fight in Orzammar is one such figh (one of the many).

Notice that these examples are centered around combat only and i could say much more for the other parts of the game (especially the dialogue) that all of the above hold true but i cant really find the right words and sentences to do it without resulting in another epic forum-battle.

Modifié par Sam -stone- serious, 18 décembre 2009 - 02:27 .

[Sam -stone- serious]

-k-a-t-e- wrote...

Sam -stone- serious wrote...
DAO 's development shows that it was not even considered to offer any type of interactivity for the player. No cause and effect. No action and reaction. Nothing. Its just you and the story and you have no say of your actions unless you go into a predetermined conversation for you to make a choice of a sort.

What do you mean when you say 'interaction' here?

About your post earlier when you mention being able to kill everything en-masse in BG - personally I don't see how this makes a game 'better'. In your -opinion- it is, but I wouldn't say it's -fact- that a game that allows you this kind of freedom is better?

No i said it in the context that -its a fact that you can do it-. Whether its better or not its debatable for anyone but why restrict me? You abviously will not go arround killing everyone you see so in a sense YOU wont be doing it regardless. What about me? I WANT to do it. Why cant i? 

I've never played BG 1 or 2, so I don't know how it works in those games, but in Morrowind you had that kind of freedom. The problem I find with this kind of thing is that it is never accounted for *realistically* - for example say you slay a father and daughter, what about the family? in real life maybe they would take revenge? Would the authorites find out, would you be on the run? etc etc I don't think there is the technology about at the moment to be able to give you that amount of freedom in an RPG and *seriously* make it so that it has an effect on your gameplay.

Morrowind is a different beast. Its open ended across everything it has. BG1 and 2 were tile based like DAO but you could do everything you wanted in them. Everything you had on your arsenal meaning spells, characters, items (people were actually offended when Lilarcor talked too much and yes Lilarcor is a piece of gear, a sword to be exact). The whole game was designed to trigger something(s) depending on what you did or had in your possesion even if they were the most trivial of things. Let me say that i was especially outstanded when i merchant questioned his quality of eyesight when i talked to him while i was under the effects of "Blur" magic. Non of it happened in DAO.

As for the technology existing or not. Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2 and its expansions did it as far as technology goes with this engine. DAO  has a new engine, i was expecting much more. Even Witcher did it which used the same modified Aurora engine.

I can understand why you would like to have that amount of freedom, but after you've gone around killing X amount of people, what does it really do? Honestly, what's the point? if you went round slaughtering people willy-nilly in any game, I want it to be realistically accounted for - your game plot should change from that point on the accomodate what you've done.
I hope I'm making sense? sorry if my spelling is lame also,
Kate

Well i want to options to be there. I -may- or -may not- do it but its incredibly fun to experiment around and of course to think carefully what your actions are. What would happen if you threw a fireball in DAO in the middle of people?  Nothing, only the enemies and your party would be hurt. In BG  EVERYONE would be hurt in its blast including livestock and then you would witness the consequences of your actions. Best part is that you could get away with it.