185 réponses à ce sujet

[orpheus333]

When it comes to gameplay you don't actually have the freedom to kill anyone. The gameplay mechanics don't allow your choices to be involved it in the rest of the game past a reputation decrease and a short fight. It has no barring upon you or the flow of the game and in some cases makes no difference at all. Killing Saemon before the Sahaugin attack for example.



I have played BG1 and 2. Probably more than you over the years and you're completely miss representing them to try and prove a point that is untenable at best and vacuous at worst.

[Deception_2112]

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
                 
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.

Pathetic, absolutely pathetic...
Okay lets try your method of "facts"
I'll point out i love Oblivion and a game i spent 150hrs+ on so i know how that game is and have for both xbox360 and PC. Edge rated it a 8/10.
Lets look at its flaws with your way of doing things.
Oblivion has no character development whatsoever FACT = -1 point
Oblivion's combat system is utterly repetitive and lacks any balance whatsoever (Hell there's no distinction between warrior and mages all talents are based on magicka) FACT = -2 points
That alone swipes off 3 points, granted i haven't been as nitpicky as you, and Oblivion is saved by the mere fact that the modding community is diverse and mods repair what the developers couldn't. Vanilla Oblivion was a dull game, with about as much unique items as Dragon Ages Origin, but with far more flaws. It took Oblivion 4-5 patches to fix up the game breaking bugs. The game was hampered at release by so many bugs that at times it was almost unplayable, to prevent losing saved progress, typical Oblivion profiles would garner up to 100+ saves. So tell me how is that such a flawed game going by your logical was capable of garnering an 8/10 from Edge? If DA's voice acting was bad, then what was Oblivion's? If you were went by your way of "reviewing" games not a single game on this planet would rank above a 6/10. Why? Every single game has enough flaws for you to "swipe" points away.

[Deception_2112]

Sam -stone- serious wrote...
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? 

Your inaccuracies are generated by opinion, anyone can be as nitpicky as you and absolutely rubbish any games you love. What you consider to be freedom within a game might not be what others consider freedom.
These are not subjective? Dude have you actually looked up the meaning of objective and subjective? Have you actually considered what you said before you type? Do not put words in people's mouths, their idea of "freedom" and their idea of "unbalanced" gameplay differs greatly from yours. And how do you do this? You refer to people "posting" about these so called "facts" assuming what they post is exactly what you think, care to prove some of these examples? Or call these people out to be back your words? 
Plenty of fans have posted criticism of the game and everyone can see that, yet instead of taking that for what it is...an "opinion" you instead focus on how many people post the same criticism and assume that its a fact.
Do you actually understand what defines a fact? From what i can see, your idea of "facts" revolves around the idea that the majority of people you know or focus believe that Dragon Ages Origin has "no freedom" "severly unbalanced gameplay" and etc. Your basis for these "facts" are that the majority of people you know are in agreement with you. In no way can you account for everyone who plays for Dragon Ages Origin, in no way can you account for the majority of people who play Dragon Ages Origin. You know what i personally think? You're incredibly cut up that a game you so intensely dislike and rate so lowly is in the eyes of others a masterpiece.

You should also realise your trolling of a site dedicated to the game is not going to get you anywhere either, if you believe Dragon Ages Origin is that pathetic, then go start up an anti-fansite and see how many people you can get. Your opinion is not fact, it never will be fact. Its YOUR belief that Dragon Ages Origin has unbalanced gameplay and no freedom. There are OTHER people who do not believe that, and you cannot call them "fanboys" "idiots" "blind and what other crude names you can think of.

Before you come back with any remark, i suggest two things for you:
- Do not establish your opinion as fact, it will never work and it never has
- Do not utilise ad hominem arguments.

[Sam -stone- serious]

Instead of starting sweeping quotes i would suggest reading all of my posts and find out what i mean with each of your questions because others were first in asking the -very- same things you do now. My points i believe are clear to this point.

[Deception_2112]

I've actually bothered to read the thread and your viewpoint is ambigous at best, how? You don't consider these two questions

How does your definition of freedom in games apply to others?
How does your definition of unbalanced gameplay apply to others?

What you're essentially doing is putting words into people's mouths by saying what you're saying is fact. A fact is essentially something that can be verified objectively, so how do you verify what you're saying when there isn't a single objective person here? There are people who love the game, there are people who dislike the game, there are people who don't care about the game. They may all have differing views on the "balance" and the "freedom" within the game.

People have asked what you look for when a game advertises "freedom," but is that neccesarily what i may look for in a game? Or the other bloke who's playing it? No it doesn't. So you attempting to establish what you think is fact is wrong. There is no fact regarding Dragon Ages Origin, what you see as a flaw others do not notice, what others see as strong points you do not. Get how that works? If you do the the best idea for you to is to leave this thread and leave this forum. Why? Because trying to make people believe that a game they like is a crap is NEVER going to end well for you. Noone is forcing you to play Dragon Ages Origin, and noone is forcing you to believe Edge is a crap magazine. We believe DAO is a great game, we also believe Edge is a pathetic magazine, that is OUR opinion, and in our personal viewpoint its a fact to us, but it may well not be for the person next to us.

Modifié par Deception_2112, 18 décembre 2009 - 05:57 .

[Sam -stone- serious]

Must i go back quoting myself or are you going to continue your mangling about for things that i have already answered including to your two little questions.

[Deception_2112]

Again you have NOT answered them and you won't so long as you maintain your disillusioned idea of what you're saying as fact. And from here you can already tell that there is no way what you're saying is fact. Answer me this:



How am i wrong and how are you right?



Here's a clear cut examples of facts for you:



Hitler killed many jews <--------- Fact because there is clear cut evidence he did or ordered it.

Hitler's act of killing many jews was evil <-------------- Fact because it is universally agreed upon.

What you're saying as fact fits neither criteria. Lets examine them.



Dragon Ages Origin has no freedom whatsoever <----------- Can you get the majority of Dragon Ages Origin players to agree upon this?



Dragon Ages Origin has severely unbalanced gameplay <---------------------- Again can you get the majority of people to universally agree to this?

[Sam -stone- serious]

I insist, you have missed the whole of page 6. I suggest you go and read my posts and get -all- the answers you are looking for.

Modifié par Sam -stone- serious, 18 décembre 2009 - 06:25 .

[ABCoLD]

Sam -stone- serious wrote...

I insist, you have missed the whole of page 7. I suggest you go and read my posts and get -all- the answers you are looking for.

Dis is page 7.

Just quote for justice.

[Sam -stone- serious]

oops fixed !

[Deception_2112]

Sam -stone- serious wrote...

I insist, you have missed the whole of page 7. I suggest you go and read my posts and get -all- the answers you are looking for.

And i'm telling you right now you have not answered the questions in any of your posts. You BELIEVE you have, but it has NOT be answered.

All that you have stated page 6 has been nothing more than your opinion. The whole argument surrounding this is not that i disrespect your opinion of DAO, but rather your absurd claims about what is fact and what isn't. Nothing in page 6 has even a close resemblance to fact.

Modifié par Deception_2112, 18 décembre 2009 - 06:34 .

[Gorzon388]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

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.

Well..gathering from what Sam-stone-serious has posted in this thread I think he is either:

- on the payroll of that Edge magazine
- trolling for attention

He is asking people to respect his opinion, but on the flip side he has shown no respect at all for other people's opinions.

In my opinion the 5/10 rating of DA:O by Edge in their 'review' is rather harsh..the game has its faults, but it is not THAT bad. I would give DA:O 8/10.

[adam_nox]

"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"
----

k umm anyone who thinks this is an idiot.

Games aren't judged on rigid universal expectations like this.  Some games use exploration as a mechanic, others do not.  It doesn't matter if they are roleplaying games.

DAO is not a sandbox game, it should not be judged with sandbox standards.  But you can explore a little, that's how you find hidden treasure chests, enemies, and landmarks.  All areas you visit are decently sizeable and almost none completely linear.

As for freedom, you spec your character, you spec your companions, you choose who to talk to, you choose what order to do the 4 main sub-plots, you choose how to do quests, you choose what route to take in completing many of these quests.  I don't know what you consider freedom, but you shouldn't be in a position to impose your ignorant ideas on others, I know that for sure.

There's no such thing as unbalanced gameplay in a single player game, what a massive fail your brain must be.  Such vagueness on things that almost NO ONE would agree upon, absolutely laughable.

I rate games by how many fun game hours I get out of them.  Professional reviewers don't because they have time limitations and often do not appreciate the game or the genre it belongs to.  That is THEIR failing, not everyone else's, obviously.

[Baka-Shiroi-Neko]

Deception_2112 wrote...

Here's a clear cut examples of facts for you:

Hitler killed many jews
Hitler's act of killing many jews was evil

Actually, Hitler himself did not kill many jews. He did not shoot them, flip the switches for the gas chambers etc.


All reviews are subjective, and quite often not offending sponsors comes into play.  A  way to semi compensate for this would be avarages. As in several reviewers give scores and the avarage balances things out.
 People would still complain, taste is such a highly personal thing after all.

[Besetment]

I think its funny that so many are bashing the review because of the numbers 5 and 10 and hardly any of you have even bothered to read the review let alone in the context ofwhat Edge tends to look out for in games. Because of that this thread is doomed to repeat the same ignorance and misinformation as the last and for the benefit of everyone its probably best if the moderators just shut it down now.

[Sam -stone- serious]

I've actually bothered to read the thread and your viewpoint is ambigous at best, how? You don't consider these two questions

You now? For you only I have went back and copy-pasted some of my previous posts just for you and the answers you seek. Let me know –when- it was that you read my previous posts and you missed such an obvious thing.

How does your definition of freedom in games apply to others?

-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?-

How does your definition of unbalanced gameplay apply to others?

Its funny you say –my- definition but here it is again another direct copy-paste

-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.-

What you're essentially doing is putting words into people's mouths by saying what you're saying is fact. A fact is essentially something that can be verified objectively, so how do you verify what you're saying when there isn't a single objective person here? There are people who love the game, there are people who dislike the game, there are people who don't care about the game. They may all have differing views on the "balance" and the "freedom" within the game.

And you believe that what I have explained is –not- a fact? I will ask you a couple of questions. Can I attack anyone (and I mean anyone) in DAO? Can I take anyone (and I mean anyone) as my slave through magic? Does DAO have any items at all that take place visibly (cloak of displacement, boots of speed, Lilarcor, magic effects that people genuienly react to them and many more)? Can I summon a demon of a sort somewhere in the middle of the chantry, church, “big” city Denerim and have everyone react to it somehow? A big fat NO is the answer for all of the above which makes what I have said a freakin fact and –as I have said so before yet again- its debatable whether its better or not but the –fact- is that DAO does NOT have them. Are you fine now or what?

People have asked what you look for when a game advertises "freedom," but is that neccesarily what i may look for in a game? Or the other bloke who's playing it? No it doesn't. So you attempting to establish what you think is fact is wrong. There is no fact regarding Dragon Ages Origin, what you see as a flaw others do not notice, what others see as strong points you do not. Get how that works? If you do the the best idea for you to is to leave this thread and leave this forum. Why? Because trying to make people believe that a game they like is a crap is NEVER going to end well for you. Noone is forcing you to play Dragon Ages Origin, and noone is forcing you to believe Edge is a crap magazine. We believe DAO is a great game, we also believe Edge is a pathetic magazine, that is OUR opinion, and in our personal viewpoint its a fact to us, but it may well not be for the person next to us.

I believe I have answered your questions much more that you would like even. The very –FACT- that you claimed I have not answered them is proof enough that you did NOT read my posts and in fact missed a whole page of it. Another –FACT- is that both types of gamers (that’s me and you) WILL look through their own definitions of “freedom” in the game. YOU may find it, I will NOT find it therefore pointing out about things that are NOT there IS a freakin –fact-. How hard can it be to understand it ESPECIALLY when I HAVE said so before.

Modifié par Sam -stone- serious, 19 décembre 2009 - 08:39 .

[Deception_2112]

Sam -stone- serious wrote...

-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?-

So Oblivion has no freedom because i cannot go and kill Martin and he only falls unconscious? I lack any freedom in any RPG that does not allow me to play the evil guy and undermine the objectives in the main quest? That in itself is already a flawed judgement, your idea of lack of freedom revolves around the fact that you don't get what you want in the game, and hence you dislike it. Dragon Ages Origin was never advertised as "Kill whatever the hell you want" game and it was never expected to be, if you expected it tough. Noone else has posted about this game "lacking freedom."

Sam -stone- serious wrote...How does your definition of unbalanced gameplay apply to others?
Its funny you say –my- definition but here it is again another direct copy-paste

Your direct copy and paste is applicable to any other game and i can just as well label any game you love and rate highly in the same manner because my experience with it was like that. Again can you get everyone who plays DAO to replicate that for you? Can you then also get everyone who plays DAO to agree that because of that it is then a stupid game? Simple answer is no you cant and hence what you're saying is YOUR definition. It is NOT a universal definition.

Sam -stone- serious wrote....-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.

Oblivion as does many other rpgs have this flaw, infact when i went killing Umbra (one of the hardest NPCs in the Oblivion, i could just stand on a ledge and pepper her with spells while she'd run mindlessly into a wall.) Plenty of games do this, and this is worse for Oblivion because it was ADVERTISED with radiant AI. By your standards ANY AI in ANY game is stupid because they are capable of being exploited.

Sam -stone- serious wrote...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.

Really now? Actually as an Arcane Warrior i stormed into a room and destroyed everyone there. This is with a legit character so to speak. Again your experience =/= everyone elses

Sam -stone- serious wrote...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).

Again completely opinionated. Isoloed the High Dragon as an Arcane Warrior as did quite a few others. I did with the feeling of epicness because i wasn't using a glitch and neither was i cheating, my experience with the game leads me to believe that none of the fights are drawn out, as with plenty of others.

Sam -stone- serious wrote...
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.-

The problem with what you're saying is that you imply your words to be the absolute truth, we all have equally played this game, hell i've played plenty of games, i personally enjoyed this game's combat, dialogue far more than Oblivion's. Just beceause you found these faults does not mean we do, just because these are facts to you, does not mean they are to us. You cannot universally prove that hence it remains your opinion, while it is a fact that DAO lacks what you mentioned, it is NOT a fact that because of that DAO, is then a restrictive game with stupid, forced and gimmicky combat. That is a fact to you, not to me. How hard can it be to understand? 

Sam -stone- serious wrote...And you believe that what I have explained is –not- a fact? I will ask you a couple of questions. Can I attack anyone (and I mean anyone) in DAO? Can I take anyone (and I mean anyone) as my slave through magic? Does DAO have any items at all that take place visibly (cloak of displacement, boots of speed, Lilarcor, magic effects that people genuienly react to them and many more)? Can I summon a demon of a sort somewhere in the middle of the chantry, church, “big” city Denerim and have everyone react to it somehow? A big fat NO is the answer for all of the above which makes what I have said a freakin fact and –as I have said so before yet again- its debatable whether its better or not but the –fact- is that DAO does NOT have them. Are you fine now or what?

The the fact remains simple. YOU , serious sam, believe that DAO lacks ANY freedom whatsoever, has stupid, forced and gimmicky gameplay and can say much more for its story/dialogue aspect. I never disputed what DA lacks, what i'm disputing is the fact that because of what this game lacks, you are then free to establish it as a severly limiting game when plenty of others does not see it as so.  Again is this so freaking hard to understand?

Can i say Oblivion lacks any freedom because i summoned a Daedric Army and not one person responded to it? Can i say Oblivion was an utterly forced game because i could not say no to the main quest? Simple answer yes i can, can i then say that it is a fact that Oblivion lacks these? Yes i still can, but can i then say its a fact that because of these limitations that it is a fact that Oblivion lacks any freedom, has an incredibly poor combat system? No i can't, because while i believe its a fact for me, the person next to me believes it not to be, he/she may well think that Oblivion has an incredible amount of freedom, great combat and so forth. You're nitpicking, and you're unable to accept that while it is a fact that DA does not have what you wanted/expected, it is not a fact that because of this that you can then say DA is severely lacking, that part of your statement is and always will be an opinion.

Sam -stone- serious wrote...
I believe I have answered your questions much more that you would like even. The very –FACT- that you claimed I have not answered them is proof enough that you did NOT read my posts and in fact missed a whole page of it. Another –FACT- is that both types of gamers (that’s me and you) WILL look through their own definitions of “freedom” in the game. YOU may find it, I will NOT find it therefore pointing out about things that are NOT there IS a freakin –fact-. How hard can it be to understand it ESPECIALLY when I HAVE said so before.

Its incredibly hard to understand because you expect US to see the game as you do. I'll repeat in two ways for you so that you can understand. The FACT that you cannot see how you've based EVERYTHING you've said around your opinion of the game is proof enough that you have not ANSWERED the question. You're nitpicking at its finest. On your basis any game could have restricted freedom, stupid and gimmicky gameplay. 

Is it also hard to understand that some people after reading Edge's review think its completely incompetent because its skewed by bias? You may not think so because you AGREE with the reviewer. We see these different "facts" on the basis of our opinion. I could label ANY game you play a 5/10 and point out what the game is missing and they would be under your standards a fact.

Modifié par Deception_2112, 21 décembre 2009 - 02:07 .

[Calerion]

^

I agree with the post above.

[Jayjay67]

It is amazing to see the amount of fanboi's jumping in to attack people regardless of the topic.



The reason DA:O gets varied reviews is it is a niche genre game and therefore will not appeal to all.



The truth remains DA:O is too linear (not enough freedom of choice) to be even considered anything more then a 5/10 game. While pretty and story driven it marks highly, as a game of overall enjoyment it is severely lacking.



The basis of a hugely fantastic large game is there but the development of it was ruined by not allowing open access to the world map, limited loot system makes gearing characters a joke and mob availability to just kill when you want to is none existent.



DA:O is good for a very short while then dies a death when it comes to replayability. Imo it is a very weak and cheap attempt at copying Oblivion.

[Calerion]

Jayjay67 wrote...


DA:O is good for a very short while then dies a death when it comes to replayability. Imo it is a very weak and cheap attempt at copying Oblivion.

What?! Oblivion are serious!? Oblivion and Dragon age origins are completely different games.
If you have actually played Oblivion, you will notice that it's a SANDBOX game not a RPG.
Please tell how did this game copied Oblivion, where is your proof?
While Oblivion doesn't have any linearity, instead it has a crappy plot and main quest, after you have finished most of the quests... you will become bored with the game (luckily several mods fix these problems).

Lack replayability?! Hahaha good joke you can choose several different origins, which every origin has a different background story and based on your decisions you can affect what happens around you and the people.

Btw I recommend, that you play Oblivion before you compare it to Dragon age origins. 

Modifié par Calerion, 21 décembre 2009 - 06:29 .

[MerinTB]

Deception_2112, seriously -



arguing with Sam -stone- serious is a waste of your time (unless you are just practicing your forum debating skills, and then it's good practice) - his mind is set, his opinions is set and he has a hard time distinguishing his definitions may not be the definitions others have for "good" or "freedom" or such AND that his priorities may not be everyone's priorities.



He is entitled to his opinions on the game, as are everyone, but if you are hoping to get him to admit to the chance that he could be wrong you are wasting your time.



Of course, *I* could be wrong about that . . . but just some friendly advice from someone who sparred too long with the Sam in question.

[Calerion]

MerinTB you are right, Sam-stone doesn't quit, he/she doesn't have a life, so why should we even bother? I mean let him have his/her little victory or defeat, at least he/she has accomplished something in his/her life...
I feel sorry for Sam-stone-serious, it's really sad... what does she/he want to achieve by winning/losing this argument?

Modifié par Calerion, 21 décembre 2009 - 06:47 .

[Charliff01]

Calerion wrote...

what does she/he want to achieve by winning/losing this argument?

Probably getting attention which he doesnt get in RL hence he is here to protect Edge and starts feeling somebody.

[VanDraegon]

Jayjay67 wrote...

The truth remains DA:O is too linear (not enough freedom of choice) to be even considered anything more then a 5/10 game.

That isnt truth, it is opinion.

It is amazing how many people in this thread think their opinion equals truth and/or fact.

[themaxzero]

MerinTB wrote...

Deception_2112, seriously -

arguing with Sam -stone- serious is a waste of your time (unless you are just practicing your forum debating skills, and then it's good practice) - his mind is set, his opinions is set and he has a hard time distinguishing his definitions may not be the definitions others have for "good" or "freedom" or such AND that his priorities may not be everyone's priorities.

He is entitled to his opinions on the game, as are everyone, but if you are hoping to get him to admit to the chance that he could be wrong you are wasting your time.

Of course, *I* could be wrong about that . . . but just some friendly advice from someone who sparred too long with the Sam in question.

Pretty much why I gave up too. When someone basically says 'their opinion = fact' how can you have any possible debate? Basically anything they say is, in their mind, 100% correct and undisputable.

Save your energy and time and just let it go.