In my experience, it's difficult to find a good reviewer and thus a good review site/magazine. Far too many reviewers think that reviewing means just voicing their opinion. You have to form your opinion around a baseline through comparison. For instance, if I were to review FIFA 10 I would give it a 2 or 3 if I were to only base it on how much enjoyment I get out of it or how good I think it is. But if I had to compare it to other soccer games or even just sports games in general then it might get a higher rating. But, at the same time, a reviewer has to be careful not to compare two games from the same genre without taking into account the sub-genre. Another for instance, try comparing DA:O to Final Fantasy VII. Final Fantasy VII might be old, but taking into account the characters and story, it was one of the greatest RPGs of its type. Even if released at the same time (and with comparable graphics) these games can't be compared just because they're both RPGs. FF7 and DA:O are easily the greatest of their respective sub-genres in my opinion. DA:O takes what other sandbox RPGs have attempted in the past and improved upon it greatly. Fable and Fable 2 were a good idea but poorly executed. Furthermore, in my opinion, Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights were unplayable. Not because they weren't good games overall, but because their playstyles were too slow-paced and "D&Dish" for my tastes. I think Astorax hit the nail on the head. When reviewing games is your job, a long game with hours upon hours of gameplay would probably make you pissed toward the game and thus sour your opinion of the content just because you're angry your whole weekend is shot because of this game.
Edge's review of DA:O (5/10), are they competent at reviewing RPG's?
Débuté par
RetrOldSchool
, déc. 14 2009 03:48
Retour en haut
#177
Posté 21 décembre 2009 - 08:22
Leather_Rebel90
-
- Members
- 206 messages
I love it when fanboys cry just because some critics didn't like the game.
#178
Posté 21 décembre 2009 - 09:23
Allen63
-
- Members
- 122 messages
I give DA very high marks for what it does well -- I got many hours of pleasure (my money's worth) before the negatives finally caused me to lose interest (as has happened with every Bioware game -- except BG1 and KotOR). I would recommend it.
However, the clear shortcomings are fodder for "reviews". I am not surprised if a harsh critic sees fit to give a low score.
Bioware wants to be seen as a "top developer". The negatives are what I would expect from a second teir developer (again, even though DA was enjoyable).
However, the clear shortcomings are fodder for "reviews". I am not surprised if a harsh critic sees fit to give a low score.
Bioware wants to be seen as a "top developer". The negatives are what I would expect from a second teir developer (again, even though DA was enjoyable).
Modifié par Allen63, 21 décembre 2009 - 09:27 .
#179
Posté 22 décembre 2009 - 12:50
Sam -stone- serious
-
- Members
- 235 messages
[quote]Deception_2112 wrote...
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." [/quote]
It was an example of the kind of freedom you had in BG2 of which DAO is here to replace and does not quite make it by any stetch of a comparison between the two and this is exactly what should be done for a spiritual successor. Oblivion on the other hand had impervious key characters because they had an AI of a sort to lead a daily life and therefore could have been killed by some wondering monster. HOWEVER the game had other things to look for in its freedom like walking the whole of map on foot, picking and using and interacting with any item possible in the game (using paintbrushes with magic as darts was particularly funny) and the game allowed experimentation. It left you with a world that could be shaped and molded to your liking. Does it have many flaws? Yes it does. Horrendous voice acting and stupid out of the box AI as well as non interesting main quest were the things mostly criticized.
[quote]
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.[/quote]
There are STANDARDS you know. Things that meassure a game and compare it to another of a similar design and these are NOT of MY definition especially when a game hopes to replace another because it lost the licence for it (the DnD licence). A game series sucj as this is Goldeneye (n64), Perfect dark (n64) and Timesplitters trilogy (PS2, Xbox, GC) The difference between you and me is that i DO recognize all the problems of my favourite games but still like them. I LOVE and ADORE Kingdom Hearts (the first one). Would i give it more than a 6 or 7? No. I would not because i can see clear as day its problems. That does not stop me from loving it now does it?
[quote]
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. [/quote]
Not all got this flaw. Only a few select ones. Its especially bad in DAOs case because a room full of 20+ darkspawn just see their "friends" one by one getting pulled and do nothing about it.
[quote]
[quote]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. [/quote]
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 [/quote]
Just because you resorted to some overpowered git that is called Arcane Warrior doesnt mean you did it legitimetely. What about those who dont resort to such cheap tactics and want to have a believable group of players? The problem still stands. There is no way for a "legitimate" group to beat such a fight unless they resort to the overpowered git that is the AW.
[quote]
[quote]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). [/quote]
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.[/quote]
Dont talk to me about a singularity that is quite overpowered again. Missjudged to say the least. How many loops do you need to go through to actually feel that it is a gimmick fight? Do i HAVE to suffer through 10 times (TEN for crying out loud) in the same fight her gimmicks until she is dead? Give me a break here.
[quote]
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? [/quote]
As i said there are standards. My words are mostly examples. I could make a whole list of what is missign through the game and compared to other same designed games i can say what is a fact and what not. What you think and what i think is irrelevant. After comparing them to these standards that were set from previous and other games of the same design yes i can state something as a fact. I dont give a **** if your "experience" or my "experience" is different and our views vary on how we look and judge at the game.
[quote]
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? [/quote]
It lacks any freedom whatsoever on the -standards- set by the other games of the same kind. Sorry to dissapoint you but this is a fact and that was -only- what i was saying as i have stated many times before but you still go about trying to make it likes its my opinion about it when it really is not.
[quote]
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. [/quote]
There is a problem to you argument. DAO is supposed to be the spiritual successor to Baldurs Gate. A game to replace Baldurs Gate because the developer lost the licence of DnD. Compared to BG then YES i CAN state my facts. You missed before this little detail that made you go on a rampage of Epic proportions just to prove that something is my opinion. It really is not.
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Sorry but you have this scewed idea that a review is some sort of an 100% opinion. Far from it a review is only a small part a personal reviewers opinion. Edge raralely rates games on a personal level which is the sole reason as to why their end scores are generally not to be taken on what they are. They score on a techical level, artistic merits and other things that can be meassured and compared between games.
I find it quite funny when you believe that everything is an opinion and there are no standards bar the tastes of players and then procceed to bash EDGE for its mediocre score. Do you even realize how ironic that is? The truth of the matter however and i think you do feel the same and agree (otherwise you would not bother anywya) is that there ARE standards to be met, comparisons with rivals and enemies and even your own productss. Fail to meet those standards and things tend to fall apart.
Its like Chinesse cars (not Japan). They have all the safety measures and equipment of the big manufactures at a fraction of the price but i will be damned if i ever buy one and like games cars are made from more than simply a check list to be filled before something hits the market.
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." [/quote]
It was an example of the kind of freedom you had in BG2 of which DAO is here to replace and does not quite make it by any stetch of a comparison between the two and this is exactly what should be done for a spiritual successor. Oblivion on the other hand had impervious key characters because they had an AI of a sort to lead a daily life and therefore could have been killed by some wondering monster. HOWEVER the game had other things to look for in its freedom like walking the whole of map on foot, picking and using and interacting with any item possible in the game (using paintbrushes with magic as darts was particularly funny) and the game allowed experimentation. It left you with a world that could be shaped and molded to your liking. Does it have many flaws? Yes it does. Horrendous voice acting and stupid out of the box AI as well as non interesting main quest were the things mostly criticized.
[quote]
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.[/quote]
There are STANDARDS you know. Things that meassure a game and compare it to another of a similar design and these are NOT of MY definition especially when a game hopes to replace another because it lost the licence for it (the DnD licence). A game series sucj as this is Goldeneye (n64), Perfect dark (n64) and Timesplitters trilogy (PS2, Xbox, GC) The difference between you and me is that i DO recognize all the problems of my favourite games but still like them. I LOVE and ADORE Kingdom Hearts (the first one). Would i give it more than a 6 or 7? No. I would not because i can see clear as day its problems. That does not stop me from loving it now does it?
[quote]
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. [/quote]
Not all got this flaw. Only a few select ones. Its especially bad in DAOs case because a room full of 20+ darkspawn just see their "friends" one by one getting pulled and do nothing about it.
[quote]
[quote]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. [/quote]
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 [/quote]
Just because you resorted to some overpowered git that is called Arcane Warrior doesnt mean you did it legitimetely. What about those who dont resort to such cheap tactics and want to have a believable group of players? The problem still stands. There is no way for a "legitimate" group to beat such a fight unless they resort to the overpowered git that is the AW.
[quote]
[quote]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). [/quote]
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.[/quote]
Dont talk to me about a singularity that is quite overpowered again. Missjudged to say the least. How many loops do you need to go through to actually feel that it is a gimmick fight? Do i HAVE to suffer through 10 times (TEN for crying out loud) in the same fight her gimmicks until she is dead? Give me a break here.
[quote]
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? [/quote]
As i said there are standards. My words are mostly examples. I could make a whole list of what is missign through the game and compared to other same designed games i can say what is a fact and what not. What you think and what i think is irrelevant. After comparing them to these standards that were set from previous and other games of the same design yes i can state something as a fact. I dont give a **** if your "experience" or my "experience" is different and our views vary on how we look and judge at the game.
[quote]
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? [/quote]
It lacks any freedom whatsoever on the -standards- set by the other games of the same kind. Sorry to dissapoint you but this is a fact and that was -only- what i was saying as i have stated many times before but you still go about trying to make it likes its my opinion about it when it really is not.
[quote]
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. [/quote]
There is a problem to you argument. DAO is supposed to be the spiritual successor to Baldurs Gate. A game to replace Baldurs Gate because the developer lost the licence of DnD. Compared to BG then YES i CAN state my facts. You missed before this little detail that made you go on a rampage of Epic proportions just to prove that something is my opinion. It really is not.
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Sorry but you have this scewed idea that a review is some sort of an 100% opinion. Far from it a review is only a small part a personal reviewers opinion. Edge raralely rates games on a personal level which is the sole reason as to why their end scores are generally not to be taken on what they are. They score on a techical level, artistic merits and other things that can be meassured and compared between games.
I find it quite funny when you believe that everything is an opinion and there are no standards bar the tastes of players and then procceed to bash EDGE for its mediocre score. Do you even realize how ironic that is? The truth of the matter however and i think you do feel the same and agree (otherwise you would not bother anywya) is that there ARE standards to be met, comparisons with rivals and enemies and even your own productss. Fail to meet those standards and things tend to fall apart.
Its like Chinesse cars (not Japan). They have all the safety measures and equipment of the big manufactures at a fraction of the price but i will be damned if i ever buy one and like games cars are made from more than simply a check list to be filled before something hits the market.
#180
Posté 22 décembre 2009 - 03:01
Calerion
-
- Members
- 21 messages
Sam -stone- serious wrote...
Chinesse cars (not Japan). They have all the safety measures and equipment of the big manufactures at a fraction of the price but i will be damned if i ever buy one and like games cars are made from more than simply a check list to be filled before something hits the market.
Seriously, that's really off topic dude. Are you a troll or a spammer Sam-stone-serious?
I don't know about you, but this discussion is starting to become boring (including you) and it does not lead to anywhere. Dragon age origins isn't perfect, Baldurs gate series WERE NOT perfect, heck there isn't a game that is perfect, every game has flaw. But Edge was too harsh with criticism, that's it end of the story.
Are we going to waste more time with this "eternal" argument?
I wonder when a moderator is going to lock this?
#181
Posté 22 décembre 2009 - 03:26
Akinra
-
- Members
- 179 messages
Calerion wrote...
Sam -stone- serious wrote...
Chinesse cars (not Japan). They have all the safety measures and equipment of the big manufactures at a fraction of the price but i will be damned if i ever buy one and like games cars are made from more than simply a check list to be filled before something hits the market.
Seriously, that's really off topic dude. Are you a troll or a spammer Sam-stone-serious?
I don't know about you, but this discussion is starting to become boring (including you) and it does not lead to anywhere. Dragon age origins isn't perfect, Baldurs gate series WERE NOT perfect, heck there isn't a game that is perfect, every game has flaw. But Edge was too harsh with criticism, that's it end of the story.
Are we going to waste more time with this "eternal" argument?
I wonder when a moderator is going to lock this?
I agree. So someone gave DAO a bad review. Deal with it and move on. Is it really worth spending so much time discussing?
#182
Posté 22 décembre 2009 - 03:32
FlintlockJazz
-
- Members
- 2 710 messages
For chrissakes, why is this thread still alive? Kill it already!
*Kills thread and anyone else who posts here*
*Kills thread and anyone else who posts here*
Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 22 décembre 2009 - 03:35 .
#183
Posté 22 décembre 2009 - 03:36
VanDraegon
-
- Members
- 956 messages
For Tireless Rebutter there is no such thing as a trivial dispute. He regards all challenges as barbarians at the gates. His unflagging tenacity in making his points numbs and eventually wears down the opposition. Confident that his arguments are sound, Tireless Rebutter can't understand why he is universally loathed.
Modifié par VanDraegon, 22 décembre 2009 - 03:37 .
#184
Posté 22 décembre 2009 - 03:41
FlintlockJazz
-
- Members
- 2 710 messages
VanDraegon wrote...
For Tireless Rebutter there is no such thing as a trivial dispute. He regards all challenges as barbarians at the gates. His unflagging tenacity in making his points numbs and eventually wears down the opposition. Confident that his arguments are sound, Tireless Rebutter can't understand why he is universally loathed.
Don't make me bring out Stewie again!
Too late....
Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 22 décembre 2009 - 03:41 .
#185
Posté 22 décembre 2009 - 04:51
Endovelicus1
-
- Members
- 1 messages
I find gamespot to more accurately rank games (or to at least rank them like i would rank them).
#186
Posté 22 décembre 2009 - 07:48
FlintlockJazz
-
- Members
- 2 710 messages
Endovelicus1 wrote...
I find gamespot to more accurately rank games (or to at least rank them like i would rank them).
Sigh...
