164 réponses à ce sujet

[TheWout]

 
I was really dissapointed with Dragon Age 2 once i got my own hands-on experience and i have a feeling that the reviews were not entirely objective.

Here are some examples that seem SO polished that they are hardly believable anymore now that we experienced the whole game ourselves:

From The Escapist:

"Any complaints I may have about Dragon Age II[/i] are minor annoyances, easily ignored for the leaps made in other areas. Simplifying the crafting system to reward the kind of player who must search every nook and cranny without muddying up the inventory is a novel change that was much needed in the genre. The triumphant sound that plays when you discover a new source of raw lyrium or a new recipe makes you feel good, but not as awesome as it feels to visit a crafting table and just be able to purchase the Elfroot potions or Deathroot poisons you need. Some players may have loved min-maxing every piece of equipment for each party member in Origins[/i], but I didn't miss anything by just concentrating on their weapons and accessories. I was content to discover the specific armor upgrades for companions that are[/b] sprinkled around the city, again rewarding the player for exploring. "

http://www.escapistm...n-Age-II-Review 

From PC Gamer:

Dragon Age 2 is not what you expect. Hell, even during preview sessions, I hadn’t anticipated it being this much of a traditional sequel. But by locking down the context – the world and the politics – BioWare were free to fill their creation with more character and vitality than any title in recent memory. The best RPG of this decade? Nine more years will tell, but for now, yes. 

http://www.pcgamer.c...n-age-2-review/ 


And more like these:

(1up)

"Though I generally enjoyed Dragon Age 2 (enough to go for another playthrough), it's an enjoyment with significant caveats. It really seems like the biggest mistake is calling it "DA2," as it's just different enough from Dragon Age: Origins to not feel like a sequel, but more like a reboot. The different main character, the faster and more streamlined combat, and the overall structure makes it feel like a fine Dragon Age adventure, but not a direct follow-up to DAO. Ultimately, Dragon Age: Origins felt like a modern high-definition callback to the glory days of Infinity Engine RPGs -- it was a decidedly PC-centric game that got a sloppy port to the consoles. Dragon Age 2, by comparison, feels like a new console-focused action-RPG that should have been called something like "Dragon Age: The Hawkening" instead. "

http://www.1up.com/r...on-age-2-review 

I will definitely not pre-order this game until i read some realistic reviews.

Faked out halleluja reviews will be frowned upon.

thanks

[megamacka]

Do you honestly even listen to these people? They are completely 100% biased.
They were either paid, afraid that they wont get a pre-release copy from the developers ( less traffic and more to their competition ) or both. Usually both.

NEVER, listen to game reviewers.

[Nerdage]

If Bioware live up to their tune of "show don't tell" we could probably cut reviewers out of the equation altogether.

Modifié par nerdage, 20 septembre 2012 - 05:03 .

[Beerfish]

In the end there is no real good reviews to follow. You have to find someone you can trust. The overly positive reviews were balanced out by the total drivel reviews on some of those other sites where anyone can post a review. There were as many laughably bad negative reviews as laughably bad positive reviews.

[TheWout]

megamacka wrote...

Do you honestly even listen to these people? They are completely 100% biased.
They were either paid, afraid that they wont get a pre-release copy from the developers ( less traffic and more to their competition ) or both. Usually both.

NEVER, listen to game reviewers.

The problem i have is not so much the believability, but when the game developer uses the reviews to market their own game it becomes more of a problem for me.

Also, since pre-ordering is almost a "must" nowadays, it's all you can rely on.

As it stands now i have NO idea where DA3 is going, so i will have to rely on what the Interwebs tells me

[thebigbad1013]

The only review you can truly trust is your own. Reviews are, by nature, one single persons view of the game and I have disliked plenty of games that got great reviews and I have loved plenty of games that got less than great reviews.

Official game reviews might not be that dependable, but neither is fan reviews as they will always, inevitably, be clouded by passion (something good suddenly becomes great and something less than great suddenly becomes hopelessly awful)

Also, with BioWare's show don't tell approach, it shouldn't be that difficult for players to get an idea of what to expect from this game. My advice: forget all about reviews, keep up to date with what BioWare shows us and then, if you are still interested, try out the demo (assuming there is one) or check out the game.

[Ninja Stan]

Most, if not all, professional reviews are "honest." They are also subjective, just as the reviews of the general public are. If you believe that only negative reviews are "critical" or "honest," then you have just set your own criteria for who to listen to. You don't need gaming media to change, you need to change which reviews you're reading.

You also need to disavow yourself of the idea that some reviewers are "honest" and some are "dishonest." Use reviews to inform, not replace, your own judgement, and you'll be fine.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

..... Nope.

[MrCrabby]

TheWout wrote...

 
I was really dissapointed with Dragon Age 2 once i got my own hands-on experience and i have a feeling that the reviews were not entirely objective.

Here are some examples that seem SO polished that they are hardly believable anymore now that we experienced the whole game ourselves:

From The Escapist:

"Any complaints I may have about Dragon Age II[/i] are minor annoyances, easily ignored for the leaps made in other areas. Simplifying the crafting system to reward the kind of player who must search every nook and cranny without muddying up the inventory is a novel change that was much needed in the genre. The triumphant sound that plays when you discover a new source of raw lyrium or a new recipe makes you feel good, but not as awesome as it feels to visit a crafting table and just be able to purchase the Elfroot potions or Deathroot poisons you need. Some players may have loved min-maxing every piece of equipment for each party member in Origins[/i], but I didn't miss anything by just concentrating on their weapons and accessories. I was content to discover the specific armor upgrades for companions that are[/b] sprinkled around the city, again rewarding the player for exploring. "

http://www.escapistm...n-Age-II-Review 

From PC Gamer:

Dragon Age 2 is not what you expect. Hell, even during preview sessions, I hadn’t anticipated it being this much of a traditional sequel. But by locking down the context – the world and the politics – BioWare were free to fill their creation with more character and vitality than any title in recent memory. The best RPG of this decade? Nine more years will tell, but for now, yes. 

http://www.pcgamer.c...n-age-2-review/ 


And more like these:

(1up)

"Though I generally enjoyed Dragon Age 2 (enough to go for another playthrough), it's an enjoyment with significant caveats. It really seems like the biggest mistake is calling it "DA2," as it's just different enough from Dragon Age: Origins to not feel like a sequel, but more like a reboot. The different main character, the faster and more streamlined combat, and the overall structure makes it feel like a fine Dragon Age adventure, but not a direct follow-up to DAO. Ultimately, Dragon Age: Origins felt like a modern high-definition callback to the glory days of Infinity Engine RPGs -- it was a decidedly PC-centric game that got a sloppy port to the consoles. Dragon Age 2, by comparison, feels like a new console-focused action-RPG that should have been called something like "Dragon Age: The Hawkening" instead. "

http://www.1up.com/r...on-age-2-review 

I will definitely not pre-order this game until i read some realistic reviews.

Faked out halleluja reviews will be frowned upon.

thanks

It baffles me that ANYONE pays attention to game reviews. They are hopelly biased and lack any sort of journalistic integrity. Bioware, (or any major developer) could release a child abuse simulator and still get a 7.5 from IGN and Gamespot. 

[TheWout]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Most, if not all, professional reviews are "honest." They are also subjective, just as the reviews of the general public are. If you believe that only negative reviews are "critical" or "honest," then you have just set your own criteria for who to listen to. You don't need gaming media to change, you need to change which reviews you're reading.

You also need to disavow yourself of the idea that some reviewers are "honest" and some are "dishonest." Use reviews to inform, not replace, your own judgement, and you'll be fine.

Oh come on now Ninja Stan!

I'm not saying i am only validating negative reviews, but the fact that almost none of the reviews pointed out that the recycling of dungeons as absolute immersive breaking flaw seemed a bit biased.

[TheWout]

Yes, they pointed it out, but they didn't have it influence the score.
I found the recycling nearly game breaking, especially for an RPG.

[Fallstar]

Completely ignore reviews from any large professional review company. Play the demo if there is one, or ask friends who already bought the game. Unfortunately for me I was the one who bought DA2 first, won't be making that mistake with DA3.

To answer the OP, no we won't get more honest reviews. EA has enough financial clout to ensure their games need never receive poor 'professional' reviews again.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 20 septembre 2012 - 07:35 .

[hoorayforicecream]

TheWout wrote...

Yes, they pointed it out, but they didn't have it influence the score.
I found the recycling nearly game breaking, especially for an RPG.

Different people value different things? Shocking.

Perhaps you should look a little harder for reviewers who value the same sort of things you do in the future? I find that it helps. Whenever my friends ask me for an opinion on a game, I usually try to put it into a context of "If you like these sorts of features, you'll probably like it. If you dislike these sorts of things, you'll probably dislike it." I appreciate it when they do the same for me.

[Chris Priestly]

First - All reviews are honest. I know people don't believe this, but mainstream review sites don't get "bought off" to give good (or bad) reviews. If they did, and it ever was proven they did, they would kill their business. It is not worth a review site the small amount they would be paid by a company compared to what they earn as a business.

Second - As Ninja Stan mentioned, all reviews are subjective. What is "good" to you, may be "bad" to them and vice versa.

Third - There is not a 100% adopted scale of what is good or bad. No one says "This gets a 7 on the Richtor scale" or similar as there is no standardized system of reviews. 5 stars, thumbs up, 7/10, etc. Different people may intend to give the exact same critique, but their scale means it is a 90% game whereas the other scale it is a 3.5/10.

Personally, I NEVER listen to just one review. Sure, there are some critics or sites I trust more than others, but I still prefer to use aggregator sites like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritc or whatever. And even then, I still use it as a guideline. "Hmm... that game is only getting  50% rating. Yet, I personally love that sort of game. I may get it anyways" or "Even though reviews are giving it 98%, I don't really play that sort of game. Pass." sort of thing.

As customers, we should all be aware of what we are buying. Ask your friends. Read the reviews. Heck, rent the game (if you can find a store that rents games still) before you buy. Educate yourself before you put down your money.

[Fallstar]

Chris Priestly wrote...
Educate yourself before you put down your money.

I know you can't say whether there will/won't be a demo for DA3 yet, but I think a demo with a representative slice of the dialogue and combat systems is really needed for DA3. There's a lot of uncertainty and confusion about where DA3 is actually going, and even when you start showing us things that wouldn't compare to how a demo would let people get a feel for the game.

[Cultist]

Metacritic - user scores time and time again proved to match with my opinion of the game.

Modifié par Cultist, 20 septembre 2012 - 07:52 .

[TheWout]

Chris Priestly wrote...


As customers, we should all be aware of what we are buying. Ask your friends. Read the reviews. Heck, rent the game (if you can find a store that rents games still) before you buy. Educate yourself before you put down your money.

And here lies the problem Chris, almost EVERY company nowadays tempts you with pre-order bonuses and ingame goodies that you will not be able to get unless you pick up the game from launch (or pay extra later on)

So, you have to rely on these reviews.
I have also noticed a trend of reviews being held back until the game goes live, so that leaves the consumer is a bit of a gray area.

I've played the DA2 demo with every class and it got me excited enough to put down a pre-order.
In addition, the reviews were raving, so i was happy.

The game itself was a dissapointment to me and delivered a strong contrast between expected and delivered.

[AtreiyaN7]

*rolleyes*

[Fallstar]

Cultist wrote...

Metacritic - user scores time and time again proved to match with my opinion of the game.

Weren't there campaigns on various sites to get people who hadn't even played the game to go and give DA2 a 0 or 1 rating though. I'm not a fan of DA2, but it certainly didn't deserve that low a rating. I'm always wary of user aggregate systems because of that sort of thing.

[legion999]

Cultist wrote...

Metacritic - user scores time and time again proved to match with my opinion of the game.

The problem with Metacritic though, is that instead of actual reviews you just get people giving a game 1 for some awful reason or 10 ignoring all flaws a game may have.

Well Bigbad just summarised it better than I did.

Modifié par legion999, 20 septembre 2012 - 08:00 .

[thebigbad1013]

Cultist wrote...

Metacritic - user scores time and time again proved to match with my opinion of the game.

I tend to find that the user scores on metacritic operates primarity in the extremes, as in either: 10, everything about this game is perfect, or 0-1, everything about this game is horrible. There is also a fair amount of reviews that are either extremely low "to balance out those high scores" or extremely high "to balance out those high scores".

To me the user scores on metacritic means next to nothing to me anymore and I certainly don't trust them.

[legion999]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

*rolleyes*

<rolleyes>

<looks at sig>

<rolleyes>

[AngryFrozenWater]

I am sure that some sites give favorable ratings just to make sure that they do not lose their scoops. Tricks like Allers as an NPC do not surprise me. These days I rely more on what other gamers tell me than on what sites tell me.