164 réponses à ce sujet

[Joy Divison]

As a historian, I sometimes have a difficult time picturing how people actually believed the nonsensical propaganda by their politicians, religious leaders, or press organs. After reading this thread, I have much less doubts.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 21 septembre 2012 - 02:26 .

[megamacka]

Imo, Dragon age 2 was underrated. And that was mainly because people expected it to be as good or better than Origins, but it wasn't. Infact it was NOWHERE close. But it was still an enjoyable experience imo.

It was kind of a '' comedy / action RPG adventure '' build up for DA3 to me. I did get quite a bit of laughs. Yet, it was a disappointment but not as horrible as people made it out to be. A lazy disappointment yet enjoyable. But not something I would've paid full price for had I known.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Vandicus wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

And yet Origins is still out selling Dragon Age 2 and is more expensive. Surely that is not because of people giving out about it on the internet. Hell I'd put money on it that DA2 only sold so much because people thought it was going to be like Origins.

So people can't like DA2 because more people like DA:O? 

Yep, a lot of DA2 sales were from Origins fans expecting Origins 2, what of it?

High sales numbers doesn't mean a good game nor does it mean people will like the game.

Conversely, relatively lower sales numbers(they're not low, just lower, and it hasn't been out as long) do not mean that a game is bad nor does it mean people will dislike the game.

I love when people use that excuse, it makes me laugh, granted a crap or tired game (looking at you cod) can shift big numbers on its initial release, but eventually if the game is ****, it will stop shifting units and it won't be able to shift DLC like DA2.

[Vandicus]

DinoSteve wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

And yet Origins is still out selling Dragon Age 2 and is more expensive. Surely that is not because of people giving out about it on the internet. Hell I'd put money on it that DA2 only sold so much because people thought it was going to be like Origins.

So people can't like DA2 because more people like DA:O? 

Yep, a lot of DA2 sales were from Origins fans expecting Origins 2, what of it?

High sales numbers doesn't mean a good game nor does it mean people will like the game.

Conversely, relatively lower sales numbers(they're not low, just lower, and it hasn't been out as long) do not mean that a game is bad nor does it mean people will dislike the game.

I love when people use that excuse, it makes me laugh, granted a crap or tired game (looking at you cod) can shift big numbers on its initial release, but eventually if the game is ****, it will stop shifting units and it won't be able to shift DLC like DA2.

So a reviewer or any other person can't like DA2 more than DA:O. Guess you believe I don't exist then. 

You yourself point out an example of a game that many might consider bad or uninspired game(from our PoV) still sells very well, if not better than before. CoD will soon be on its 9th iteration, and doesn't show signs of slowing down. Likewise with Madden NFL(although Madden NFL has an exclusivity contract). 

Seriously, is it so hard to believe that people enjoy the game even though you dislike it?

[Plaintiff]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...
And what reviewer worth their salt would skip the end of the entire trilogy to talk about multiplayer? Unless you're suggesting that they never actually finished the game before reviewing it, which would mean their opinions are worthless.

This is such a bull****, hypocritical argument.

If a reviewer had given a poor review of DA2, only to have it revealed that they didn't complete the game, you'd be saying "Well that just proves how terrible it is! They couldn't stand to finish it!"

Who cares if a reviewer finishes Mass Effect 3 or not? The ending does not change what came before. If they enjoyed the entire game until that point, then that's still pretty damn enjoyable. The ending is irrelevent, reviewers shouldn't be including spoilers in their reviews anyway.

If a film reviewer is so disgusted by a movie that they walk out partway, then that's a valid criticism. If a book reviewer is so annoyed by a book that they throw it away after only a few chapters, then that's a valid criticism. If a game reviewer hates a game so much that they eject the disc and snap it in half before they even reach the halfway mark, then that's a valid criticism.

But if a game reviewer likes a game and simply didn't have time to finish it before going to press, oh no, suddenly their entire opinion is invalid.

Don't presume to know what I think. If a reviewer gave DA2 a negative and never finished it then that reviewer is bad at his job. It's a reviewer's job to evaluate a game and give an informed opinion to inform others. If someone doesn't finish a game before reviewing it then they do not have an informed opinion. The end of ME3 obviously did change what came before it for a lot of people. The whole "It's about the journey, not the destination" argument doesn't really hold water since the end of ME3 was the whole point of the Mass Effect series. It was all about defeating the Reapers and saving the galaxy. The ending mangled that so badly Bioware had to make the Extended Cut. So obviously the ending is a big deal.
A reviewers job is to spread informed opinions. An incomplete experience in no way makes for an informed opinion. If I only watch half of Memento would you trust my review of it? If I only read the first few chapters of American Gods, could I make a fair assessment of its quality?

Let's put it in reverse, shall we?

If a reviewer you trusted said that a videogame was utterly crap in every single respect (gameplay, storyline, soundtrack, visuals, etc), but that the ending was good, would you believe them? Would you buy the game? Would you sit through the possibly 60+ hours of complete drivel, time that you can never get back, for the sake of those last fifteen minutes? Would the awesome ending magically undo the fact that you just spent nearly three day's worth of time wanting to jam a corkscrew through your eye?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 21 septembre 2012 - 02:41 .

[Conduit0]

Vandicus wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

And yet Origins is still out selling Dragon Age 2 and is more expensive. Surely that is not because of people giving out about it on the internet. Hell I'd put money on it that DA2 only sold so much because people thought it was going to be like Origins.

So people can't like DA2 because more people like DA:O? 

Yep, a lot of DA2 sales were from Origins fans expecting Origins 2, what of it?

High sales numbers doesn't mean a good game nor does it mean people will like the game.

Conversely, relatively lower sales numbers(they're not low, just lower, and it hasn't been out as long) do not mean that a game is bad nor does it mean people will dislike the game.

I love when people use that excuse, it makes me laugh, granted a crap or tired game (looking at you cod) can shift big numbers on its initial release, but eventually if the game is ****, it will stop shifting units and it won't be able to shift DLC like DA2.

So a reviewer or any other person can't like DA2 more than DA:O. Guess you believe I don't exist then. 

You yourself point out an example of a game that many might consider bad or uninspired game(from our PoV) still sells very well, if not better than before. CoD will soon be on its 9th iteration, and doesn't show signs of slowing down. Likewise with Madden NFL(although Madden NFL has an exclusivity contract). 

Seriously, is it so hard to believe that people enjoy the game even though you dislike it?

I'd also like to ask him for a source on his assertion that DA2 DLC sold poorly. But honestly, we both know he doesn't have a source and is just spouting hyperbole.

[Vandicus]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...
And what reviewer worth their salt would skip the end of the entire trilogy to talk about multiplayer? Unless you're suggesting that they never actually finished the game before reviewing it, which would mean their opinions are worthless.

This is such a bull****, hypocritical argument.

If a reviewer had given a poor review of DA2, only to have it revealed that they didn't complete the game, you'd be saying "Well that just proves how terrible it is! They couldn't stand to finish it!"

Who cares if a reviewer finishes Mass Effect 3 or not? The ending does not change what came before. If they enjoyed the entire game until that point, then that's still pretty damn enjoyable. The ending is irrelevent, reviewers shouldn't be including spoilers in their reviews anyway.

If a film reviewer is so disgusted by a movie that they walk out partway, then that's a valid criticism. If a book reviewer is so annoyed by a book that they throw it away after only a few chapters, then that's a valid criticism. If a game reviewer hates a game so much that they eject the disc and snap it in half before they even reach the halfway mark, then that's a valid criticism.

But if a game reviewer likes a game and simply didn't have time to finish it before going to press, oh no, suddenly their entire opinion is invalid.

Don't presume to know what I think. If a reviewer gave DA2 a negative and never finished it then that reviewer is bad at his job. It's a reviewer's job to evaluate a game and give an informed opinion to inform others. If someone doesn't finish a game before reviewing it then they do not have an informed opinion. The end of ME3 obviously did change what came before it for a lot of people. The whole "It's about the journey, not the destination" argument doesn't really hold water since the end of ME3 was the whole point of the Mass Effect series. It was all about defeating the Reapers and saving the galaxy. The ending mangled that so badly Bioware had to make the Extended Cut. So obviously the ending is a big deal.
A reviewers job is to spread informed opinions. An incomplete experience in no way makes for an informed opinion. If I only watch half of Memento would you trust my review of it? If I only read the first few chapters of American Gods, could I make a fair assessment of its quality?

They're either corrupt or they're doing a bad job/half-assed job because their reviews don't agree with your opinion.

Which one is it?

You might also like to know that not finishing the game before giving a review is fairly common practice. Lots of games take hours and hours to finish. If the reviewers played every game they reviewed entirely many games would go entirely unreviewed.

Also I disagree with you on how the ending was the entire point of ME. I do tabletop roleplaying, and rarely if ever is the ending of the campaign the point of playing. As a videogame rpg, I feel the main point of RPG was all about the way in which our character fought the (seemingly) inevitable. From ME1 the game has feelings of nihilism and horror. No one listens to Shepard. No matter what he does or who he saves, in ME2 he is still treated as a crazy person. The player's reaction to this dark atmosphere is  what makes the game interesting to me. 

If you're going to attack me next for "defending" the ME ending next, be aware that I have not done so, nor do I think the ending, Extended Cut or not, is any good. Poorly foreshadowed deus ex machina preceeded by strong dialogue which demands affirmation of the choice to destroy the Reapers only to be told at the last second that there is another way, comes off as cheap pandering to those who wanted a "happy" ending. The journey was dark, it should've ended dark. That's why I choose destroy 

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Vandicus wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

And yet Origins is still out selling Dragon Age 2 and is more expensive. Surely that is not because of people giving out about it on the internet. Hell I'd put money on it that DA2 only sold so much because people thought it was going to be like Origins.

So people can't like DA2 because more people like DA:O? 

Yep, a lot of DA2 sales were from Origins fans expecting Origins 2, what of it?

High sales numbers doesn't mean a good game nor does it mean people will like the game.

Conversely, relatively lower sales numbers(they're not low, just lower, and it hasn't been out as long) do not mean that a game is bad nor does it mean people will dislike the game.

I love when people use that excuse, it makes me laugh, granted a crap or tired game (looking at you cod) can shift big numbers on its initial release, but eventually if the game is ****, it will stop shifting units and it won't be able to shift DLC like DA2.

So a reviewer or any other person can't like DA2 more than DA:O. Guess you believe I don't exist then. 

You yourself point out an example of a game that many might consider bad or uninspired game(from our PoV) still sells very well, if not better than before. CoD will soon be on its 9th iteration, and doesn't show signs of slowing down. Likewise with Madden NFL(although Madden NFL has an exclusivity contract). 

Seriously, is it so hard to believe that people enjoy the game even though you dislike it?

I never said no one enjoyed the game that is not what the argument is about, reviewers are giving this game near perfect scores while alot of fans (some would say majority but I won't) didn't agree it deserved that score, hell they barely described any of its flaws, of which it has a lot, what we are saying is that there is something wrong with reviewers who give it perfect scores and yet alot of people disagree with that score, so how can the justify there review.

Modifié par DinoSteve, 21 septembre 2012 - 02:47 .

[Vandicus]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Waiiitt. So you argument is simply that, Chris's statement does not hold true in every specific case.

God I hope you never teach Physics. 

You're attacking Chris's statement, semantically

You're not actually trying to support the concept of industry wide corruption, you're just being pedantic? Why? I mean what's the point of that? You're just going to cause people to be more and more paranoid for no good reason.

If something happens more than once, it is illogical to think it will never happen again. God, I hope you never teach history. Or chemistry. Or geology. Or anything, really.
If I can point out multiple instances(the firing, the dishonest/negligent reviews) of impropriety, why would anyone assume that it won't ever happen again?

Just because something happened once, doesn't mean it will happen a lot, or even frequently. The evidence points to this being a rarity.(*Note this is the second time I use the word rarity, I never claimed the instance was singular)

Again you're attacking Chris's statement semantically. The point of his statement was that

A. no bribery or shenanigans happened with DA2 reviews (there is no conclusive evidence on yours on anyone's part that this occured)
B. Reviewers are typically not delivering reviews based on bribery or financial shenanigans.

Do you disagree with either of these?

If you don't you're just making an argument based on semantics while ignoring the meaning of the words.

If you disagree with A, provide proof in the specific instance of DA2 reviews.

If you disagree with B, attempt to counter my earlier statements that the lack of industry wide corruption is readily apparent.

Your argument is "don't believe your lying eyes." My argument is that there is dishonesty in the realm of video game reviews, despite Chris Priestly saying otherwise. He said that all reviews are "honest." He didn't just say that no reviews are bought, he said they're all honest. Which is simply not true. I would urge everyone to be cautious in what reviews and publications they trust. You would urge people to display no caution and believe everything they read.

Finally you make it perfectly clear. Your argument is a semantic one. 

Also, you try TWICE in that post to put words into my mouths. 

The point from Chris's post I agree with

"
B. Reviewers are typically not delivering reviews based on bribery or financial shenanigans. "

Which you quoted, makes it clear that I think in general that the reviewers are honest in their opinions. Nowhere did I suggest that people should substitute a reviewer's opinion for their own and buy something on someone else's say so. In fact I personally never buy based on reviews. Its not that I don't think the reviewers like/dislike a game, its that I understand their preferences are not the same as mine.

I'm also unsure as to why you're bringing publications into this, unless you're talking about publications that do reviews. In general, publications such as newspapers are allegedy reporting facts, while reviews openly state that their views are a matter of opinion. 

Someone tells me that he loves hot dogs. He has stock in a hot dog company. Should I therefore believe that he is lying to me about his own personal opinion. 

[Vandicus]

DinoSteve wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

And yet Origins is still out selling Dragon Age 2 and is more expensive. Surely that is not because of people giving out about it on the internet. Hell I'd put money on it that DA2 only sold so much because people thought it was going to be like Origins.

So people can't like DA2 because more people like DA:O? 

Yep, a lot of DA2 sales were from Origins fans expecting Origins 2, what of it?

High sales numbers doesn't mean a good game nor does it mean people will like the game.

Conversely, relatively lower sales numbers(they're not low, just lower, and it hasn't been out as long) do not mean that a game is bad nor does it mean people will dislike the game.

I love when people use that excuse, it makes me laugh, granted a crap or tired game (looking at you cod) can shift big numbers on its initial release, but eventually if the game is ****, it will stop shifting units and it won't be able to shift DLC like DA2.

So a reviewer or any other person can't like DA2 more than DA:O. Guess you believe I don't exist then. 

You yourself point out an example of a game that many might consider bad or uninspired game(from our PoV) still sells very well, if not better than before. CoD will soon be on its 9th iteration, and doesn't show signs of slowing down. Likewise with Madden NFL(although Madden NFL has an exclusivity contract). 

Seriously, is it so hard to believe that people enjoy the game even though you dislike it?

I never said no one enjoyed the game that is not what the argument is about, reviewers are giving this game near perfect scores while alot of fans (some would say majority but I won't) didn't agree it deserved that score, hell they barely described any of its flaws, of which it has a lot, what we are saying is that there is something wrong with reviewers who give it perfect scores and yet alot of people disagree with that score, so how can the justify there review.

Ah for some reason you're of the opinion that reviewers are supposed to reflect public opinion. No, their job is actually to review games from their own particular point of view. 

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Conduit0 wrote...

I'd also like to ask him for a source on his assertion that DA2 DLC sold poorly. But honestly, we both know he doesn't have a source and is just spouting hyperbole.

I don't need one, they stopped making DLC for it, because there was no point. Origins had 5 I think story DlC's, Dragon Age had 2.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Vandicus wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

And yet Origins is still out selling Dragon Age 2 and is more expensive. Surely that is not because of people giving out about it on the internet. Hell I'd put money on it that DA2 only sold so much because people thought it was going to be like Origins.

So people can't like DA2 because more people like DA:O? 

Yep, a lot of DA2 sales were from Origins fans expecting Origins 2, what of it?

High sales numbers doesn't mean a good game nor does it mean people will like the game.

Conversely, relatively lower sales numbers(they're not low, just lower, and it hasn't been out as long) do not mean that a game is bad nor does it mean people will dislike the game.

I love when people use that excuse, it makes me laugh, granted a crap or tired game (looking at you cod) can shift big numbers on its initial release, but eventually if the game is ****, it will stop shifting units and it won't be able to shift DLC like DA2.

So a reviewer or any other person can't like DA2 more than DA:O. Guess you believe I don't exist then. 

You yourself point out an example of a game that many might consider bad or uninspired game(from our PoV) still sells very well, if not better than before. CoD will soon be on its 9th iteration, and doesn't show signs of slowing down. Likewise with Madden NFL(although Madden NFL has an exclusivity contract). 

Seriously, is it so hard to believe that people enjoy the game even though you dislike it?

I never said no one enjoyed the game that is not what the argument is about, reviewers are giving this game near perfect scores while alot of fans (some would say majority but I won't) didn't agree it deserved that score, hell they barely described any of its flaws, of which it has a lot, what we are saying is that there is something wrong with reviewers who give it perfect scores and yet alot of people disagree with that score, so how can the justify there review.

Ah for some reason you're of the opinion that reviewers are supposed to reflect public opinion. No, their job is actually to review games from their own particular point of view. 

No I'm of the opinion that a review of game which people will use in there judgment of whether or not to buy the game must be accurate, it should list all the negatives and positives of that game and it should be critical, the review for Dragon Age 2 when it came out did none of those things. It had nothing but praise for a game with reused areas and battle, inventory and level system with the complexity of a spoon and an art style a 4 year old designed.

[Vandicus]

DinoSteve wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...

I'd also like to ask him for a source on his assertion that DA2 DLC sold poorly. But honestly, we both know he doesn't have a source and is just spouting hyperbole.

I don't need one, they stopped making DLC for it, because there was no point. Origins had 5 I think story DlC's, Dragon Age had 2.

I would argue that Origins had 6 and DA 2 had 3. Although if one were to disregard "campaigns" and companion dlc, they would both have 2. If you included companion DLC they'd both have 3.

They stopped working on DA2 dlc to work on DA3 so that it would have a longer development cycle. Perhaps if they had spent the time used for DA:O dlc and Awakening on DA2, DA 2 would've been more to your liking.

I am personally not a big fan of the whole DLC model. Affordability wise it doesn't bother me at all, but I'd rather just have everything in the game when I get it, rather than having to go back and do something. 

[Plaintiff]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Let's put it in reverse, shall we?

If a reviewer you trusted said that a videogame was utterly crap in every single respect (gameplay, storyline, soundtrack, visuals, etc), but that the ending was good, would you believe them? Would you buy the game? Would you sit through the possibly 60+ hours of complete drivel, time that you can never get back, for the sake of those last fifteen minutes? Would the awesome ending magically undo the fact that you just spent nearly three day's worth of time wanting to jam a corkscrew through your eye?

If it's a reviewer I generally agree with and trust, why wouldn't I believe that the game has a good ending? And how is that at all relevant?
If a stand-alone game that's crap in every regard until the ending came along, would I buy it? Well, let's ignore the fact that if the story is crap until that point then the ending couldn't be good because you wouldn't care. But even if somehow, through some dark, mystical art some company figured out how to make me care about the ending of a lousy story I would not buy that game. Why? I don't want to invest many hours for a small pay off.
Now let's relate this to Mass Effect. I put hundreds of hours into the franchise before ME3. That's a substantial investment of time, so I expect a substantial pay off. Then Mass Effect 3 comes along, and almost from the start I do not enjoy it. I completely disagree that the game is amazing until the last 15 minutes.

What pay off does Bioware owe you? If you enjoyed the hundreds of hours of entertainment that you put it into the earlier games, then you got what you paid for. How does the ending undo the fact that you enjoyed the previous two games?

I haven't played any Mass Effect games, I don't know if 3 sucks or not, but that's not my point.

It's relevant because you're claiming a reviewer cannot give an honest opinion without "completing" the game, that if a "good" game has a "bad" ending, then the entire game, and thus the reviewer's opinion, is discredited. But then you say that the same does not apply in reverse, that a fantastic ending does not redeem an otherwise awful game. The "ending" of a game is only a fraction of the story, which is in turn only a fraction of the whole product. Reviewers also have to talk about gameplay, visuals, things that will remain constant, regardless of how the game's story ends.

Further, when do you consider a game to be "complete"? As I understand it, the content of Mass Effect 3 is altered based on decisions made in the first two games. Does the reviewer have to play through the third game multiple times, with imports from the previous installments that cover every eventuality? How does a reviewer "complete" Skyrim, or any other game which could potentially be played indefinitely? Is the main story campaign sufficient? Do they have to do some of the sidequests? All of the sidequests? Max out their character? Play a character of every race? Where are the goalposts?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 21 septembre 2012 - 03:09 .

[Vandicus]

DinoSteve wrote...


No I'm of the opinion that a review of game which people will use in there judgment of whether or not to buy the game must be accurate, it should list all the negatives and positives of that game and it should be critical, the review for Dragon Age 2 when it came out did none of those things. It had nothing but praise for a game with reused areas and battle, inventory and level system with the complexity of a spoon and an art style a 4 year old designed.

A review must be accurate? It is by definition a personal opinion. Non-professionals do reviews all the time, there are websites for customer reviews.

Also you're holding another person's evaluation to your own personal standard. 

Dragon Age Origins had major flaws as well, yet its reviews largely ignored those. Were you as upset at those reviews? Were you even upset when the advertised dark fantasy rpg turned out to be not dark at all?

[Conduit0]

DinoSteve wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...

I'd also like to ask him for a source on his assertion that DA2 DLC sold poorly. But honestly, we both know he doesn't have a source and is just spouting hyperbole.

I don't need one, they stopped making DLC for it, because there was no point. Origins had 5 I think story DlC's, Dragon Age had 2.

And those 5 story DLC amount to less total content than DA2's 2 DLC.

[Vandicus]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Finally you make it perfectly clear. Your argument is a semantic one. 

Also, you try TWICE in that post to put words into my mouths. 

The point from Chris's post I agree with

"
B. Reviewers are typically not delivering reviews based on bribery or financial shenanigans. "

Which you quoted, makes it clear that I think in general that the reviewers are honest in their opinions. Nowhere did I suggest that people should substitute a reviewer's opinion for their own and buy something on someone else's say so. In fact I personally never buy based on reviews. Its not that I don't think the reviewers like/dislike a game, its that I understand their preferences are not the same as mine.

I'm also unsure as to why you're bringing publications into this, unless you're talking about publications that do reviews. In general, publications such as newspapers are allegedy reporting facts, while reviews openly state that their views are a matter of opinion. 

Someone tells me that he loves hot dogs. He has stock in a hot dog company. Should I therefore believe that he is lying to me about his own personal opinion. 

Just saying that I'm arguing semantics doesn't make what Chris said true or any less false. You're picking part of what he said and running with that while ignoring the rest.
And what the hell are you talking about? Publications are not just newspapers. Publications are anything that's published.

Do you understand the meaning of arguing semantics? That's when a person takes a statement overly literally in order to come up with a conflicting point of view. 

Yes, what Chris said is false, in the literal sense. What he meant is true. Attempting to attack a statement on the basis that it is overly absolute, when the intent was not to be absolute, is silly. 

Also your statement of publications is ambiguous. What in the hells are you referring to? Games have publishers, do they fall under that statement? Publications of opinion by no means have to be believed(as you claim that I've stated). Publications of alleged facts by no means have to be believed. I just tried to address what you said about publications as though it wasn't another attempt to put words into my mouth.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Vandicus wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...


No I'm of the opinion that a review of game which people will use in there judgment of whether or not to buy the game must be accurate, it should list all the negatives and positives of that game and it should be critical, the review for Dragon Age 2 when it came out did none of those things. It had nothing but praise for a game with reused areas and battle, inventory and level system with the complexity of a spoon and an art style a 4 year old designed.

A review must be accurate? It is by definition a personal opinion. Non-professionals do reviews all the time, there are websites for customer reviews.

Also you're holding another person's evaluation to your own personal standard. 

Dragon Age Origins had major flaws as well, yet its reviews largely ignored those. Were you as upset at those reviews? Were you even upset when the advertised dark fantasy rpg turned out to be not dark at all?

Not really didn't read those, it was recommended to be by a friend.

All I'm saying is that if you are reviewing games your personal opinion should by kept to a minimum, if you review a game it should be critical and list positives and negatives, none of the DA2 reviews did that. All they had to say was positives things. At best if I was to rate DAO and DA2, I'd give Origins an eight and DA2 a six.

[Realmzmaster]

Conduit0 wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

And yet Origins is still out selling Dragon Age 2 and is more expensive. Surely that is not because of people giving out about it on the internet. Hell I'd put money on it that DA2 only sold so much because people thought it was going to be like Origins.

So people can't like DA2 because more people like DA:O? 

Yep, a lot of DA2 sales were from Origins fans expecting Origins 2, what of it?

High sales numbers doesn't mean a good game nor does it mean people will like the game.

Conversely, relatively lower sales numbers(they're not low, just lower, and it hasn't been out as long) do not mean that a game is bad nor does it mean people will dislike the game.

I love when people use that excuse, it makes me laugh, granted a crap or tired game (looking at you cod) can shift big numbers on its initial release, but eventually if the game is ****, it will stop shifting units and it won't be able to shift DLC like DA2.

So a reviewer or any other person can't like DA2 more than DA:O. Guess you believe I don't exist then. 

You yourself point out an example of a game that many might consider bad or uninspired game(from our PoV) still sells very well, if not better than before. CoD will soon be on its 9th iteration, and doesn't show signs of slowing down. Likewise with Madden NFL(although Madden NFL has an exclusivity contract). 

Seriously, is it so hard to believe that people enjoy the game even though you dislike it?

I'd also like to ask him for a source on his assertion that DA2 DLC sold poorly. But honestly, we both know he doesn't have a source and is just spouting hyperbole.

I do believe that it was stated on this forum by Alan, David, John and Mike that DLC sales were good. They stated that it was a hard decision to pull the plug on the expansion and dlc to focus on DA3. I will have to go and dig up those posts.