164 réponses à ce sujet

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Realmzmaster wrote...

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.

I hope no ever tells you to stick your had in the fire. If the DLC was selling they'd still be making it, look how much dlc Origins had, and they were supposedly working in DA2 at the same time.

[Darth Death]

DinoSteve wrote...

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.

I understand what you're saying & I agree, but I think this debate is getting nowhere. 

[Vandicus]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

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.

Several reviews for games made by the company he works for are dishonest. It doesn't matter what the intent was, because what he said was simply untrue. What he's saying is not impartial or reliable.

I assume the he in question is Chris Priestly. Bioware and EA don't review games.

It doesn't matter what the intent of the statement you just made was, because what you just said was simply untrue. What you're saying is not impartial or reliable.

Now do you understand that attacking people on a semantic basis or on a misspeak basis has no meaning? Intent of statement is what matters, not the literal statement itself. Accidental incorrectness in speech or text is not a valid basis for dismissing the intent of a statement.

What this amounts to is you claiming that Chris is not an impartial or reliable source because he made an absolute statement that only holds true in most cases rather than all. This is a poorly devised attack on a person's character. 

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

All right since the arguement is going nowhere I'm gonna liave this here

[Plaintiff]

DinoSteve wrote...
All I'm saying is that if you are reviewing games your personal opinion should by kept to a minimum

Reviews are personal opinion. That is all they are. When a review doesn't have personal opinion, it reads like this:




































There. What do you think? Was it any good?

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Plaintiff wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...
All I'm saying is that if you are reviewing games your personal opinion should by kept to a minimum

Reviews are personal opinion. That is all they are. When a review doesn't have personal opinion, it reads like this:




































There. What do you think? Was it any good?

Please don't act foolishly, you can review something quite easily listing all its merits and demerits, while keeping your personal opinion to a minimum. Lets take ME3 for instance not one reviewer stated that the ending wasn't what bioware stated it was going to be, not one said the story becomes convoluted near the end and not one stated that MP effects the SP experience.

[Joy Divison]

Plaintiff wrote...

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...

That's just crazy talk.  You're so desperate to make a point you're just being nonsensical.

[Vandicus]

DinoSteve wrote...



Please don't act foolishly, you can review something quite easily listing all its merits and demerits, while keeping your personal opinion to a minimum. Lets take ME3 for instance not one reviewer stated that the ending wasn't what bioware stated it was going to be, not one said the story becomes convoluted near the end and not one stated that MP effects the SP experience.

Was combat a merit or demerit in DA2?

Was the art style a merit or demerit in DA2?

Was the plot a merit or demerit in DA2?

There are at least two opposite viewpoints on each of these held by large amounts of people. These are not things that can objectively be stated. Most aspects of a video game will appeal to some people and not appeal to others. It is therefore impossible to objectively claim that features of a game can be declared merits or demerits impartially. Certain things, like bugs or recycled environment can be put onto a merit or demerit scale, but that's because they're not subject to opinion. I personally disliked ME3's ending immensely but it is another thing that some people can like and others can dislike. I doubt that any of the reviewers played the entire game before it released though. As they probably didn't play through the game entirely before their review, let alone the 4-5 required in order to verify that MP is necessary and to realize that the ending selection is quite limited, they can't exactly be expected to comment on it.

[Vandicus]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

Several reviews for games made by the company he works for are dishonest. It doesn't matter what the intent was, because what he said was simply untrue. What he's saying is not impartial or reliable.

I assume the he in question is Chris Priestly. Bioware and EA don't review games.

It doesn't matter what the intent of the statement you just made was, because what you just said was simply untrue. What you're saying is not impartial or reliable.

Now do you understand that attacking people on a semantic basis or on a misspeak basis has no meaning? Intent of statement is what matters, not the literal statement itself. Accidental incorrectness in speech or text is not a valid basis for dismissing the intent of a statement.

What this amounts to is you claiming that Chris is not an impartial or reliable source because he made an absolute statement that only holds true in most cases rather than all. This is a poorly devised attack on a person's character. 

OK, I get it now. You're not bright. 

Oooh ad homined attacks from someone on the internet. That really hurts bro. I'm like, totally crushed by this and this shows how much smarter and more mature you are. I mean you really drove your points home there. 

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Joy Divison wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

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...

That's just crazy talk.  You're so desperate to make a point you're just being nonsensical.

This

A game for me is only good because of its replay value, mass effect 3's original ending took that away from me, I don't want to replay it, it has left a bad taste in my mouth. Not only that it takes away the joy I use to get from replaying ME1 + 2

[Plaintiff]

Joy Divison wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

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...

That's just crazy talk.  You're so desperate to make a point you're just being nonsensical.

No, the insanely overblown levels of butthurt are nonsensical.

I put the same question to you: does a fantastic ending redeem a game that you consider to otherwise be terribad in every respect? If not, then why does a bad ending retroactively turn a previously awesome game into a pile of crap?

Please try to employ some semblance of logic.

[Vandicus]

Joy Divison wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

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...

That's just crazy talk.  You're so desperate to make a point you're just being nonsensical.

Taken out of context. Read his entire point and you'll realize that it is in the framework of a review. A review, imo, should not determine a game's score based on a single aspect. It may effect the score, but it should not be the sole determinant of the score. If the reviewer were to arbitrarily take 5 minutes from the game(in this case the ending) and base his review on it, he might as well arbitrarily take the 5 minutes from Tuchanka with Mordin instead. A review in general should be on the work as a whole, not fixated on one particular issue. 

[David Gaider]

Okay, the levels of personal attacks and rude behavior in this thread are really over the top. Closing this down and handing out some bans. Suggest resisting the urge in the future, or they will become permanent.