588 réponses à ce sujet

[Siegdrifa]

themikefest wrote...

I read the article and he's entilted to his opinion.

I enjoyed DA2 with Jo Wyatt being the voice of femhawke.

As I posted in a similiar thread the only things that concern me is the story and characters. If they are ok, then I know I will be replaying the game a lot.

Ah, so... Joanna Wyatt was her name... I totaly loved her voice... she sounded like a mermaid to my hears (BSN, you are welcome to laught at me).

Bioware / BSN, what was the name of the actress in DAO that made the "sultry" female voice of our PC?
Because to me she sounded like the same kind of voice, so i was really thrilled when i played DA2 fem Hawke; to have the PC fully voiced with this kind of classy / sweet / delicate / feminine voice (okay, laught at me again if you want).
So... i wouldn't mine suggesting her (the woman who did the "sultry" voice) for DA3 fem PC, since i doubt Jo Wyatt could do it as she already did Fem Hawke... but may be Bioware would like to use a different type from DA2 PC voices to avoid redundancy.

[syllogi]

Siegdrifa wrote...

Bioware / BSN, what was the name of the actress in DAO that made the "sultry" female voice of our PC?
Because to me she sounded like the same kind of voice, so i was really thrilled when i played DA2 fem Hawke; to have the PC fully voiced with this kind of classy / sweet / delicate / feminine voice (okay, laught at me again if you want).
So... i wouldn't mine suggesting her (the woman who did the "sultry" voice) for DA3 fem PC, since i doubt Jo Wyatt could do it as she already did Fem Hawke... but may be Bioware would like to use a different type from DA2 PC voices to avoid redundancy.

You probably mean Kath Soucie, who has worked with Bioware for a long time, I'd be very satisfied with her as the female player character.  

[bleetman]

syllogi wrote...

You probably mean Kath Soucie, who has worked with Bioware for a long time, I'd be very satisfied with her as the female player character.  

Hmm.

Star Wars: The Old Republic
(Video Game)
Smuggler Female
(voice)

D:

Yes please. More of her.

Modifié par bleetman, 11 février 2013 - 03:15 .

[Siegdrifa]

syllogi wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

Bioware / BSN, what was the name of the actress in DAO that made the "sultry" female voice of our PC?
Because to me she sounded like the same kind of voice, so i was really thrilled when i played DA2 fem Hawke; to have the PC fully voiced with this kind of classy / sweet / delicate / feminine voice (okay, laught at me again if you want).
So... i wouldn't mine suggesting her (the woman who did the "sultry" voice) for DA3 fem PC, since i doubt Jo Wyatt could do it as she already did Fem Hawke... but may be Bioware would like to use a different type from DA2 PC voices to avoid redundancy.

You probably mean Kath Soucie, who has worked with Bioware for a long time, I'd be very satisfied with her as the female player character.  

Ah, thanks a lot !!!
I just did a quick search on youtube, i found an interview of her .... damn that voice of her is outstanding.
I would love a fully voiced PC wit her voice.


Putting the link to the interview for those who would like to hear.

[FodoSatoru]

Siegdrifa wrote...

Ah, so... Joanna Wyatt was her name... I totaly loved her voice... she sounded like a mermaid to my hears (BSN, you are welcome to laught at me).

Seconded. I played a second time through DA2 as FemHawke and enjoyed her voice immensely. Soft, feminine, melodic.

[AmstradHero]

syllogi wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...
The next time that a Bioware employee grumbles about the toxic environment on these forums, they ought to remember that they seem all too happy to set that tone when directed at someone else. Remember this when DA3 comes out.

This particular article, however, isn't well researched at all, and it's an opinion piece.  Sorry, but we're not discussing a critic like Pauline Kael or Andre Bazin.  I'm not even sure this writer has even finished playing either game.  So, in my view, it's not rude or dismissive for a Bioware employee to see this article as not more worthy than fan feedback.

Couldn't agree more. The fact is that if the journalist wanted to write something that people should actually heed, it shouldn't be phrased in the tone of this article, which is "DA2 sucked! DA3 should be more like TW2!"  That's the kind of poorly researched and argued drivel I expect to see from people whinging on forums. For someone to get paid to write that is poor, even as a blatant opinion piece. It is poorly researched, provides little justification for its claims (some of which aren't accurate), and presents personal opinion as "design flaws". It's an appalling article, and there's no reason that the author shouldn't be called on it.

Part of the problem here is that there is cadre of TW1/TW2 supporters who insist on declaring how awful DAO/DA2 are, yet can't take a shred of criticism for their beloved games. This article reeks of that unwavering bias, which is just another reason as to why it's so terrible. To see the difference, check out his "What We Want to See in The Witcher 3" article, which by comparison can't stop talking about how great The Witcher is... it comes across as "well, The Witcher 2's problem is that it was too awesome." Hardly professional.

For the record, I loved DAO, but thought DA2 suffered some serious design flaws.  Conversely, I detested TW1 and found it poorly designed, with terrible pacing, mediocre writing, and so desperate to be mature that it came across as though it had been written by an adolescent trying to be mature by throwing in swearing and sex wherever possible. That said, I'm currently playing TW2 and finding it a significant breath of fresh air compared to the first game.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 11 février 2013 - 05:39 .

[Paul E Dangerously]

Gaming "journalism" isn't reliable, but on the flip side neither are fan reviews.

Metacritic needs to be put down like Old Yeller.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Cimeas wrote...

No.  TW2 (and Game of Thrones) are sexist because all the sex, heck even some of the **rape** is made, described and depicted to be attractive/a turn on to guys.  And I don't say that as some ugly old troll of a 'feminist', I say that as your average guy.   

TW SPOILERS****





You're nuts. If you think that young elven woman being raped, impregnated and consequently killing herself in TW2 was intended as some kind of turn on, you're tastes are ****ed up.

Hell, Ves's rape was put in the game solely to make you think less of Henselt; in turn making the decision to keep him alive even harder.

But i'm sure you don't even know whaty i'm talking about, because you haven't even played the bloody game, like so many judgmental fanboys here.

[Firky]

AmstradHero wrote...

For someone to get paid to write that is poor, even as a blatant opinion piece. It is poorly researched, provides little justification for its claims (some of which aren't accurate), and presents personal opinion as "design flaws". It's an appalling article, and there's no reason that the author shouldn't be called on it.

I have to admit to not liking games critique (in general) using "flaws." (I'm sure I've used it, though, just as I know I've used "Indie gem" but won't again, after it was pointed out that it can sound a bit condescending - especially when Indies are generally amazing.) I think, to me, "flaws" is too black and white.

Like, you could make a case for mages not being recognised while performing magic in Kirkwall as something that makes no sense. (Or, probably, ludonarrative dissonance.) It could certainly be bad for someone's immersion. Is it a flaw? Maybe. Or, just one of those many moments in games that people are expected to make a leap of faith about gameplay. A fairly obvious one, but still. (I don't know. just raising questions.)

[Kidd]

AmstradHero wrote...

Couldn't agree more. The fact is that if the journalist wanted to write something that people should actually heed, it shouldn't be phrased in the tone of this article, which is "DA2 sucked! DA3 should be more like TW2!"  That's the kind of poorly researched and argued drivel I expect to see from people whinging on forums.

Indeed. I've seen BSN people who refuse to even consider that DA2 has any piece of content worth salvaging argue for their points better.

[AmstradHero]

Firky: You do raise an interesting point re defining a "flaw". On my blog I'll come out and identify issues that I think are poor design, but then I'll explain why that is so in the context of the game an its experience. This article doesn't really do that, but just seems to expect people to assume that he is correct. I agree that there is a bit of a story disconnect regarding Hawke's status if a mage, particularly in the second chapter of the game. On the other hand, the writer's suggestion that the player should succumb to demons from the fade demonstrates a significantly lack of understanding of the lore... or as seems more likely, hyperbole to support a flimsy argument.

The thing is that the article basically starts of saying "Witcher 2 is so much better than DA2", then lists a whole bunch of things that are:
a) Subjective
Not present in The Witcher 2.

The latter is poor journalism due to bias, the former is poor journalism by not remaining objective. I have no problem with it being an opinion piece, but there a numerous things that pop out to me: "Free Marches was just like Ferelden", "Deep Roads Are Boring", "I can't customise my character enough" (You mean, like being given a protagonist with one set background and personality... like Geralt?), "I didn't like the story", "Meters to measure status with your friends are childish", "I hate a voiced protagonist" (Say, doesn't The Witcher have a voiced protagonist?)... These are all preference arguments, and almost all of them are not backed up with any supporting argument.

Not only are the measures that are being applied to judge how good or bad the game is completely and utterly subjective, they're being applied inconsistently across the two games the author is repeatedly comparing.

PS I typically don't like using the term "Indie" at all to describe a game, as I consider the manner of publication to be irrelevant.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Gaming "journalism" isn't reliable, but on the flip side neither are fan reviews.

Metacritic needs to be put down like Old Yeller.

Metacritic is fine. It's sites like PC Gamer and IGN that hurt the reputation of other sites that get put in the same column.

[imbs]

AmstradHero wrote...

Firky: You do raise an interesting point re defining a "flaw". On my blog I'll come out and identify issues that I think are poor design, but then I'll explain why that is so in the context of the game an its experience. This article doesn't really do that, but just seems to expect people to assume that he is correct. I agree that there is a bit of a story disconnect regarding Hawke's status if a mage, particularly in the second chapter of the game. On the other hand, the writer's suggestion that the player should succumb to demons from the fade demonstrates a significantly lack of understanding of the lore... or as seems more likely, hyperbole to support a flimsy argument.

The thing is that the article basically starts of saying "Witcher 2 is so much better than DA2", then lists a whole bunch of things that are:
a) Subjective
Not present in The Witcher 2.

The latter is poor journalism due to bias, the former is poor journalism by not remaining objective. I have no problem with it being an opinion piece, but there a numerous things that pop out to me: "Free Marches was just like Ferelden", "Deep Roads Are Boring", "I can't customise my character enough" (You mean, like being given a protagonist with one set background and personality... like Geralt?), "I didn't like the story", "Meters to measure status with your friends are childish", "I hate a voiced protagonist" (Say, doesn't The Witcher have a voiced protagonist?)... These are all preference arguments, and almost all of them are not backed up with any supporting argument.

Not only are the measures that are being applied to judge how good or bad the game is completely and utterly subjective, they're being applied inconsistently across the two games the author is repeatedly comparing.

PS I typically don't like using the term "Indie" at all to describe a game, as I consider the manner of publication to be irrelevant.

This is actually a very good post, and it better explains the problems with the article than any other posts in this thread really, n that includes the devys.

I agree with you on the Indie thing, too. Personally speaking few years back I pretty much avoided games labeled with it like the plague. Then I tried amnesia. let's just say I felt pretty badly for hatin on them Indies just for being branded indies and I just hate the term nowadays.

[Firky]

I think, in my context, we use the term Indie to just group together some common characteristics players could generally expect away from the larger publishers, like smaller budget presentation etc. But, I've personally never seen the term as negative. The magazine gave GOTY to Day Z, for goodness sakes. (I voted for FTL.) With Kickstarter and various things, though, I think there's definitely an ongoing case for examining its use.

I can totally see what you're saying about the article Amstrad. It's just, I can kind of see the realities in the context of writing that kind of stuff; time, having to make a living and not always being really au fait on every game. Good research is always good. But, sometimes you can't foresee what you're mistaking or missing or misunderstanding. Fans always know more, in my experience.

(I was called out on a SimCity interview for not asking the producer about the fact that you can't save the game in single player mode because of the way regions work for the multiplayer aspect. It had just never crossed my mind that you wouldn't be able to save. I was too busy obsessing over waterpipes.)

(PS. Someone earlier was saying - how would you like someone thinking they could do your job better? Wow, if you think you can do it better, research outlets and pitch them articles. Make sure you are humble, never miss a deadline and don't make spelling and grammatical errors. It's not rocket science. I make an OK supplemental income just from work related to RPGs, strategy and adventure games. And, without games as part of my life I'd just die, so I kind of have to, to keep my husband happy. )

Modifié par Firky, 11 février 2013 - 10:42 .

[Paul E Dangerously]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Gaming "journalism" isn't reliable, but on the flip side neither are fan reviews.

Metacritic needs to be put down like Old Yeller.

Metacritic is fine. It's sites like PC Gamer and IGN that hurt the reputation of other sites that get put in the same column.

You have taken a look at the user reviews side of Metacritic, haven't you? How about the fact a "low" Metacritic score can cost companies thousands of dollars, or ensure a person can't get a job?

[AmstradHero]

Firky: Oh, I can understand how it could happen, and I understand how providing full evidence would be difficult given word budgets. Personally, I'd prefer a shorter article with fewer points than a longer one with errors - I think that's part of where this article goes wrong.

I have contemplated pitching articles for sites - particularly as there are a few people out there that just irk me every time I hear or read them. Jim Sterling is the one that comes to mind most readily as someone who aims for the lowest possible fruit and tries to be deliberately controversial but so frequently fails to provide anything more than a ridiculously superficial analysis of a topic or a game. When my current modding commitments are finished, I may well look at this more seriously - I agree there is a bit of "put up or shut up" - I feel I have the knowledge and skills to do it.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 11 février 2013 - 11:00 .

[Firky]

Goodness, come and join us. Please. And your mod is more than welcome somewhere, too. Even if I pitch it pro bono for the site.

On word budgets. That's one thing I really do enjoy about print. I tend to ramble endlessly, in general, so having a budget makes you very discerning.(Edit: Or, on your point - should make one discerning. )

Modifié par Firky, 11 février 2013 - 11:02 .

[Sejborg]

Blair Brown wrote...

My problem with it as well was the gaffes, and lack of research. ie. "going forward they should have playable races" (even though its alraedy been stated the game is human only.)

Obviously not all think that human only is the right direction to take for the franchise.

That you do or intend to do something, doesn't mean that everyone have to agree with that decision you know. <_<

[Cyberarmy]

Quality, non repetive gameplay, meaningful choices.
Better class options, better combat mechanics, better loot, better UI, better view.

And now the imposible part, no DLC talk before release.

[AmstradHero]

Cyberarmy wrote...

Quality, non repetive gameplay, meaningful choices.
Better class options, better combat mechanics, better loot, better UI, better view.

And now the imposible part, no DLC talk before release.

This is classic fan feedback:  "Make it better. Make it better quality. Make it more meaningful."

It means absolutely nothing and offers zero value to the developers.

Imagine going to a fast food store and saying "I want a better burger."  What are they supposed to take from that? Do you want a bigger chunk of meat? Do you want bacon added? Do you actually want chicken instead? Do you want a different sauce? 

I'm sorry, but it's simply not helpful or useful feedback.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 11 février 2013 - 01:18 .

[Mantaal]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Gaming "journalism" isn't reliable, but on the flip side neither are fan reviews.

Metacritic needs to be put down like Old Yeller.

Metacritic is fine. It's sites like PC Gamer and IGN that hurt the reputation of other sites that get put in the same column.

You have taken a look at the user reviews side of Metacritic, haven't you? How about the fact a "low" Metacritic score can cost companies thousands of dollars, or ensure a person can't get a job?

I think Metacritc is fine too. If you make a crap game you get low ratings, if you make a good game you get high ratings. Thats the whole point of this site. 
I dont buy games so peoples have a job. I buy them because i want to play them and have fun. 

The good thing on Metactitic is the user Critics. You cant buy them like the Game magazines. 
Every game i bought myselve since i know Metacritic is almost refecting my personal ratings about the game with the user Rating there.
4.2 seems more then fair for DA2. 8.4 seems fine for DA:O, 8.5 for Skyrim and 8.3 for TW2 reflects my ratings also. 

[Silverfox4]

Cyberarmy wrote...

Quality, non repetive gameplay, meaningful choices.
Better class options, better combat mechanics, better loot, better UI, better view.

And now the imposible part, no DLC talk before release.

I know!  It's crazy to me there are gamers that want day 1 DLC. 

For me its DAO>TW2>TW1>DA2.  To whom ever posted before that there is some form of rivalry between the two.  There isn't for me.  DAO will always be sauce because it was "MY" story.  For the Witcher story, I am playing someone elses story.  The Witcher 2 was well done and had a decent story, while DA2 was not well done and had a simple gopher story.  They both came out within a short time of each other, so with only a few rpgs being released now, of course they are going to be compared.

[imbs]

Mantaal wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Gaming "journalism" isn't reliable, but on the flip side neither are fan reviews.

Metacritic needs to be put down like Old Yeller.

Metacritic is fine. It's sites like PC Gamer and IGN that hurt the reputation of other sites that get put in the same column.

You have taken a look at the user reviews side of Metacritic, haven't you? How about the fact a "low" Metacritic score can cost companies thousands of dollars, or ensure a person can't get a job?

I think Metacritc is fine too. If you make a crap game you get low ratings, if you make a good game you get high ratings. Thats the whole point of this site. 
I dont buy games so peoples have a job. I buy them because i want to play them and have fun. 

The good thing on Metactitic is the user Critics. You cant buy them like the Game magazines. 
Every game i bought myselve since i know Metacritic is almost refecting my personal ratings about the game with the user Rating there.
4.2 seems more then fair for DA2. 8.4 seems fine for DA:O, 8.5 for Skyrim and 8.3 for TW2 reflects my ratings also. 

Indeed. User scores do tend to be a better reflection than the actual critic-scores. It's a shame that it gets abused like it does sometimes. People deliberately deflating ratings of certain games etc. For example I believe BF fans rallied together to make sure COD got a terrible user metacritic score. fun.

[Wulfram]

The User scores on metacritic always seem pretty useless to me, they're too often hi-jacked by a campaign. The professional metacritic scores tend to at least be comparable with each other, at least as long as you remember their biases - they want strong graphics and cinematics and slick gameplay that's fairly easy to pick up, they don't care so much about actual roleplaying or the story.

[Das Tentakel]

imbs wrote...

Mantaal wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Gaming "journalism" isn't reliable, but on the flip side neither are fan reviews.

Metacritic needs to be put down like Old Yeller.

Metacritic is fine. It's sites like PC Gamer and IGN that hurt the reputation of other sites that get put in the same column.

You have taken a look at the user reviews side of Metacritic, haven't you? How about the fact a "low" Metacritic score can cost companies thousands of dollars, or ensure a person can't get a job?

I think Metacritc is fine too. If you make a crap game you get low ratings, if you make a good game you get high ratings. Thats the whole point of this site. 
I dont buy games so peoples have a job. I buy them because i want to play them and have fun. 

The good thing on Metactitic is the user Critics. You cant buy them like the Game magazines. 
Every game i bought myselve since i know Metacritic is almost refecting my personal ratings about the game with the user Rating there.
4.2 seems more then fair for DA2. 8.4 seems fine for DA:O, 8.5 for Skyrim and 8.3 for TW2 reflects my ratings also. 

Indeed. User scores do tend to be a better reflection than the actual critic-scores. It's a shame that it gets abused like it does sometimes. People deliberately deflating ratings of certain games etc. For example I believe BF fans rallied together to make sure COD got a terrible user metacritic score. fun.

I think one can conclude that the user ratings have become useless as a quality indicator these days, because of the manipulation by enraged fans, franchise haters etc.

One thing I’ve been noticing about Metacritic lately is that they seem to miss critical professional reviews a lot, though admittedly many of those are from Europe, including some from pretty big and influential sites.
I also understand professional reviews are weighted, so the system is, erm, somewhat ‘managed’ and does not represent a ‘true average’ of all professional reviews.
That doesn’t mean that all Metacritic averages have to be ‘translated downward’ by us gamers, but some games tend to be received more favourably by the later, (sometimes more thorough) reviewers, or there may be differences between European and American reviewers reflecting differences between the respective gaming populations.
Big American sites and magazines appear to have an unduly great influence on the average. <_<