588 réponses à ce sujet

[dheer]

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.)

Having announced that you're going human only for the protagonist does not invalidate his wants for the next game.

"Going forward they should have playable races" is something I agree with and the decision by the team to not go in that direction was the first piece of disappointing news I'd heard about DA3. It doesn't make the game an automatic no buy, but it is a con on my mental list of features for it.

[Cyberarmy]

AmstradHero wrote...

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.

And i'm sorry for our lost time after giving pages of useful, helpful, informiative feedback/critic for Dragon Age: Origins, before DA2 and Mass Effect 3. Which made zero effect on that games it seems, so why bother.

I have zero hope for DA3, I was just passing by and repeated meself, I'm sorry if my lack of interest to write a wider, useful "feedback" bothered you.

[Siegdrifa]

Baldsake wrote...

How does it feel, BSN?

Knowing that ever since DAO, there hasn't been a single good game from BioWare? .

My eyes feel like reading BS.

[Kidd]

Baldsake wrote...

the Witcher series is made by a company with a hundred times smaller budget

gog.com brings in quite a bit of money. EA spreads their Origin money across all studios, whereas CDPR gets to enjoy all of the gog money themselves.

That ought to be an objective view of the situation, I believe. Anecdotally, I've given them way more money than EA even though I have multiple copies of several BioWare games and without touching TW2.

[Mantaal]

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.

Hey if you ****** off your Fans and they give you a bad score, you get a bad score. Thats just natural. And i dont think its possible to get enaugh peoples together in something like this to make it matter. Try to make the DA2 userscore good with the DA2 fans here.. you will see it will not work. Those who care already did give it a good score. 
Try a discussion on every game forum and you will get 11 opinions out of 10 Peoples. You really thing those peoples could stick together and raid Metacritic with so many peoples? The CoD Black Ops 2 score isnt that great from officials also.. you really wonder they got a low score by the users? 

Yeah there are lots of "10" and "0" at every game score but that doesnt effect the score really much. If all peoples would be more accurate they would not give a 0, they would rate with a 2,5 or something. And those 10s would be a 7,5 or 8,5 range. But after all its the same End score. 

[imbs]

Mantaal wrote...

Hey if you ****** off your Fans and they give you a bad score, you get a bad score. Thats just natural. And i dont think its possible to get enaugh peoples together in something like this to make it matter. Try to make the DA2 userscore good with the DA2 fans here.. you will see it will not work. Those who care already did give it a good score. 
Try a discussion on every game forum and you will get 11 opinions out of 10 Peoples. You really thing those peoples could stick together and raid Metacritic with so many peoples? The CoD Black Ops 2 score isnt that great from officials also.. you really wonder they got a low score by the users? 

Yeah there are lots of "10" and "0" at every game score but that doesnt effect the score really much. If all peoples would be more accurate they would not give a 0, they would rate with a 2,5 or something. And those 10s would be a 7,5 or 8,5 range. But after all its the same End score. 

I somewhat agree but sometimes it isn't quite as you say. In the example I pointed out, alot of it was people who had not played the game, fans of other games, people who don't like activision, deliberately spamming 0s to artificially deflate the score it recieved. I am not a COD player myself but that kind of practise does hamper the integrity of the system.

[Nerevar-as]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Baldsake wrote...

the Witcher series is made by a company with a hundred times smaller budget

gog.com brings in quite a bit of money. EA spreads their Origin money across all studios, whereas CDPR gets to enjoy all of the gog money themselves.

That ought to be an objective view of the situation, I believe. Anecdotally, I've given them way more money than EA even though I have multiple copies of several BioWare games and without touching TW2.

I doubt the companies who have the rights to the games allow them to keep all the money, no idea what the % is. But their parent company is quite big in eastern Europe AFAIK, and costs are also different. Their order of priorities seems to be better than BW´s though. It also helps that they don´t claim to want the COD crowd and all casuals, changing their games, losing fans along the way, and failing to get new ones in return.

[Siegdrifa]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Baldsake wrote...

the Witcher series is made by a company with a hundred times smaller budget

gog.com brings in quite a bit of money. EA spreads their Origin money across all studios, whereas CDPR gets to enjoy all of the gog money themselves.

That ought to be an objective view of the situation, I believe. Anecdotally, I've given them way more money than EA even though I have multiple copies of several BioWare games and without touching TW2.

Let's not forget that both country have a different economi, and if CDPR had to produce their game in Canada, their current budget would be not enought.

[Nerevar-as]

imbs wrote...

Mantaal wrote...

Hey if you ****** off your Fans and they give you a bad score, you get a bad score. Thats just natural. And i dont think its possible to get enaugh peoples together in something like this to make it matter. Try to make the DA2 userscore good with the DA2 fans here.. you will see it will not work. Those who care already did give it a good score. 
Try a discussion on every game forum and you will get 11 opinions out of 10 Peoples. You really thing those peoples could stick together and raid Metacritic with so many peoples? The CoD Black Ops 2 score isnt that great from officials also.. you really wonder they got a low score by the users? 

Yeah there are lots of "10" and "0" at every game score but that doesnt effect the score really much. If all peoples would be more accurate they would not give a 0, they would rate with a 2,5 or something. And those 10s would be a 7,5 or 8,5 range. But after all its the same End score. 

I somewhat agree but sometimes it isn't quite as you say. In the example I pointed out, alot of it was people who had not played the game, fans of other games, people who don't like activision, deliberately spamming 0s to artificially deflate the score it recieved. I am not a COD player myself but that kind of practise does hamper the integrity of the system.

What statistic does MC use anyway? Aritmethic medias can be easily biased, especially with the score bombing some people use. A statistic that represented the more common values given would probably be far closer to the truth.

[SparksMKII]

In all honesty I can't take that entire article seriously. All I see is a very long rant on how the writer lists his personal wishlist for DA3 and demands for EA/BW to make it so it only fits his demands and screw what everyone else wants (unless he speaks for the entire PC Gamer staff?) that somehow managed to get published in an article.

In other words:
I demand there not to be an OGB mention at all because I didn't do it and those who did can suck it which is what he's saying here. (somewhat generalizing here)

Modifié par SparksMKII, 11 février 2013 - 03:17 .

[Brockololly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
The problem I had with the article upon reading it were some of the gaffes.  Loghain's beard,

Which I don't see in the article? It looks like the author edited that and fixed that if you look in the comments section, he acknowledged that was a mistake.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
the strange stuff like "bad" British accents (that a genuine British accent is a "bad" accent reminds me of those that thought that an actual french speaking Corinne was a "bad french accent").

As others have said, Richard Cobbett being British , maybe has a better ear for that sort of thing. My issue with male Hawke was with how exaggerated and over the top he always seemed to be. And the British accent kind of accentuated that where regardless of how authentic his British accent, it felt very theatrical more often than not.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
IMO it's pretty indiscernable from other fan feedback.  It's just granted an extra degree of authenticity/exposure because it's a PC Gamer editorial.

Sure, but it doesn't invalidate the feedback either.

Blair Brown wrote...
This.

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.)

And where would anyone find that "human only" info besides developer Twitter messages and developer posts buried in this forum? The only "official" word we technically have about Dragon Age 3 is from Darrah's blog post where he confirmed the name and that its using a derivative of Frostbite 2.


Just because some feedback has the occassional factual gaffe doesn't invalidate the entire thing.

Karsciyin wrote...

This business with "Loghain is the obvious villain"... well, he's not a true 'villain'. He's not evil, he's paranoid.

And yet I thought Origins did a pretty terrible job at making Loghain not look like a total evil **** during Ostagar. All he needed was a tophat and mustache to deviously twirl as he pulled out of Ostagar, leaving everyone behind. Yes, it may well have made sense, but the manner in which that scene was presented in the game made Loghain look like a power hungry, opportunistic villain. Which is a shame because he is more than that, but the game presents him in a fairly one note fashion early on.

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. 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.

Please. Appalling? What do you expect? There are things called word counts in journalism. Cobbett regularly contributes to Rock, Paper, Shotgun which is a pretty damn good site and he's written some pretty good articles on Dragon Age and The WItcher in the past.

AmstradHero wrote...
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.

I don't think its a stretch to see that The WItcher 2 was generally received both critically from critics and from fans than Dragon Age 2 was. From that perspective, I think its reasonable to see that people looking forward to The WItcher 3 would be more optimistic and see it as needing less major overhauls. And from the POV of this author, he enjoyed TW2 while he thought DA2 had major issues. Seriously, I don't know how you can read that Witcher 3 article and act like its just saying the WItcher was "too awesome" when it points out quite a few shortcomings of The Witcher 2, just as the Dragon Age article points out shortcomings of DA2.

AmstradHero wrote...
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.

Come on. Its making the larger point that the Dragon Age games need to have the story mechanics more tightly integrated with the gameplay mechanics.

AmstradHero wrote...
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.

Enjoying The WItcher does not preclude one from wanting something different from Dragon Age. I enjoy The Witcher games, yet I'd like it if Dragon Age went the route of non voiced protagonist, like RIchard Cobbett mentions. You seem to miss that the author states he is fine with a set protagonist (like Geralt) having a voice, as that makes sense.  Yet when you can customize your character like Dragon Age, giving it a fixed voice presents a problem for some people. Origins established that a Dragon Age game can have a non voiced protagonist. BioWare changed that in Dragon Age 2. Its not an unreasonable request to want BioWare to go back to a non voiced protagonist, as long as they're going to keep offering the ability to customize the player character.

AmstradHero wrote...
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.

The author is rightfully comparing Dragon Age to other games. He also brings up Alpha Protocol in the article! And The Witcher! Because he views those games as doing certain things better than BIoWare has done in Dragon Age. Its an opinion piece, of course its going to be subjective.

Modifié par Brockololly, 11 février 2013 - 03:36 .

[zyntifox]

Wulfram wrote...

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.

I tend to look at metacritic and amazon to decide whether i'm making a purchase or not. Are there a lot of useless reviews with ratings of 0 and 10? Yes, but if you sort by "most helpful" you tend to get the more level-headed and objective reviews. Not perfect, but good enough.

[Allan Schumacher]

Which I don't see in the article? It looks like the author edited that and fixed that if you look in the comments section, he acknowledged that was a mistake.

It's still something I expect better of. It's easy to edit it after the fact when the throngs of hatemail start coming in pointing out your error.

As others have said, Richard Cobbett being British , maybe has a
better ear for that sort of thing. My issue with male Hawke was with how
exaggerated and over the top he always seemed to be. And the British
accent kind of accentuated that where regardless of how authentic his
British accent, it felt very theatrical more often than not.

If Richard Cobbet is British, then I hold his chastizing of a "bad British accent" even more against him.

Sure, but it doesn't invalidate the feedback either.

No, it just means I didn't get much out of it that I haven't already heard. In terms of its overall contribution, he's basically a fan that didn't care for DAO, prefers TW2, and just as the advantage of having a PC Gamer article to attach his views on to. Should I take his concerns any more than yours because he can post it with a PC Gamer sticker?

Just because some feedback has the occassional factual gaffe doesn't invalidate the entire thing.

No it doesn't, but it's going to make me lose interest really quickly.

Try giving a presentation in front of professionals and have your power point slides containing errors in it. People start toning out because they don't believe you know what you're talking about anymore.

I'm sorry if my feedback to the article offended you, but it's the gist of what I got from the article (which is, nothing I didn't already know). I'm not going to give it any additional consideration simply because he writes for PC Gamer and you're just a BSN poster.

It's a fan piece and it's what he would like to see in DA3.  I'll collate it with the other stuff other fans have put in as feedback.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 11 février 2013 - 04:44 .

[Allan Schumacher]

In another note:

Cleaned up some spam. Lets not have another thread derail into "The Witcher 2 is so awesome and I hate Bioware"

[Medhia Nox]

@Allan Schumacher: Since you're discussing expectations - being the owner of a retail business, I would have expected better customer service responses from nearly all gaming companies. Yet - I find their responses to most criticism reactionary and emotive.

If I stood in front of one of the people that keep my business open - and spoke to them the way I've seen many gaming company representatives speak to their customers - I'd be closing my doors.

It would seem - it is the nature of the industry to promote behavior which is otherwise unacceptable in the "real world". It is certainly the nature of the internet.

As a note - I'm not talking about your opinion on his opinion. Your commentary about expecting better simply seemed an apt segue in something that has personally surprised (and shocked and irritated me) about the gaming industry for some years.

That the target audience seems willing to accept it is equally fascinating - because I'm positive they'd react very different if the things I've read (Blizzard is particularly bad) as responses were said face to face.

[Enad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Which I don't see in the article? It looks like the author edited that and fixed that if you look in the comments section, he acknowledged that was a mistake.

It's still something I expect better of. It's easy to edit it after the fact when the throngs of hatemail start coming in pointing out your error.

Heh, I was the one who got him to fix that error! 

I found it pretty funny.

[CaptainBlackGold]

Not quite off topic here but certainly a tangent:

The issue of "Mature" games (in relation to DA and TW) keeps coming up with people complaining that showing bare breasts and sexual activity is hardly "mature." Others seem to be demanding more of both otherwise a game does not deserve the rating.

Since these complaints come up quite often, I suspect that people are talking past each other by committing the logical fallacy of "equivocation" or using the same word in different ways.

From what I understand, the term "MA" (for "mature") is not so much a description of the content (or the way it is handled), but the intended audience - that the content is intended to be viewed only by people past a certain age.

Whether said content is actually "mature" of course is irrelevant - in fact, it can be absolutely silly and the grossest kind of frat boy humor. The point is that such content is not intended for an "Immature" audience.

As I see it, the DA series is "restricted" to a "Mature" audience because of its themes, violence, etc. It does not have to have bare breasts and explicit sex to have content that is not appropriate for younger gamers.

I realize that nothing I have written above is going to change anyone's mind or the usage of the term "mature" but it is a slow Monday and I had to get it off my chest. Thanks for reading.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion...

[Fiddzz]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Allan Schumacher: Since you're discussing expectations - being the owner of a retail business, I would have expected better customer service responses from nearly all gaming companies. Yet - I find their responses to most criticism reactionary and emotive.

If I stood in front of one of the people that keep my business open - and spoke to them the way I've seen many gaming company representatives speak to their customers - I'd be closing my doors.

It would seem - it is the nature of the industry to promote behavior which is otherwise unacceptable in the "real world". It is certainly the nature of the internet.

As a note - I'm not talking about your opinion on his opinion. Your commentary about expecting better simply seemed an apt segue in something that has personally surprised (and shocked and irritated me) about the gaming industry for some years.

That the target audience seems willing to accept it is equally fascinating - because I'm positive they'd react very different if the things I've read (Blizzard is particularly bad) as responses were said face to face.

This is kind of off topic but thought I would chime in, I thought Allans response was apt, not negative not inciting anything, I felt the same when I read it, "this is an opinion piece that is right in line with what i've already been reading and hearing about on our forums/twitter for the last 5 months."  I added it to my list of pages/articles about "what people want" for DA3.  (I REALLY agree with Allan about when people miss facts, they tend to start loseing me)

As for your point, I see it kind of the other way, if people had to talk in person I don't think there would be "you should go die" bullying posts from people on the forums because they don't like a game.  (using Blizzard as the example, google Jay Wilson)

But alas that is niether here nor there.  Back on topic -> we listen to articles like this and put just as much weight into them as forum posts (well most.)  (the face that journalists and average gamers are all saying the same thing is actually pretty cool)  

We're listening, keep it coming.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Blair, I agree with the vast majority of your post, but saying that people would never say "I think you should go die" if they were face to face... well, I'm not sure if you've ever worked retail (like the poster who you were replying to said they do), especially during the holidays, but people are downright HOSTILE if you tick them off on any given day.

I think the difference may be that when you see someone going off on an employee, they are A) usually yelling at an employee who has no control over what issue the person is having and/or even if you agree with what the person is yelling about, you usually sympathize with the employee being berated. On the Internet, though, people are more likely to chime in, which introduces some serious issues of escalation, which where I think the majority of the problems stem from.

People aren't seen as yelling at a low-level cashier, but as yelling at the company in general, or the head developers who made it the way it is. They now HAVE the person responsible (or so they think, anyway) and they can vent at them and they will learn their lesson (again, or so they think).

Anyway, like I said, I agree with almost all of your post. But an angry retail customer can be just as crazy and rage-filled as any forumite I've seen.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 février 2013 - 07:22 .

[AmstradHero]

Brockololly wrote...
Please. Appalling? What do you expect? There are things called word counts in journalism. Cobbett regularly contributes to Rock, Paper, Shotgun which is a pretty damn good site and he's written some pretty good articles on Dragon Age and The WItcher in the past.

Having written some good articles doesn't mean that he always produces something good. Taken on its merits alone, even considering things like word counts, it's still a terrible article.

Brockololly wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
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.

I don't think its a stretch to see that The WItcher 2 was generally received both critically from critics and from fans than Dragon Age 2 was. From that perspective, I think its reasonable to see that people looking forward to The WItcher 3 would be more optimistic and see it as needing less major overhauls. And from the POV of this author, he enjoyed TW2 while he thought DA2 had major issues. Seriously, I don't know how you can read that Witcher 3 article and act like its just saying the WItcher was "too awesome" when it points out quite a few shortcomings of The Witcher 2, just as the Dragon Age article points out shortcomings of DA2.

Come on, you've got to admit that the tone of the two articles are completely different. He does lay the boot into DA2 every chance he gets, and any criticism of TW2 is very measured. Again, I don't want to turn this into another DA2/TW2 stoush, but the whole original article smacked of that to me.

Brockololly wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
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.

Come on. Its making the larger point that the Dragon Age games need to have the story mechanics more tightly integrated with the gameplay mechanics.

As I said, he had a point with the issue of mage Hawke. Outside of that, no. There's a certain amount of disconnect between lore and mechanics in EVERY RPG, it was just that it was pushed too far with Hawke being a mage in DA2, so therefore apparently anything that the author perceives as being a disconnect is immediately ZOMG BAD WRITING. Bollocks.

Brockololly wrote...
Enjoying The WItcher does not preclude one from wanting something different from Dragon Age. I enjoy The Witcher games, yet I'd like it if Dragon Age went the route of non voiced protagonist, like RIchard Cobbett mentions. You seem to miss that the author states he is fine with a set protagonist (like Geralt) having a voice, as that makes sense.  Yet when you can customize your character like Dragon Age, giving it a fixed voice presents a problem for some people. Origins established that a Dragon Age game can have a non voiced protagonist. BioWare changed that in Dragon Age 2. Its not an unreasonable request to want BioWare to go back to a non voiced protagonist, as long as they're going to keep offering the ability to customize the player character.

I agree that it's valid to want something different from the two games - but if you're going to constantly compare the two and use one as a yardstick as to why the other should be better, then you damn well ought to exclude those items where that comparison game doesn't have the feature you're asking for. Else you look like you haven't done your research, or you look biased. Possibly both.

Again, there are some things in here that are entirely preference, and inaccurate to boot. For example, his complaint about "childish/boring dark/light side meters" is way off base. The only meters that the game has had are those for determining your friendship with your companions, and that comes as a compound result of many, many decisions throughout the game, and can change without comment from the companion, because doing so would lead to constant interruptions in dialogue, and a massive blowout in the VO budget. Comparatively, the witcher introduces consequences as a result of one decision, and when DAO/DA2 do that, they don't have a meter to measure it. To dismiss these meters as "childish" is in itself childish and demonstrates a lack of understanding.

Brockololly wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
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.

The author is rightfully comparing Dragon Age to other games. He also brings up Alpha Protocol in the article! And The Witcher! Because he views those games as doing certain things better than BIoWare has done in Dragon Age. Its an opinion piece, of course its going to be subjective.

And just because it's an opinion piece, it doesn't mean that it's not poorly written and argued.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 11 février 2013 - 08:05 .

[Brockololly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
If Richard Cobbet is British, then I hold his chastizing of a "bad British accent" even more against him.

But... I don't know. That seems a very valid criticism to me. This author's perception of Hawke's accent was that it sounded "bad." Granted, further discussion on that point would require digging deeper as to why they thought it sounded like a "bad British" accent. But at the end of the day, does it matter really whether or not the voice actor is legit British or legit French if the end user thinks their accent or voice sounds "bad"? Its a perception issue- doesn't matter that BioWare got the most credentialed and authentic British person or French person or German person if the end user thinks they have a "bad" accent. The intent is irrelevent at that point.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
No, it just means I didn't get much out of it that I haven't already heard. In terms of its overall contribution, he's basically a fan that didn't care for DAO, prefers TW2, and just as the advantage of having a PC Gamer article to attach his views on to. Should I take his concerns any more than yours because he can post it with a PC Gamer sticker?

Well, he didn't care for DA2, he liked DA:O.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
No it doesn't, but it's going to make me lose interest really quickly.

Try giving a presentation in front of professionals and have your power point slides containing errors in it. People start toning out because they don't believe you know what you're talking about anymore.

Oh, I know. I've seen plenty of presentations where the presenter ends up being eviscerated in question & answer sessions due to faulty research or typos and such.

I just think its a matter of perspective. A small typo or factual blip might raise your skepticism of the person's credentials, but it shouldn't cause one to go into nitpick mode  and not see the forest for the trees in what they're saying.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
I'm sorry if my feedback to the article offended you, but it's the gist of what I got from the article (which is, nothing I didn't already know). I'm not going to give it any additional consideration simply because he writes for PC Gamer and you're just a BSN poster.

It's a fan piece and it's what he would like to see in DA3.  I'll collate it with the other stuff other fans have put in as feedback.

Oh, no it didn't offend. It maybe came across as slightly dismissive due to only bringing up the factual errors of the article, but maybe thats just me or the nature of communication on the internet.   I'm sure its not terribly useful feedback at this stage in the game anyway, since I have to imagine you guys are likely way too far along to change course with some of the points raised in that article.

Modifié par Brockololly, 11 février 2013 - 07:57 .

[axl99]

I find the list of feature promises that CDPR put out at the very beginning about TW3 to be blue skies stuff that anyone can write into a game pitch. It's inconsequential until they actually manage to implement it. There's tons of problems associated with making wide open spaces for the sake of exploration. Mostly it's just a matter of adding content upon content, but I'll stop here and get straight to the point.

The fact one of devs in the gameinformer interview practically did a couple name drops of who they considered competition was enough to get gleeful fans and journalists ready to keep splashing oil on an ongoing flamewar about who they think is the better game.

And the OP's topic as well as the article in question is a perfect example of this behaviour.

Modifié par axl99, 11 février 2013 - 08:00 .

[bEVEsthda]

When I originally read this article, I didn't feel the author had any real feelings invested in DA. Just a game journalist writing about any game, and in this particular case a game that is the followup to a game that met with strong reactions. And to make matters worse, PCG didn't exactly see those reactions coming. He seemed to have picked his cues randomly from forums.
Thus I never felt any need to comment it.

There's a lot to say about what we want to see from DA3. But we tried that sport and Bioware have already told us we ain't getting it. And also told us they won't tell us what we'll get instead until they're ready to show us. So what's there to do but wait and see?

[Siegdrifa]

Blair Brown wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Allan Schumacher: Since you're discussing expectations - being the owner of a retail business, I would have expected better customer service responses from nearly all gaming companies. Yet - I find their responses to most criticism reactionary and emotive.

If I stood in front of one of the people that keep my business open - and spoke to them the way I've seen many gaming company representatives speak to their customers - I'd be closing my doors.

It would seem - it is the nature of the industry to promote behavior which is otherwise unacceptable in the "real world". It is certainly the nature of the internet.

As a note - I'm not talking about your opinion on his opinion. Your commentary about expecting better simply seemed an apt segue in something that has personally surprised (and shocked and irritated me) about the gaming industry for some years.

That the target audience seems willing to accept it is equally fascinating - because I'm positive they'd react very different if the things I've read (Blizzard is particularly bad) as responses were said face to face.

This is kind of off topic but thought I would chime in, I thought Allans response was apt, not negative not inciting anything, I felt the same when I read it, "this is an opinion piece that is right in line with what i've already been reading and hearing about on our forums/twitter for the last 5 months."  I added it to my list of pages/articles about "what people want" for DA3.  (I REALLY agree with Allan about when people miss facts, they tend to start loseing me)

As for your point, I see it kind of the other way, if people had to talk in person I don't think there would be "you should go die" bullying posts from people on the forums because they don't like a game.  (using Blizzard as the example, google Jay Wilson)

But alas that is niether here nor there.  Back on topic -> we listen to articles like this and put just as much weight into them as forum posts (well most.)  (the face that journalists and average gamers are all saying the same thing is actually pretty cool)  

We're listening, keep it coming.

On my part, while anybody are welcome to express what they would like the future game to be, i think that it is not the reviewer job to make their wish list.
How would react people if X famous movie award published the movie they would like to see from X realisator, handled in Y ways with Z contant. (if i listen to what you said to match your taste, will you grant me an award ?)

Good feed back are always valuable... but in case of video game journalism, the feed back should be in the review it self, not month later because thanks to other release (TW2, Skyrim etc) now the man think he has a better vision to speak about how DA3 must be done. (damn, reviwers are no here to dictate how the video game industry have to evolve in future... they are here to review the present, the "given product").
Also, by publishing his wish list... it doesn't mean he will already compare the future real DA3 with what he is expecting now ? instead of playng the game for what it is and not what he though it should be.
He could say "yeah but i'm a pro so i'll be impartial"... meaning he would be admiting he wasn't wise enough to think about other possibility to make the game good, that "his vision" is "A" vision of a game, not "THE" vision... making him a "Mr i knwoitall that should have keep his mouth shut  for his sake...".

And... not to speak about how many gamers can complain that devs and reviewers are often tied on a somewhat "i help you, you help me" relation, resulting in "reviewer is biased, or he has been paid for his review blablabla" everytime the game get lot of perfect score. Or even worse, when reviewers (IGN) engage against not happy fan out of friendship to Bioware (admiting it without a second thought worry me on the profesionnalism of the reviewer) even without playng the full game to try to understand why some gamers were angry etc... how can they protest later if gamers call them biased ?

It's not like i don't understand, i did work 3 years in a video game company and one of our game designer was before a famous video game reviewer.
I'm just sayng it would be out of principle that rewiever stick to their job so they would look more impartial in gamers eyes... as much as game devlopper have to. That would do a favor for both video game journalisme and video game devloppement.
And what if Bioware listen to all that man has said and in the end, he would give a mediocre review... wouldn't he look like a total ass**** ?

Just my tow cents... by no means i imply that they shouldn't express their opinion... just that they don't come complain later when some people call them out for being biased.

[Renmiri1]

I already think the article author looks like a total arse. He writes a badly researched opinion piece and tries to pass it as fact.

But it does give me an idea on what BW should include on DAI: A mud wrestling match between DAI developers and TW3 developers <_<

It seems a lot of the press and posters here are dying to see it 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 11 février 2013 - 09:01 .