151 réponses à ce sujet

[Medhia Nox]

I think it would be great if this "Exalted March" DLC that was cancelled is a type of Origin of your Inquisitor for DA:I - where you get to make some very key choices that will change your gameplay.

Ultimately - the people who liked it (Dragon Age 2), and those who hated it, don't matter. Bioware listened and made a call (or EA did - that doesn't matter either). Defending it means nothing - condemning it, equally so.

Focus on DA:I

[EpicBoot2daFace]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Repetitive enviorments however can also be a strength depending on the game. This is why there is no universal standard regarding what is good or bad. Modern parlance on such issues tends to look at a lot of these being bad because they are "outdated". It's like turn-based RPGs are outdated combat mechanics that are too slow, or the 2-D effect sprite graphics used by the many Doom clones out there are too archiac to be fun. 

the problem with standards is that they become unwritten rules to something that never adheres to rules to begin with. In the case of Dragon Age II, yeah, the enviornments needed more changes to make them unique, but in the context of the story they also made sense regarding the repetitiveness. It was being in one place for a long time, versus travelling across a continent, so you would be seeing the same streets day in and out within the city. In that regard, objectively speaking one can argue that the enviorments make sense in terms of the storytelling invlolved in Dragon Age II, and don't need to be incredibly varied as compared to say Dragon Age: Origins or previous BioWare games. Wether you see it as positive or negative is a matter of opinion, which is then what we judge. 

But you're trying to argue those flaws away using lore and story reasons. It doesn't change the fact that those flaws exist. The repeating environments in DA2 are seen as a negative by the majority of players. It was one of the biggest complaints people had with the game. We can't just ignore it and say "well, it's a good game" for no good reason.

If you want to take that approach, you might as well throw out any sort of objectivity and say that every game released is good because you can find reasons that relate to the story or whateevr for those flaws to exist. Where does that leave game reviewers? Doesn't that make their jobs entirely pointless, and don't we already have enough subjectivity and fanboyism in the gaming press?

[UEG Donkey]

I maybe the only one who doesn't believe that DA:O has aged well. The story is still great and is the game's best selling point as are story lines from the DLC BUT can you honestly have anyone in your party other than Sten, Dog, and Loghain?

Ferelden is facing certain annihilation and; Alistar can't stop being a huge beta to concentrate on the impending destruction of Ferelden, Morrigan acts like a cynical teenager that no rational person would trust to watch their back, Leliana is clinically schizophrenic . . . I could go on but frankly the companion base is clearly flawed in that no one save Dog and Sten are taking the blight seriously and at least Loghain has the best interest of Ferelden in mind despite the fact that he's wrong about the blight.

The classes and customization were broken; Dagger and Shield Dex Tanks with Templar/Reaver Specializations were basically unkillable. Arcane Mages with Heroic Aura balanced tremendous AoE DPS with tons of survivability.

The Tactics system was unrefined and difficult to use compared to the tactics system in DA:2
Rogues were done well but Warriors and Mages needed serious balancing work.

[cJohnOne]

I was surprised when they announced no more DLC because of the DLC for Origins kept coming out. Does DLC reallly cost that much? And how expensive could it be?

I think the information that we have is that the DLC sold fine. Besides there was only two of them.  If you have  other information you should show the source of it. I remember hearing from some bioware person that it sold okay.

Modifié par cJohnOne, 18 février 2013 - 05:38 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

UEG Donkey wrote...

I maybe the only one who doesn't believe that DA:O has aged well.

Or maybe you're starting to see it for what it really is? Dragon Age 2 inherited a lot of flaws from it's predecessor.

[LinksOcarina]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Repetitive enviorments however can also be a strength depending on the game. This is why there is no universal standard regarding what is good or bad. Modern parlance on such issues tends to look at a lot of these being bad because they are "outdated". It's like turn-based RPGs are outdated combat mechanics that are too slow, or the 2-D effect sprite graphics used by the many Doom clones out there are too archiac to be fun. 

the problem with standards is that they become unwritten rules to something that never adheres to rules to begin with. In the case of Dragon Age II, yeah, the enviornments needed more changes to make them unique, but in the context of the story they also made sense regarding the repetitiveness. It was being in one place for a long time, versus travelling across a continent, so you would be seeing the same streets day in and out within the city. In that regard, objectively speaking one can argue that the enviorments make sense in terms of the storytelling invlolved in Dragon Age II, and don't need to be incredibly varied as compared to say Dragon Age: Origins or previous BioWare games. Wether you see it as positive or negative is a matter of opinion, which is then what we judge. 

But you're trying to argue those flaws away using lore and story reasons. It doesn't change the fact that those flaws exist. The repeating environments in DA2 are seen as a negative by the majority of players. It was one of the biggest complaints people had with the game. We can't just ignore it and say "well, it's a good game" for no good reason.

If you want to take that approach, you might as well throw out any sort of objectivity and say that every game released is good because you can find reasons that relate to the story or whateevr for those flaws to exist. Where does that leave game reviewers? Doesn't that make their jobs entirely pointless, and don't we already have enough subjectivity and fanboyism in the gaming press?

See, I am a game reviewer, so this is a strange question because saying every game released is good (or bad, if you want to go that route) is all but impossible to do. If anything I am doing my job right in analyzing why the game is made in this way and saying if it works or not. You very well can say its a good game with that flaw in it. The flaw still exists, but the enjoyment of the game by the player may not be hinged upon it. 

If anything, you are more objective by acknowledging the flaw as a flaw, while understanding why its there. It is not just about quality in terms of of how it works, but also nuances such as actual enjoyment, longevity of the product, analysis of what does and doesn't work, and so forth. It is not even prioritizing things into a list; that presumes everything in-game is on par with each other in terms of importance, which is impossible, even for a reviewer out there. 

Think of it this way. Would you play a game that is rated 8/10 if its a niche title, versus a 5/10 game that the review gives a glowing review for? The site I contribute to has a recommendation line for reviews, where we would say if you should buy it now,  if its for fans only, to avoid it, etc.  So, subjectively speaking, a 5/10 game can be given a buy it now ranking despite being average. It is up to the reviewer to explain why. Agreeing or not with them is a matter of opinion. So the repetitive enviorments are a flaw, but the more important question is not that they are objective flaws, but rather, are they flaws that detract from your personal experience? In my case, no. In yours, id assume yes. 

So no, my job (which is more vounteer work but whatever) is perfectly sound in that regard. the point is wether or not its a flaw. It can still be flawed, but then the question arises then is it a glaring flaw? Or is it a minor flaw when compared to other mechanics? That is the subjectivty of objective thought, that is why anything in an entertainment media can be subjective, despite objectively "bad" things being in the way. 

[Sifr]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Repetitive enviorments however can also be a strength depending on the game. This is why there is no universal standard regarding what is good or bad. Modern parlance on such issues tends to look at a lot of these being bad because they are "outdated". It's like turn-based RPGs are outdated combat mechanics that are too slow, or the 2-D effect sprite graphics used by the many Doom clones out there are too archiac to be fun. 

the problem with standards is that they become unwritten rules to something that never adheres to rules to begin with. In the case of Dragon Age II, yeah, the enviornments needed more changes to make them unique, but in the context of the story they also made sense regarding the repetitiveness. It was being in one place for a long time, versus travelling across a continent, so you would be seeing the same streets day in and out within the city. In that regard, objectively speaking one can argue that the enviorments make sense in terms of the storytelling invlolved in Dragon Age II, and don't need to be incredibly varied as compared to say Dragon Age: Origins or previous BioWare games. Wether you see it as positive or negative is a matter of opinion, which is then what we judge. 

But you're trying to argue those flaws away using lore and story reasons. It doesn't change the fact that those flaws exist. The repeating environments in DA2 are seen as a negative by the majority of players. It was one of the biggest complaints people had with the game. We can't just ignore it and say "well, it's a good game" for no good reason.

If you want to take that approach, you might as well throw out any sort of objectivity and say that every game released is good because you can find reasons that relate to the story or whateevr for those flaws to exist. Where does that leave game reviewers? Doesn't that make their jobs entirely pointless, and don't we already have enough subjectivity and fanboyism in the gaming press?

Except by focusing solely on the negative, you are dismissing the good points of the game and thus curtailing your own argument about maintaining objectivity... you've clearly already made up your mind about the game.

We're not saying the DA2 doesn't have it's flaws, we're saying that it's got enough good qualities that make it a decent game that we enjoy in spite of a few clear misteps here and there.

Your argument is like saying the Mona Lisa doesn't have eyebrows... it's RUINED FOREVER!

[jwalker]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

schalafi wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Well, it's very simple. DA2 is a piece of crap. We knows this. Bioware knows it. No point in wasting anymore time on it.

Speak for yourself, not for all of us. Many players liked the game, and don't need you including them in your hatred of the game.

I know, and it scares the **** out of me. The complete lack of standards for some people amazes me. Sometimes I think these devs could get away with selling **** in a bag as long as it has enough pre-order bonuses.

wow.... rofl... haha... dude, you're so full of yourself you're going to implode or something... i'm sure you'll be missed.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

LinksOcarina wrote...

See, I am a game reviewer, so this is a strange question because saying every game released is good (or bad, if you want to go that route) is all but impossible to do. If anything I am doing my job right in analyzing why the game is made in this way and saying if it works or not. You very well can say its a good game with that flaw in it. The flaw still exists, but the enjoyment of the game by the player may not be hinged upon it. 

If anything, you are more objective by acknowledging the flaw as a flaw, while understanding why its there. It is not just about quality in terms of of how it works, but also nuances such as actual enjoyment, longevity of the product, analysis of what does and doesn't work, and so forth. It is not even prioritizing things into a list; that presumes everything in-game is on par with each other in terms of importance, which is impossible, even for a reviewer out there. 

Think of it this way. Would you play a game that is rated 8/10 if its a niche title, versus a 5/10 game that the review gives a glowing review for? The site I contribute to has a recommendation line for reviews, where we would say if you should buy it now,  if its for fans only, to avoid it, etc.  So, subjectively speaking, a 5/10 game can be given a buy it now ranking despite being average. It is up to the reviewer to explain why. Agreeing or not with them is a matter of opinion. So the repetitive enviorments are a flaw, but the more important question is not that they are objective flaws, but rather, are they flaws that detract from your personal experience? In my case, no. In yours, id assume yes. 

So no, my job (which is more vounteer work but whatever) is perfectly sound in that regard. the point is wether or not its a flaw. It can still be flawed, but then the question arises then is it a glaring flaw? Or is it a minor flaw when compared to other mechanics? That is the subjectivty of objective thought, that is why anything in an entertainment media can be subjective, despite objectively "bad" things being in the way. 

I understand where you're coming from and I don't want to to tell you how to review games. But I think a game reviewer (professional or independent) is judged based on their ability to remain objective. If we look at something like the PC Gamer review of DA2, we can clearly see that this guy has no credability and cannot back up his "best RPG of the decade" statement. That's the sort of fanboyism that irks me and we see it far too often in the gaming press.

If one were not a racing fan but decided to review Forza 4, I would still expect them to give the game a glowing review because it is objectively one of the best racing games of the generation, and that isn't hyperbole. That's exactly what I got with the GamesRadar review of that game. The reviewer was not a fan of racing sims, but he remained objective throughout the review and gave it a great score. That's professional and makes me trust the site more with future reviews.

But those reviews are so rare today. We usually end up with something like IGN's Halo 4 review, a complete circle jerk to the Halo series and Microsoft, or EGM's reviews which was a complete circle bash just because it didn't have iron sights. I wouldn't trust these people to write my ****ing address down on an envelope, much less reviewing games for a living.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 18 février 2013 - 06:04 .

[Sejborg]

Most people don't buy dlc to a game they consider to be awful. That's why Bioware decided to stop making dlc to DA2 and moved on.

[Bfler]

Because 1-1,5 years is the current life cycle of games after release, where it is profitable to make DLC. After that period most players have lost interest and play something different. In case of DA 2 this interval was also influenced negative, because many people didn't like it.

[cJohnOne]

Sejborg wrote...

Most people don't buy dlc to a game they consider to be awful. That's why Bioware decided to stop making dlc to DA2 and moved on.

Again I think your pulling facts out of the thin air.

[cJohnOne]

It doesn't matter if many people didn't like as long as it sells.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

cJohnOne wrote...

It doesn't matter if many people didn't like as long as it sells.

If it were selling they wouldn't have stopped production. It clearly wasn't.

[Sejborg]

cJohnOne wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

Most people don't buy dlc to a game they consider to be awful. That's why Bioware decided to stop making dlc to DA2 and moved on.

Again I think your pulling facts out of the thin air.

"Again"? That right there is my first post in this thread, so how can you say "again"? 

Do you disagree that most people don't buy dlc to games they think are awful? 

[LinksOcarina]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

See, I am a game reviewer, so this is a strange question because saying every game released is good (or bad, if you want to go that route) is all but impossible to do. If anything I am doing my job right in analyzing why the game is made in this way and saying if it works or not. You very well can say its a good game with that flaw in it. The flaw still exists, but the enjoyment of the game by the player may not be hinged upon it. 

If anything, you are more objective by acknowledging the flaw as a flaw, while understanding why its there. It is not just about quality in terms of of how it works, but also nuances such as actual enjoyment, longevity of the product, analysis of what does and doesn't work, and so forth. It is not even prioritizing things into a list; that presumes everything in-game is on par with each other in terms of importance, which is impossible, even for a reviewer out there. 

Think of it this way. Would you play a game that is rated 8/10 if its a niche title, versus a 5/10 game that the review gives a glowing review for? The site I contribute to has a recommendation line for reviews, where we would say if you should buy it now,  if its for fans only, to avoid it, etc.  So, subjectively speaking, a 5/10 game can be given a buy it now ranking despite being average. It is up to the reviewer to explain why. Agreeing or not with them is a matter of opinion. So the repetitive enviorments are a flaw, but the more important question is not that they are objective flaws, but rather, are they flaws that detract from your personal experience? In my case, no. In yours, id assume yes. 

So no, my job (which is more vounteer work but whatever) is perfectly sound in that regard. the point is wether or not its a flaw. It can still be flawed, but then the question arises then is it a glaring flaw? Or is it a minor flaw when compared to other mechanics? That is the subjectivty of objective thought, that is why anything in an entertainment media can be subjective, despite objectively "bad" things being in the way. 

I understand where you're coming from and I don't want to to tell you how to review games. But I think a game reviewer (professional or independent) is judged based on their ability to remain objective. If we look at something like the PC Gamer review of DA2, we can clearly see that this guy has no credability and cannot back up his "best RPG of the decade" statement. That's the sort of fanboyism that irks me and we see it far too often in the gaming press.

If one were not a racing fan but decided to review Forza 4, I would still expect them to give the game a glowing review because it is objectively one of the best racing games of the generation, and that isn't hyperbole. That's exactly what I got with the GamesRadar review of that game. The reviewer was not a fan of racing sims, but he remained objective throughout the review and gave it a great score. That's professional and makes me trust the site more with future reviews.

But those reviews are so rare today. We usually end up with something like IGN's Halo 4 review, a complete circle jerk to the Halo series and Microsoft, or EGM's reviews which was a complete circle bash just because it didn't have iron sights. I wouldn't trust these people to write my ****ing address down on an envelope, much less reviewing games for a living.

Objectivity though is hard to put forward in a review. This is getting way off topic, but simply put, most reviewers out there are bad at their jobs because of their skills as a reviewer. Being ovjective is to not be afraid to say something is not your style of game, or that something you like has major issues in it. At the same time, a good reviewer should argue why the game is still worthwhile in the end.

At risk of whoring myself out, I did a review of Persona 2, the PSP remake over a year ago. Its a series I am a huge fan of, and the game was dissapointing overall, but still worth a playthrough if you were a fan of the series. My revew of Mass Effect 3 argued that the final analysis of the final chapter is a moot point, since the series has reached a zenith that makes it stand tall with the likes of Mario and Halo. I also did a review for a storybook game called Corpse Party recently, a game I was bored with but praised its storyline and characterization, despite lacking any form of gameplay. If you want to read these and see for youself i'll link them, but by the small blurbs above should be enough of a review in the end without going into the particulars. 

That to me is what objectivity is, acknowledging the good and bad and making a judgement that, while never fully unbiased, is at least moderately fair in the end. 

But I digress, back to the topic at hand. 

[cJohnOne]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

cJohnOne wrote...

It doesn't matter if many people didn't like as long as it sells.

If it were selling they wouldn't have stopped production. It clearly wasn't.

Now your saying it's a chain of reasoning and not a fact.

[Bowhunter4L]

If the release of DA3 was coming out this year you'd think they would've released more info on it like artwork and more finer details of the game?

[Chiramu]

LolaLei wrote...

It's still on target for 2013 according to Mike Laidlaw.

At least no news makes us think that they are working diligently on DA3 . Hopefully it will play as well as they are hyping it up to be.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

cJohnOne wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

cJohnOne wrote...

It doesn't matter if many people didn't like as long as it sells.

If it were selling they wouldn't have stopped production. It clearly wasn't.

Now your saying it's a chain of reasoning and not a fact.

Let's play a game called Supply and Demand. There is no longer a demand for what you supply. What do you think is the best course of action?

[cJohnOne]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

cJohnOne wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

cJohnOne wrote...

It doesn't matter if many people didn't like as long as it sells.

If it were selling they wouldn't have stopped production. It clearly wasn't.

Now your saying it's a chain of reasoning and not a fact.

Let's play a game called Supply and Demand. There is no longer a demand for what you supply. What do you think is the best course of action?

I'm not replying so you can continue

[EpicBoot2daFace]

cJohnOne wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

cJohnOne wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

cJohnOne wrote...

It doesn't matter if many people didn't like as long as it sells.

If it were selling they wouldn't have stopped production. It clearly wasn't.

Now your saying it's a chain of reasoning and not a fact.

Let's play a game called Supply and Demand. There is no longer a demand for what you supply. What do you think is the best course of action?

I'm not replying so you can continue

I took a business class in school. Multiple choice questions like those were the norm. It was almost like taking the GOAT in Fallout 3, but even more pointless.

[DaringMoosejaw]

Boot's problem is that he sees only two ways to think about DA2: It is utter **** or the greatest thing ever, and everyone who disagrees with him is in the latter camp. Also, while they cancelled it because DA3 was probably the better venture business-wise, you don't want to start saying that one of the obvious proofs DA2 was the worst thing to happen to RPGs since Hitler is because then you'd have to admit that Call of Duty is the best game to be put out in recent years.

Fact of the matter is, it's not that simple. While it's much easier to think of things in simple easy to digest bits like 'DA2 worst ever', it is rarely the truth. There are levels between completely useless and best ever, and it's silly that I need to say that. It's possible to argue your point that DA2 was very very bad without resorting to hyperbole.

[Medhia Nox]

@DaringMoosejaw: Did Hitler make an RPG?