283 réponses à ce sujet

[BeatoSama]

Really? Any reason why they would do that?

Ninjad: was referring to purging of reviews.

Modifié par BeatoSama, 19 mars 2013 - 08:38 .

[Trolldrool]

DA2 wasn't a bad game on its own. At worst I would say it's an enjoyable game until I begin comparing it to DA:O and find it lacking. Again, not a bad game. Just disappointing as a Dragon Age game. I can find things I didn't like about DA:O. I can find more things I didn't like about DA2. Not everyone shares this opinion, which I think is great. In fact I envy them, because they are experiencing a game worth every dollar out of their pockets.

As for which side, the people who think it's inferiour to Orgins (like me) or the people who think it's superiour, is the majority is irrelevant. Opinions are subjective. Always. Sometimes people agree with our opinions and share them, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a matter of personal preference. When we see a lot of people wishing to change or keep  the things we liked/disliked, we don't want Bioware to listen to them. We want them to be a minority which opinions won't influence the devs to change things (according to our perspective) for the worse.

[Dutchess]

LinksOcarina wrote...

renjility wrote...

terdferguson123 wrote...

Lastly, you mention "How the game was reviewed" . However, a quick look at metacritic shows an average 8.2 score, and by most review sites there scale goes as: 7 good, 8 great, 9 excellent etc. An 8.2 is in that "great" range, which was the original topic of this discussion right?

Yeah, except the user score on metacritic for DA2 is a whopping 4.2. 

And how many of those actually played the game?

Or were being honest in their reviews? 

Data can be shaped in any sort of way, especially aggregate scores. That just gives you a house of cards of a point of view. 

I don't know. But then you could go on and dismiss every mean score on metacritic as meaningless. With 3689 reviews, it seems likely that the extremes of the liars get evened out. That's what seems to happen with metacritic ratings for other games. I think at least the majority of those reviews are from people who actually paid for and played the game. How many of those "professional" reviewers that give and 8 or a 9 have been paid for that shiny number?

[LinksOcarina]

renjility wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

renjility wrote...

terdferguson123 wrote...

Lastly, you mention "How the game was reviewed" . However, a quick look at metacritic shows an average 8.2 score, and by most review sites there scale goes as: 7 good, 8 great, 9 excellent etc. An 8.2 is in that "great" range, which was the original topic of this discussion right?

Yeah, except the user score on metacritic for DA2 is a whopping 4.2. 

And how many of those actually played the game?

Or were being honest in their reviews? 

Data can be shaped in any sort of way, especially aggregate scores. That just gives you a house of cards of a point of view. 

I don't know. But then you could go on and dismiss every mean score on metacritic as meaningless. With 3689 reviews, it seems likely that the extremes of the liars get evened out. That's what seems to happen with metacritic ratings for other games. I think at least the majority of those reviews are from people who actually paid for and played the game. How many of those "professional" reviewers that give and 8 or a 9 have been paid for that shiny number?

Honestly thats easy, since I already do dismiss their scores as meaningless.  I hate to burst the bubble, but fans are not professionals in that regard, likely failing to quantify aspects of the game into an actual "score" which is already as arbitrary as the validity of metacritic to begin with. It sounds callous to say, but it is true. 

And to answer your question. Not many were "paid off." And as a reviewer, I am sick of such myths being perpetuated on the internet.  Are there bad reviewers. Oh yeah, I agree to that. But for me the problem is rooted in bad writing skills and a serious issue of explaining the nuances of a game without bullet point presentations. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 19 mars 2013 - 08:47 .

[addiction21]

David Gaider wrote...


I see. So canceling the expansion was just because we thought DA2 wasn't good. And I think it's awesome... why, I'm not sure. Maybe it's because I (or other DA2 devs) don't care to slag our own game for the interest of the fans? Or because we don't bow our heads and go, "Yep, yep, you're so right. Wow, did we screw up. Man, what a turd."

How dare you not bow and scrape at our feet and be a real person. You know I pay your salary 60 dollars every few at a time right?

David Gaider wrote...


If you feel that way, great. If you expect us to feel that way, you're mistaken. Every project we've worked on has mistakes we regret and things we thought we did well-- I know it's an incredible blow for anyone who places DAO up on a pedestal, but it was no different. It's possible (for most people, anyhow) to like something a great deal despite its flaws... in fact, speaking personally, that would have to be true or I'd like no game at all.

And its great fun to watch that when you mention what you (or other devs on DAO) believed they could of done better or thought are mistakes you are "bashing and trashing" that game for PR reasons to promote the next one.

While the same people cheer in the streets when you happen to mention something in DA2 you did not like how it turned out and your being honest and forthwith us.

(same goes for the Mass Effect series) 

[Ser Landry]

OK armchair economists - yes, a lower revenue with a lower cost is still profitable, but what about goodwill? What if you had lower revenue/cost and also burned 50% of your long term customers such that they will either not buy the next product or not buy it when the price is at premium. How do you reflect that factor in the earlier project profit&loss?

Modifié par Ser Landry, 19 mars 2013 - 08:44 .

[hoorayforicecream]

renjility wrote...

I don't know. But then you could go on and dismiss every mean score on metacritic as meaningless. With 3689 reviews, it seems likely that the extremes of the liars get evened out. That's what seems to happen with metacritic ratings for other games. I think at least the majority of those reviews are from people who actually paid for and played the game. How many of those "professional" reviewers that give and 8 or a 9 have been paid for that shiny number?

I'd like proof that any professional reviewers were paid for those shiny numbers of any game. I've heard a lot of speculation on the topic, but never any actual proof. The closest I've ever seen was Gerstmann's situation, where he was fired for a bad review. But that isn't the same thing as what you're insinuating.

[John Epler]

While I'm sure it's endlessly productive to argue profitability using numbers that no one in this thread has any concrete knowledge of, it's veering completely off-topic. So let's pull it back to writing, shall we?

[addiction21]

Ser Landry wrote...

OK armchair economists - yes, a lower revenue with a lower cost is still profitable, but what about goodwill? What if you had lower revenue and also burned 50% of your long term customers such that they will either not buy or not buy when the price is at premium. How do you reflect that factor in the project profit&loss?

Then prove it. Please for the love of good be the first person to actually prove this.

I have been on BioWares boards for over a decade again and gets repeated before and after EVERY SINGLE GAME.

NWN was the death because it was going 3d and was not party focused.
KoToR was the death of BioWare.
Jade Empire was to be the death.
Mass Effect OMG another console exclusive and it was a shooter!!!

[LinksOcarina]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

renjility wrote...

I don't know. But then you could go on and dismiss every mean score on metacritic as meaningless. With 3689 reviews, it seems likely that the extremes of the liars get evened out. That's what seems to happen with metacritic ratings for other games. I think at least the majority of those reviews are from people who actually paid for and played the game. How many of those "professional" reviewers that give and 8 or a 9 have been paid for that shiny number?

I'd like proof that any professional reviewers were paid for those shiny numbers of any game. I've heard a lot of speculation on the topic, but never any actual proof. The closest I've ever seen was Gerstmann's situation, where he was fired for a bad review. But that isn't the same thing as what you're insinuating.

And the firing was instigated by the Gamespot leadership at the time for basically succumbing to the bemoaning of the publisher. 

Those PR guys were let go shortly thereafter. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 19 mars 2013 - 08:49 .

[addiction21]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

renjility wrote...

I don't know. But then you could go on and dismiss every mean score on metacritic as meaningless. With 3689 reviews, it seems likely that the extremes of the liars get evened out. That's what seems to happen with metacritic ratings for other games. I think at least the majority of those reviews are from people who actually paid for and played the game. How many of those "professional" reviewers that give and 8 or a 9 have been paid for that shiny number?

I'd like proof that any professional reviewers were paid for those shiny numbers of any game. I've heard a lot of speculation on the topic, but never any actual proof. The closest I've ever seen was Gerstmann's situation, where he was fired for a bad review. But that isn't the same thing as what you're insinuating.

You know how it goes.

"I disagree with those reviews" so they were bought and paid for.

"I agree with these reviews" so they are the height of honesty.

All the while missing the entire point of a review.

Modifié par addiction21, 19 mars 2013 - 08:52 .

[Huntress]

addiction21 wrote...

And that means nothing since you do not know how much was invested into the game monetarily. That's the bottom line into the black.

Yes it failed to meet my expectations but using ignorance of sales to validate your opinion that it was a commercial failure with out the important information is sad.

And with the whole "EA is the greedy horrible devil" DA2 clearly did well enough to keep the franchise running and OMFG a longer better development time.

I dont know why so angry.. rofl, I do like da2, I still think act3 is garbage but guess what? I dont really care if you like the game or not.. happy?

And about Ea.. truthfully? i dont give a fly about them, my problem is with bad writing and bad story telling and nonsensical endings.. and we all know EA do NOT write End games.

[Danny Boy 7]

David Gaider wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...
As for the OP, Beerfish is right: The mage x Templar conflict in Thedas seems quite a difficult nut to crack. I don't think we humans here on earth have done it yet and we don't even have our own "dangerous persons" throwing fireballs.

Will be interesting to see how the BW writers tackle that. Can't wait!

I hope it will be interesting. I'm not sure why anyone imagines that we would have the entire game revolve around the issue-- as in every second of every minute, like Act 3 of DA2 stretched out over an entire game-- but I guess if that's the only thing one has to work with and they really wanted to imagine the worst possible continuation they could certainly do that.

And I suppose some people do certainly try.

I imagine it'll be the framework for the game, sort of the...main factor that pushes us forward. Sort of like the Blight was in Origins and "Rising to power" was in DA2. Obviously you can't say yay or nay, but I imagine that we'll have things like the Orlesian Civil War and some sort of darkspawn event to keep us occupied throughout the meat of the game.

[addiction21]

Huntress wrote...


I dont know why so angry.. rofl, I do like da2, I still think act3 is garbage but guess what? I dont really care if you like the game or not.. happy?

Not angry. Just tired of you and the many others that have no context. That chart only shows DA2 sold less then DA:O.
Not that it was a commercial failure or a failure for those that bought it. And these forums are no measuring stick of either since its typically the same people repeating themselves everyday, in every post for years now.

Huntress wrote...

And about Ea.. truthfully? i dont give a fly about them, my problem is with bad writing and bad story telling and nonsensical endings.. and we all know EA do NOT write End games.

Then why even resort to the graph? Oh right a desperate ploy to validate your argument. You are transparent.

[brushyourteeth]

Danny Boy 7 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...
As for the OP, Beerfish is right: The mage x Templar conflict in Thedas seems quite a difficult nut to crack. I don't think we humans here on earth have done it yet and we don't even have our own "dangerous persons" throwing fireballs.

Will be interesting to see how the BW writers tackle that. Can't wait!

I hope it will be interesting. I'm not sure why anyone imagines that we would have the entire game revolve around the issue-- as in every second of every minute, like Act 3 of DA2 stretched out over an entire game-- but I guess if that's the only thing one has to work with and they really wanted to imagine the worst possible continuation they could certainly do that.

And I suppose some people do certainly try.

I imagine it'll be the framework for the game, sort of the...main factor that pushes us forward. Sort of like the Blight was in Origins and "Rising to power" was in DA2. Obviously you can't say yay or nay, but I imagine that we'll have things like the Orlesian Civil War and some sort of darkspawn event to keep us occupied throughout the meat of the game.

This makes me feel like we're going to be attending some kind of broodmother office mixer.

Honestly, though, I think one of the major themes of Dragon Age is that people can't seem to get along even when the world is falling apart around them. So it kind of makes sense to watch the mages and templars duke it out under the backdrop of a larger world calamity.

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 19 mars 2013 - 09:06 .

[Beerfish]

DA2 had well documented major flaws but it also had some of BioWares very best work as far as some quests and certainly companion writing. They tried some things that did work and some that didn't but I'd rather have the 'no guts no glory ' attitude than playing it safe. The criticism of DA2 was massively over blown on the whole. I played it it as many times as I did Origins.

Back to my original reason for making the thread which was not simply another mage vs chantry or woe is me DA2 was not good. It was to point out that because they did a fine job in earlier games to build up this divide they will have to tread carefully in how they present a resolution, even if it is a temporary one.

[Huntress]

addiction21 wrote...

Huntress wrote...


I dont know why so angry.. rofl, I do like da2, I still think act3 is garbage but guess what? I dont really care if you like the game or not.. happy?

Not angry. Just tired of you and the many others that have no context. That chart only shows DA2 sold less then DA:O.
Not that it was a commercial failure or a failure for those that bought it. And these forums are no measuring stick of either since its typically the same people repeating themselves everyday, in every post for years now.

Huntress wrote...

And about Ea.. truthfully? i dont give a fly about them, my problem is with bad writing and bad story telling and nonsensical endings.. and we all know EA do NOT write End games.

Then why even resort to the graph? Oh right a desperate ploy to validate your argument. You are transparent.

Relax.. I do what I want, you are a nobody to decide what I do, you have no voice.
stop the attack now and  just calm down or better yet, go out and play on the incoming traffic.

[addiction21]

Beerfish wrote...
 The criticism of DA2 was massively over blown on the whole.

.

Amen to that.

Beerfish wrote...

Back to my original reason for making the thread which was not simply another mage vs chantry or woe is me DA2 was not good. It was to point out that because they did a fine job in earlier games to build up this divide they will have to tread carefully in how they present a resolution, even if it is a temporary one.

Not just the mage/Templar divide. Was there ever a golden city? What are the darkspawn? What is so special about the darkspawn taint  that they can use magic but be separated from the fade? Archdemons whats up with them? A maker or no maker? Dragons were exitict but there a over abudance of them no? The Architect and Mother.

Oh and then there Flemeth.

I barley covered all the questions that are out there and when a question is asked people want answers. To many dangling threads. I am okay with a few but some do need to be tied up. Whether I or the internet likes the answers or not.

[terdferguson123]

Huntress wrote...

terdferguson123 wrote...

.. a quick look at metacritic shows an average 8.2 score, and by most review sites there scale goes as: 7 good, 8 great, 9 excellent etc. An 8.2 is in that "great" range, which was the original topic of this discussion right?

That's because they purged the negative reviews.

Can you prove this? Or are you just throwing out random accusations?

Keep in mind I am talking about critic reviews, not user. The user reviews are hogwash because hundreds of people released 0 ratings the second the game released (no way they could have possibly played the game by then).

Modifié par terdferguson123, 19 mars 2013 - 09:29 .

[Danny Boy 7]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Danny Boy 7 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...
As for the OP, Beerfish is right: The mage x Templar conflict in Thedas seems quite a difficult nut to crack. I don't think we humans here on earth have done it yet and we don't even have our own "dangerous persons" throwing fireballs.

Will be interesting to see how the BW writers tackle that. Can't wait!

I hope it will be interesting. I'm not sure why anyone imagines that we would have the entire game revolve around the issue-- as in every second of every minute, like Act 3 of DA2 stretched out over an entire game-- but I guess if that's the only thing one has to work with and they really wanted to imagine the worst possible continuation they could certainly do that.

And I suppose some people do certainly try.

I imagine it'll be the framework for the game, sort of the...main factor that pushes us forward. Sort of like the Blight was in Origins and "Rising to power" was in DA2. Obviously you can't say yay or nay, but I imagine that we'll have things like the Orlesian Civil War and some sort of darkspawn event to keep us occupied throughout the meat of the game.

This makes me feel like we're going to be attending some kind of broodmother office mixer.

Honestly, though, I think one of the major themes of Dragon Age is that people can't seem to get along even when the world is falling apart around them. So it kind of makes sense to watch the mages and templars duke it out under the backdrop of a larger world calamity.

Well small talk is a battle.

That's basically what I mean, we're working to end it for whatever reason, but we have all this over stuff that takes a higher precedence ala Arl Eamon or who is king of Orzammar.

[addiction21]

Huntress wrote...

Relax.. I do what I want, you are a nobody to decide what I do, you have no voice.
stop the attack now and  just calm down or better yet, go out and play on the incoming traffic.

So you have no point or argument. Good to know.

P.S.
I am not a fan of people suggesting I "play on the incoming traffic" since its not much more then you hoping I die or are maimed in some horrible manner.

Like I said you are transparent.

[AlanC9]

Beerfish wrote...
It was to point out that because they did a fine job in earlier games to build up this divide they will have to tread carefully in how they present a resolution, even if it is a temporary one.

They could go the TW1 route, where nothing Geralt did made very much difference to the human/nonhuman struggle.

[LPPrince]

AlanC9 wrote...

Beerfish wrote...
It was to point out that because they did a fine job in earlier games to build up this divide they will have to tread carefully in how they present a resolution, even if it is a temporary one.

They could go the TW1 route, where nothing Geralt did made very much difference to the human/nonhuman struggle.

Didn't that kinda happen in the DAO slides between humans and elves?

[Neon Rising Winter]

Beerfish wrote...
Back to my original reason for making the thread which was not simply another mage vs chantry or woe is me DA2 was not good. It was to point out that because they did a fine job in earlier games to build up this divide they will have to tread carefully in how they present a resolution, even if it is a temporary one.

I think any resolution to the mage/Chantry conflict would come not so much from a direct confrontation between the two sides, but from each group changing in such a way it allows them to reach a new relationship.

The end of DA2 threw the Chantry into a massive internal conflct, and to some extent the mages too. Any resolution to the mage/Chantry divide would depend on how those situations play out, and I'm hoping that's what we'll see in at least some of DA3. A big game of Chantry office politics!