65 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

It does tickle my console peasant heart.

[AventuroLegendary]

 

The game is ****.

 

A review of it:

*Yahtzee snip*

 

 

A critic says bad things! I can't have fun with the game anymore! Woe is me!

[Tommy6860]

Lol, srsly, this is your reason for disliking the game?

 And s/he's wrong, one doesn't move with the RMB, just target (meaning attack or to move to a highlighted area), camera. You can move by dpressing the L&R mouse buttons at the same time which is convenient in battles (just like DA:O) The controls are almost virtually the same as DA:O and not only that, if it bothers her/him so much, then re-map that damn buttons and keys, it's that simple .

[eroeru]

 

 

 

 

A critic says bad things! I can't have fun with the game anymore! Woe is me!

 

 

Didn't say you couldn't have fun with it. Just that Yahtzee was awesome and made good points served in a most rationally convincing way.

 

Still, I hold to my personal view that the game is objectively a travesty and a insult to the series from its basics. Nevermind that some people like ass Hawke and a shaven dwarf and think faux-middle-age-like simpliciter drama around heretics, burnings, "terrorism" and whatnot is relevant. I don't blame for that. I blame Bioware for making even that obviously horrible, and putting it into a series where prior fans looked for a different game altogether (in many cases).

 

It's both a *completely* different game from the get-go basis of it, and a badly done one at that (though enjoyable for many who were allured by the "2" in the title - as if sequels would be better - it *is* usually vice versa, friends).

[KaiserShep]

How do you objectively establish that the game is an "insult" to the series? Perhaps if the developers purposefully created this game to scorn the series for some reason, but there's no way for us to know that. Like the Star Wars prequels, I hate those films with ever fiber of my being, but at the same time, I could not establish, objectively, that Lucas was creating an insult on his own franchise when he filmed them, much as I would like to think that they were insults just the same.

 

I'll never understand why Varric's lack of a beard often comes up in the more bitter criticisms of the game. I recall several beardless (male) dwarves in DA:O, but I guess that has to do with it being treated as a bit of a joke in some banter.

 

As for relevance, I think the fact that Inquisition seems to be following up on the collapse seen in DA2 kinda gives that impression.

[kalasaurus]

The game is ****.

 

A review of it:

 

Heh, I love Zero Punctuation.  I don't always agree with his reviews, but they are good for a laugh or two

[KaiserShep]

I think his accent is kind of a catalyst for the hilarity as well.

[Ryzaki]

 

Lol, srsly, this is your reason for disliking the game?

 

Hey don't knock the impact a terrible control scheme can have. (God I hated how in ME3 ****** everything just about needed space. THERE'S ATLEAST A DOZEN OTHER PC KEYS. WHY DOES SPACE DO PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING.)

[eroeru]

@Kaiser

Lack of a beard wasn't a criticism. The praise for it and for the character is left obscure to me though.

 

And go into semantics we must.

I said my personal opinion is that the game is objectively a bad one (at least as a decision for Bioware and fans of a type, yet also full of way significant flaws from any perspective really). I didn't objectively establish tho, as my arguments or vitriol or whathaveyounot are from me personally and will obviously either sound convincing or not, and both.

[Darth Krytie]

@Kaiser

Lack of a beard wasn't a criticism. The praise for it and for the character is left obscure to me though.

 

And go into semantics we must.

I said my personal opinion is that the game is objectively a bad one (at least as a decision for Bioware and fans of a type, yet also full of way significant flaws from any perspective really). I didn't objectively establish tho, as my arguments or vitriol or whathaveyounot will obviously either sound convincing or not, and both.

 

You can't say the game is objectively bad because for something to be 'objectively bad' it would need to be actually and quite literally unplayable. You can play it. You can beat it. It fulfilled its intended purpose as a product. You may not have liked it (subjective), but objectively the game functioned and functioned to a fair degree. The bugs were minimal compared to other games I've played and some of those were quite objectively bad as I was prevented from actually being able to play the game.

[superdeathdealer14]

[Zjarcal]

Hey don't knock the impact a terrible control scheme can have. (God I hated how in ME3 ****** everything just about needed space. THERE'S ATLEAST A DOZEN OTHER PC KEYS. WHY DOES SPACE DO PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING.)

 

Lolz, I don't and trust me, I hate the ME3 omni bar as much as anyone else, especially in multiplayer, but the DA2 controls were virtually the same as DAO and they really aren't unintuitive controls at all if you ask me, so to name that as the main complaint when there were tons of more relevant things to ****** about, well it just seems odd.

[Ryzaki]

Lolz, I don't and trust me, I hate the ME3 omni bar as much as anyone else, especially in multiplayer, but the DA2 controls were virtually the same as DAO and they really aren't unintuitive controls at all if you ask me, so to name that as the main complaint when there were tons of more relevant things to ****** about, well it just seems odd.

 

True! It was just towards the whole bad control scheme ruining a game for some people thing I meant

 

And honestly DA2 was a lot less clunky to me than DAO was. So yeah there's plenty more relevant things to ****** about XD (Honestly I like DA2's combat much more than DAO's the main issue for me was the damn waves.)

[TheViper8234]

I think its a great game with full of disappointments,unexpected crappy changes,weaker storyline . Just like Angry Joe said .  

[eroeru]

You can't say the game is objectively bad because for something to be 'objectively bad' it would need to be actually and quite literally unplayable. You can play it. You can beat it. It fulfilled its intended purpose as a product. You may not have liked it (subjective), but objectively the game functioned and functioned to a fair degree. The bugs were minimal compared to other games I've played and some of those were quite objectively bad as I was prevented from actually being able to play the game.

 

You need to understand what objectivity means. It means mostly that there's basis for it in raw numbers and more importantly, to more than one person. Seeing a problem objectively is argumenting against it with values that also are such or at least minimally understood for others. Even if for two people (tho in that case the degree of objectivity seems more frail). Dragon Age wasn't well done. Not objectively horrid, yet it got things wrong (objectively). It was quite badly made.

 

Objectivity doesn't imply unplayability. A bad game doesn't equal a broken game. Broken games are more easily established bad though.

[caradoc2000]

Being "boring" (from the thread title), is a subjective concept anyway.

[TheWhitefire]

True! It was just towards the whole bad control scheme ruining a game for some people thing I meant

 

And honestly DA2 was a lot less clunky to me than DAO was. So yeah there's plenty more relevant things to ****** about XD (Honestly I like DA2's combat much more than DAO's the main issue for me was the damn waves.)

Main issue for me was blood mages. Seriously, those nug humpers are OP as an archdemon in that game. Them and Pride Demons.

 

I'm on the "hates Anders" wagon. I didn't even like him that much in Awakening. He was kinda like a poor man's Alistair, really. 

 

But Varric. Oh Varric. How I love your hairy, hairy chest. And I'm straight, so that's saying something. I think it might be chest envy, actually, because all I have is this patchy weedy little spot of hair there.

 

I loved DA2s levelling, controls, and overall game play. The plot didn't bother me that much, other than it felt like an anti-climax because beating the arishok felt like a natural climax, but then we have another climax in the third act.

 

Really, the only thing I didn't like about it was the level design because of the many many reasons I could go on about, but even that wasn't that bad. My main complain there is the reusing of levels for Main Quest goals. Mass Effect 1 reused levels for side and secondary quests all the time, so it would hardly be fair to complain about that for DAII while still heralding Mass Effect 1 as a pinnacle of RPG design.

[CronoDragoon]

The cast of characters keeps me coming back. And Act 2.

 

Goddamn you, you sexy beautiful beast, Act 2.

[Darth Krytie]

You need to understand what objectivity means. It means mostly that there's basis for it in raw numbers and more importantly, to more than one person. Seeing a problem objectively is argumenting against it with values that also are such or at least minimally understood for others. Even if for two people (tho in that case the degree of objectivity seems more frail). Dragon Age wasn't well done. Not objectively horrid, yet it got things wrong (objectively). It was quite badly made.

 

Objectivity doesn't imply unplayability. A bad game doesn't equal a broken game. Broken games are more easily established bad though.

 

Actually,  I'm pretty sure I've got the definition of 'objective' down. If Dragon Age 2 was objectively bad, I wouldn't have grounds to disagree with the assessment. And yet I do. And, for all intent and purposes, in game making an objectively bad game is down to playability.

 

Please, tell me how Dragon Age 2 was objectively bad. I would like to see what you say in regards to it.

[Realmzmaster]

The definition of objectively is not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased. The OP stated that the game was boring that is subjective. Most if not all of what has been stated in this thread deals with the subjective. Dragon Age may be subjectively bad in some gamers eyes, but I fail to see how it is objectively bad.

 

If you say the extensive reuse of areas makes it objectively bad that I say is subjective. I had very little problem with the reused areas because I see them in most games created including but not limited to DAO, TES games, Kingdoms of Amalur etc.

 

Was it the boring characters? Again subjective.

Was it the ending? Again subjective.

 

Unless the game is totally unplayable (like it cashes to desktop the minute it starts up every time for everyone or has game breaking bugs preventing finishing the game) as Darth Krytie states is cannot be objectively bad

[KaiserShep]

You need to understand what objectivity means. It means mostly that there's basis for it in raw numbers and more importantly, to more than one person. Seeing a problem objectively is argumenting against it with values that also are such or at least minimally understood for others. Even if for two people (tho in that case the degree of objectivity seems more frail). Dragon Age wasn't well done. Not objectively horrid, yet it got things wrong (objectively). It was quite badly made.

 

Objectivity doesn't imply unplayability. A bad game doesn't equal a broken game. Broken games are more easily established bad though.

 

And that's the thing: there is no basis for it in raw numbers. It's simply a personal opinion. That it may be shared with other people doesn't change that. People who do like the game can't be convinced by its detractors, just as the same is true of the reverse, because neither have facts that could sway the other. Being "badly made" can mean a lot of things, and not everyone can agree on that either. Darth Krytie is right. To be objectively bad, it has to have an issue that is universal, and the only thing this could possibly be is playability on a very basic technical level.

[CronoDragoon]

Unless the game is totally unplayable (like it cashes to desktop the minute it starts up every time for everyone or has game breaking bugs preventing finishing the game) as Darth Krytie states is cannot be objectively bad

 

Well, it doesn't need to be totally unplayable. I believe in the review thread I gave DA2 an 8/10, subtracting a point because the game would freeze on me, forcing me to hard reset the PS3 (and risk bricking it every time) 4-5 times a night. That was an objective flaw of the game upon release, although based on my recent return to DA2 it's one that's largely been corrected (I think I had one freeze the entire playthrough).

[KaiserShep]

I never had freezing issues, though I only purchased the game early this year. I occasionally have issues with DA:O, but my PS3 still has issues with ME1, though not frequent enough to make me rage quit.

[Realmzmaster]

Well, it doesn't need to be totally unplayable. I believe in the review thread I gave DA2 an 8/10, subtracting a point because the game would freeze on me, forcing me to hard reset the PS3 (and risk bricking it every time) 4-5 times a night. That was an objective flaw of the game upon release, although based on my recent return to DA2 it's one that's largely been corrected (I think I had one freeze the entire playthrough).

 

You will note as I said in my post that it has to happen to everyone or a large percentage of the audience to be objectively bad. Was the freezing of the game prevalent on a vast majority of PS3s or only a few? If it is only a few then it may not be the game's fault. If the error happens on a lot of PS3 then it may be an objective flaw.  For example KaiserShep had no problems with freezing for DA2.