if you dont like rpgs you shouldnt write reviews about rpgs, period
IDK, sometimes I enjoy reading opinions from people who aren't that into the genre/is a total newcomer to the series. It gives you a different perspective and that's usually a good thing.
Yeah, I'm curious on how Metacritic determines what reviews are added.
Telegraph gets added, but Time is not? Curious.
Ironically that person would probably end up being more objective than someone that does. I can't read Swedish so I don't know what they have to say. But I've found the 8.5 reviews most informative from a technical standpoint.
IDK, sometimes I enjoy reading opinions from people who aren't that into the genre/is a total newcomer to the series. It gives you a different perspective and that's usually a good thing.
well its all about preference i guess, personally i prefer reading reviews from people with similar interests as mine
and that reminds me, i CANT WAIT, for the Angry Joe review
Guest_TheDarkKnightReturns_*
Yeah, I'm curious on how Metacritic determines what reviews are added.
Telegraph gets added, but Time is not? Curious.
I believe it works on a submission basis. If the professional critics/reviewers care enough they'll submit their reviews to aggregate sites like metacritic or rottentomatoes.
Waiting 6 months for the next season pf a show isn't the same as waiting 4 years for the next game. I'll probably have kids by then and little time to game.
You could be waiting for DLC and that's what I'm skeptical about.
Alternatively, I'd also be pretty "distressed" if, for instance, having defeated "the Elder One," we were treated to a post-credits scene of TEO alive and well.
If it's done in the style of most TV shows, it does.
No it doesn't
I believe it works on a submission basis. If the professional critics/reviewers care enough they'll submit their reviews to aggregate sites like metacritic or rottentomatoes.
Awesome, that makes sense.
This game is promissing to be better than origins. Goddamit now i really want to play it! xD
No it doesn't
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I feel like I rally have to comment this (from God is a Geek review :
Oddly, there’s no questionnaire or interrogation at the start to import your choices from previous games. Instead you have to either play to the canon or use Dragon Age Keep, a browser game linked to your EA Origin account, to continue in your own story. It’s disappointing, as it should have been an easy thing to implement (indeed, BioWare have done it previously in both the Dragon Age and Mass Effect franchises). That said, at least there’s an option at all, which is something.
How can you make a judgement like that in a review of a franchise that has 1) changed its engine completely, and 2) is publishing simultaneously on both old and new generation consoles? I mean... really?
Other than that, I'm actually enjoying the negative/more critical reviews more to get a more varied take on the game and keep my personal hype down. From the reviews, it looks like at least a couple reviewers got hyped and burned for various reasons (the Gamreactor reviewer said outright that his expectations were a reason why his review is a bit negative).
The mentions about a lackluster story are kind of bothering me though...
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
You simply had to drop the notion that DA game will come to an end when the series reach the X episode of the serie.
DA was created first and foremost as a franchise so pretending that at some point we will have the game of the games that will close all plot, cover all the fact left open is pretty naive, there will be always something that tie the last game with the next one.
Honestly, I suspect that the only game that will have a more-or-less definitive ending will be DA:O, simply because it wasn't expected to be anywhere near as successful as it was. There's a reason they've basically stopped doing the epilogue slides thing and essentially retconned a bunch of the DAO ones.
I feel like I rally have to comment this (from God is a Geek review :
How can you make a judgement like that in a review of a franchise that has 1) changed its engine completely, and 2) is publishing simultaneously on both old and new generation consoles? I mean... really?
Other than that, I'm actually enjoying the negative/more critical reviews more to get a more varied take on the game and keep my personal hype down. From the reviews, it looks like at least a couple reviewers got hyped and burned for various reasons (the Gamreactor reviewer said outright that his expectations were a reason why his review is a bit negative).
The mentions about a lackluster story are kind of bothering me though...
There are some reviews that I don't add to the equation. Especially that Telegraph one which isn't even a game reviewing site. Just some random person to be told to play a game and do a review on. Like telling a nongamer to play a game. The writer pull off from several different articles or maybe wiki. Probably never played the others in the franchise.
The Telegraph review is somewhat of a gamer, he even played DA2. He also complains about the game failing to provide a reasons to do things and then goes on saying DA2 provided those. Going by a few other reviews, I suspect this is the problem for most of the weak plot comments: unfocused story because of the open-world design of the game.
Wouldn't surprise me if those players expected an interactive movie at this point.
pcgameshardware.de did take a look on the technical side of DA:I.
Yeah, I'm curious on how Metacritic determines what reviews are added.
Telegraph gets added, but Time is not? Curious.
Not every review is going to be included on metacritic. Some kind of privilage, that has to be earned first.
You can read a little about that in comments section here:
http://gaming.thedig...ar-rome-ii.html
Notably
2) We have worked very hard to gain our metacritic status and if you are familiar with the process it becomes clear that we would not use shock scores to get more hits. This is a process that has looked carefully at our historical scores, the quality of the writing and how reliable we are. We worked for 18 months to achieve a metacritic status and there is no way that we would jeopardize that.
Oh creators *facepalm*...since when was it a "browser game"? It takes 10 mins tops...*sigh*
That's exactly what I thought. Bloody hell, there's an engine change AND a new console generation to consider. The Keep is a solution to both of those issues, is it perfect? No, of course not but they are still working on it, it's easy to use and it's free. Plus you get a freemium game as an added bonus, it's not for everyone but it's a nice extra. But I guess you can't please everyone.
I feel like I rally have to comment this (from God is a Geek review :
How can you make a judgement like that in a review of a franchise that has 1) changed its engine completely, and 2) is publishing simultaneously on both old and new generation consoles? I mean... really?
Other than that... I'm actually enjoying the negative/more critical reviews more to get a more varied take on the game and keep my personal hype down. From the reviews, it looks like at least a couple reviewers got hyped and burned for various reasons.
The mentions about a lackluster story are kind of bothering me though...
Sadly, I ignore the gaming press more than ever before.
If the game is good or bad - it often doesn't matter because of how video game 'journalism' works. I think that some dev recently referred to all of the game journos as "enthusiastic press".
All those reviews are here to create hype, and here's how I read it:
10/10: This game is quite allright, I won't be bashed too much for saying it's a 10.
9.5/10: This game has some issues, but it's still a AAA, so that's the most I can do
9/10: Good game, won't cause much buyer's remorse
8.5/10: It's a disappointment for such a title, but I still will get invited to the next conference
lower scores are not so common in the AAA world, so I tend to believe them more.
I'll still buy the game, but after I get a thumbs up from a guy like Total Biscuit, not review sites.
You simply had to drop the notion that DA game will come to an end when the series reach the X episode of the serie.
DA was created first and foremost as a franchise so pretending that at some point we will have the game of the games that will close all plot, cover all the fact left open is pretty naive, there will be always something that tie the last game with the next one.
A Cliffhanger ends an Act Break, episode, or even a whole season (or a film or novel in a series) with some or all of the main characters in peril of some kind and the audience is made to wait for the outcome. The To Be Continued caption is often used here.
A Sequel Hook is something in a work that suggests that there is a clear possibility for another story. The MacGuffins may come in threes, the Big Bad might be Not Quite Dead, or, more blatantly, as the story ends another adventure might be shown beginning.
one of the low reviews bashes the game for it's open world and not being theme-park style.
TVtropes has seriously ruined things when some people are stupid enough to think that if something qualifies as a trope, it MUST therefore be bad. Pretty much everything can be boiled down to a trope or cliche.
Okay, let's clear things up a bit because it looks like you're misinterpreting my point. When I said that the story of DA:I needs to be self-contained I meant just that: the story told within the constraints of Inquisition needs to have its beginning, middle, and end, in Inquisition. I don't mean that every loose end that we bring with us since DA:O needs to be resolved by Inquisition. In fact, DA:I may even introduce loose ends of its own in order to set up future stories that are not resolved in this game and that's okay provided it tells a coherent story that develops throughout Inquisition.
The following are definitions from TV Tropes on 'cliffhanger' and 'sequel hook' (what's probably what you meant):
http://tvtropes.org/...ain/CliffHanger
http://tvtropes.org/...Main/SequelHook
Ok than it's my fault.
Retour en haut