1107 réponses à ce sujet

[ManOfSteel]

GiantBomb Quick Look is live. Almost an hour.

[Proposition_Joe]

Game reactor Sweden gives it a 7 and complains mostly about the combat system which is never fun and tactical combat is severly lacking. The reviewer played for 48 hours and liked the side missions where enjoyable but the vocie actors where really bad and Dragon age inquistion never seemed fun during the whole game. He also complained about no feeling of satistfaction in the game when you had completed something. He compared it to Mass effect and DAO and where thinking they where better games. Oh , he liked the crafting side of the game that felt really good.

[ARTHURIUSS]

Game reactor Sweden gives it a 7 and complains mostly about the combat system which is never fun and tactical combat is severly lacking. The reviewer played for 48 hours and liked the side missions where enjoyable but the vocie actors where really bad and Dragon age inquistion never seemed fun during the whole game. He also complained about no feeling of satistfaction in the game when you had completed something. He compared it to Mass effect and DAO and where thinking they where better games. Oh , he liked the crafting side of the game that felt really good.

 

48 hours out of a potential 100+ hour game. I'm assuming he hasn't finished the main quest.

 

Which difficulty did he play on to find tactical combat lacking?

Bad voice acting. lol. Are there sewdish voiceovers or is  he passing judgement on the English voice acting?
 

Need these questions answered if he wants me to take his review seriously.

[Ogillardetta]

48 hours out of a potential 100+ hour game. I'm assuming he hasn't finished the main quest.

 

Which difficulty did he play on to find tactical combat lacking?

Bad voice acting. lol. Are there sewdish voiceovers or is  he passing judgement on the English voice acting?
 

Need these questions answered if he wants me to take his review seriously.

No swedish voiceover, this is guy thinks that Shadows of mordor is better DA:I I looked at his history he put 8/10 on that game. 

[Kidd]

48 hours out of a potential 100+ hour game. I'm assuming he hasn't finished the main quest.
 
Which difficulty did he play on to find tactical combat lacking?

Bad voice acting. lol. Are there sewdish voiceovers or is  he passing judgement on the English voice acting?
 
Need these questions answered if he wants me to take his review seriously.

Swedes barely get any dubbed games ever, and we don't particularly tend to want any after the age of 9 either. We're used to reading subs on TV and generally grow up to find our own language to sound "weird" in entertainment. Suffice to say, DAI is 100% in English here.

[ARTHURIUSS]

Swedes barely get any dubbed games ever, and we don't particularly tend to want any after the age of 9 either. We're used to reading subs on TV and generally grow up to find our own language to sound "weird" in entertainment. Suffice to say, DAI is 100% in English here.

 

Well, of all the reviews I've read, he's probably the only one who claims it has bad voice acting. I'd be more inclined to listen to other (Native English speaking) reviewers on this aspect at least.

[ARTHURIUSS]

No swedish voiceover, this is guy thinks that Shadows of mordor is better DA:I I looked at his history he put 8/10 on that game. 

 

Interesting. Played Mordor and for the most part found it fun albeit a little shallow. Will have to play Inquisition to see if i agree with him.

[Degenerate Rakia Time]

wait wait wait, we cant bind anything to the mouse buttons? well ****.....i dont want to be stuck with auto attack on the left button, it'll make me look like those reviewers that constantly punch things....

[kingjezza]

He doesn't love the game people, he thinks it has faults, get over it, his opinion is as valid as anybody else.

 

Anytime somebody finds something negative about about the game we don't need a constant chorus of "but what, why, when, can't take this review seriously, what does a filthy Swedish peasant know about Dragon Age anyway"

[ManOfSteel]

He doesn't love the game people, he thinks it has faults, get over it, his opinion is as valid as anybody else.

 

Anytime somebody finds something negative about about the game we don't need a constant chorus of "but what, why, when, can't take this review seriously, what does a filthy Swedish peasant know about Dragon Age anyway"

This. People are allowed to criticise a game you're excited for. It doesn't make their opinion any less valid.

[Fredvdp]

Not being able to bind actions to the mouse is a shame. Hardly a deal-breaker, but I usually map some abilities to the mouse.

[The Elder King]

He doesn't love the game people, he thinks it has faults, get over it, his opinion is as valid as anybody else.

 

Anytime somebody finds something negative about about the game we don't need a constant chorus of "but what, why, when, can't take this review seriously, what does a filthy Swedish peasant know about Dragon Age anyway"

Yup. I think I'm going to disagree with him after I'll play the game, but I don't see the problem with him not liking it.

Another italian site, Multiplayer, will post a review tomorrow. Today they streamed a video when they talked about it.

In terms of content he thought the game is exceptional. There are tons of things to do. A lot of dialogues, and he liked the companions (in particular Dorian).

The cons of the game in his opinion is in the gameplay. Played as an action he thinks it is boring (though he mentioned he thought DA2's action part was better. It seems because the lack of powerful looking abilities until endgame) and played with the TC is clunky. 

He thinks crafting is cool in theory, but that it ends up boring collecting tons of materials everytime. The interesting part is that he said loots is generally better.

I think he doesnt use Vivienne often, because he said there's no healing spell in the game but he mentioned focus.

[FumikoM]

As a Swede, I apologize for the negative review from Gamereactor. The reviewer have apparently extremely high expectations on voice acting and combat, and seem to think every RPG that is not Skyrim is bad. Ridiculous... 

[Ailith Tycane]

As a Swede, I apologize for the negative review from Gamereactor. The reviewer have apparently extremely high expectations on voice acting and combat, and seem to think every RPG that is not Skyrim is bad. Ridiculous... 

 

If they have a high standard for combat, then Skyrim is hardly the best example I can think of, lol. 

 

I usually like Giantbomb but they really don't know what they're talking about with this game. Only 2 minutes in and they have made some major boo boos. 

[Ogillardetta]

He doesn't love the game people, he thinks it has faults, get over it, his opinion is as valid as anybody else.

 

Anytime somebody finds something negative about about the game we don't need a constant chorus of "but what, why, when, can't take this review seriously, what does a filthy Swedish peasant know about Dragon Age anyway"

Yeah No I simply stated that he liked Shadows of Mordor more than DA:I so now people has a refrance model to his tastes. Also I'm Swedish and I'm pretty sure noone said anything about our people being filthy peasants. He also has GTA as one of his favorite games and that makes me think that he and I does not look for the same things in games at all.

[Akkos]

Yea, I just watch the Giantbomb review or whatever it is video, they are just stupid.

 

I know they are new to playing this kind of RPG, sometimes they suggest things that's already implement and make up stuffs that ain't suppose to be in the game.

 

Like the Mount system, Or the combat especially.... the other guy was like "I wish they put the names of all enemies in the map".??? like seriously..

[Fredward]

The only thing I think is a bit 0.o about the Swedish review is the critique of the VOs. Bioware usually has EXCELLENT VOs.

[FumikoM]

The only thing I think is a bit 0.o about the Swedish review is the critique of the VOs. Bioware usually has EXCELLENT VOs.

Yeah I don't think anyone on this planet have such high expectations as this reviewer have on voice acting.

[basbaker]

Before I ask my question, let me just apologize if you guys already hashed this out earlier in the thread - I didn't have time to read everything. Anyway, from what I've read of reviews and seen of overall scores so far, reviewers seem to be erring on the cautiously optimistic side of scoring, many giving DA:I a score in the 80s. I wonder if this isn't because of the backlash a lot of them got for high initial ratings of DA:2. I've had the game pre-ordered since May I think, so it doesn't matter either way to me, and scores in the 80s are certainly not bad, but I wonder if I shouldn't add a couple of points to most reviews just to offset their somewhat reserved approach to this game. What do you guys think?

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

GiantBomb Quick Look is live. Almost an hour.

Video wont play for some reason. 

[xkg]

Video wont play for some reason. 

 

Try this, it is the same video

http://www.gamespot..../embed/6422263/

[veeia]

Before I ask my question, let me just apologize if you guys already hashed this out earlier in the thread - I didn't have time to read everything. Anyway, from what I've read of reviews and seen of overall scores so far, reviewers seem to be erring on the cautiously optimistic side of scoring, many giving DA:I a score in the 80s. I wonder if this isn't because of the backlash a lot of them got for high initial ratings of DA:2. I've had the game pre-ordered since May I think, so it doesn't matter either way to me, and scores in the 80s are certainly not bad, but I wonder if I shouldn't add a couple of points to most reviews just to offset their somewhat reserved approach to this game. What do you guys think?

IMO, ignore the numbers, focus on the content of them. Trying to figure out what a number "means" is like explaining gas prices: possible, but very complex. and unnecessary, esp when the reviewers helpfully tell you what they mean so you don't have to guess.

[Gothfather]

I find random reviews not to be valuable BUT if you find a reviewer that shares your tastes in games it can be helpful, which you can only do by reading multiple reviews over multiple games and finding a reviewer that liked the same aspect of a game you did and find they disliked the same issue you did,

 

The number scores in reviews are almost always meaningless because I see lots of games people hate and these games can still score very high.

[Chashan]

Before I ask my question, let me just apologize if you guys already hashed this out earlier in the thread - I didn't have time to read everything. Anyway, from what I've read of reviews and seen of overall scores so far, reviewers seem to be erring on the cautiously optimistic side of scoring, many giving DA:I a score in the 80s. I wonder if this isn't because of the backlash a lot of them got for high initial ratings of DA:2. I've had the game pre-ordered since May I think, so it doesn't matter either way to me, and scores in the 80s are certainly not bad, but I wonder if I shouldn't add a couple of points to most reviews just to offset their somewhat reserved approach to this game. What do you guys think?

 

Only review I read where this was covered in any detail was the German Game Star, a magazine I used to read way back when I still got any video-game related journal off the kiosk (which was rare even then). I have not perused it in years, yet its online review of DA:I did include one of the three reviewers directly stating that he disagreed with his magazine's decision to rate DA2 as high as it did when that came out - 87/100 it was -, stating some of the reasons why he personally thought so as well - dungeon-recycling among them. A refreshingly integer thing to see, I got to say.

 

DA:I they rated at 85/100, however all three reviewers agreed that it was better than its direct predecessor hands-down. All three opined, however, that it simply was not the same as DA:O. One of them put it rather drastically - not in a purely negative sense, mind: "The old Bioware is dead! Long live the new Bioware!" The 'new Bioware' offering a vast, open world with DA:I, whereas DA:O offered a, to them, 'dark, gritty' one.

[theacefes]

The 'new Bioware' offering a vast, open world with DA:I, whereas DA:O offered a, to them, 'dark, gritty' one.

 

Has anyone actually played DA:O? Epic? Definitely. Dark? Eh...no, and the metal music in the trailers combined with the blood splatters doesn't make a game dark. I recall the development time being a little too long for what we got - the origins stories felt like they were put in as an afterthought and the engine/graphics were a bit on the obsolete side compared to what was out at the time. 

 

Don't get me wrong - I loved DA:O - it was a fantastic game and I've put lots of hours into it. The lore is great and the story is very good. But it's by no means a dark, gritty fantasy tale. I will admit it had some darker elements (broodmother, city elf origin, possession) but I think the "dark, gritty" thing was a product of marketing.

 

I can understand if some gamers do not want to evolve along with the company. That's understandable. But reviewing a game and giving it a certain score because it doesn't have elements from a game that came out in 2009, or 2001, or 1998...seems unfair. I'd rather see less number scoring systems and more general write ups and takeaways.