1107 réponses à ce sujet

[craigdolphin]

Another review....this one is a 10/10 from my home country ( New Zealand )

http://www.stuff.co....nquisition.html

[heinoMK2]

Before someone else posts this here and gets all panicky.

 

4players.de gave Dragon Age Inquisition a 59/100.

 

http://www.4players....nquisition.html

 

Note: I would not take 4players seriously. They are notorious in Germany for giving AAA games bad scores for the sake of it. They even rated DA2 higher than DA:I. Just saying because people on NeoGAF are already freaking out...

 

IMO 4players.de is the most trustworthy games review site i know of. They warned me about ME2 being on the weeker side story wise(it was), saved me from getting into DA2 and in retrospect i wish i had waited for their review before buying ME3, as i regretted my decision after only 2 hours into the game.

 

If they say that DA:I is a pretty but incredibly shallow game with a weak story, then it most probably is. Might still buy it for 5€ after a year or two, though. On the other hand, i dread what might become of ME4 with this new direction Bioware seems to take about their games right now.

[efd731]

IMO 4players.de is the most trustworthy games review site i know of. They warned me about ME2 being on the weeker side story wise(it was), saved me from getting into DA2 and in retrospect i wish i had waited for their review before buying ME3, as i regretted my decision after only 2 hours into the game.

 

If they say that DA:I is a pretty but incredibly shallow game with a weak story, then it most probably is. Might still buy it for 5€ after a year or two, though. On the other hand, i dread what might become of ME4 with this new direction Bioware seems to take about their games right now.

dude, if you think ME2 is weak onthe story side thats fine(subjective opinion and all that) but it's widely regarded as one of the best examples of quality storytelling. and on top of that, how can you possibly rate inquisition lower than da2? that game was a one year rushed mess

[KaiserShep]

Yeah, I love DA2, but if I reviewed the game, I'd be forced to give it a more middling score for the technical issues alone. How much or how little they actually affect my enjoyment of the game wouldn't/shouldn't change that.

[mindw0rk]

ME2 was amazing. ME3 was also brilliant except for mediocre ending.

Tbh I would never trust a site that puts DA2 over DAO

[xkg]

Tbh I would never trust a site that puts DA2 over DAO

 

Did any site ever did that ? Can't remember any, maybe I missed some rieviews.

[heinoMK2]

dude, if you think ME2 is weak onthe story side thats fine(subjective opinion and all that) but it's widely regarded as one of the best examples of quality storytelling. and on top of that, how can you possibly rate inquisition lower than da2? that game was a one year rushed mess

 

The main story of ME2 is very weak, hardly getting forward - the whole game felt like a giant sidequest. The characters on the other hand are all quite interesting, the dialogues, the dialogue options and interrupts were also a substantial improvement over ME1 imo - which is where the praise for storytelling comes from. But coming from ME1 and expecting some substantial progress on the main story, ME2 was a disappointment.

 

The editor of 4players who reviewed DA:I said that they usually consider the "current standards"(or what is technically and art-wise possible, i guess) for their ratings. Thus if you wanted a sensible comparison of modern games to the older ones they would have to lower the ratings for old games retrospectively all the time -  which is simply way too much work. In shot: 70+ for DA2 back then is not entirely comparable to 59 for DA:I now.

[Mathias]

IMO 4players.de is the most trustworthy games review site i know of. They warned me about ME2 being on the weeker side story wise(it was), saved me from getting into DA2 and in retrospect i wish i had waited for their review before buying ME3, as i regretted my decision after only 2 hours into the game.

 

If they say that DA:I is a pretty but incredibly shallow game with a weak story, then it most probably is. Might still buy it for 5€ after a year or two, though. On the other hand, i dread what might become of ME4 with this new direction Bioware seems to take about their games right now.

 

Well sites and people that I find trustworthy have said the opposite, and beg pardon but I have a hard time taking someone seriously scoring the game THAT low. Especially considering they scored DA2 much higher.

[heinoMK2]

Well sites and people that I find trustworthy have said the opposite, and beg pardon but I have a hard time taking someone seriously scoring the game THAT low. Especially considering they scored DA2 much higher.

 

Different tastes and different demands for different people, that is totally fine. Sometimes a meal from McDonalds is good enough, too.

[Mathias]

Different tastes and different demands for different people, that is totally fine. Sometimes a meal from McDonalds is good enough, too.

 

Are you implying people who really like the game have bad taste?

[heinoMK2]

Are you implying people who really like the game have bad taste?

I am implying that player demands are different.

[Mathias]

I am implying that player demands are different.

 

Yes I got that from your first sentence because you stated that quite clearly. It was the McDonalds line that bothered me. Yes a Big Mac is good enough for some people, but at the end of the day the quality of a Big Mac isn't nearly as good as the quality of a meal at a 5 star restaurant. In other words, whether it's intentional or not, you're basically implying that some people are just fine settling for junk, but it is still junk.

[rda]

I can't read German, but a 59 out of 100 is basically calling the game a red hot mess, unless the site average is a 50.

You can say the story is weak all you want, and maybe it is, I dunno, but unless you're saying literally every other part of the game is significantly flawed as well, that's a pretty indefensible score.

ETA: kinda reminds me of some teachers I've had who've basically graded on "feel".

Actual conversation:
"This paper felt like a C paper to me."
"Uhm, ok, but it exceeds every rubric you said you were grading the paper on."
"Yeah, but I just don't agree with the direction you took it in."
::gnashing teeth::

[Chashan]

So? Maybe he liked the game more, for whatever reason. Are we really going to chastise someone for liking Dragon Age II more than Inquisition?

 

The better question, does he justify why clearly, or is it in a vacuum and he just said its a bad game vaguely? If it's the former then hes at least attempting to do a good review, if it's the latter then it's same issue I keep talking about regarding reviews in the first place. 

 

One point of comparison for him was TESV: Skyrim, a game the developers themselves said served as inspiration for DA:I. Which necessitates bringing 'open-world RPG'-criteria into consideration, 'open World' being one of DA:I's explicit goals in itself, as it were. To the reviewer, DA:I's game-world was too static when compared to Bethesda's title.

 

 

As regards backwards-comparisons of scores not just between DA:I and DA2, but video-games - and not just games, any "scoring" of products in press in general, really, the following user already mentions one key practical argument against forever adjusting that:

 

[...]

 

The editor of 4players who reviewed DA:I said that they usually consider the "current standards"(or what is technically and art-wise possible, i guess) for their ratings. Thus if you wanted a sensible comparison of modern games to the older ones they would have to lower the ratings for old games retrospectively all the time -  which is simply way too much work. In shot: 70+ for DA2 back then is not entirely comparable to 59 for DA:I now.

 

I'd add, further, that these scorings are done at different points of time should be something readily obvious to those who peruse such reviews.

[Xeper84]

everything 4players writes is exactly the stuff i feared. A bad google translation:

 

"BioWare attempting a balancing act between its own narrative virtues and an open world à la The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim - and the rotten compromises between them are very painful. Instead of expanding the traditional strengths, we took its cue from the successful competition of Bethesda and much of Skyrim copied without reaching its suction. It has moved away from the situational role-playing game with a dramatic script to open a huge playground. The looks wonderful, lures with size and diversity. But the core is either ordinary, unpretentious or as terrible as static in many online role-playing game. Since this fascination is neither novel nor playful felt that we have to wait to Baldur's Gate Dragon Age: Origins was transferred. Should there have been progress in terms of character behavior in the last twenty years, you will not find them here. The few really good quests go under the overused Get and Put. Because of the contradictions between the narrative and the experienced also created very early a distance to the game world and its actors. Why should I collect iron as a herald of the Inquisition or hunt Aries? The own hero? Morally hardly malleable! There are few dramatic moments when the old BioWare flashes, because screenplay and story go during the scavenger hunt under and over again. Yes, you can drift for 30 to 80 hours in an endless tag-completion and flow: There's so much fighting to liberate, to pick, to tinker and also to decide - only that this little on the history effect. The exploration potential charms of beautiful landscapes are stifled early by the spoiler card and much is terribly obvious distributed for collectors - finding secrets by direction pulse is the silliest thing Canadians have been developed. Finally, the combat system is neither one thing nor friends for Action for break tactician, but still offers combo stimuli in brilliant battles. It is ultimately kidnapped in a crowded fantasy world, the animated one for weeks with all their odds and ends for surfing on the surface. Since a shard, still a mile and maybe even include a crack here. The really good role playing are as dives. But BioWare will not want to explore that depth - swimming there too little audience."

[Mathias]

I can't read German, but a 59 out of 100 is basically calling the game a red hot mess, unless the site average is a 50.

You can say the story is weak all you want, and maybe it is, I dunno, but unless you're saying literally every other part of the game is significantly flawed as well, that's a pretty indefensible score.

 

That's basically one of my issues with it. Obviously the game has flaws, but a 59 seems absolutely ridiculous.

[Elhanan]

Most Players have kinda known what the story was going to be for some time; previous Players of the past games may have even speculated on something very close to what has been created. Placing something in the game that was not expected would have been more distracting for myself, and simply tossing something 'new' into the mix for it's own sake is a gamble I am glad does not exist, IMO.

[Mathias]

One point of comparison for him was TESV: Skyrim, a game the developers themselves said served as inspiration for DA:I. Which necessitates bringing 'open-world RPG'-criteria into consideration, 'open World' being one of DA:I's explicit goals in itself, as it were. To the reviewer, DA:I's game-world was too static when compared to Bethesda's title.

 

 

As regards backwards-comparisons of scores not just between DA:I and DA2, but video-games - and not just games, any "scoring" of products in press in general, really, the following user already mentions one key practical argument against forever adjusting that:

 

 

But the exploration and game world is one of the high points in almost every review. So many people mentioned just spending time getting lost in different hubs, exploring as much as they can. I have played the early access over at a friend's house, and having gotten a small taste of what the world is like, I can't disagree with the reviewer more. 

 

I'd add, further, that these scorings are done at different points of time should be something readily obious to those who peruse such reviews.

 

[...]

 

The editor of 4players who reviewed DA:I said that they usually consider the "current standards"(or what is technically and art-wise possible, i guess) for their ratings. Thus if you wanted a sensible comparison of modern games to the older ones they would have to lower the ratings for old games retrospectively all the time -  which is simply way too much work. In shot: 70+ for DA2 back then is not entirely comparable to 59 for DA:I now.

 

 

Three years ago is not that long of a time, and things haven't really changed that much since then. I can't really see this a good defense for the score these guys gave. 

[dlux]

I can't read German, but a 59 out of 100 is basically calling the game a red hot mess, unless the site average is a 50.

59/100 seems about right to me after playing the game for two hours.

 

I will force myself to play some more and see if the game improves, but I somehow doubt that I will change my mind.

[GregorLightbringer]

59/100 seems about right to me after playing the game for two hours.

 

I will force myself to play some more and see if the game improves, but I somehow doubt that I will change my mind.

With modern games now-a-days, it always feels like a gamble when you prebook or prepurchase a game. I prepurchased, but when I did for DA:O I was surprised. When I got in for beta for DA 2, I was not impressed. I felt it was a deviation from the heart of the DA series. I prepurchased DA:I Digi deluxe. I pray I have a different experience than you are.

[rda]

One point of comparison for him was TESV: Skyrim, a game the developers themselves said served as inspiration for DA:I. Which necessitates bringing 'open-world RPG'-criteria into consideration, 'open World' being one of DA:I's explicit goals in itself, as it were. To the reviewer, DA:I's game-world was too static when compared to Bethesda's title.

Don't get me wrong, I spent about 100 hours on Skyrim...but it's open world was pretty static. Unless static to the reviewer means "I can kill anyone". I mean, baddies could find their friend with an arrow in his head, scream for a few minutes, then sit right down and eat dinner ( with the dead body sitting next to them.). Characters followed pre-rendered paths and schedules, and were restricted to a few lines of dialogue. Half (or more) of the quests were truly random Kill person X at Location Y. My "wife" agreed to marry me after I brought her 10 bear pelts and wore a special necklace. She then made me a meal a day, and had maybe 3 lines of dialogue after that. Oh, and she acted like a traveling merchant, so bonus I guess. You could kill someone's family member, and as long as you cleared it with the guards, the next time you saw them, they were cool with you.

Skyrim was a great game. But the world was pretty dang static in the way it reacted to you.

[Xeper84]

Don't get me wrong, I spent about 100 hours on Skyrim...but it's open world was pretty static. Unless static to the reviewer means "I can kill anyone". I mean, baddies could find their friend with an arrow in his head, scream for a few minutes, then sit right down and eat dinner ( with the dead body sitting next to them.). Characters followed pre-rendered paths and schedules, and were restricted to a few lines of dialogue. Half (or more) of the quests were truly random Kill person X at Location Y. My "wife" agreed to marry me after I brought her 10 bear pelts and wore a special necklace. She then made me a meal a day, and had maybe 3 lines of dialogue after that. Oh, and she acted like a traveling merchant, so bonus I guess. You could kill someone's family member, and as long as you cleared it with the guards, the next time you saw them, they were cool with you.

Skyrim was a great game. But the world was pretty dang static in the way it reacted to you.

And DA:I is even more static than Skyrim....:

 

Well in DA:I most npcs will not move at all and will have no daily schedule.

There is no day-night circle.

you will not see any emotional reaction when you kill a npc. (or a enemy)

The quest in DA:I are even more simple than in Skyrim (basically you move near a flag raising point-->  you get the quest raise flag -->  you raise it --> done)

you can not talk with many people.

[Mathias]

One bad review.

 

One is all it took.

[dlux]

With modern games now-a-days, it always feels like a gamble when you prebook or prepurchase a game. I prepurchased, but when I did for DA:O I was surprised. When I got in for beta for DA 2, I was not impressed. I felt it was a deviation from the heart of the DA series. I prepurchased DA:I Digi deluxe. I pray I have a different experience than you are.

I haven't explored much of the world, so maybe that part of the game is actually pretty good. 

 

Combat and the tactical camera are just really klunky and awkward in DA:I. It is really annoying and frustrating.

[Lukas Trevelyan]

One thing that baffles me is that DA2 is rated 70 while DA:I is rated 59. Whether he/she enjoyed DA2 more shouldn't have factored into scoring DA:I so lowly, a review should be as objective as possible. From what we've seen so far alone DA:I can stand it's ground to be at least as good as DA2 let alone better, it's honestly puzzling.. O wells, I never cared for reviews anyway, no matter how positive or how negative