49 réponses à ce sujet

[samuelkaine]

Some thoughts from the comrades on Metacritic...

 

"What a completly horrible interface. Worst possible combat ui ever! Anything remotely close to the Baldur's Gate combat ui would have been preferable. I bought this game due to the high rating and am stunned that so many find this not only an acceptable game, but a good one."

 

"I've been a big fan of Bioware ever since the first Baldur's Gate game out. It truly saddens me to see them release this pile of crap."

 

"As for the game play, I grew tired of a camera that never seemed to be where I needed it to be and AI partners that either never did exactly what I wanted them to do. "

 

" The dialog is good, and characters developed, but BioWare just needs to give up and make movies, because these games are just time consumers and disgraces to their genres."

 

"This game has NO HEART in it. They really took the "role playing" out of RPG."

 

"I'm a Bioware fan-boy so it's difficult for me to admit just how bad this game is. But when I'm honest with myself I have to admit it's a bad game. It just is. It's difficult to point out where it all went wrong. Maybe they just tried too hard. Maybe they thought the name alone would sell it. I don't know. The story is totally non-compelling. The combat system is horrible and there is just way too much combat that doesn't advance the story. The personalities of the NPCs are mostly uninspiring."

 

"What's with the endless quantity of ho-hum quests?"

 

 

Yes, truly this is a low point for Bioware and they have totally betrayed their fans with their release of Dragon Age... Origins.

http://www.metacriti...s?dist=negative

 

 

[M Hedonist]

People say the Baldur's Gate UI was good? What the heck?

[VonDodo]

I guess that most dragon age fans are totally angry for good reasons.

 

They wanted a DA sequel and they got a fantasy, improved, mass effect 1

 

Luckily mass effect was a great game so many are liking DAI...

 

P.S. what really makes me think is how most Skyrim modders can develop better hairs and players models and stuff better than professional developers ._.

I mean... look at in game hairs and to apchiiskyhair from skyrim mods (and they have also many Others even animated).

Instead we have the ME 1 editor with the same hairs

[ironhorse384]

Interesting post OP however when you look at the numbers there were over 2500 positive reviews while having only 220 negative ones. I think I understand what you're trying to get at but at the end of the day it still amounts to less than 10% negative. This game may be remembered as one of the greats but for right now it is understandable that there is some ire considering the statements made prior to release regarding the pc version.

[KoorahUK]

Lol well played OP, well played.

[Akka le Vil]

People say the Baldur's Gate UI was good? What the heck?

Not with a gamepad, obviously...

But for KB + M, yes it was pretty good.

[GhoXen]

Not with a gamepad, obviously...

But for KB + M, yes it was pretty good.

 

We already have Divinity, Wasteland 2, and lots more coming for that kind traditional style of gameplay.

 

I for one enjoyed DAI's ARPG control scheme, AFTER I drastically modified the controls via AHK so that it plays like Dark Souls.

[Natureguy85]

This thread is stupid. First, that website gives a fan score of 8.6 with far more positive reviews than negative.

However, I do admit that popular =/= good.

 

More importantly, comparing the first game in an IP or series to a different IP or series, even if made by the same company, is not the same as comparing games within the same IP or series.

[DeathByIcecream]

This thread is stupid. First, that website gives a fan score of 8.6 with far more positive reviews than negative.

However, I do admit that popular =/= good.

 

More importantly, comparing the first game in an IP or series to a different IP or series, even if made by the same company, is not the same as comparing games within the same IP or series.

 

Merely a jest, good sir/ma'am. The point of the thread is to convey, in a relatively jokey manner, the point that several of the same complaints that are currently being made against Inquisition were once made against DA:O, which all the current complainers seem to hold in high regard as some kind of holy symbol of all that is good and right in an RPG (of course, I'm exaggerating here, but I think we can agree there is at least a small grain of truth in what I'm saying).

 

To address your second statement: before it's release, I recall DA:O being marketed as something of a spiritual successor to BG - something of a more modern return to the Baldur's Gate formula. And it was... sort of. But clearly some of these reviewers were disappointed that Origins wasn't enough like BG, just as many are currently disappointed that Inquisition isn't enough like Origins. You know, despite DA and BG technically being different IPs.

 

I think the OP was quite clever with this thread, bravo. Definitely made me laugh out loud. That ho-hum questing one really hit the nail on the head, what with all the "Inquisition is like a freakin MMO, it has such booooring sidequests...." complaints I'm hearing. 

 

On that note, here's a funny reddit post someone on the BSN shared regarding this specific complaint, for anyone who's interested:

 

http://www.reddit.co...ng_hinterlands/

[Sylvius the Mad]

People say the Baldur's Gate UI was good? What the heck?

It was. All the elements were in a frame, where they belong.

[Natureguy85]

Merely a jest, good sir/ma'am. The point of the thread is to convey, in a relatively jokey manner, the point that several of the same complaints that are currently being made against Inquisition were once made against DA:O, which all the current complainers seem to hold in high regard as some kind of holy symbol of all that is good and right in an RPG (of course, I'm exaggerating here, but I think we can agree there is at least a small grain of truth in what I'm saying).

 

To address your second statement: before it's release, I recall DA:O being marketed as something of a spiritual successor to BG - something of a more modern return to the Baldur's Gate formula. And it was... sort of. But clearly some of these reviewers were disappointed that Origins wasn't enough like BG, just as many are currently disappointed that Inquisition isn't enough like Origins. You know, despite DA and BG technically being different IPs.

 

I think the OP was quite clever with this thread, bravo. Definitely made me laugh out loud. That ho-hum questing one really hit the nail on the head, what with all the "Inquisition is like a freakin MMO, it has such booooring sidequests...." complaints I'm hearing. 

 

On that note, here's a funny reddit post someone on the BSN shared regarding this specific complaint, for anyone who's interested:

 

http://www.reddit.co...ng_hinterlands/

 

You can use sir because the word "guy" is in my name lol. Well I take that back. You never know these days...

 

I took the OP as mocking, not joking, because of the sarcasm and the attempt at a "gotcha" by making people think those reviews are about Inquisition when they are about Origins. I could be wrong about the intent, but that's how it comes off.

 

I understand what you are saying about Origins and Baldur's Gate. It's still totally different. However, I am unaware of how Origins was marketed, and I understand the frustration if it created the expectation the games would be more similar.

 

However, the OP has another problem.

 

http://www.metacriti...age-inquisition

 

Inquisition gets a 5.4 user score to Origins 8.6 and already has more negative reviews than a game that's been out for 5 years.

[DemGeth]

Yes

Actually if anyone remembers da:o caused quite the outrage.

Lots if reasons. First e.a. published game and had advertised Dec in game. Was considered to simplistic and shallow in terms of level depth. Repeating layouts and such. And those trees. Was buggy as check.

Also the majority of players fond it to hard. Bio listened and patched in respecs more gold and lowered the difficulty.

Yeah Bio forums were full of outrage.

[yankblan]

Merely a jest, good sir/ma'am. The point of the thread is to convey, in a relatively jokey manner, the point that several of the same complaints that are currently being made against Inquisition were once made against DA:O, which all the current complainers seem to hold in high regard as some kind of holy symbol of all that is good and right in an RPG (of course, I'm exaggerating here, but I think we can agree there is at least a small grain of truth in what I'm saying).

 

To address your second statement: before it's release, I recall DA:O being marketed as something of a spiritual successor to BG - something of a more modern return to the Baldur's Gate formula. And it was... sort of. But clearly some of these reviewers were disappointed that Origins wasn't enough like BG, just as many are currently disappointed that Inquisition isn't enough like Origins. You know, despite DA and BG technically being different IPs.

 

I think the OP was quite clever with this thread, bravo. Definitely made me laugh out loud. That ho-hum questing one really hit the nail on the head, what with all the "Inquisition is like a freakin MMO, it has such booooring sidequests...." complaints I'm hearing. 

 

On that note, here's a funny reddit post someone on the BSN shared regarding this specific complaint, for anyone who's interested:

 

http://www.reddit.co...ng_hinterlands/

 

That druffalo kicking rift demons ass is a great easter egg....

[AshesEleven]

You can use sir because the word "guy" is in my name lol. Well I take that back. You never know these days...

I took the OP as mocking, not joking, because of the sarcasm and the attempt at a "gotcha" by making people think those reviews are about Inquisition when they are about Origins. I could be wrong about the intent, but that's how it comes off.

I understand what you are saying about Origins and Baldur's Gate. It's still totally different. However, I am unaware of how Origins was marketed, and I understand the frustration if it created the expectation the games would be more similar.

However, the OP has another problem.

http://www.metacriti...age-inquisition

Inquisition gets a 5.4 user score to Origins 8.6 and already has more negative reviews than a game that's been out for 5 years.

I think the real takeaway here is that Metacritic is dumb. People are giving Inquisition 0s. I can accept a lot. I can accept people hating it. But that is a false score to give anything, let alone this

[Natureguy85]

I think the real takeaway here is that Metacritic is dumb. People are giving Inquisition 0s. I can accept a lot. I can accept people hating it. But that is a false score to give anything, let alone this

Says you. But even if you don't think the 0 is fair, let's say they gave it a 3. That might improve the score but it's still a negative review and Inquisition has more than Origins and more negative than positive.

[AshesEleven]

Says you. But even if you don't think the 0 is fair, let's say they gave it a 3. That might improve the score but it's still a negative review and Inquisition has more than Origins and more negative than positive.

I'm not getting into an argument about how a 0 is unfair. If a game that took 4 years, kept people in front of screens for long hours and away from their families, if artists and writers and programmers tried their hardest to make a game that their fans would enjoy, if THAT is a zero? Then you're an idiot and your opinion is ridiculously dumb. Also, didn't you say recently that you haven't played this game yet, or was that someone else?

[DemGeth]

No, not at release. If origins had come out during today's age of the review bomb the user score would of been 3-5

That game had a ton of hate directed at it.

Mass effect would of been a zero lol so many star wars fan boys ragging.

Ahhh good Times.

[AshesEleven]

No, not at release. If origins had come out during today's age of the review bomb the user score would of been 3-5

That game had a ton of hate directed at it.

Mass effect would of been a zero lol so many star wars fan boys ragging.

Ahhh good Times.

Yeah context is important as well. These are generally people who hate EA and Bioware for whatever reason and most are going to give Inquisition, and any future bioware games, a bad score no matter what it's like.

[dantares83]

I'm not getting into an argument about how a 0 is unfair. If a game that took 4 years, kept people in front of screens for long hours and away from their families, if artists and writers and programmers tried their hardest to make a game that their fans would enjoy, if THAT is a zero? Then you're an idiot and your opinion is ridiculously dumb. Also, didn't you say recently that you haven't played this game yet, or was that someone else?

 

no game deserves a 0, not especially one where the lore is such extensive. just for the background lore along (and not the even plot) is enough to give this game above 5.

 

btw, the areas are exceedingly beautiful and that alone is enough to give the game above 5.

 

0 for this game are just outliners and stupid. anything 5 and below are people who just so focused on the negativities (and let's face it, this game has faults) that they ignore all the good parts.

 

People who focused on the negativities are kind of sad and most self-help books advised me to stay away from them.

[Natureguy85]

I'm not getting into an argument about how a 0 is unfair. If a game that took 4 years, kept people in front of screens for long hours and away from their families, if artists and writers and programmers tried their hardest to make a game that their fans would enjoy, if THAT is a zero? Then you're an idiot and your opinion is ridiculously dumb. Also, didn't you say recently that you haven't played this game yet, or was that someone else?

 

I haven't played the game and I didn't say it was a 0, so I don't know what your point is. Also, just because people worked hard on something doesn't make it good. I see what you're saying about it not being a zero when we've seen far worse (though maybe people worked hard on them but just had no talent). However, a 3 is still negative.

[AshesEleven]

I haven't played the game and I didn't say it was a 0, so I don't know what your point is. Also, just because people worked hard on something doesn't make it good. I see what you're saying about it not being a zero when we've seen far worse (though maybe people worked hard on them but just had no talent). However, a 3 is still negative.

I said 0 is ridiculous, you said "so you say". My point is that it is ridiculous .

People working hard on something does not make it good, but I do think people often forget the effort that goes into projects like this, and it's important to keep in mind that people tried their best on it. Ah well.

[Degs29]

I've never considered myself a fanboy, but the rash of completely unreasonable naysayers has led me to defend Bioware...over DA:I, over DA2, and over ME3 (except the ending...that was shite Bioware lol). 

 

There is legitimate criticism for DA:I.  The clunky tactical cam, the faulty m/k controls, the cutscene hitching, the lack of tactics, and the prologue bugs (seriously, shouldn't that be the most polished part of the game?).  That said, there is a hell of a lot of fun to be had in this game!  It's a huge world.  The story, characters and writing are as great as they've ever been.  Without spoilers, it's hard to go into detail about some of the epic plot points.  So many features have been improved from previous DA games...is it really surprising a few changes were duds?  But to focus on the duds, to the exclusion of the many improvements is an unfortunate trend of gamers.

[Natureguy85]

I said 0 is ridiculous, you said "so you say". My point is that it is ridiculous .

People working hard on something does not make it good, but I do think people often forget the effort that goes into projects like this, and it's important to keep in mind that people tried their best on it. Ah well.

 

I said "so you say" because it was the other person's opinion that it deserved a zero, not mine.

 

 

 

At release, I complained that DAO's combat was too fast given the absence of a combat log.

People like different things.

 

 

But if we all accepted this, half of us would have nothing to argue about

 

I will buy it eventually, but I already had plenty to play to keep me busy until a sale, but now with the disappointing changes and the reported PC issues, I will definitely wait.

[Natureguy85]

I've never considered myself a fanboy, but the rash of completely unreasonable naysayers has led me to defend Bioware...over DA:I, over DA2, and over ME3 (except the ending...that was shite Bioware lol). 

 

There is legitimate criticism for DA:I.  The clunky tactical cam, the faulty m/k controls, the cutscene hitching, the lack of tactics, and the prologue bugs (seriously, shouldn't that be the most polished part of the game?).  That said, there is a hell of a lot of fun to be had in this game!  It's a huge world.  The story, characters and writing are as great as they've ever been.  Without spoilers, it's hard to go into detail about some of the epic plot points.  So many features have been improved from previous DA games...is it really surprising a few changes were duds?  But to focus on the duds, to the exclusion of the many improvements is an unfortunate trend of gamers.

 

That depends on what was broken and what was improved. Are you going to be happy if I take the wheels and gas tank off your car but give you a new paint job and leather interior?