107 réponses à ce sujet

[Lux]

 

if anything the characters and the name of the game is what got this game the GOTY tittle but is like president Obama peace nobel prize...

 

 

LOL, good analogy. It would be GOTY after substantial improvements are done, especially on the PC. I hope that award doesn't get them lazy to do what needs to be done. Otherwise it will be yet another game with blatant wasted potential, to forget, throw away, and adding a serious smirch on Bioware as a developer who releases misleading videos for the sake of maximizing profits.

[Zherot]

Agreed.

[DragonAddict]

Still playing DA:I and my overall review is    7 out of 10 and only because I got it on sale for $45 CAD.

[JWR32]

I'm usually more of a lurker than a poster here, but I have to say the OP's review on DA:I is spot on IMO. I'm sitting at 54 hours into my game...as oft 2 weeks ago. No desire to play during that time span, I know that eventually I will complete the game but honestly, I am dreading going into a new zone and having to do everything that goes with that. If the rumors were true that DA:I started out as a multiplier only game (http://www.gamespot....y/1100-6423362/) it really shows and explains many of the gameplay & design decisions fans of previous Dragon Age games have been upset about. 

[Riladel]

 

So much wasted pottential is what this game is it feels like such a waste, just like when i was on the last part of the game with 4 areas yet to visit and i asked myself "whats the point?", "what do i get doing them?", nothing, and i did not cleared those areas, no point at all.

 

I liked the game but I can agree with almost everything you sad, yes, the game has a lot of problems. And honestly, now I'm starting to think that if it wasn't for the cliffhanger with Solas at the end of the game which drew attention from the lame last quest, I wouldn't like this game so much and very likely would be very disappointed (more than now). Game is beautiful, all the characters are great, interesting dialogs (most of them) and very interesting cliffhanger, but that are all positive things that I can say about this game, unfortunately. It hurts to think of how awesome it could be if there weren't those problems you described in "the bad" sections of the review.

[Zherot]

I'm usually more of a lurker than a poster here, but I have to say the OP's review on DA:I is spot on IMO. I'm sitting at 54 hours into my game...as oft 2 weeks ago. No desire to play during that time span, I know that eventually I will complete the game but honestly, I am dreading going into a new zone and having to do everything that goes with that. If the rumors were true that DA:I started out as a multiplier only game (http://www.gamespot....y/1100-6423362/) it really shows and explains many of the gameplay & design decisions fans of previous Dragon Age games have been upset about. 

Yeah the Game stresses you with all that side content eevery time you enter a new zone but then you realize how pointless is to do such content.

 

 

I liked the game but I can agree with almost everything you sad, yes, the game has a lot of problems. And honestly, now I'm starting to think that if it wasn't for the cliffhanger with Solas at the end of the game which drew attention from the lame last quest, I wouldn't like this game so much and very likely would be very disappointed (more than now). Game is beautiful, all the characters are great, interesting dialogs (most of them) and very interesting cliffhanger, but that are all positive things that I can say about this game, unfortunately. It hurts to think of how awesome it could be if there weren't those problems you described in "the bad" sections of the review.

 

 

Yes, this game could have been amazing with some of the stuff i said fixed, first the lame combat, the tactics, some major sidequest in each area with some side content on them and cutscenes and desicions, longer story.

[Frenrihr]

I linked to this topic from here: http://www.gamefaqs....sition/70930567

In the middle section of that discussion you made this pos about being suspended from the BSNt:

 Wow they just suspended me from their forums... i supposedly offended someone... LOL

 

Is that true? As far as I could make out from your profile you haven't been suspended.

 

Yes i was suspended for 3 days, you know how this works you dont have arguments to defend your points or cant deal with the truth, you report a dude or you dont like what is being posted about your stuff---->censor it.

 

Thanks for all the comments of people with common sense im gonna ignore the rest for mental health.

[Rawgrim]

Absolutely none of the professional reviewers noticed any of this. Everyone gave the game tops scores. Very odd.

[Frenrihr]

Absolutely none of the professional reviewers noticed any of this. Everyone gave the game tops scores. Very odd.

 

Indeed, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, really odd.

[phantomrachie]

Absolutely none of the professional reviewers noticed any of this. Everyone gave the game tops scores. Very odd.

 

Well considering a lot of the points in this review are opinion. I don't find that odd at all. The OP says the tactical camera sucks, I like it. The OP says their should've been healing spells, I like that it was removed etc

 

I'd give DA:I a 8.5 to a 9 out of 10. I did notice these things and they either didn't matter to me or I liked the features.

 

If you'd read some of the reviews, they actually pointed out some of the things the OP pointed out but clearly it didn't matter as much to them or the liked the change.

 

why is everything a big consperisory? 

[Gileadan]

As far as any PC issues are concerned, I have a feeling that reviewers failed to mention those because they didn't review it on PC. The vast majority of reviews was published a week ahead of the game's official release, but PC graphics drivers that could run the game reliably were only published shortly after release. So IF any reviewer played this game on PC before release should have run into way more problems than we have today, but if they did, they chose not to mention it.

 

Also, how anyone who played a melee character for any amount of time could miss the messed up hit boxes that sometimes just don't fit the model of the creature they belong to is pretty odd. Maybe each and every reviewer was playing a ranged character on casual difficulty... but if not, it's a real headscratcher. It's not a minor occasional glitch after all, it's easily reproduced.

 

The closest thing to actual criticism about some of the stale side content that I read in a review was a sarcastic remark about how the Hinterlands sure had a lot of leftover letters lying around. 

 

One way or the other, I still got my money's worth out of the game.

[Darkly Tranquil]

why is everything a big consperisory? 

 

Because video game reviewing is as crooked as a dog's hind leg, so people are skeptical when they see reviews that seem to conveniently ignore glaring issues in games. This is not specific to DAI, by the way, its a common issue with AAA games across the board and it leaves a lot of gamers extremely cynical about the trustworthiness of reviewers. I've been playing games and reading paid reviews for about 30 years (vale C+VG), so I expect them to be little more than marketing fluff and some light entertainment. Consequently, I take very little notice of what the professional reviewers say and a lot more notice of what is said in the comments section by people who have played the game. If a game has issues, you can bet the people in the comments section will be loud about it.

[phantomrachie]

Because video game reviewing is as crooked as a dog's hind leg, so people are skeptical when they see reviews that seem to conveniently ignore glaring issues in games. This is not specific to DAI, by the way, its a common issue with AAA games across the board and it leaves a lot of gamers extremely cynical about the trustworthiness of reviewers. I've been playing games and reading paid reviews for about 30 years (vale C+VG), so I expect them to be little more than marketing fluff and some light entertainment. Consequently, I take very little notice of what the professional reviewers say and a lot more notice of what is said in the comments section by people who have played the game. If a game has issues, you can bet the people in the comments section will be loud about it.

 

I get where you are coming from. My issue is that you can't really trust the comment section either, some like Polygon's are fine and others like IGNs or Gamespot are just cesspools of horribleness. 

 

People say 'game reviewers are crooked' like it is something unique to games journalism.

 

News journalism is horrifically crooked and no one seems to care.

 

There is also really uneven backlash about paid reviews - Shadows of Mordor had paid reviews  but because people generally like it no one cared for long. 

 

Then some reviewers post positive things about other games, that some people don't like and automatically they have obviously being paid for.

 

Game reviews are like the reviews of any media, you have to find someone you like and just read their reviews.

[Gileadan]

People say 'game reviewers are crooked' like it is something unique to games journalism.

 

News journalism is horrifically crooked and no one seems to care.

 

There is also really uneven backlash about paid reviews - Shadows of Mordor had paid reviews  but because people generally like it no one cared for long. 

All very true.

 

Actually, where I live people are getting fed up with crooked news journalism - which really seems to serve the function of changing public opinion instead of conveying information - and there has been a lot of backlash on online news sites for months now.

 

The difference most likely is this though: crooked game journalism has a more direct effect on people than crooked news journalism. When I read a suspicious news article, I grumble about the attempt to misinform me and move on. That's usually the only effect it has on me. When game journalism gives a game notably better reviews than it (in my opinion of course) deserves, it has a much bigger effect on me - I'm 60 bucks short and all I have to show for it is a product I don't enjoy. When there is a tendency to not mention flaws that to me seem obvious, I get suspicious.

 

I avoided Shadows of Mordor due to the review related shenanigans I read about before release. Bought it on Steam sale and found it enjoyable, so it doesn't bother me anymore - it had no negative effect on me after all. In fact, now I wonder why they ever bothered with that weird scheme.

[Joooosephineo]

"Combat:

 

The good:

 

mmmmm.....

 

The bad:

 

The combat is... a mess"

 

That. 

 

"I think as a game, games score should be more dependent on the gameplay rather than other stuff..."

 

THAT too. 

 

We need to stop this trend of games being produced like interactive films, and get back to games being produced as games. If any large publisher still knows what that means.

[phantomrachie]

 

The difference most likely is this though: crooked game journalism has a more direct effect on people than crooked news journalism. When I read a suspicious news article, I grumble about the attempt to misinform me and move on. That's usually the only effect it has on me. When game journalism gives a game notably better reviews than it (in my opinion of course) deserves, it has a much bigger effect on me - I'm 60 bucks short and all I have to show for it is a product I don't enjoy. When there is a tendency to not mention flaws that to me seem obvious, I get suspicious.

 

 

It might have a more immediate effect but it doesn't have a more direct effect.

 

Take the whole MMR causes autism thing. 10 years later we have children dying of measles again. Why? because some news journalists focused on one dubious report that was more sensationalized than all the good research.

 

Now we have more and more people who doubt all vaccines and all sorts of childhood diseases are on the rise again. 

 

Poor games journalism might make you feel like you were robbed of €60. Poor news journalism has the potential contribute to people dying. 

[Andrew Lucas]

Wow, are we now rating the game because of it's haircuts? Oh gawd. Never gets old.

Anyways, the game delivered what it promised, a truly Bioware game that I enjoyed a lot. So for me, 9/10.

[Gileadan]

It might have a more immediate effect but it doesn't have a more direct effect.

 

Take the whole MMR causes autism thing. 10 years later we have children dying of measles again. Why? because some news journalists focused on one dubious report that was more sensationalized than all the good research.

 

Now we have more and more people who doubt all vaccines and all sorts of childhood diseases are on the rise again. 

 

Poor games journalism might make you feel like you were robbed of €60. Poor news journalism has the potential contribute to people dying. 

I wasn't even aware of the MMR fiasco and just read up on it. That was an eye opener. Thank you.

[Zobert]

Wow, are we now rating the game because of it's haircuts? Oh gawd. Never gets old.

Anyways, the game delivered what it promised, a truly Bioware game that I enjoyed a lot. So for me, 9/10.

 

The game isn't skyrim, it's a social party that travels.  That's why haircuts and clothing is important.  And on that note, even skyrim has better hairstyles.

[Frenrihr]

Wow, are we now rating the game because of it's haircuts? Oh gawd. Never gets old.

Anyways, the game delivered what it promised, a truly Bioware game that I enjoyed a lot. So for me, 9/10.

 

This denial in which fanboys live is really mind blowing.

[Andrew Lucas]

The game isn't skyrim, it's a social party that travels.  That's why haircuts and clothing is important.  And on that note, even skyrim has better hairstyles.

Yeah, no. Whatever, I'm not arguing with someone that criticizes the game for not having good "haircuts".

[Andrew Lucas]

This denial in which fanboys live is really mind blowing.

I hope that it blows I'm a fanboy for liking a well received game, seems legit. Seriously, stop playing Origins for a while, get out of your basement and go understand what opinions means.

[Zobert]

Yeah, no. Whatever, I'm not arguing with someone that criticizes the game for not having good "haircuts".

 

Sure you are.  If you weren't you'd be ignoring instead of replying. 

[Zobert]

I hope that it blows I'm a fanboy for liking a well received game, seems legit. Seriously, stop playing Origins for a while, get out of your basement and go understand what opinions means.

 

The same could be said for you.  You're arguing against people's opinions.  As for insults about basements and gameplaying, you have chosen an avatar, have a sig that says waiting for a game, I don't think you are anyone to criticize being in a basement gameplaying.

 

We're all gamers on this forum, no one has any room to insult others for playing.  Especially not someone "waiting for Mass Effect 7".

[Andrew Lucas]

Sure you are. If you weren't you'd be ignoring instead of replying.

Okay donkey.

The same could be said for you. You're arguing against people's opinions. As for insults about basements and gameplaying, you have chosen an avatar, have a sig that says waiting for a game, I don't think you are anyone to criticize being in a basement gameplaying.

We're all gamers on this forum, no one has any room to insult others for playing. Especially not someone "waiting for Mass Effect 7".

I'm not critiquing anyone's opinion, I just posted what I feel about the game and guess what? You two replied to it, the post wasn't even directed to anyone. If anyone feels like arguing, it's you and your bud up there.

That's why I mentioned the basement, seems like you guys don't know what opinion is, got butthurt about it and called me a fanboy for liking the game.

Yeah right? Can't wait