456 réponses à ce sujet

[Boogielicious]

Or you know.

 

Speak with your money. Every time you get a bad sandwich do you go up to the counter and tell the cook how bad he is at his job and how he ripped you off? Maybe that's what you do, but most people just don't go to that restaurant again.

 

People with a modicum of intelligence and self respect would complain about a "bad" sandwich, and then never return, depending on the customer service.

 

If you purchased a "bad" car/tv/video card/whatever, would you accept it, and just don't shop there again?  Most people would complain, and/or demand a fix/replacement/refund.  Because, you know, they paid for said object.

 

And...

 

Nobody can learn from a mistake if they aren't aware they've made one.

[AlanC9]

Lol my ass you are running the game fine, the amd 10 cant even keep 30 fps on low preset 1980p in battlefield 4, so gtfo.  its obvious you dont even play on the pc.

Frostbite scales down fairly well, and plenty of folks say they can run DAO on an A10. Maybe not at 1980p and 60 fps, but so what?

[Han Master]

It's only a great game for the consoles, it sucks for PC.

[Elhanan]

It's only a great game for the consoles, it sucks for PC.

My PC begs to differ, and it is not top of the line. Re-map the keys, get some practice on new controls, and enjoy the GOTY.

[Lee T]

I'm not surprised it's high on Angry Joe's list (I didn't expect number 1 though).

Angry Joe likes RPGs, he has a positive view of Bioware games in general (except ME3's ending) he loves open world and exploration, he loves reading lore and doesn't mind a game to be actionny (he didn't like DA2 but he said he liked the absence of auto-attack because he felt it more immersive to "act" each attack).

It's only a great game for the consoles, it sucks for PC.

Bioware's games aren't really about input and UI (which they rarely do well, whatever the platform), they are about content. If content doesn't outweigh UI issues on PC for you, chances are you won't like it on consoles either.

[Realmzmaster]

It's only a great game for the consoles, it sucks for PC.

 

So you have played the game on a console to ascertain this fact?

[Aulis Vaara]

You say horcruxes aren't part of the lore? I say look at Flemeth. Investing part of one's being in an object is nothing new in the lore.

Summoning spell. Came back just because I needed to point that out. Nothing to do with investing part of yourself in anything else. Just a plain old summoning spell. And we know these exist.

Therefore, Corypheus is Voldemort and his dragon is a horcrux, and it's a ****** Deus Ex Machina.

[X Equestris]

Summoning spell. Came back just because I needed to point that out. Nothing to do with investing part of yourself in anything else. Just a plain old summoning spell. And we know these exist.Therefore, Corypheus is Voldemort and his dragon is a horcrux, and it's a ****** Deus Ex Machina.

How in the world is that a summoning spell? Flemeth straight up says that the amulet contains a piece of herself.

And again, deus ex machinas aren't automatically bad. But that fact is lost on people with an axe to grind.

[Aulis Vaara]

How would you summon someone? How would you tell the universe which person you need here in front of you? It certainly makes more sense than it being some weird Elven goddess form of taint reincarnation (which is what it would actually equate to, by the way) that for some reason didn't work back when Mythal was first murdered.

And yes, deus ex machinas are automatically bad. Because if you start pulling things out of your ass, it is no longer a puzzle that the reader can solve, it is no longer an intellectual challenge, it is no longer a process, it is no longer something that can teach you something. It merely becomes a collection of words. And a story should ALWAYS be something more than a collection of words.

[X Equestris]

How would you summon someone? How would you tell the universe which person you need here in front of you? It certainly makes more sense than it being some weird Elven goddess form of taint reincarnation (which is what it would actually equate to, by the way) that for some reason didn't work back when Mythal was first murdered.And yes, deus ex machinas are automatically bad. Because if you start pulling things out of your ass, it is no longer a puzzle that the reader can solve, it is no longer an intellectual challenge, it is no longer a process, it is no longer something that can teach you something. It merely becomes a collection of words. And a story should ALWAYS be something more than a collection of words.

The ending of Lord of the Flies is a deus ex machina, but it isn't automatically bad. Flemeth saving the Warden and Alistair is a deus ex machina of the highest order, but not automatically bad.

[AlanC9]

And yes, deus ex machinas are automatically bad. Because if you start pulling things out of your ass, it is no longer a puzzle that the reader can solve, it is no longer an intellectual challenge, it is no longer a process, it is no longer something that can teach you something. It merely becomes a collection of words. And a story should ALWAYS be something more than a collection of words.

The obvious problem with that argument is that not all stories are supposed to be puzzles for the reader to solve. Sometimes a fictional character, like a real person, won't have access to all the information he'd need to have in order to understand what's going on.

[Natureguy85]

How in the world is that a summoning spell? Flemeth straight up says that the amulet contains a piece of herself.

And again, deus ex machinas aren't automatically bad. But that fact is lost on people with an axe to grind.

 

They are almost always bad and are not looked on favorably. I haven't read Lord of the Flies, but Flemeth saving the Wardens was a weak story point. We just forgive it more because it didn't resolve a central conflict.

[In Exile]

How would you summon someone? How would you tell the universe which person you need here in front of you? It certainly makes more sense than it being some weird Elven goddess form of taint reincarnation (which is what it would actually equate to, by the way) that for some reason didn't work back when Mythal was first murdered.

And yes, deus ex machinas are automatically bad. Because if you start pulling things out of your ass, it is no longer a puzzle that the reader can solve, it is no longer an intellectual challenge, it is no longer a process, it is no longer something that can teach you something. It merely becomes a collection of words. And a story should ALWAYS be something more than a collection of words.

 

A deus ex machina is not an asspull. In fact, they made perfect sense originally - when you had capricious, all-powerful gods who treated human life poorly on nothing more than a whim, randomly showing up to fix things was perfectly acceptable. It's just what happens when your entire world is ruled by a bunch of arrogant jerkass gods. 

 

A deus ex machina makes perfect sense in a world where divine beings with unmeasured power exists. And since apparently Flemeth is the closest thing to a god in this setting we've seen so far, it's not exactly out of bounds that she can basically clone herself. 

[In Exile]

They are almost always bad and are not looked on favorably. I haven't read Lord of the Flies, but Flemeth saving the Wardens was a weak story point. We just forgive it more because it didn't resolve a central conflict.

 

Until you learn she saved you only because you coincidentally happened to be young enough Wardens that the DR worked, and having a god-baby was part of her master-plan? Because the arch-villain having a Xanatos Roulette is not a deus ex machina. 

[AlanC9]

Well, that's the thing.. when people like something they typically don't call it a deus ex machina. It's one of those really squishy terms anyway. I don't want to get into Lord of the Flies in detail since we've had at least one poster who doesn't know it, but the way that work ends, while not predicted by the characters in the moment it happens, is something that had actually been foreseen as a possibility by the characters earlier; in fact, they'd planned for it.

Suddenly I'm thinking about Gene Wolfe's The Book of the New Sun and Battlestar Galactica. In both of these universes deus ex machinas happen fairly regularly, as Severian and Baltar finally figure out. But they happen because that's how those universes operate.

[In Exile]

Well, that's the thing.. when people like something they typically don't call it a deus ex machina. It's one of those really squishy terms anyway. I don't want to get into Lord of the Flies in detail since we've had at least one poster who doesn't know it, but the way that work ends, while not predicted by the characters in the moment it happens, is something that had actually been foreseen as a possibility by the characters earlier; in fact, they'd planned for it.

Suddenly I'm thinking about Gene Wolfe's The Book of the New Sun and Battlestar Galactica. In both of these universes deus ex machinas happen fairly regularly, as Severian and Baltar finally figure out. But they happen because that's how those universes operate.

 

You're entirely right. What I don't understand is why people don't just call it a terrible plot/story/event/whatever. It's not as if you're somehow not insulting the element by calling it terrible instead of a "deus ex machina". It's weird to me how that word's evolved. 

[Natureguy85]

Until you learn she saved you only because you coincidentally happened to be young enough Wardens that the DR worked, and having a god-baby was part of her master-plan? Because the arch-villain having a Xanatos Roulette is not a deus ex machina. 

 

I don't think being part of a larger plan keeps that one part from being a deus ex machina. I also wouldn't call Flemeth's plan a Xanatos Roulette, as she seems to have some ability to see the future. She knew that Jory would not survive his joining. In order for the DR to be something the Warden's would consider, she must also know about how the Old Gods, Archdemons, and the Wardens' sacrifice.

 

Well, that's the thing.. when people like something they typically don't call it a deus ex machina. It's one of those really squishy terms anyway. I don't want to get into Lord of the Flies in detail since we've had at least one poster who doesn't know it, but the way that work ends, while not predicted by the characters in the moment it happens, is something that had actually been foreseen as a possibility by the characters earlier; in fact, they'd planned for it.

 

If they knew it was a possibility and planned for it, then it's not a deus ex machina by definition.

[GODzilla]

He's very inconsistent. Absolutely trashed Rome 2 while Empire got a 9.

 

Which is an argument that counters the idea of him being "paid or a fanboy", as others suggested. It may even be possible that he's just a rather complex human being having opinions, but we have yet to prove this lol.

[Rahelron]

Your opinions?

 

I see why DAI got so many GOTY awards: it was for its scope and the boldness of some design choices. Reviewers, always concerned with the price to quality ratio of every game, were amazed by the sheer amount of content included in it, all those new additions like Keep Management, Crafting, Skyhold Judgements, Exploration and such. They also measured the amout of time it took to complete the game and compared it to other products that got released this year: no competitor could hope to match the 150-200 hours of gameplay granted by DAI.

 

Bioware shot for the moon and was rewarded for it.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Too bad that awards should not be granted after reading a feature list.

 

If you notice pretty much all rewievers, even Angry Joe and all the others that gave high scores to the game, hardly went over 60-80 hours of gameplay. They say it in their reviews, I'm not making up anything. 60 to 80 hours mean a single playthrough, experiencing less than 50% of what the game has to offer.

 

I would ask them: why do you give your GOTY award to a game you didn't even bother to experience in its whole lenght? Because reviewers have to review many games and can't just pour 200 hours of their time into a single one. So they played for 60 to 80 hours, sprinting towards the end, and then said: "if this game is as good for the other 120 hours it provides than it's the game of the year!" and acted accordingly.

 

Too bad that the other 120 hours of gameplay that DAI provides are just grind.

[Rahelron]

Your opinions?

 

I see why DAI got so many GOTY awards: it was for its scope and the boldness of some design choices. Reviewers, always concerned with the price to quality ratio of every game, were amazed by the sheer amount of content included in it, all those new additions like Keep Management, Crafting, Skyhold Judgements, Exploration and such. They also measured the amout of time it took to complete the game and compared it to other products that got released this year: no competitor could hope to match the 150-200 hours of gameplay granted by DAI.

 

Bioware shot for the moon and was rewarded for it.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Too bad that awards should not be granted after reading a feature list.

 

If you notice pretty much all rewievers, even Angry Joe and all the others that gave high scores to the game, hardly went over 60-80 hours of gameplay. They say it in their reviews, I'm not making up anything. 60 to 80 hours mean a single playthrough, experiencing less than 50% of what the game has to offer.

 

I would ask them: why do you give your GOTY award to a game you didn't even bother to experience in its whole lenght? Because reviewers have to review many games and can't just pour 200 hours of their time into a single one. So they played for 60 to 80 hours, sprinting towards the end, and then said: "if this game is as good for the other 120 hours it provides than it's the game of the year!" and acted accordingly.

 

Too bad that the other 120 hours of gameplay that DAI provides are just grind.

[BammBamm]

basically no game with massive bugs for a lot of players should get a goty award, but hey we live in times where games not even finished can gain awards

[Elhanan]

I see why DAI got so many GOTY awards: it was for its scope and the boldness of some design choices. Reviewers, always concerned with the price to quality ratio of every game, were amazed by the sheer amount of content included in it, all those new additions like Keep Management, Crafting, Skyhold Judgements, Exploration and such. They also measured the amout of time it took to complete the game and compared it to other products that got released this year: no competitor could hope to match the 150-200 hours of gameplay granted by DAI.
 
Bioware shot for the moon and was rewarded for it.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Too bad that awards should not be granted after reading a feature list.
 
If you notice pretty much all rewievers, even Angry Joe and all the others that gave high scores to the game, hardly went over 60-80 hours of gameplay. They say it in their reviews, I'm not making up anything. 60 to 80 hours mean a single playthrough, experiencing less than 50% of what the game has to offer.
 
I would ask them: why do you give your GOTY award to a game you didn't even bother to experience in its whole lenght? Because reviewers have to review many games and can't just pour 200 hours of their time into a single one. So they played for 60 to 80 hours, sprinting towards the end, and then said: "if this game is as good for the other 120 hours it provides than it's the game of the year!" and acted accordingly.
 
Too bad that the other 120 hours of gameplay that DAI provides are just grind.

Perhaps you already answered your own question. If one did not complete less than 50% of the content; one did not likely grind anything.

However, my first campaign was ca. 250+ hrs, and I also did not have to grind for XP. There are plenty of ways to create XP, and my first Inquisitor did not even use the Codex XP bonus perks. There are several ways to play; none being the correct way for another.

Based on my past experience with Skyrim, if you believe there is something amiss with the campaign, it might be a flaw in the gameplay of the Player. In my initial Skyrim session, I completed every Faction quest, MQ, and many other quests with that character. The overall result was not as enjoyable, nor as immersive as taking my time to craft a personality for the PC, and sticking to those goals.

In DAI, one does not have to do everything either. Simply focus on the short and long range goals of the Inquisition and their leader, then accept or skip the rest as desired. The enjoyment is generally under the control of the Player. If one is becoming frustrated or annoyed at some mechanical issue, step away and refresh themselves; return later with an objective in both plan and attitude. This game nor others dictate how one will be happy or sad; that is always in control of the Player, and the choice they make on how to react to it.

[LinksOcarina]

I see why DAI got so many GOTY awards: it was for its scope and the boldness of some design choices. Reviewers, always concerned with the price to quality ratio of every game, were amazed by the sheer amount of content included in it, all those new additions like Keep Management, Crafting, Skyhold Judgements, Exploration and such. They also measured the amout of time it took to complete the game and compared it to other products that got released this year: no competitor could hope to match the 150-200 hours of gameplay granted by DAI.

 

Bioware shot for the moon and was rewarded for it.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Too bad that awards should not be granted after reading a feature list.

 

If you notice pretty much all rewievers, even Angry Joe and all the others that gave high scores to the game, hardly went over 60-80 hours of gameplay. They say it in their reviews, I'm not making up anything. 60 to 80 hours mean a single playthrough, experiencing less than 50% of what the game has to offer.

 

I would ask them: why do you give your GOTY award to a game you didn't even bother to experience in its whole lenght? Because reviewers have to review many games and can't just pour 200 hours of their time into a single one. So they played for 60 to 80 hours, sprinting towards the end, and then said: "if this game is as good for the other 120 hours it provides than it's the game of the year!" and acted accordingly.

 

Too bad that the other 120 hours of gameplay that DAI provides are just grind.

 

I have reviewed games in the past that I only played for 10-15 hours, when it's a 30 hour RPG.

 

The reason why, depends really. Sometimes, it's just a bad game and not worth playing further. Sometimes the mechanics don't improve. Sometimes, you just don't have time or energy that week because youve been playing for seven hours non-stop and its tiring.

 

The trick is to not bury the lead. For example, I tell them where I gave up because the game sucked, or because I had to put a review out. Honestly, I have no problem with that, the told you how many hours, there you go. The criteria for gaming should not be measured on the same scale as other subjective media based on time played to completion. Completion means nothing in the end if the first ten minutes are the same as the last ten minutes in terms of mechanics. 

 

As for story...well, sometimes it's not worth playing.

[AlanC9]

If they knew it was a possibility and planned for it, then it's not a deus ex machina by definition.

Well, yeah. That's the problem with the definition; "contrived" and "unexpected" are judgement calls themselves, and not everybody will judge things the same way. IIRC the author of LotF called it a DEM himself, so I'll take his word for it. Certainly the timing of the event is quite convenient for the narrative, though fully justified by the physical reality of the situation.

Anyway, this sort of taxonomic debate never does anything useful. Whether or not we put a story in the box labeled "DEM," it's still the same story.