456 réponses à ce sujet

[keyip]

 

Oh, I'm sorry, those were all quotes from his review of Dragon Age 2.

 

Good thing too, because none of those quotes can be applied to Inquisition.

[AtreiyaN7]

I find this whole thing hilarious. Angry Joe is angry about the ME3 ending and everyone who agreed with that sentiment decided to heap praise on him for being insightful and a great reviewer. All of a sudden Angry Joe is now being paid off by BW because he had the temerity to like DA:I and put it at #1 on his list.

 

Oh, BSN - please don't ever change. The hypocrisy and fickleness that I see in the forums at least manages to give me a laugh every so often - kind of like now. For once, I'm going to agree with Angry Joe because I greatly enjoyed DA:I despite having a few minor issues (including not actually finding the tactical camera that useful - psst, BW, it kind of needs a bit more work) and feeling like certain things could be improved on.

[Maverick827]

Good thing too, because none of those quotes can be applied to Inquisition.

 

Yes they can, for some people.  That's the point.  This is a harder game to evaluate because so much of it is subjective.  Angry Joe putting DAI at #1 and TotalBiscuit not even putting it in his top 10 doesn't really mean anything.

[Zoikster]

maybe because the controls of the game are not so bad as some people want them to be? and thats from a m+kb player with a d/d rogue pretty sure the game could be played without bigger problems from anyone which not focused on only one single type of gamestyle, wasd is not new nor rocketscience and the tactical mode is basically the same as the pause mode in origins, the only difference is you move the camera with wasd instead of mousecursor and the game is not hard enough for the need of a tactical overview like in origins (there it wasnt needed too). so i really have to ask if the controls are the problem or people so unflexible to move a camera with keyboard instead of mouse and are unable to play a not so hard game with a top down view of the whole battlefield. yeah it would be nice some things would have been different, but to state the controls are terrible and the game is unplayable because of this is just drama and nothing else.

Nah, you just have really low standards. Lots of gamers do these days.

[BammBamm]

Nah, you just have really low standards. Lots of gamers do these days.

 

yeah buying games and afterwards complain about things that could have been known before is pretty "high standard" but hey, at least witcher 3 will be the perfect game (again)

[Fire Snake]

d:os is in my opinion overrated. not that it is a bad game but its far from perfect. dai and dos are like ying and yang, what one game does great the other misses completly and vice versa. balancing in dos is just bad (especially at release), crafting is mostly useless and hell the writing and story is at least a thing for personal taste. while i loved dos for some gamemechanics it never managed to attach me to a single character or the story (in my opinion something very important for an rpg), da:i is still great at it.

dos is surely the more courageous of the two (old school gameplay, pc only, really new ideas in combat mechanics, coop) and surely deserves a underdog bonus. but when i compare just the games, dai and dos are both dissapointing because both could have done so much better but because of complete different things. so its my decision to hate both because of the flaws or love both because of their strenghts. i prefer the last one and enjoy dos for its really cool combat mechanics and dai for let me multiple times sit with open jaw in front of the monitor (story presentation wise).

oh and by the way, larian abandoned the game pretty fast after release too compaired to the early access phase, didnt support its mod tool further as promised and made false promises in kickstarter. really not a better behaviour than bioware after release

 

I think D:OS got a lot of hype largely because it focussed on a style of gameplay that people had been missing, and coincidentally that the Dragon Age franchise has been moving away from. This is probably the same reason why some people will praise D:OS as part of their derision of DA:I as exampled in this thread. Such derision is unnecessary to criticism and generally counter-productive if you're aiming to make clear the flaws of a game to others who may not share your point of view. Antagonising others on the basis of their gaming preferences is rarely a productive way to encourage debate.

 

I really like a lot of your post BammBamm though your last sentence has me scratching my head a bit. It is factually incorrect to state that Larian abandoned their game (either quickly after release or at all as of yet) considering the many post-release patches they have applied, and especially that they are currently working on a substantial enhanced-edition style patch (featuring a hardcore mode overhauling combat to include such things as new enemy skills and modified behaviours to counter established player tactics).

 

I do agree that Larian made promises they shouldn't have during the Kickstarter, although I also appreciate their transparency and level of communication regarding their development process which allows me to be more understanding and forgiving than I can be for Bioware. It is also indeed disappointing that Larian haven't supported their editor to a greater extent to make it more user-friendly. However, I take some solace from their stated intention to make more games using the same engine and to improve its toolset with modding in mind over the coming years. We shall see to what degree the latter is born true. Regardless, what I wouldn't give to have such a toolset available for DA:I... 

 

Frankly, I am astonished that you would equate Larian's post-release customer-service with Bioware's, though I agree with your overall point that no game or company is perfect and that since all games have their strengthes and weaknesses they will be rated with bias according to one's own preferences.

 

​Personally, I don't take GOTY proclamations very seriously, no matter where they come from. I read Angry Joe's 'Top Ten Games' as merely 'Angry Joe's Favourite Games', which he himself admits is the essence of his list in the introduction of his video.  

 

While I wouldn't argue for complete relativity/subjectivity concerning the quality of video games, it doesn't much bother me if someone, or some group, wants to rate DA:I as GOTY. Meanwhile... http://www.pcgamer.c...pg-renaissance/

 

 

 

*Edited: typos and such.

[Asakti]

It'd be interesting to have a poll asking the question - is DA:I a bad game, or is DA:I a bad game in comparison to expectations/previous games?

 

Because, like Angry Joe said in the review - it is a decent game.  Especially compared to some games this year.  And it is a solid game coming from DA2 if you didn't like that.  But, if you compare it to DA:O, it is weaker in a lot of ways.  I assume that a lot of the fans here - who had high expectations, especially wanting it to surpass a lot of the strong aspects of DA:O are disappointed in that regard.

[outlaw1109]

  Are you kidding me?  We're on the BSN.  I'd say that qualifies as hardcore fans.  And this place is ALWAYS divided.  I think, just, on general principle.  You can have two groups of people who hate a game arguing over WHY for ten pages.  And a group of fans who LOVE the game arguing over WHY for ten pages.  Bioware has the most fractured fanbase in gaming history.  (I imagine it must be a little....frustrating...for the devs.)

But, my general point is that when it comes to the overall consensus on Dragon Age: Inquisition among the hardcore, it's a decidedly mixed.  The gaming press is writing love letters.  And new players are also really digging the game.  I don't know what any of this means, exactly.  Just my observations.

I am not a "new" player.  Your statement implies that anyone who's played a previous game doesn't like this one.  However, this is not true.  I liked Origins over DA2, but now (thankfully) I have something else to keep me busy.  I'm not sure if I could honestly make it through another complete play through of Origins.

The title of Hardcore fans...IDK...seems to have a different meaning in other media.  Being a hardcore fan of say, a musician, means you totally all of their music, right?

As to "gamers being more stupid".  Have gamers, as a group in general, ever truly been an intelligent bunch?  The answer is no.  Why?  

First console I owned was a Nintendo.  My parents had bought it for me when I was 6.  I played it all the time, but I didn't choose it over other consoles, it's what my parents bought.  Same with the games, for the most part.  They'd buy me  whatever they thought I'd like and apply parental filters at the same time.  Was I stupid?  No, but my parents weren't exactly the target market for games...

 

Point is, kids still like video games and parents still buy them.

The PC, it seems, is the only platform that wouldn't have a heavy kid fan base.  So, unless it's a PC only game (do those even still exist?) I find it laughable when people suggest that gamers can be reasoned with (the age demographics for consoles are 15-25, heavily male, but females are starting to creep in).

Reasoning with teenagers isn't something I'd particularly like to try...


Lastly, with all of the Origins fans still lurking around here, why hasn't any suggested a Kickstarter campaign for DA:O2?  I mean...the precedent is there, other devs have made games like that.  
 

[AppealToReason]

It was my best game of the year too. Where is my cheque biower? 

http://wp.me/p3Ww9J-f5

 

Angry Joe is a fanboy. He's said it before. And look at what came out this year, like 6 big games that didn't **** themselves at launch. Everything else got delayed and a lot of "not bad".

[Fire Snake]

 

Lastly, with all of the Origins fans still lurking around here, why hasn't any suggested a Kickstarter campaign for DA:O2?  I mean...the precedent is there, other devs have made games like that.  
 

 

Off the top of my head a few possible reasons... 

 

* A similar game is probably more costly than the funds a Kickstarter could raise.

 

* Being associated with EA will not exactly help them when sticking their cap out for money, never-mind whether Bioware still retains enough independence to do so.

 

* Bioware haven't expressed any desire to actually make that type of game again, so they would be met with great scepticism.

 

* A kickstarter for a spiritual successor to the initial game (from only 5 years ago) of a current (and already very well financed) series would probably be be seen as quite inappropriate by many.

 

* Bioware have (rightly or wrongly) garnered quite a bit of animosity and mistrust over the last few years amongst some of those who kickstart RPGs (for various reasons including DA2, ME3, their marketing PR and their general change in design priorities/preferences) which would likely undermine their publicity campaign.

 

I'm also not sure what precedent there is that you mention. I was under the impression that DA:O is one-of-a-kind in terms of style. Which similar games are you referring to whose developers have gone to kickstarter to create a spiritual successor?

 

And of course, all this speculation assumes that an Origins style game is no longer sufficiently financially viable for EA to fund it, which is a premise I disagree with. Origins was a very commercially successful game and I highly doubt that consumer demand for a similar type of product has declined significantly over the last five years. *Shrugs* I guess we'll never know for sure. What could have been...

[outlaw1109]

Off the top of my head a few possible reasons... 

 

* A similar game is probably more costly than the funds a Kickstarter could raise.

 

* Being associated with EA will not exactly help them when sticking their cap out for money, never-mind whether Bioware still retains enough independence to do so.

 

* Bioware haven't expressed any desire to actually make that type of game again, so they would be met with great scepticism.

 

* A kickstarter for a spiritual successor to the initial game (from only 5 years ago) of a current (and already very well financed) series would probably be be seen as quite inappropriate by many.

 

* Bioware have (rightly or wrongly) garnered quite a bit of animosity and mistrust over the last few years amongst some of those who kickstart RPGs (for various reasons including DA2, ME3, their marketing PR and their general change in design priorities/preferences) which would likely undermine their publicity campaign.

 

I'm also not sure what precedent there is that you mention. I was under the impression that DA:O is one-of-a-kind in terms of style. Which similar games are you referring to whose developers have gone to kickstarter to create a spiritual successor?

 

And of course, all this speculation assumes that an Origins style game is no longer sufficiently financially viable for EA to fund it, which is a premise I disagree with. Origins was a very commercially successful game and I highly doubt that consumer demand for a similar type of product has declined significantly over the last five years. *Shrugs* I guess we'll never know for sure. What could have been...

Actually, the Origins style of game is said to be on the rise.  It wasn't so much as a point that it's "bad", but that the direction of the franchise has changed.  

DA:O was advertised as the "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate."  It was not even remotely close.

As to the other stuff, I have to admit that I forgot that EA owns BioWare now...wuh...

edit:  Oh, I got it.  By precedent, I didn't mean "spiritual successor kickstarter" precedent.  I meant, basically, a loose precedent of game dev's. circumventing their publishers via kickstarter campaigns, but, again, I had forgotten that EA isn't merely BioWare's publisher anymore...

 

[st0ra]

A few threats to close down his channel got him running scared, so he sells out...

 

Though he could at least be honest with his fans and change is name to Corporate Commander's Joe.

[BammBamm]

I think D:OS got a lot of hype largely because it focussed on a style of gameplay that people had been missing, and coincidentally that the Dragon Age franchise has been moving away from. This is probably the same reason why some people will praise D:OS as part of their derision of DA:I as exampled in this thread. Such derision is unnecessary to criticism and generally counter-productive if you're aiming to make clear the flaws of a game to others who may not share your point of view. Antagonising others on the basis of their gaming preferences is rarely a productive way to encourage debate.

 

I really like a lot of your post BammBamm though your last sentence has me scratching my head a bit. It is factually incorrect to state that Larian abandoned their game (either quickly after release or at all as of yet) considering the many post-release patches they have applied, and especially that they are currently working on a substantial enhanced-edition style patch (featuring a hardcore mode overhauling combat to include such things as new enemy skills and modified behaviours to counter established player tactics).

 

I do agree that Larian made promises they shouldn't have during the Kickstarter, although I also appreciate their transparency and level of communication regarding their development process which allows me to be more understanding and forgiving than I can be for Bioware. It is also indeed disappointing that Larian haven't supported their editor to a greater extent to make it more user-friendly. However, I take some solace from their stated intention to make more games using the same engine and to improve its toolset with modding in mind over the coming years. We shall see to what degree the latter is born true. Regardless, what I wouldn't give to have such a toolset available for DA:I... 

 

Frankly, I am astonished that you would equate Larian's post-release customer-service with Bioware's, though I agree with your overall point that no game or company is perfect and that since all games have their strengthes and weaknesses they will be rated with bias according to one's own preferences.

 

​Personally, I don't take GOTY proclamations very seriously, no matter where they come from. I read Angry Joe's 'Top Ten Games' as merely 'Angry Joe's Favourite Games', which he himself admits is the essence of his list in the introduction of his video.  

 

While I wouldn't argue for complete relativity/subjectivity concerning the quality of video games, it doesn't much bother me if someone, or some group, wants to rate DA:I as GOTY. Meanwhile... http://www.pcgamer.c...pg-renaissance/

 

 

 

*Edited: typos and such.

 

didnt know larian works on an overhaul so forgive me that. the last i've seen on steam forums was the announcement of a new difficulty, but thats been a while. maybe the better term would have been, they abandoned the steam forums for a while

[Fire Snake]

Actually, the Origins style of game is said to be on the rise.  It wasn't so much as a point that it's "bad", but that the direction of the franchise has changed.  

DA:O was advertised as the "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate."  It was not even remotely close.

As to the other stuff, I have to admit that I forgot that EA owns BioWare now...wuh...

 

 

I personally don't see games like Pillars of Eternity or Wasteland2 as especially similar to Origins (as you suggest, Origins wasn't exactly a replica of Baldur's Gate) though of course there are clear similarities and I get what you mean by precedent now. I mean that Origins is one-of-a-kind in terms of its high production values and 'modern' (without making value judgement(s)) execution, how it merges 3D 3rd-person with an isometric perspective and of course Bioware's unique style. I can't think of another game quite like it.

 

Fake Edit: Yeah, I get you now. EA does uh... complicate things for Bioware lol. Let's just say that I would be shocked and fascinated if Bioware would actually do this. The forum drama around the Internet would be... something to behold.

[evgenija28]

A lot of replies since last night 

 

All in all, I don't expect Joe to review all the games as I would. I don't watch reviews in order to confirm my feelings, but to hear someone lay out what's good and bad for them and in that process come to my own conclusion. He has his own opinions and most of the time I agree with him. For example, I agree with his review of DA2, the points he made were fair, though I thought he was a bit too critical when it came to companions. I agree with his DA:O review as well. When I'm bored I go back and listen to his reviews of Mindjack and Sonic Free Riders and cry from laughter. So I like this guy, I think he is okay. It's just that I personally disagree with the things he put out as the good things - for example the tactical camera. Since he isn't some big time magazine that reviews games like IGN, Gamespot, etc. I suppose I can't expect for him to see the faults of the PC and prev-gen versions if he didn't play on them.

 

Personally, I remember this year by games such as Wolf Among Us, Valiant Hearts, Child of Light, South Park, so even though it was a weaker year for gaming, it wasn't all that bad. 

[Madrict]

I agree with Angry Joe, DAI is definitely my game of the year...in fact it is the best game I have played in quite some time. The characters are great!

[evgenija28]

I'd like to say that the second half of my post was directed that those who attacked people rather than their points and who stated their opinion as fact.

 

DA:I is in my top 3 games of the year and I've only played it on the PC and PS4, should I not be allowed to put it in my top 3 because I haven't played it on other systems? Should people on YouTube not be allowed to do the same because they haven't played it on all systems, should people only allowed vote in a players choice award if they've played it on all the systems?

 

I ask these questions because DA:I has won more than one GOTY.

 

We've both played it on PC and come away with different opinions.

 

I think the tactical camera is at the perfect height outdoors, I don't like it when the camera is too high, I feel like I'm too far away from the action, like I can't see the fighting properly, even in Isometric games I tend to lower the camera if I can (a feature in Wasteland 2, that I really like).

 

As for your toggle suggestion, if BioWare put a toggle in for everything that people wanted a toggle for, than the first hour of the game would be spent toggling on or off all the different features of the game.

 

Anyway, I get why you don't agree with Angry Joe and I appreciate the fact that you have outlined what you don't like in your OP and expanded on it in further posts. 

 

I hope you understand where I'm coming from and why I'm trying to stress, on this thread, the difference between a fact about the game and an opinion on it.

 

Well, not everything should be on toggle. Only the things that were there before and you changed them or weren't there and you added them, concerning gameplay that is. For example, auto attack. And press "V" to scan there should be pressing "V" marks all items you can interact with (like Tab button in previous games).

 

And I do understand, thank you for correcting me, I tend to go all factual on the things that aren't, people are like that most of the time, we tend to think that our opinion, once or a couple of times agreed upon, becomes the fact. 

[outlaw1109]

I personally don't see games like Pillars of Eternity or Wasteland2 as especially similar to Origins (as you suggest, Origins wasn't exactly a replica of Baldur's Gate) though of course there are clear similarities and I get what you mean by precedent now. I mean that Origins is one-of-a-kind in terms of its high production values and 'modern' (without making value judgement(s)) execution, how it merges 3D 3rd-person with an isometric perspective and of course Bioware's unique style. I can't think of another game quite like it.

 

Fake Edit: Yeah, I get you now. EA does uh... complicate things for Bioware lol. Let's just say that I would be shocked and fascinated if Bioware would actually do this. The forum drama around the Internet would be... something to behold.

This is one of my greatest problems with the entire situation:  DAO is highly unique.  There wasn't (and, IMO)still isn't a lot of games that can even come close to being described as "similar".

When people make the comparison that something is similar to Origins, I often find myself being overly critical of it (unless it has "dragon age" in the title, in which case, I'm probably under-critical).  

But I was genuinely curious if BioWare/EA would actually agree to something (still am) like a kickstarter for a DA:O2.  Sure, the cost is high, but I've seen some pretty remarkable things done via kickstarter and, as you said yourself, the demand IS there.  Origins was a vastly popular game (even on the consoles) and I'd be willing to bet that the "kickstarter" background of it would actually increase sales.  

And, who knows, maybe it could be the beginning of a separate "Origins-style" IP (wishful thinking).

 

[Jackal19851111]

I agree with AJ's review but I disagree with GOTY, though quite frankly DAI was already my runner-up as DOS for me takes the cake this year.

 

DAI is a good game, the writers/actors/artists hold it up even if the game itself is a console port. My two problems remain the PC controls and the lack of tactical options, but either than that, it IS a good game. 8/10 is a decent score IMO.

[Greetsme]

Angry Joe is either a fanboy of Bioware or he is being paid, he likes to say how he made a "mistake" with DA2 score yet he REPEATED that "mistake" in his DA:I review.

 

Check my signature btw.

 

Agreed, Angry Joe no more, he's just another puppet of the system.  Metacrtic has it right with more than half the users hating Inquisition.

How Bioware bent the media to it's own purpose is becoming more and more frequent, they have obviously found how they can hold a gun to the head of most of the reviews and critics.  Even AJ has a family to feed and had to bend.

 

Trust ONLY user reviews, the rest are bull.

[keyip]

Trust ONLY user reviews, the rest are bull.

 

 

Good to know, seeing as the user reviews on most sites score Inquisition highly.

[Meredydd]

Dragon Age: Inquisition is a good game, but I wouldn't put it in my no.1 spot for best game of 2014. As for AngryJoe's "review"...well he seemed a bit too enthusiastic when talking about the game. He made DA:I look like the perfect game and offered very little critique.

[evgenija28]

Good to know, seeing as the user reviews on most sites score Inquisition highly.

 

DA:Inquisiton on Metacritic, the PC version:

Positive - 1244 reviews

Mixed - 192

Negative - 930

 

As a GOTY it has too many negative reviews. 

[outlaw1109]

DA:Inquisiton on Metacritic, the PC version:

Positive - 1244 reviews

Mixed - 192

Negative - 930

 

As a GOTY it has too many negative reviews. 

I think there's a thread already on here that discusses the viability of Metacritic.

You don't even have to have an account/play the game to offer a review.  So, it's tough getting any kind of accurate, objective, stats.

[keyip]

 

As a GOTY it has too many negative reviews. 

 

No it doesn't. Metacritic is well known as a protest site, which is why nobody listens to them. 930 protest votes out of millions of copies sold is actually extremely low.

 

As I said before, most other sites rate Inquisition highly. It's won more READER'S CHOICE awards than any other game this year. Metacritic is the anomaly like always, and like always nobody listens to what they say.