373 réponses à ce sujet

[Jeffry]

For some reason critics continually drop the ball when it comes to Dragon Age reviews. There's a gaming magazine in the UK that i've been reading for around a decade, since I was a little kid. They cover all platforms, and give detaled, unbiased reviews. The magazine is all about the games, contains little advertising space and unlike the majority of American VG media these days, isn't concerned about "gaming culture" or sexism in gaming or any stuff besides the actual games. I'm in agreement with almost every review I read, they point out the good and the bad and are never afraid to call BS when the game is inferior to previous builds (like E3 demos and such.)

 

And yet even they give some wildly head scratching reviews for DA games. Origins got 82% (they mark games in percentages, out of 100) saying it was a good but flawed game with annoying characters. They specifically had an intense dislike for Alistair.

 

DA2 was given 91% (lol ) saying that it had improved in every aspect since Origins (again, lol.)

 

Inquisition was awarded 86%. They said it was a masterpiece, but points were deducted because the first twenty hours or so are a slog (the Hinterlands were brought up more than once .)

 

I will note that Inquisition only ranked #17 in their "top 30 games of 2014" article, so they didn't go overboard like many others did.

 

Lol indeed

 

I for example was kinda dissapointed with Angry Joe's review. He is one of my 2 go-to youtubers for this kind of thing (TB is the second one) and if he is not afraid of something, it is calling out BS and screw ups. But nothing like that was said during his 9/10 (8/10 for PC) DAI review. Later he even ranked the game as #1 in his top 10. Granted, 2014 wasn't one of the best years for really good games, lot of major companies screwed up horribly, but still. Too bad TB didn't do his first impression video about the game, but he at least talked about it later a bit and it was spot on.

[AlanC9]

So maybe he liked the game that much? If I was giving something a 9/10, I wouldn't spend a lot of the video's time going into the flaws.

[SnakeCode]

So maybe he liked the game that much? If I was giving something a 9/10, I wouldn't spend a lot of the video's time going into the flaws.

And that would be fine were it just an opinion piece. If you're reviewing the game and have a large dedicated fanbase who are going to spend their hard earned money on it based on your video then you have an obligation to point out the flaws.

[Elhanan]

And that would be fine were it just an opinion piece. If you're reviewing the game and have a large dedicated fanbase who are going to spend their hard earned money on it based on your video then you have an obligation to point out the flaws.

And what flaws are those? Do not watch AJ myself, but it seems that he did mention mechanical issues with KB&M; this simply was not severe enough to dissuade him from choosing DAI as his GOTY.

Get the notion that folks will like those reviews and scores that agree with their own, but it seems a bit odd that when these same critics differ on an opinion, it is they who are considered to be flawed.

[Jeffry]

With Angry Joe this is a bit different, he made his name by calling out shady practices, lies, tricks, etc of developers and publishers. His rants on these issues made him famous. He is called "Angry" Joe, because he gets angry over those things - for example Capcom's on-disk DLCs, EA's releases of unfinished games like BF4, Microsoft's decision to restrict Xbox One with always online DRM, and so on. He oftentimes said his mission is to warn his viewers against money grubbing corporations. That is why I am disappointed he didn't do so with DAI, because its issues should be mentioned, so costumers can get the real picture and not the rose-tinted picture BW/EA would like for us to have.

 

Yes, it is a flawed approach to say you are here to warn others and then not do your job when the people should be warned. And in the case of DAI they very well should be. Not from buying the game at all, but warned about its radical change of direction despite what devs have told us and about all those things the game does poorly. This doesn't mean the game then has to receive a bad score, by all means give it still 8/10 or 9/10, but point out the game's flaws. Reviews are subjective opinions, but they should not be biased.

 

I'll still watch his videos, he is good and entertaining and this was probably the first review I have seen him slipped up.

[Realmzmaster]

The Angry Joe review pointed out the problems with the keyboard & mouse. He specifically stated that he tried to play with the control system and had trouble with it. Hence he gave the PC version an 8/10.  He also stated that he played the game with a controller. He gave the version while using  a controller a 9/10.

 

What flaws are did you want him to point out? That you thought there were to many fetch quests? That the gamer did not get to allocated the points on level up like previous DA games? That equipment and skills are used to affect the attributes? That the tactical camera was not adequate enough for some gamers? The lack of auto attack? Not enough cut scenes to emphasis certain points?

 

Those are design decisions not necessarily flaws. A flaw is an imperfection often concealed that impairs soundness. The design in DAI works as intended. Now one may not like the design decisions made. That is a fair point, but that does not equal a flaw.

 

So what are the flaws? If you had said the inability to play the game due to CTDs or freezing that is a flaw. Walking through doors due to faulty collision detection that is a flaw.

[Rawgrim]

The Angry Joe review pointed out the problems with the keyboard & mouse. He specifically stated that he tried to play with the control system and had trouble with it. Hence he gave the PC version an 8/10.  He also stated that he played the game with a controller. He gave the version while using  a controller a 9/10.

 

What flaws are did you want him to point out? That you thought there were to many fetch quests? That the gamer did not get to allocated the points on level up like previous DA games? That equipment and skills are used to affect the attributes? That the tactical camera was not adequate enough for some gamers? The lack of auto attack? Not enough cut scenes to emphasis certain points?

 

Those are design decisions not necessarily flaws. A flaw is an imperfection often concealed that impairs soundness. The design in DAI works as intended. Now one may not like the design decisions made. That is a fair point, but that does not equal a flaw.

 

So what are the flaws? If you had said the inability to play the game due to CTDs or freezing that is a flaw. Walking through doors due to faulty collision detection that is a flaw.

 

A game riddled with poor design decisions doesn't deserve a 9 out of 10 though.

[Jeffry]

"Flaws" was maybe the wrong word to use, I hate arguing over semantics, but in this case I feel you are right. Sorry, english is not my first language, was trying to find a word that would describe what you said flaws are and what poor design decisions are at the same time.

 

One thing is a faulty KM+B control on its own, second thing is being promised the same controls and tactical cam as in Origins and get this instead. You know, all the "made by PC players for PC players with the PC in mind as the main platform", which clearly was not the case here. He either didn't know about this PR bit or for some reason omitted to mention it (which would be a shame). Yeah, I know I have mentioned this too many times over the past several days, but it deserves to be mentioned.

 

And as Rawgrim said, a game with so many poor design decisions should not get such a high score. Especially considering some of those decisions were hyped and felt a bit like false advertising.

 

EDIT: He also should have definitely pointed out the Xbox One timed exclusive DLCs.

Modifié par Jeffry, 15 février 2015 - 01:46 .

[Realmzmaster]

A game riddled with poor design decisions doesn't deserve a 9 out of 10 though.

 

Doesn't he have to consider them to be poor design decisions? He may not see them as poor decisions even if others think so. That is why reviews are inherently subjective and not objective.

[Jeffry]

Doesn't he have to consider them to be poor design decisions? He may not see them as poor decisions even if others think so. That is why reviews are inherently subjective and not objective.

 

There are plenty of those that try to be objective as much as they can to protect the players. He usually tries his best as well, that is one of the reasons so many people watch him. That and the fact he gets angry about dubious and shady practices of game studios (which, as I mentioned earlier, happened here as well).

[Realmzmaster]

The point (from my viewpoint)  is that as long as Angry Joe's opinion aligns with the person's opinion Angry Joe is a hero. Now for DAI his opinion does not align with other people's opinion he goes to zero.

 

I agree that he could have warned the viewers about the differences in DAI in light of DAO and DA2. Instead he chose to focus on DAI itself. That being his prerogative. But, YMMV.

[DaemionMoadrin]

The point (from my viewpoint)  is that as long as Angry Joe's opinion aligns with the person's opinion Angry Joe is a hero. Now for DAI his opinion does not align with other people's opinion he goes to zero.

 

I agree that he could have warned the viewers about the differences in DAI in light of DAO and DA2. Instead he chose to focus on DAI itself. That being his prerogative. But, YMMV.

 

I watched his review and he mentioned flaws, he said that you shouldn't expect tactial combat and that the PC controls need a serious patch. The problem I am having is that he immediately glosses over these things and becomes really excited about the alternative story lines, while in the background it says "illusion of choice".

It's not that he said anything that wasn't true or that he didn't point out the things that changed... it's that his tone doesn't match. He's happy and excited even when talking about problems in a "This is an issue but forget about that, because everything else is totally shiny" way.

He only played ~60h for his review and probably didn't encounter the gamebreaking bugs (I avoided those myself).

 

I disagree with him on quite a few points, like for example replay value. But those are mostly subjective things and you can't argue about taste.

What was weird to me was his non-angry review. Except for the part about micro transactions he wasn't critical at all.

 

His review is totally fine, it's honest and perhaps based on too little actual experience with the game itself but that's okay. His tone throughout was more like an ad than a review though.

[AlanC9]

And that would be fine were it just an opinion piece. If you're reviewing the game and have a large dedicated fanbase who are going to spend their hard earned money on it based on your video then you have an obligation to point out the flaws.

Even if he doesn't think those flaws are important? What percentage of time would be appropriate. Could you point me to a 9/10 review where he does this right?

[In Exile]

I watched his review and he mentioned flaws, he said that you shouldn't expect tactial combat and that the PC controls need a serious patch. The problem I am having is that he immediately glosses over these things and becomes really excited about the alternative story lines, while in the background it says "illusion of choice".

It's not that he said anything that wasn't true or that he didn't point out the things that changed... it's that his tone doesn't match. He's happy and excited even when talking about problems in a "This is an issue but forget about that, because everything else is totally shiny" way.

He only played ~60h for his review and probably didn't encounter the gamebreaking bugs (I avoided those myself).

 

I disagree with him on quite a few points, like for example replay value. But those are mostly subjective things and you can't argue about taste.

What was weird to me was his non-angry review. Except for the part about micro transactions he wasn't critical at all.

 

His review is totally fine, it's honest and perhaps based on too little actual experience with the game itself but that's okay. His tone throughout was more like an ad than a review though.

 

Maybe he really liked the game. 

[Jeffry]

Maybe he really liked the game. 

 

That is kinda obvious

 

 

The point (from my viewpoint)  is that as long as Angry Joe's opinion aligns with the person's opinion Angry Joe is a hero. Now for DAI his opinion does not align with other people's opinion he goes to zero.

 

I agree that he could have warned the viewers about the differences in DAI in light of DAO and DA2. Instead he chose to focus on DAI itself. That being his prerogative. But, YMMV.

 

Nothing has been said about going from hero to zero. It has only been said he slipped up, which he did. No matter how much one likes a product he reviews for the consumers who trust him, he should still remain critical towards all its shortcomings. He was towards some, I just feel it wasn't enough, especially by his standards. During his DA2 review he said something about tough love and right now BioWare needs it just as well. I hope he just missed some of the issues the game has and didn't just put on those same rose-tinted glasses many people wear while playing DAI. While DAI is very different from DA2, it is similar in the regard we didn't quite get the product that was promised. Some might not care and find the final product to be even better because of it, but that doesn't change the fact it was falsely advertised and that is not ok.

 

Like I said, I still like AJ the same and while I generally agree with him (especially on his controversies videos, for example his portrayal of GG was imo spot on), I disagreed with him on this one to the point the review was for me disappointing, because I feel it didn't present the game truthfully.

[DisturbedJim83]

That is kinda obvious

 

 

 

Nothing has been said about going from hero to zero. It has only been said he slipped up, which he did. No matter how much one likes a product he reviews for the consumers who trust him, he should still remain critical towards all its shortcomings. He was towards some, I just feel it wasn't enough, especially by his standards. During his DA2 review he said something about tough love and right now BioWare needs it just as well. I hope he just missed some of the issues the game has and didn't just put on those same rose-tinted glasses many people wear while playing DAI. While DAI is very different from DA2, it is similar in the regard we didn't quite get the product that was promised. Some might not care and find the final product to be even better because of it, but that doesn't change the fact it was falsely advertised and that is not ok.

 

Like I said, I still like AJ the same and while I generally agree with him (especially on his controversies videos, for example his portrayal of GG was imo spot ot), I disagreed with him on this one to the point the review was for me disappointing, because I feel it didn't present the game truthfully.

Pretty much this, I remember very well how much he rained angry joe super combo's on DA2 and granted it did have its issues,however it was certainly geared better towards the PC user experience than DAI is,and yet DAI practically gets a pass,while I appreciate he has to do a bit of back scratching in order to get a advance copy to review or access to a early build to play, compared to his DA2 review this one wasn't as critical as it should have been.

[Aren]

He was joking, no  He was actually serious?

[DisturbedJim83]

He was joking, no  He was actually serious?

Well it can only go one of three ways:

1)It was typical award acceptance PR B.S.

2)He has become so deluded that he actually believes that B.S

3)Combine 1+2 into a double stupid combo.

[AlanC9]

I hope he just missed some of the issues the game has and didn't just put on those same rose-tinted glasses many people wear while playing DAI.

What's the difference? If he wasn't bothered by these issues, he wasn't.

[Jeffry]

What's the difference? If he wasn't bothered by these issues, he wasn't.

 

Really? AJ wasn't / wouldn't be bothered by for example false advertisement or by being tricked into betatesting yet another rushed game for EA *? It makes a huge difference if you know his previous work. One possibility is a simple slip up (it happens to everybody), the second one could imply a dent in his credibility. If someone were to be bothered by stuff like this, it would have been AJ. Watch his controversies and rant videos if you don't know what I am talking about. That is why I really hope he just missed the majority of bugs / issues and all that PR BS, because if he knew about them, he should have mentioned them despite how much he liked the game.

 

* 3 such EA games made his top 10 disappointing games of 2014 list and one of the main reasons in all cases was that the game was rushed or lacked core features compared to its predecessor.

[LipsterLinley]

the game has no brothel, therefore inquisition has not returned to form

[SnakeCode]

the game has no brothel, therefore inquisition has not returned to form

Meh, DA2 had one and that game was terribad.

[AlanC9]

Really? AJ wasn't / wouldn't be bothered by for example false advertisement or by being tricked into betatesting yet another rushed game for EA *? It makes a huge difference if you know his previous work. One possibility is a simple slip up (it happens to everybody), the second one could imply a dent in his credibility. If someone were to be bothered by stuff like this, it would have been AJ. Watch his controversies and rant videos if you don't know what I am talking about. That is why I really hope he just missed the majority of bugs / issues and all that PR BS, because if he knew about them, he should have mentioned them despite how much he liked the game.
 
* 3 such EA games made his top 10 disappointing games of 2014 list and one of the main reasons in all cases was that the game was rushed or lacked core features compared to its predecessor.

A fair answer. I'll have to defer to your judgement here; I don't like or remember AJ's videos enough to notice if he's gone off course or not.

[luism]

Mmhv