15809 réponses à ce sujet

[Seraphim24]

The success (or lack of success) of Fallout is actually quite relevant to the topic. DAI aside it's the only real somewhat current competitor to TW3 as an open world RPG. It doesn't matter if people like the fact or not but the "winner" will most likely have a bigger influence on DA4 that the other. Quest design, protagonist, world building, npcs. But yes, more focus on The Witcher would be good.

 

F4 is not an open world RPG.

 

Also if Bioware is really just purely chasing dollars and trends at this point they have bigger problems. (not saying they are at all)

 

Heck isn't the lesson from DA:I that if you try and copy the popular 20 million seller thing, people won't necessarily give you 20 million sales?

 

The 20 million seller WoW at it's peak/Skyrim/D3 is pretty much unassailable by many because you can release a substantively better game and you probably won't find 20 million people that can necessarily appreciate it.

 

To put it more bluntly actually you make a game substantively more challenging you probably won't find 20 million people that can necessarily beat it.

[Wolven_Soul]

Was it the same reviewer, though? If not, then possibly they evaluated the games using different criteria. At the end of the day, no review can (or should) claim objectivity. They're giving you their opinion.

 

In any case, that all seems pretty subjective to me, especially these days. What constitutes a 10/10? A bug free, rock solid game? A flawlessly executed narrative? Novel, inventive gameplay mechanics? If that's the case, you'd probably have to settle for smaller, less ambitious games, because something like TW3 couldn't possibly exist without a healthy smattering of issues. It's all just too big. Personally, excepting Destiny which I've never played, I think all the games you list deserve the very high scores they generally received, while acknowledging that there are some things there that may be deal breakers for different players. If anything, I think one of the biggest issues at play is how reductive and potentially misleading a numbered scale can be. As far as review formats go, I think (for example) Kotaku's is pretty good in that regard.

 

I'm genuinely not sure what event you're referring to specifically, but I sincerely hope it's not a certain "ethics" movement that also happens to be the peak of human idiocy. All that being said - the best thing these days with youtube etc is that there is such a wealth of different viewpoints that you're bound to find someone to speak to your particular concerns. I'm glad you have a few that you can trust, and I'd actually appreciate if you shared them. I don't follow anyone, really.

 

I don't know if it was the same reviewer or not.  It is GameInformer in question and I think that their awards are determined by the entire staff as a whole.  Even if it was just one person though in each circumstance, giving either of those games shooter of the year was silly to me.  Bioshock because the mechanics were not as good and Destiny because the mechanics were the only thing that was good.  

 

I can't say what my own criteria for a perfect 10/10 would be.  It's....a difficult thin to say.  I love the crap out of TW3, it might very well be my new favorite game of all time.  But I can't give it a 10/10 in my mind.  Obviously I don't agree with giving DA:I a 9 or a 10, it's more like a 6 or 7 for me.  Clearly no game is ever going to be truly perfect, they are always going to have some flaws, so I honestly don't know what would constitute that high a score.  In the end I agree with you actually that giving scores is pretty much a useless way to review a game.  I think reviewers need to start sticking with the facts of the game, speaking on what works and what doesn't work and leave it at that.  

 

Yes, I was referring to the ethics movement, but again I have to agree that the whole thing was the absolute height of stupidity and toxicity, on both sides of the argument.  At the core of it though I do believe in the idea that people who do reviews about video games should disclose something of their relationships with games developer if said relationship exists.  One of the reasons I like the Youtubers that I do is because they do make those disclosures.  As well I certainly don't agree with traditional games media getting together to try and force an issue in the direction that they want it to go.  I can't say much more about that without talking about the thing that sparked that whole nonsense and I really don't wanna do that here.  Probably already said to much about it.

 

As to those Youtubers, I trust Totalbiscuit, though he focuses more on Indie games than he does Triple A's.  He is one of those who eschews giving games an arbitrary score.  He is the one that got me to play Terraria and Path of Exile, two games I enjoyed a great deal.  I tend to trust Jim Sterling as well, who both does Youtube and he as well still does written reviews because he just likes to do them.  I want to say I trust AngryJoe, but as entertaining as his reviews are, I sometimes think he is to generous in his scores.  I think he actually rated DA2 higher than DA:O.  

 

Jessie Cox doesn't do reviews, but he tends to be pretty cynical, and I will usually trust it more when a cynical person raves about a game.  Other than that, I will watch game play footage and make any further observations on my own, which, ultimately is the best way of doing it.

[Wolven_Soul]

True.   I pity those who buy Bethesda game on console. 

 

I actually had quite a good time playing Skyrim and both Fallout games on console thank you very much.  

[Wolven_Soul]

I just watched some random gameplay of it on Twitch so my worries are gone. I like everything i've seen so far. But i love Bethesda games, i can play them for thousands of hours. My mind and body is ready, 16 hours and 25 minutes and i will be playing it.

 

Cool, glad to hear that.  I am so ready as well.  I just need to decide which console I will get it on as I will have a PS4 by the end of the year.  XB1 though will have mod support.  So...might just have to get it there.

[straykat]

F4 is not an open world RPG.

 

Also if Bioware is really just purely chasing dollars and trends at this point they have bigger problems. (not saying they are at all)

 

Heck isn't the lesson from DA:I that if you try and copy the popular 20 million seller thing, people won't necessarily give you 20 million sales?

 

The 20 million seller WoW at it's peak/Skyrim/D3 is pretty much unassailable by many because you can release a substantively better game and you probably won't find 20 million people that can necessarily appreciate it.

 

To put it more bluntly actually you make a game substantively more challenging you probably won't find 20 million people that can necessarily beat it.

 

I don't know about FO4 yet. If they learned anything NV though, it'll be an RPG.

 

DAI didn't even do a good job at emulating that style of open world, if that's what they were going for. I'm not sure they were. It's more like an MMO. It has little of the emergent gameplay of TES/GTA.

[ashwind]

I don't know if it was the same reviewer or not.  It is GameInformer in question and I think that their awards are determined by the entire staff as a whole.  Even if it was just one person though in each circumstance, giving either of those games shooter of the year was silly to me.  Bioshock because the mechanics were not as good and Destiny because the mechanics were the only thing that was good.  

 

I can't say what my own criteria for a perfect 10/10 would be.  It's....a difficult thin to say.  I love the crap out of TW3, it might very well be my new favorite game of all time.  But I can't give it a 10/10 in my mind.  Obviously I don't agree with giving DA:I a 9 or a 10, it's more like a 6 or 7 for me.  Clearly no game is ever going to be truly perfect, they are always going to have some flaws, so I honestly don't know what would constitute that high a score.  In the end I agree with you actually that giving scores is pretty much a useless way to review a game.  I think reviewers need to start sticking with the facts of the game, speaking on what works and what doesn't work and leave it at that.  

 

Yes, I was referring to the ethics movement, but again I have to agree that the whole thing was the absolute height of stupidity and toxicity, on both sides of the argument.  At the core of it though I do believe in the idea that people who do reviews about video games should disclose something of their relationships with games developer if said relationship exists.  One of the reasons I like the Youtubers that I do is because they do make those disclosures.  As well I certainly don't agree with traditional games media getting together to try and force an issue in the direction that they want it to go.  I can't say much more about that without talking about the thing that sparked that whole nonsense and I really don't wanna do that here.  Probably already said to much about it.

 

As to those Youtubers, I trust Totalbiscuit, though he focuses more on Indie games than he does Triple A's.  He is one of those who eschews giving games an arbitrary score.  He is the one that got me to play Terraria and Path of Exile, two games I enjoyed a great deal.  I tend to trust Jim Sterling as well, who both does Youtube and he as well still does written reviews because he just likes to do them.  I want to say I trust AngryJoe, but as entertaining as his reviews are, I sometimes think he is to generous in his scores.  I think he actually rated DA2 higher than DA:O.  

 

Jessie Cox doesn't do reviews, but he tends to be pretty cynical, and I will usually trust it more when a cynical person raves about a game.  Other than that, I will watch game play footage and make any further observations on my own, which, ultimately is the best way of doing it.

 

I think that players should realize that when a games that receive 10/10 review score, it simply does not mean that it is flawless or perfect; such a game does not exist. Which means no game would ever receive a 10/10 or a 9/10 for that matter and 8 would be extremely rare. I am no professional reviewer but I am sure anyone can pick holes in any game.

 

I think lately reviewers have more less say that when a 10/10 or 9/10 is rewarded to any game, it simply means that in their opinion, that game is a must own or must buy: I believe gamespot and Angryjoe both stated something along those lines.

 

Game scores should be like this imo:

0/10: Technically broken and unplayable.

 

1/10: This game is so bad that it is actually good for laughs. Would recommend to close friends for laughs.

 

2/10: Would recommend to enemies.

 

3/10: Would advise friends to stay away.

 

4/10: Dont think it is worth getting.

 

5/10: Neutral. Tis not good but tis not bad.

 

6/10: Game meets all the basic expectation. If you have nothing else to play and if the game is on sale, give it a spin.

 

7/10: Game is pretty good. Should try it but maybe tis a bit too expensive for what it is offering. Wait for sale.

 

8/10: Recommended. Well worth the price tag. (ex. DAI will fit into this category - not the DLCs though)

 

9/10: Highly recommended. Game is so good that you are willing to overlook all its flaws. (ex. Bethesda games mostly fall into this category)

 

10/10: A must own. Will recommend it to friends but will caution them of the dangers of this game (skipping work/school and lose girlfriend/boyfriend). Will buy it for enemies to get them in trouble. 

[straykat]

And 8 is still too much. I was a diehard fan and preordered the Collector's edition. I had every reason to be biased and act like some insufferable fanboy...

 

And I still am disappointed with DAI. It's made even more strange with the heaps of praise and developers calling it a "return to form". Exactly what is it returning to? And why were the other games so bad that you had to return to something else?

 

I only wish I told them more how much I (and others) appreciated them before.. instead of sitting in silence. Maybe then they would have been more confident of their ideas.

[Akrabra]

Not sure what they meant by return to form, but i am guessing since both DA:II and ME3 sort of "flopped" or well had problems. DA:I was sort of a solid product from start till end. It was a well polished game with content unlike DA:II and it did not have a controversial ending unlike ME3. If its a good game well thats subjective. If i were to rate it on the Ashwind scale i would give DA:I with DLC's as a 9/10 and close to taking down Origins. Most people in here would disagree with me. 

[Teddie Sage]

I'm not really a huge fan of registering on new forums just for one game, but if it continues like this, I may have to do it. I've been reporting my crashes on the Facebook page and through twitter. No response.

[straykat]

Not sure what they meant by return to form, but i am guessing since both DA:II and ME3 sort of "flopped" or well had problems. DA:I was sort of a solid product from start till end. It was a well polished game with content unlike DA:II and it did not have a controversial ending unlike ME3. If its a good game well thats subjective. If i were to rate it on the Ashwind scale i would give DA:I with DLC's as a 9/10 and close to taking down Origins. Most people in here would disagree with me. 

 

 

Totally fair to have that opinion. But that's the thing.. your last sentence. There isn't much consensus.

 

There was in the press, but not among players.

 

 

 

I'm not really a huge fan of registering on new forums just for one game, but if it continues like this, I may have to do it. I've been reporting my crashes on the Facebook page and through twitter. No response.

 

I'd try EA support. They're usually pretty helpful, funnily enough. Or do you mean the Witcher?

[FKA_Servo]

I'm not really a huge fan of registering on new forums just for one game, but if it continues like this, I may have to do it. I've been reporting my crashes on the Facebook page and through twitter. No response.

If you've got a GOG account, you're actually already registered, which is nice. Just sign in using those credentials.

[Wolven_Soul]

I think that players should realize that when a games that receive 10/10 review score, it simply does not mean that it is flawless or perfect; such a game does not exist. Which means no game would ever receive a 10/10 or a 9/10 for that matter and 8 would be extremely rare. I am no professional reviewer but I am sure anyone can pick holes in any game.

 

I think lately reviewers have more less say that when a 10/10 or 9/10 is rewarded to any game, it simply means that in their opinion, that game is a must own or must buy: I believe gamespot and Angryjoe both stated something along those lines.

 

Game scores should be like this imo:

0/10: Technically broken and unplayable.

 

1/10: This game is so bad that it is actually good for laughs. Would recommend to close friends for laughs.

 

2/10: Would recommend to enemies.

 

3/10: Would advise friends to stay away.

 

4/10: Dont think it is worth getting.

 

5/10: Neutral. Tis not good but tis not bad.

 

6/10: Game meets all the basic expectation. If you have nothing else to play and if the game is on sale, give it a spin.

 

7/10: Game is pretty good. Should try it but maybe tis a bit too expensive for what it is offering. Wait for sale.

 

8/10: Recommended. Well worth the price tag. (ex. DAI will fit into this category - not the DLCs though)

 

9/10: Highly recommended. Game is so good that you are willing to overlook all its flaws. (ex. Bethesda games mostly fall into this category)

 

10/10: A must own. Will recommend it to friends but will caution them of the dangers of this game (skipping work/school and lose girlfriend/boyfriend). Will buy it for enemies to get them in trouble. 

 

Yeah I can get behind a rating system like that.  I still mainly of the opinion, however, that scoring games is mostly pointless.  Everyone has a different opinion about what each number means.  You can say all of the different things in each number without adding the number.  

[Akrabra]

I prefer Eurogamer, they cut out the rating system and just give their honest personal opinion. And then they slap a recommend or not at the end of it. 

[Wolven_Soul]

Not sure what they meant by return to form, but i am guessing since both DA:II and ME3 sort of "flopped" or well had problems. DA:I was sort of a solid product from start till end. It was a well polished game with content unlike DA:II and it did not have a controversial ending unlike ME3. If its a good game well thats subjective. If i were to rate it on the Ashwind scale i would give DA:I with DLC's as a 9/10 and close to taking down Origins. Most people in here would disagree with me. 

Yeah, a solid product for sure.  Still, as far as a return to form, I don't know if that can be said.  Not because of any negative aspects of the game itself, but simply because I am not sure that Dragon Age has any 'form' to return to.  The series really doesn't have much of an identity.  

 

On the Ashwind scale I would put it between 6 and 7.

[straykat]

Yeah, a solid product for sure.  Still, as far as a return to form, I don't know if that can be said.  Not because of any negative aspects of the game itself, but simply because I am not sure that Dragon Age has any 'form' to return to.  The series really doesn't have much of an identity.  

 

On the Ashwind scale I would put it between 6 and 7.

 

Not even sure I'd call solid, just from a product point of view. PC gamers seemed pretty livid and misled about some features (especially the controls and tactical play), and older console players eventually got dissed. I understand why, but it's still pretty weak from a basic product point of view.

 

I'm neither one of them though.. I have it on XOne. I only think the tactical feature sucks, from those complaints.

 

It actually disappoints me for the things Bioware is decent at: Story. It's TES like.. I expect more than prisoners turned messiahs. That's lower than Bioware's usual standard. Why copy people who suck at story? I don't understand. And I was into the previous stuff with DA2/Asunder/Masked Empire. It's barely about that. They decided to go crazy with the setting's monomyth and uncovering various lore that has little to do with the interesting political landscape they set up. People on this site argued for a good 3 years or so about the complexity here..... and then most of that just implodes in the title screen. Cue the big bads and existential threats.

 

Maybe I'm just getting too old. This could have entertained me more at one point... but that formula happens too much in fantasy. And I thought they were trying something different for a sec there.

[TmTapani]

The fact that I always (have to) use a lot of mods with Bethesda games might have spoiled me but all the footage I have seen from FO4 has been very "meh". I hope the game will be good but it's hard not to be cynical when a lot of the things you see have already been done better in the last games (modded ones). Or in games from other developers and series.

[Akrabra]

Well its scoring crazy on reviews so far, so atleast the mainstream critics like it. 

[Wolven_Soul]

For what it's worth, here is GameInformer's review of FO4.

 

http://www.gameinfor...-wasteland.aspx

[Akrabra]

What i have seen as the negatives so far is 

 

- Performance on consoles suffer abit in interiors - stutters etc.

- A few scripting bugs on some sidequests, none on main quests.

- The graphics aren't mindblowing, but on the other hand the atmosphere is top notch.

 

We'll see how it develops. I am not sure if review copies had access to day one patch though. Its mostly technical issues, which is the problem with the Engine. They really should change it or polish it alot. 

[straykat]

I'm just gonna ignore the reviews.. I preordered anyways. lol. It's a gamble.

 

Same with Tomb Raider.

 

 

I kind of know what to expect from their general formula, so it'll probably be entertaining.

[slimgrin]

As I expected, some reviewers didn't like the new dialog system. Unfortunate they went with that. All the major things Bethesda usually gets right are there. I guess that's all I was hoping for.  

[vbibbi]

I'm not really a huge fan of registering on new forums just for one game, but if it continues like this, I may have to do it. I've been reporting my crashes on the Facebook page and through twitter. No response.

That's rough. I just bought a used copy of TW3 a few weeks ago and at first no performance problems. This past week the game has shut down on me unexpectedly two or three times, which is frustrating, but luckily the save system prevents me from losing too much of my progress. Still annoying though.

 

Yeah I can get behind a rating system like that.  I still mainly of the opinion, however, that scoring games is mostly pointless.  Everyone has a different opinion about what each number means.  You can say all of the different things in each number without adding the number.  

I prefer a 100 point scale, as that provides more of a range, and deflates high scores. On that scale, I think anything above 90% should be viewed with heavy skepticism, as even the best games have enough flaws to drop them to a solid 80-90%. If I see 10/10 I automatically think the product is being rated as perfect rather than the qualifications posted in this thread. The qualifications make sense, but to an average consumer looking at scores, I think it's easier to just see the 10/10 and expect the game to be perfect.

 

I'm just gonna ignore the reviews.. I preordered anyways. lol. It's a gamble.

 

Same with Tomb Raider.

 

 

I kind of know what to expect from their general formula, so it'll probably be entertaining.

I can't bring myself to preorder games anymore, regardless of the company. The one exception being season passes for chapter games like Telltale. Though now I'm regretting that with the delay of the finale of Game of Thrones...

 

I played Fallout 3 and FO:NV and enjoyed them both, but much prefer both TW3 and DAI to that setting. People complain about the mud brown of DAO's environment, but Fallout's world is 100 times worse! I'll probably wait for a few months for reviews and for sales before picking it up.

[wicked cool]

I played skyrim on 360 and there wasnt a single game on the 360 that at the time tgat could take its place (for years) so that is a 10/10. It so was so good i eventually built a pc and learned how to download over 100 mods without crashing (cleaning, organizing and even adding other programs into the base game folder)
Dai on pc is nice and im having tons of fun playing it but you really have 2 many restrictions to compete with w3 or fallout 4.
I would jump to a new franchise and not look back that had dai companions, w3 sidequests, the ability to be a rogue/mage or combination like skyrim and possible combat of all three (tactical, slow motion like skyrim/fallout vats, stealth, preparing/sword types like w3)
Im not buyinf f4 on day 1 and havent bought w3 (just followed it closely) as i wanted to truly finish dai . Reviews are in on f4 and mostly 9 so im going to wait and see wherethe dust settles to devide on what i purchase next as realistically 1 will consume any gaming time i have

[AmberDragon]

I'm not really a huge fan of registering on new forums just for one game, but if it continues like this, I may have to do it. I've been reporting my crashes on the Facebook page and through twitter. No response.

You don't have to join their forum, as I suggested before open a support ticket http://en.cdprojektr...ontact-support/ I tried to see if there was anything on their forum to help you but can't find other PS4 users reporting crashes there... some xbox users and some pc users but no PS4 users.

Have to say I have not had a huge problem with crashes on my PS4 version of TW3 but I guess I am just lucky this time, I was unlucky with DAI in that I had the banter bug which is still not fixed from what I have read on this forum...

[Teddie Sage]

Like OMG, I totally failed a mission righhhhhhhhhht now and I feel so doooooooooooown. Ya know, like, it's totally that mission where you gotta find the Little Bleep and there's this dwarf trying to steal your job and you can like recruit your old buddy Vernon Roche instead to fill in the blanks and yeah, I feel so dowwwwwwwwwwn, girrrrrrrls. Totally don't want to go back to an earlier save file, like omg... who does that!?

PS: You're allowed to punch me for writing this post with a Valley Girl accent.