77 réponses à ce sujet

[AlmondBrown]

Critiquing any medium after consumption is simply an act of hindsight. The only true critique has to come from a source that has no real pre-biased disposition to the material being consumed.

Most of us have played a BioWare game before, or all of them. That in itself creates biases. We consumers want more, better, faster and we want it different.

Well "different" can be an issue when the creator has such a huge array of "FANS" that all have different wants, needs and expectations. The proverbial I want "my Cake and Eat it too" scenario quickly limits any new creation.

Any attempt to please "MOST" of the people invariably ends badly, whereas, an attempt to please as many as possible will invariably result in "critical critiques" such as the OP's.

Given current technology and graphics power, hell we should be able to play DA:O and get immersed like we did with AVATAR in a IMAX 3D movie. The next great Evolution in filmmaking to be sure...

Sadly, the time, manpower and cost to do that, for the current finkiky Gamer Community, just isn't Financially feasible yet.

I can forsee, in the not to distant future, before 12 - 12 - 2012  of course, sitting down at my Gaming rig, putting on my 3D goggles, my stereo headphones and zoning into a World, as myself, fantasy based or otherwise, that is technically so real that from that instant on it would be my actions would fill the pages of my game journal as I go.

Some day. Just not yet.

[Time Spiral]

I'm an RPG Designer by trade (PnP)...and I love problem solving. As such, sharing my opinions on these matters is cathartic...in fact I am sort of compelled to it.

Super awesome!

The only thing I can agree with in your critique is that the Darkspawn threat doesn't seem very threatening in the mid-game. The solution would probably have been to make the "overworld map" part of the game to be more like X-Com in basic design.

Most of your other detractions from the game seem very weak, and without factual basis. For example, it seems you've never heard of low magic fantasy. It is hard sci fi, for fantasy. I.E. more history and anthropology than your generic laser-shooting sword JRPG fantasy. While JRPGs can tell mature storylines also, they fail miserably in establishing believable low magic fantasy worlds. Many of us consider low-magic an indication of skilled writing.

So it's either low-magic or laser shooting swords? I think the effect of expectations were aptly addressed in my article. I generalized it as "Fantasy" and probably should have drilled down into all the various sub-genres.

So, "Low-Magic" can have dragons, monsters, magic, and spell casters,
but is not necessarily required to have imaginative, creative, Fantasy
environments? If so, then I think I accurately made that observation:
Earth 2 + Magic, 800 years ago. Did I not?

My criticism with
the Fantasy element is simple: It felt boring, and ordinary. If the
term for that type of Fantasy is "Low-Magic" then so be it. Doesn't
change the drive of my critique.

Although I didn't peruse the argument, mainly just skimmed, I saw a part of your review that definitely needed to be pointed out. You stated that the game is medieval, and not fantasy, but I honestly cannot agree. How in the world are darkspawn and dragons medieval? To say medieval is to say that it pertains to the Middle Ages, and I don't ever recall hearing about a dragon in historic times. Well wait, there must have been dwarves and elves in the Middle Ages as well, right? That couldn't have been fantasy either.

I could see how skimming might produce this reaction. I classified it as Medieval Fantasy RPG, and then further clarified that it felt like a watery version of Fantasy (your observations about magic in the middle-ages is self-evident, but hey, you just skimmed. So no worries.), which is apparently referred to a "low magic". So, a more appropriate classification would be Medieval Low Fantasy Western RPG (minus the laser shooting guns and characters name Cloud).

@pixieface
It almost seems like you're suggesting Bioware was somehow forced into this type of game format. "Bioware's tactic to compensate for the medium's inherent downfalls ... " - Huh? The downfalls are hallmarks of the choices made by the developers.

Critiquing any medium after consumption is simply an act of hindsight.

I like your style, but isn't critiquing a medium after consumption exactly what a "review" is?

Modifié par Time Spiral, 05 février 2010 - 07:43 .

[Viglin]

Question-Who is the Op, a well known writer and critic, or just someone with a webpage?

[Time Spiral]

Viglin wrote...

Question-Who is the Op, a well known writer and critic, or just someone with a webpage?

Just some guy, for now.

[Viglin]

Time Spiral wrote...

Viglin wrote...

Question-Who is the Op, a well known writer and critic, or just someone with a webpage?

Just some guy, for now.

Well, everyone has to start somewhere, but youll also understand why some of us wont be taking it too serious, but good luck:)

On the plus side, you have actually played the game and know the source material[compared too many well known critics]. Have you perchance read the 2 novels, they give some nice background into Orgins...and lm guessing beyound.

[Time Spiral]

Thanks, Viglin.



I think the material stands on its own, without the need for "official credentials". Sometimes those are more detrimental than good anyway, right



I have not purchased or read the peripheral material, such as the novels. Anybody know if it is good stuff?

[Dick Delaware]

dkjestrup wrote...

I just thought about what you said, regarding the start of the story. Imagine how cool it would be, if Alistar, married to Anora, and the youngest Cousland, recruited you just before the battle of Denerim. You witness the youngest Cousland slaying the archdemon, then after that, it becomes more of your story, dealing with stragglers and other stuff.

That would be so much better imo.

What kind of story is that? Where is the danger, the conflict? The majority of the threat has been taken care of.

[Rulian]

Give the Bioware writers some credit. Low magic fantasy is difficult because it requires far more careful attention and detail than say most high magic settings like D&D. With high magic, you just throw in more and more pretty magical wonders and fireworks to keep the masses entertained, a Harry Potter quitich match comes to mind.



One thing this low magic setting needs more of is uncertainty and fear. How else can you have a 'dark heroic fantasy' story?

[thegoldfinch]

Time Spiral wrote...
@pixieface
It almost seems like you're suggesting Bioware was somehow forced into this type of game format. "Bioware's tactic to compensate for the medium's inherent downfalls ... " - Huh? The downfalls are hallmarks of the choices made by the developers.

No, that would be silly. What I'm saying is that I don't think you can please everyone, especially not in video games, and Bioware chose a story formula that allows them to appeal to the vast majority. The formula allows for some amount of player choice and exploration while still providing a framework to make the story flow.

Your review complained that the subplots (Redcliffe, Dalish, etc) within the main arc seemed out of place, so I threw in my two cents about why Bioware has done that bit time and time again in their games. There ya go.

I agree with Rulian. There were dark underlying themes everywhere, certainly, but for some reason I never felt scared or sick with any 'darkness'. The Broodmother sequence - especially when playing a female Warden - should have been very haunting. I feel like this is a fault with just the atmosphere because the material mostly all there. Dimmer lighting, slower and creepier music instead of peppy, and maybe distance sounds of moaning and crying. I don't know, something more to make the player REALLY not want to be there.

Modifié par pixieface, 06 février 2010 - 02:41 .

[Abriael_CG]

Sounds more like a rant on how the game didn't specifically cater to your tastes than a "critical review"

PS: Dark fantasy doesn't specifically equate with "horror in a fantasy setting". 

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 06 février 2010 - 03:11 .

[DraconisCombine]

I tried to play an RPG on a console and it just didnt even compare to a PC version.Sorry thats my opinion.



"Wait, wait, wait, hold that sword for a second ... oooooh yeah that's a good potion. Wait! Not quite ready yet, gotta rub this balm on my-- ooooohh yeah! Okay. We can resume. Rar!"



Anyone whos played most RPGs ,knows that tactical combat is a staple.The pause effect is the individual character thinking, if you will.At least thats how i perceive it.



"Let's see ... we have a human township, one forest, a couple caves, a temple, some ruins, one mountain, an underground Dwarven city, a mage tower (human), another human township, lots of churches, some buildings, a castle, some plains ... and well, that's it really. Hell, that doesn't really feel that fantastic to me. Feels well, very underwhelming and ordinary."



True.With one exception.Ive already added player made elements to the game along side the original storyline campaign.So im actually rebuilding a unique campaign based on other player made creations.Not many games do that outside of Bioware games.Then again Xbox360 doesnt have access to the toolset does it?



"The tactical strategy engine on the XBOX 360 version of Dragon Age: Origins is almost completely broken. Some of the most fundamental and basic commands you could issue are just simply absent in this version. For instance: Move there, Marching Order, Flank, individual hold positions, change camera elevation (perspective), and avoid friendly fire - are are completely absent. It's crazy, but true."



You are playing a console game.So youve pointed out its own limitation there.Thats not to say the scripting on the PC is great.Au contraire its much to be desired.So once again i turn to the player community of the PC version and work on or download a mod for the AI scripting.Even in cutting edge MMOs or RPGs the command and control elements are quite simple and not complex.More to do with latency more than anything else.As far as friendly fire goes,isnt that a more realistic element of RPGs?Fireballs or lightning doesnt discriminate or decide.Thats up to the caster.I think twice before unloading a massive FF spell.



Overall its a critique of Dragon Age on Xbox360.I dont have one so cant say either way if its a good or bad review.I can only rely from a PC perspective and my experience.

[Time Spiral]

[emphasis added]

Rulian wrote...

Give the Bioware writers some credit. Low magic fantasy is difficult because it requires far more careful attention and detail than say most high magic settings like D&D. With high magic, you just throw in more and more pretty magical wonders and fireworks to keep the masses entertained, a Harry Potter quitich match comes to mind.

One thing this low magic setting needs more of is uncertainty and fear. How else can you have a 'dark heroic fantasy' story?

The highlighted sentence above is a joke, right? You're seriously saying that a genre (low-fantasy) is more difficult (I'm assuming you mean in terms of creative demand) and requires far more attention to detail than high-fantasy? And then use a comparison like D&D? Whoa ... D&D: one of those most intense, vast, and complex umbrellas of Fantasy ever created. Vast beyond DA:O by thousands of times. Vast beyond the entire Bioware catalogue by hundreds of times. Not even slightly comprable to a genre, much less to a sub-genre such as low fantasy.

In general, and by its very nature low-fantasy is less creatively demanding than high-fantasy.

For the record: I should have caught on earlier that when you guys were saying "Low Magic" you were just using a misnomer instead of the term Low-Fantasy. Epic / High, Low, Sword and Sorcery ... very common in the fantasy sub-genres.

Sounds more like a rant on how the game didn't specifically cater to your tastes than a "critical review"

I can see how it might sound like that. But again, I think I aptly expressed how my expectations affected this experience. A critical review is clealry going to be colored by the author. Were you expecting my review to be obective?



The position being argued here by many is that Dragon Age: Origins is Low-Fantasy (aka Low-Magic by some).

My position is that Dragon Age: Origins is High Fantasy that falls short in many areas, most notably: Main Story Arc, and Setting. Now, I don't want to be overly negative (but that D&D comment was just OVER THE TOP). DA falls short as far as fantasy chops are concerned, but these guys at Bioware are fictional masterminds! They created an entire fictional world, that felt alive and breathing, that had believable problems, and an internal consitancy to be marveled at. None of that changes my point though. Is it that hard to see? These guys clearly have mad skills. And it is this entity (DA:O), bursting at the seems with creative and legendary potential that compells me to stand up, in front of the crowd and say: Why the hell am I just walking through desaturated forests, caves, towns, and dungeons?! They are clearly super capable creative geniuses, they just leave SO MUCH to be desired in the terms of a Fantasy Setting, and a compelling and cohesive storyline.

Back to the Low / High Fantasy argument
DA:O is A.) set in an entirely fictional world, and B.) contains a primary focus on elements such as magic, alternative humanoid races, and monsters. While this most closely resembles High Fantasy, if anything else, DA:O is closer to Sword & Sorcery (a sub genre of fantasy) than it is Low-Fantasy. 

Now, I guess it could potentially be argued that DA:O is low-fantasy, and is using the other technique of being set in a largely familiar yet fictional world, with a few elements of magic and such thrown in. But, that'd be a tough sell. If anything, DA:O makes a weak case at either Low or High fantasy, which is expressed at the end of the article: DA:O is confused (in terms of positioning).

Dark Heroic Fantasy
The only problem with this classification is that the game is really not that dark (except for the fact that it is actually visually dark), and is not really that heroic. Yeah, you're a hero, but: Who is the hero of Dragon Age: Origins? Is it the guy/girl, good/bad/gray character you created, or the one I created? Or is it Alistair? Oh wait, he might be dead ... So with no darkness and no hero, what does that leave us with? You guessed it!

Fantasy.

Modifié par Time Spiral, 06 février 2010 - 04:52 .

[mjrsea]

Critical review? More like a paragraph. Where is the in-depth analysis of unique themes, character development, symbolism, mood, tone, script writing, presentation, graphics, control responsivness, and how it translates between console and PC.



Yours was more of an uniformed, unsubstantiated opinion, or did you mean critical as in "I am just going to be negitive?"

[Time Spiral]

mjrsea wrote...

Critical review? More like a paragraph. Where is the in-depth analysis of unique themes, character development, symbolism, mood, tone, script writing, presentation, graphics, control responsivness, and how it translates between console and PC.

Yours was more of an uniformed, unsubstantiated opinion, or did you mean critical as in "I am just going to be negitive?"

The main theme of the article is in direct relation to the blandness of the Fantasy element and the main-story. I touched base on the gameplay elements a little bit, but that's it. Just touched base. It is very purposefully, very focused. 1,600 Words is a pretty long paragraph (not sure what you meant by that one).

One of the things I've been asking here is if people would have liked to see it [article] be a little (or in the case of your list, A LOT) longer to discuss some of the other aspects of the game.

What you're talking about sounds more like a review you'd read in GI or IGN, or Gamespot. I pretty much enjoy the idea of writing about all of those points you mentioned, but in all truthfulness, I did not really expect the article to be read 500 times in 24 hours. Seriously. I didn't think people would care enough to read a 5,000 word in-depth full-game review from "some guy". The activity generated from this one forum alone was pretty boggling. I figured maybe a few people'd see it, and we'd have two primary camps: A.) "Yeah, the fantasy was a little weak, and the story did feel like a choose your own adventure book." B.) "whoa, whoa, whoa, what the hell? I love this game and Bioware, and they love me. You're wrong. Period. WAY wrong!"

The later half of my prediction was right on, the former, way off.

[aries1001]

As I've understood it, DA: Origins is more about how the people of Ferelden deal with the impending threat of the Blight, not so much about you slaying the beasts and becoming the hero of the day. Much like most zombie movies aren't about zombies pr. se, but how the threat from the zombies makes people inner zombies seem to come out into the light. Much so it seems it is, or should be, in DA: Origins.



The story line in DA: Origins is then not the usual hero battling (ancient) evil, but rather trying to come to terms with the scary stuff happening around him, making (hard and grey) choices, gaining allies - experiencing how these allies might want something for themselves before agreeing to form an alliance - or maybe not form one at all. And also experince men's and women's deceit and deception during the unfolding of the story-line.



As for the low magic theme, yes it it low magic, simply because only mages (which are very powerfull) can cast spells. In D&D and in the Elder Scrolls setting (Oblivion etc) nearly all people know to cast small spells like firebolts etc. Not so in this game: Mages only for casting spells.



Ordinary people fear mages, and possibly rightfully so, since it was mages who brought about the first Blight, or so the Chantry teaches. when they tried to go into the Fade to usurp Heaven.

[Derengard]

The overall feelings of this review might be relatively common, but I cannot follow some of the reasons and descriptions...
For example, Rogue invisibility and  potion crafting in mid-battle. I think there couldn't have been less interesting and more ambivalent points chosen (rogue invisibility? Sure, what are they good for without?). And the bit about sidequests with no connection to the main arc: first, I hardly remember any of those, second, why should they be otherwise? Also a bit of knowledge on the low-fantasy theme would have been nice.

Modifié par Derengard, 06 février 2010 - 04:29 .

[David Gaider]

I think you'd probably be better off calling it an editorial rather than suggesting that it's a critical analysis. You make a few good points but then blend it pretty heavily with personal opinion, in those cases suggesting that elements you didn't like are a failing of the game and not a matter of preference. I think maintaining the distinction between editorial and critical analysis is important if you want to avoid the criticism of trying to state opinion as objective fact -- but maybe you don't, I'm not sure. It does weaken the points you make, I'm afraid.

[Time Spiral]

David Gaider wrote...

I think you'd probably be better off calling it an editorial rather than suggesting that it's a critical analysis. You make a few good points but then blend it pretty heavily with personal opinion, in those cases suggesting that elements you didn't like are a failing of the game and not a matter of preference. I think maintaining the distinction between editorial and critical analysis is important if you want to avoid the criticism of trying to state opinion as objective fact -- but maybe you don't, I'm not sure. It does weaken the points you make, I'm afraid.

(I referred to it as a review, not an analysis; similar, but different)

I think I have to fully disagree.

Unless I'm way off base here, a video game is an art form. It is not a machine. It is not science. So, when reviewing, discussing, or critiquing a video game/art form, isn't preference inalienable from the process and result? Even if I'm talking strict gameplay mechanics, or graphics, or story progression, isn't it at some level a matter of preference no matter what (unless something is just broken)? This argument being made against the article that it is "an opinion piece" to then be used as impetus for dismissal seems rather unjustified. Maybe even borderline defensive.

I make the distinction that we're talking about art, and not, say, a machine, because when reviewing a car you can say it gets this many MPGs, has this much cabin space, has this mechanical feature, and so on. But eventually you get to "I like this about the car, I don't like this because of these reasons ..." Sure, when reviewing DA:O we could rattle of objective technical specifications, and compare it to industry benchmarks, but a review, or critical analysis is necessarily subjective unless you're strictly talking about technicalities (which is NO FUN).

You guys might have science and art confused a little ...
For instance, a critical review in science must be objective, because you're analyzing and critiquing an experiment, or a claim, or a finding. It is raw, static, data. But lets keep in mind that Dragon Age: Origins is a piece of interative art.

Modifié par Time Spiral, 06 février 2010 - 06:50 .

[Abriael_CG]

Time Spiral wrote...

I think I have to fully disagree.

Unless I'm way off base here, a video game is an art form. It is not a machine. It is not science. So, when reviewing, discussing, or critiquing a video game/art form, isn't preference inalienable from the process and result? Even if I'm talking strict gameplay mechanics, or graphics, or story progression, isn't it at some level a matter of preference no matter what (unless something is just broken)? This argument being made against the article that it is "an opinion piece" to then be used as impetus for dismissal seems rather unjustified. Maybe even borderline defensive.

And you're, indeed, way off base.

What David nicely laid out for you is exactly the difference between a professional journalist (and mind you, even between the ones writing in the actual gaming press there are few real professional journalists) and "a random guy with a blog".

Videogames aren't a "science" per se (in many ways they are), but also, there are several factors that contitute quality or lack of thereof, and many others that some will like and some others will not, because they are a very simple matter of taste.

Your "review" states your tastes and opinion as fact, and your subjective views as objective (and given the success of the game you might have noticed that your opinions are very far from being fact, or even widely shared), which pretty much makes it an editorial, and if I have to be honest, a pretty sub-par one to boot. A "critical review" is something else.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 06 février 2010 - 06:58 .

[Mistersunshine]

"Dragon Age: Origins is either very focused, and I'm just looking for something else,"





I think that this is exactly the case, and the most accurate observation in your review.

[atrain69]

Now I've read a few of these posts and the review itself and I have to admit that the review, imo, is largely misguided.  Saying it isn't fantasy is like saying lord of the rings doesn't fit into the genre.  Just because it isn't futuristic like biowares other title ME2 that came out recently doesn't make DA:O any less fantasy. 

I happen to agree with many of the people on here about this being the beginning of a hopefully long story to come, 70 years of story yet to be told and experienced leaves a lot of room for us to explore the various parts of the world that have been brought up in the orginal game.  The character backgrounds that this writer attributed as a weakness is exactally what most real RPG ppl look for in a game, to me its a sign that bioware has retained some of its DND connections and are just improving on a system that's been working for them for years.  Now mind you DA:O is vastly different from its previous similar games like BG 1 and 2 but it still blew up the charts when it came out and many of us aren't playing it only once through like other games, I'm on my 4th character now.

Lastly, the thing that really got me was this alleged 50+ hours of gameplay that he didn't like.  I thought that 50+ hours would be awesome to bad my longest game was only 42 hours and some odd minutes...and I'd gladly spend 100+ hrs on this game if they'd give me the content to do so.

[David Gaider]

Time Spiral wrote...
You guys might have science and art confused a little ...
For instance, a critical review in science must be objective, because you're analyzing and critiquing an experiment, or a claim, or a finding. It is raw, static, data. But lets keep in mind that Dragon Age: Origins is a piece of interative art.

This isn't about the difference between art and science. It's about the difference between a critical review and an opinion piece. You came here and said "look at my critical review!" so I assume you're seeking feedback -- yet when anyone disagrees with the conclusions in your review you say "but that's my opinion." Well, is it an opinion piece or a critical review?

They're not the same thing. A good opinion piece makes it clear that the review is based on how much the reviewer personally liked or disliked the game -- and that is, in fact, what many game reviews are and there's nothing wrong with them. A bad opinion piece, however, is one where the review is presented as a critical analysis or which switches between the two as if they were interchangeable. It would be like someone saying that a painting was a poor representation of Neoclassicism because it used too much of the color blue, and how much better it would look if they used more red because it's a much more pleasing color.

You make some good points in your article, and by no means is Dragon Age (or any game, really) above criticism, but I wouldn't muddy the waters if I were you... and I would suggest you not be above receiving some criticism of your own, since you came here seeking it. 

Modifié par David Gaider, 06 février 2010 - 08:06 .

[NinjaWJ]

Nice review. Pretty professional. I do agree with some parts and disagree with some but i wont specify right now (kinda lazy lol). I think you should include some positives in your review because you did rate the 8 and you do need things to back up that score.

[SituationSoap]

Time Spiral, you're off to a good start, but you've a long way to go, my friend.



Your first mistake is that you confused, as Mr. Gaider pointed out above, critique and review. Artistic Critique is nearly impossible without "spoiling" the story: it's a form of expression which is designed to provide insight into the "good and bad" of a piece of art. In order to do so well, it should provide very specific examples, as well as outside supporting evidence. A review is simply a piece of opinion which provides a singular viewpoint on the merits of the game. The two have very different purposes in life, and you've gotten them confused (there's nothing truly critical about your review).



The larger issue, however, is that your writing is nearly incomprehensible. You tend to try to make what I'd call big points (look at your bolded headlines), but then you don't ever actually back them up with any meat. You don't use examples of the points you're trying to drive home, but kind of seem to assume that your readers simply "know what you're saying". I'd recommend re-reading your piece out loud, and I think you'll see what I'm talking about. If you don't, find someone who has never played the game, and have them tell you things which seem confusing. That should hopefully give you an idea of where my criticism is coming from.

[Time Spiral]

NinjaWJ wrote...

Nice review. Pretty professional. I do agree with some parts and disagree with some but i wont specify right now (kinda lazy lol). I think you should include some positives in your review because you did rate the 8 and you do need things to back up that score.

I'm not sure what "rate the 8" means

@SituationSoap - Excellent feedback! Thank you.



I feel like things might be getting out of hand a little bit, here. In the beginning of this thread I made my intentions known: I do not want to "argue" opinions, but would happily discuss some of them, and that if I saw a need to clarify my position (for a variety of reasons) that I would do so, and that it would enhance the understanding of my article.

Feedback
I am VERY appreciative of the feedback, and the activity that has been generated by the article. It is remarkable! Seeing such strong reactions, and the intelligent responses (mostly) that so many of you have. I am a big believer that honest peer feedback, good or bad, is a critical ingredient in growing and improving one's craft. So believe me when I say bring it on! I take the good with the bad. You're not going to hurt my feelings. If I came off as defensive to some, I apologize, definitely not! Could it be that you were on the offensive and expected defense, naturally?  Maybe it is also due to the fact that I'm not arguing, when clearly some want to argue, that is throwing people off. I'm trying my best to simply clarify myself, and discuss, and not to argue "you're right, you're wrong, I'm right, yada yada ..."

Fact or Fiction
I am honestly, and thoroughly confused why so many of you expected or think this review should have been either "fully objective" or more clearly identified as "opinion." I thought the title of the article, and the preface made it extremely clear that you were about to read "a review", and that the review was "critical". It is not a report, or a technical analysis.

Many have said that "I'm speaking opinions and stating them as fact." It is for this reason that I'm going to go back and take another look at the article to see why some of you think this ... Is it because I don't start every sentence of with "I think," or "In my humble opinion,"? Is it possibly because I articulate opinions with confidence, and this strength in position is being confused as "implicit fact"? I'm seriously asking these questions. They are not rhetorical.

Journalism?
I fully, without doubt, and completely agree that some journalism should be as objective as possible. When you're reporting events and occurences, and you must be as objective and factual as possible - like news reporting. I also agree that there is a lack of true journalism in the news reporting media (lots of inappropriate bias). But, I'm not sure how this has anything to do with my review of Dragon Age: Origins. This is NOT a report, nor is it without interpritation. It is a review written by a fan.

Dragon Age: Origins is an excellent game
Maybe I didn't gush enough in the article to truly have it received well by the fan base. That's fine. Acceptance was not the goal. I enjoyed the game VERY MUCH. I could write a whole article about the myriad of things the game did right, because there are a lot. That review would be met with responses like "right on, brother," and "hell yeah, great article," but mostly with, "No, DA:O is missing this feature, and this feature, and needs this and that."

Why do I think that? Cuz we're all a bunch of rebels!

Modifié par Time Spiral, 06 février 2010 - 09:47 .