77 réponses à ce sujet

[V Azure V]

Great Read... But I, like many others, disagree on a few things.

First and foremost, you as well as many others had very high expectations, myself included. But it would be a good thing to make it very clear that you are biased. That review made it sound like you hated it, the only thing going against that is the "By now you probably think I hate the game, or think it sucks. I really do not. I enjoyed it very much." It probably would have been good to go into it ignoring the fact that you thought this game might be THE RPG.

Moving along, as far as books go (not sure about games really) the element the determines whether something is fiction or fantasy is magic, fantasy is basically a fictionally work with magical elements. It doesn't get more fantasy than this really, sorry to disappoint.

And to finish up, the tactics system, compared to many other rpgs on the market, is actually pretty great, though admittedly it lacks a few key features like the ones you mentioned.

[What a Twist]

The tech being used to both create and play it has limits, but I think they could have done better. I have more respect for dragon age and its creators than for any other game out there. Because I am so amazed by some of the things they did so well, it really hits hard when they did something wrong.



I love a good story, dragon age did not deliver on that. I have a few stupid little gripes mostly about game play, but the weak story is my main problem.

[Rulian]

TimeSpiral, you completely misunderstood my post.
How can I better explain this?  Keep in mind I am focusing on low magic and not high/low fantasy.

A low magic setting makes it more difficult to employ snazzy cheap gimmicks to entertain and keep entertaining the audience over a high magic setting.  It's harder to sell depending on the circumstances.  More work is required from the author because the tools you use now have very strict limitations versus a high magic setting even if it is fiction.  The author has to be more creative to compensate for the narrow parameters.

I used D&D as one of my examples because they invented a monster of almost every type with almost any ability including a planar world for any home.  Are the players bored, overconfidant?  Do they need something that hasn't been seen before?  Pull out the extended monster manual and wip out a red boogy booger chitty chitty bang bang neon stripe orc from the plane of whateversville multiverse.  You can't exactly do that in a one world low magic setting.

The other reason why D&D makes a good example is because magic is (potentially) employed for anything.  Why do you need technology when things can be simply willed into existence?  Teleportation to walk across the street, magical fireblast to heat your triple expresso, a wish spell to do the dishes, all this sounds silly no?  I've seen it.

Modifié par Rulian, 06 février 2010 - 10:21 .

[Derengard]

Time Spiral, one thing that bothers me about your criticism of the ordinariness of the Dragon Age setting is (although I see some highly fantastical elements) that theoretically there is nothing wrong with an atmosphere of an ordinary medieval setting. It can be a strong element in itself. Otherwise there wouldn't be this whole romantic middle-ages thing going on since centuries, or the even newer line of dark & gritty realism.
When you say Dragon Age feels too ordinary this might have several reasons, of a technical nature, structurally, the level design, simple level of detail... Saying that you would expect a fantasy game to push the boundaries doesn't explain one bit of what might really be the issue. Because I too find that some parts can feel a little empty and artificial.

Modifié par Derengard, 06 février 2010 - 10:34 .

[MOTpoetryION]

needed allot more QA ing

[Time Spiral]

Derengard wrote...

Time Spiral, one thing that bothers me about your criticism of the ordinariness of the Dragon Age setting is (although I see some highly fantastical elements) that theoretically there is nothing wrong with an atmosphere of an ordinary medieval setting. It can be a strong element in itself. Otherwise there wouldn't be this whole romantic middle-ages thing going on since centuries, or the even newer line of dark & gritty realism.
When you say Dragon Age feels too ordinary this might have several reasons, of a technical nature, structurally, the level design, simple level of detail... Saying that you would expect a fantasy game to push the boundaries doesn't explain one bit of what might really be the issue. Because I too find that some parts can feel a little empty and artificial.

Interesting take. I too am a big fan of the medieval fantasy setting. Some of the technical issues you brought up could certainly be explored, and have contributed to my feeling of "blandness".

[SituationSoap]

Time Spiral wrote...

@SituationSoap - Excellent feedback! Thank you.

I'm glad to know that you took it in the manner in which it was intended. Best of luck in your future authorial endeavors.

[Murphys_Law]

A.) There is very little praise
in the article as it stands now, and the primary reason for this is
brevity. Currently the article is about 1600+ words. I absolutely love
to write, and could easily have extended that article two, three, maybe
even four times. Maybe keeping it rather concise was a mistake?

B.)
This is a little pressumptiuous in my opinion. I feel like I was simply
articulating my points. At no point did I consciously attempt to
downplay elements that "counter my opinion". I really enjoyed the game.
I could write a whole article about what they did right, but ... that
wasn't the intent here.

C.) Let's start this one off by setting the record straight: I DO NOT WANT MORE CHOICES.
Did it come off like I was asking for more choices? I thought I was
simply pointing out attributes about the decision structure of the
game. [1] In the Brecillian forest, fight the lady or fight the elf.
[2] In Orzammar: Harrowmont or Behlen (sp?) [3] Fight Caridin or
Branka. [4] Redcliffe: Save the boy, sacrifice the mother. The list
goes on, and on, and on ... Does it not? Is this not a binary decision
structure?

D.) Unfortunately,
no. I really have very little concept of production costs in the gaming
industry, and what specific features and functionalities cost to
implement : / I wish I did. The second half of this point just
illustrates how I think you missed one of my main points (if not the
entire drive of the article).

E.) What does this even mean? See rebuttal point C.

A.  You said it was a "critical" review therefore I expect you to talk about what the game did well, so the developers know to continue that line of designing.  If you don't talk about the positives, it just looks like a bunch of nit picking about the flaws and really that is what your "critical" review reads as.  Your mistake was calling it a "critical" review when it just is just your opinion on the problems with the game.

B.  Uhh you quite literally describe the various environments in bland ways.  Sorry but the Circle Tower is not just "some tower".  The funny part is I agree with you, the environments are really boring and need more variation.  However, you went overboard and basically stated all the games environments had no imagination.

C.  Criticising binary choices implicitly means you are wanting more choices.  That should be obvious.  The big elephant in the room is that you are flat out wrong in this basis as well.  While, the solutions are sometimes very binary the ways that you reach those choices are varied.  *Spoilers ahead* For example, (1) You can also convince the elf to end the curse willingly, (2) You can play both sides of the fence for quite awhile in this part of the game making it more than just 2 ways to advance the story, (3) Yes very binary here, (4) I am pretty sure you can just attack the demon, thus killing the boy, not to mention the other choices you can make about how to save the boy are varied (who to send to fade).  If you are not wanting more choices than I really wonder what your whole point of analyzing Dragon Age's binary choice system is?

D.  You don't have to.  It is simple, resources are limited if you want to make a profit.  They can't include every freaking choice that your mind conjures up.  This is especially true when the outcomes of your decisions are referenced and possibly play a role in a sequel.  Really it only makes feasible sense to have only 2 or 3 outcomes or things start to get crazy.  However, Dragon Age does an excellent job of adding a ton of ways on how you reach those solutions.

E.  More player choice detracts from the narrative.  That is all I am saying.   

Modifié par Murphys_Law, 07 février 2010 - 06:07 .

[soteria]

I have a few thoughts. First, one thing that really distracted me while reading the article was all the typos/grammar errors. Not making the little mistakes like typing "are are" goes a long way toward looking more professional.



Take the second sentence of your piece: "Maybe or maybe you haven't seen the plethora of reviews touting words like incredible, amazing, fantastic, and so on." Ignoring the obvious typo, "tout" means to make a big deal about something, but the reviews obviously weren't making a big deal about the words incredible, amazing, etc. Misusing words like that, especially in the beginning of the article, makes it harder for you to establish an image as a professional writer.



Second, as others have said, this read more like an opinion piece than anything else. You didn't care for the fantasy setting--you wanted something more fantastic. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's like criticizing GRRM's Song of Ice and Fire for feeling too much like the War of the Roses. It's *supposed* to be like that.



You also didn't like the story, but again, that's obviously just your opinion. A lot of us loved the story. In particular, Loghain's betrayal at Ostagar (which came as an unspoiled surprise to me, very gut-wrenching), Redcliffe, and the Urn questline were very well-done. I'm not sure I understand how gathering an army to deal with the Blight (what you call sidequests) is unrelated to the main story (dealing with the Blight), but oh well.



Another criticism you had was that the options felt binary. Superficially, sure, but if you looked, you might have found a third door. I certainly did, though I won't spoil it for you.



This doesn't have to do with your article, but more in line with what someone said earlier: it's "easier" to write in a high magic setting like D&D where magic has no limits because you can write yourself into a corner and solve plot problems with magic. Literally. Salvatore does it all the time. Killed someone three books ago and want to bring them back? No problem! They were carrying a magical item with a previously unknown or trivial property, and never *really* died. Writing like that destroys the dramatic tension because you lose the trust of the reader.

[Feraele]

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.



I will note that the "move there" command, and the "change camera elevation" are both present in the PC version, from what I hear.



--- END QUOTE



Yes the move there command works with a right click of your mouse..choose the whole party is the equal sign. Hold you just click the little hand sign under your party members.



Different view of game is done with the mouse wheel.



I think, that some of the comments you made were perhaps done without first researching in better detail. Alot of it seems to be personal opinion...so I don't see how this can be a "critical analysis". A critical analysis ...that statement seems to infer that the person doing the "critical analysis" is an expert. I really don't get that from your article.



Perhaps a "personal review" would have been a better statement than a "critical analysis".

[Feraele]

Sylixe wrote...

Bibdy wrote...

Your expectations were set far too high. What, did you expect this game to be Jesus 2.0 in box fomat?

Well you know they did come out of the gates with that bold statement calling the game "the spiritual succesor" to BG.  That's a very lofty statement to be throwing around since many still consider that the best of this genre ever.  What's even worse is that this game doesn't even come close to equalling BG. 

I love how people throw around that "big" word when describing DAO as well.  The game is actually a lot smaller than many games out today or of the past.  You only think it's big because of all the useless dialogue that you are forced to muddle through.  Play the game and just ESC through the dialogue and you will see just how short the game really is.

So whats the point of playing a rpg which is story based, if you ignore the story?....Phat lewts and whatever battles then you're done?  

I don't understand this.

[Macadami]

How does one convey Urgency without a time limit?

The formula of 'find the danger, confront the danger' has always been the prefered 'arc' in RPG style games for this very reason. DA:O bluntly tells us there is a deadly blight that is threatening our world, but the threat and the deadly part just isn't conveyed very well, or at all. Darkspawn turned into your run of the mill enemies, much less dangerous than led on to be and became quickly percieved as the weaker variety and easier in comparison to a lot of the other encounters.

The dialogue tells us the threat is real but the game itself misses the mark. What were they to do though? Make every location you've completed the plot quest in turn dark like Lothering? That would've limited the quests, and overall just pissed a lot of people off who missed out on things during the first visit. 

In my opinion, as everything else in this post, it was just a bad choice for a story. They let us know too much too early which boxed in the developers as to what they could do. Darkspawn really can't rent a room at an inn and wait to ambush you, nor could they attack every town you visit without the political threat being elevated. I mean if Denerim was being barraged by swarms of ogres, would they have needed so much convincing?

Modifié par Macadami, 07 février 2010 - 09:33 .

[DKJaigen]

very poor review. You obviously have had to high expectations of this game.

[Mlai00]

Macadami wrote...
How does one convey Urgency without a time limit? [snip]

Which is why I think the "overworld map" part of the game might have taken pointers from X-com: UFO Defense.  Other games certainly have; an example that I'm aware of is the recent Dawn Of War 2.
The Overworld Map is structured in a turn-based manner, counting the days.  Traveling takes time/turns so you have to be a bit more strategic about your trips.  Darkspawn incursions spring up at various locales, and you have to stem the tide in encounters that grow increasingly difficult.  If you don't turn back these Darkspawn probes, locations you haven't even visited yet (such as Brecilian Forest) will turn dark, and you will have effectively lost the game.
New quests and storylines will pop up at various degrees of Darkspawn invasion.  For example, if you've been doing poorly in stemming Darkspawn raids, and might be about to lose, the game could offer you a quest to regain some foothold.  Kill a commander behind enemy lines, flood a cave to drown an army, or something.

[soteria]

X-COM was an amazing game. True classic, IMO.

[Maria Caliban]

I’m not sure what a ‘critical review’ is; it’s certainly not a term used in academic or journalistic circles. I assumed it just meant a largely negative review.

I know what a critical analysis of a work is, and this isn’t it. A critical analysis is typically structured, focuses on specific elements of a work, and is designed to increase the reader’s understanding or appreciation of those elements. For example, I could write a critical analysis of elves in Thedas; it might include the thematic/symbolic role of elves, the way various other games, especially RPGs, portray elves, and how the city and dalish elves influence the character of the setting.

There would still be a great deal of opinion. If I say that Tolkien’s elves are romantic figures, meant to symbolize unfallen humans, and that the use of ‘ghetto’ elves in Dragon Age and other fantasy works is a rejection of Tolkien romanticism, that’s an opinion. At the same time, I could provide Tolkien’s own writings on what elves represent, and excerpts from BioWare developers in which they claim there are fantasy stories where elves prance around on unicorns and that Dragon Age isn’t anything like that. That would give my opinion weight, certainly more weight than stating that Dragon Age isn’t fantasy.

Reviews are opinions as well. They’re commodified opinions; they’ve developed into advertizing tools as their main purpose is to inform a potential buyer whether or not to spend money on a particular book, film, or game. The expectation will be that the review talks about the game and elements of it as negative or positive. It’s essentially grading the game. For example, how does the graphic of the game compare to that of Mass Effect 2 or Divinity 2? Is the story as epic as that of Lord of the Rings? What genre does the game fall into?

The term ‘review’ is so linked to consumerism that NGJ usually refers to its pieces on games as ‘creative analysis.’ Here the idea is to inform the reader, but not on an intellectual or consumerist level, but more of an artistic and individual level. Many ‘creative analysis’ pieces are personal vignettes that try to express the moods or feelings the game evokes. I might start a creative analysis piece by describing how the section leading up to the brood mother managed to creep me out and then talk about the horror grotesquely disfigured bodies and breeding seem to cause (maybe bringing up dead space and silent hill).

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 07 février 2010 - 01:51 .

[Derengard]

Time Spiral wrote...

Interesting take. I too am a big fan of the medieval fantasy setting. Some of the technical issues you  brought up  could certainly be explored, and have contributed to my  feeling of "blandness".

On a humbler note, I don't think I can tell the developers how to do things and I might be way off to begin with, or have unrealistic expectations.
But in order to give my impression some justification, I would argue that a sense of entropy and more light/shadow contrast are some of the more immediate technical factors in making the world look more lifelike. I think the randomness of many high magic settings contributes in a way to the entropy that we feel in real life environments, whereas in Dragon Age they seem to have striven to give every element a reason and jusification. Especially in nature areas this strategy seems slightly out of place, and in cultural areas this makes the environments look quickly repetitive.

As an example, in the Deep Roads there are carvings or statues both in small and in large scale. While this might be authentic, in order to diminish the association with a toolset it might have helped to give them some individual  appearance apart from size. Also some places that are supposed to be areas of living and learning lose their sense of individuality when they are unrealistically large in order to provide arenas for fighting.

Some of this will surely improve over time when the lore becomes richer and artists and designers create more elements to fill the world.

Modifié par Derengard, 07 février 2010 - 03:39 .

[Sylixe]

People making comments about high expectations need to go play the BG series. They said right off that this was the "Spiritual Succesor to BG". When you make a statement like that you better expect damn near perfection in a game like this. Now if they had said it was going to be like your normal Action RPG,diablo style, i can see your point. At the VERY least chain chugging potions from beginning to end should not have been a viable strategy on any difficulty setting.

[Time Spiral]

Hey, all!

I'm humbled by the level of activity generated by this article, and present in this thread. Truly incredible! We're in a peer environment here, and many of you are being very gracious with your criticism. Some of it is thick with bitterness and negativity, but I can still cultivate some really positive things from it. And obviously some are just being silly, but who cares. I'm learning a lot from this experience, so kudos to all those chiming in!

@Murphys_Law
Hey, Murph. Nice to see you chiming in again. No sense in re-hashing things again. But, for those just joining us, will make one important clarification:  I DO NOT WANT MORE CHOICES! I understand that this was perceived by you as being implicit by my article, but in effort to clarify, that assumption is incorrect, sorry : /

@soteria (excellent post, grammer, tout? double "are")
Thank you so much for helping out! I often become blind to minor mistakes in my own work, especially after a prolonged period of time working on it. They literally become invisible to my perception. I've corrected the double "are (darn, that was a bad one!). But, "tout" is spelled correctly, and used correctly, isn't it? Maybe I'm missing something. If I am, I would appreciate a little more insight. So again, thanks for the help, even if it was peppered with some minor jabs and negativity - no worries!

@Feraele (tactical strategy, PC ... oops! + analysis)
Hey there. I know you probably just skipped to the last page, like most, so you could chime in. But the "analysis" point in your response has been thoroughly covered in this thread. But, as far as tactics concerned, please excuse the tongue and cheek remark, but ... I'll have to look for that right-click and mouse-wheel feature on my Xbox 360 controller [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]. Did you read the whole article? I made it very clear that I played the 360 version, and underneath that exact paragraph mentioned how the PC version had those commands ... so ... huh?

@Macadami
How does one convey Urgency without a time limit?

I'm ritgh there with ya. And you've dialed into one of the main veins of my criticism. I went down the path of: How do you tell a cohesive and compelling story without numbering your pages? It can be done, but would be super challenging. This is one of the biggest shortcomings in DA:O.

@Maria Caliban
I’m not sure what a ‘critical review’ is; it’s certainly not a term used in academic or journalistic circles. I assumed it just meant a largely negative review.

Those following, or just jumping in, go back and read Maria's response. It is excellent. I'm a little baffled that you seem to be the only one, or the only one who has expressed it so well, that truly understands what is happening here. Additionally, you express an understanding that opinion in inherent in both a review and a critical analysis. Seriously, go back and read her response. It is great!

In the light of full disclosure, Maria, I am not an Academic Journalist. I'm a Marketing Manager and Business Developer for an ecommerce company in Tampa. My training is technical, and is in marketing, web development, and graphic design. All other artistic ventures (music, writing, development), are all self-taught and motivated. So any official insight or advice is always appreciated.



So ... I'm learning tons.
1.) The community would be much more willing to accept criticism if balanced with what was done good.
2.) I'm gathering this particular community would be willing to invest twice the amount of time in reading an article that was much more in-depth about both the criticism, and the positive elements.
3.) The word "critical" is too ambiguous for most in this readership.
4.) The desire to read such articles is clearly present. Almost 700 page views in 48 hours. I truthfully did not expect such interest / traffic, and if I had known such a thing would happen, probably would have done some things differently.

5.) This community is pretty dang cool!

Thanks, again, to all. Let's continue ...

[Sloth Of Doom]

Ok, I'm not going to repeat what a lot of other people have said, but I WILL take the opportunity to comment on your final points.
[quote]Time Spiral wrote...
So ... I'm learning tons.
1.) The community would be much more willing to accept criticism if balanced with what was done good. [/quote]
I think people are willing to accept criticism either way, the problem is that people don;t like t see opinion stated as fact.   If you say something like 'the game is too short' you have to expect people to point out that thy didn't feel that way.  If you say something more factual, such as 'using the same animations for all weapon types can be jarring', it is much more likely that people will not respond negatively.
[/b][quote]2.) I'm gathering this particular community would be willing to invest twice the amount of time in reading an article that was much more in-depth about both the criticism, and the positive elements. [/quote]
Most communities are like that.  This is a board for fans of the game (and some raging trolls) so it only stands to reason that people don't want to hear all negatives.
[quote]3.) The word "critical" is too ambiguous for most in this readership. [/quote]
Not at all.  The issue that has arisen is that you have used the word incorrectly to describe your article a critical review consists of identifying, summarizing and evaluating the ideas and information presented in an article or book. You are looking to analyze strengths, weaknesses and validity, making a few key points about your opinion of the book or article.   Your article focuses almost exclusively upon your personal opinion and utilizes very little actual facts, which is why many people have stated that it is simply an opinion piece.
[quote]4.) The desire to read such articles is clearly present. Almost 700 page views in 48 hours. I truthfully did not expect such interest / traffic, and if I had known such a thing would happen, probably would have done some things differently.
5.) This community is pretty dang cool![/quote]
Although these boards have quieted down quite a bit since the hectic days of first release and "zomg where is my RtO" panic, there is still an extremely large community here, some of whom are not complete idiots.   It is always nice to see actual discussion as opposed to angry ranting.

Thanks, again, to all. Let's continue ...
[/quote]

EDIT:  Just to answer something I didn't quote:

tout (to̵ut)
transitive verb

• to praise or recommend highly; puff
• [b] to solicit or importune, as for business

The sentence quoted earlier indeed makes little sense.  Although you have spelled the word correctly, you have used it improperly, making it seem as though reviewers are praising or recommending certain words. Not something I would normally bring up, but since it has been mentioned...

Modifié par Sloth Of Doom, 07 février 2010 - 06:01 .

[Time Spiral]

Fair enough.

I think the "tout" thing is semantic, but have revised that particular sentence. I think the new one is better anyway. So thanks for helping me focus on that!

The article is definitely high level, and does not drill down into specifics. Largely because I did not want to include spoilers, which I now think was a mistake. Had I went into the process thinking "I'm going to fully articulate my point here, with very specific details, and not worry about spoilers," I would obviously have a much different article. I imagined a high-level article meant to inspire thought and discussion about these elements that are weak, which has actually started a discussion on how I should have written the article, and is full of clarifications that could have been easily avoided had I included those details in the original. All very positive lessons.

The article's purpose seems lost on most, though. This is largely my fault, I'm sure. It is meant to focus on the elements I found weak, and not to regurgitate the things that were done so well that have already been aptly covered by so many other reviews. Was this intent not apparent?

Modifié par Time Spiral, 07 février 2010 - 06:52 .

[Tlonuqbar]

**Warning: (probably) overlong post**

Indeed the 'tout' thing was semantics as well as most of the other criticisms of the article.  For some reason many people use the term 'semantics' to mean "irrelevant quibbling about words" when it really means, well:

1 : the study of meanings:
a : the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development
b (1) : semiotic
(2) : a branch of semiotic dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming, and truth
2 : general semantics (a doctrine and educational discipline intended to improve habits of response of human beings to their environment and one another especially by training in the more critical use of words and other symbols)
3 a : the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs; especially : connotative meaning
b : the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings

Basically, 'semantics' in this context means using the words of a phrase to mean what the actual definitions and usages of the words would imply, and not something else in which the reader is expected to 'just know' what was really meant.

In the original version of the 'tout' sentence, you basically wrote that reviewers were touting the words that you mentioned, when what you meant was that they were touting DA:O using the words that you mentioned, which is not at all the same thing. The implication was that the reviews were something like: "I'm supposed to be talking about Dragon Age, but I'm going to digress and talk about the word 'amazing' and how incredible that word is. For that matter, the word 'incredible' is pretty amazing in its own right...." This is clearly not what you wanted to say, but it IS what you wrote.

In fact the biggest problem with the title of your 'critical review' isn't the word 'critical' (although that isn't the best choice of words for what you meant), it's the word 'review.'  By not clarifying what you intended (that this was a review of the weaknesses of Dragon Age) it was implied that this was a review of Dragon Age in its entirety.  Stating "An Analysis of Dragon Age's Weaknesses" or "Elements of Dragon Age that Needed Work" or anything of that nature as the title of your piece would have clarified your purpose at the onset and made many (but not all) of the criticims of the article irrelevant.

The key is that word choice and proper usage ARE important.  Communication only works if everyone agrees on what a statement is supposed to mean, regardless of whether or not the reader believes the statement is 'true,' and the only way to ensure this is to pick your words carefully. 

Everyone makes typos and slips up in word usage at least some of the time, so don't take this personally.  Most of the posts here seem to have been in the spirit of constructive criticism, as I hope mine is. More important than word choice, in my opinion, is understanding the nature of human reasoning.  Reading up on logical fallacies and other misuses of reason will help you immensely in making a case for your point of view both on the internet and in real life.  If you want to make a name on the so-called blog-o-sphere or in any type of media criticism or journalism, understanding logic and rhetoric will be extremely helpful...but don't skip on the semantics! 

Modifié par Tlonuqbar, 07 février 2010 - 08:00 .

[Time Spiral]

@Tlonuqbar

Excellent feedback!

Just a very well thought out, and articulated response. I love everything about it. I never thought of it that way, that I implied this was going to be a "comprehensive review". From the very beginning it was intended to be exactly what you gathered. After reading your response, and reviewing just the very beginning of my article, I can see that it does not clearly set the stage for the reader. No wonder there has been so much confusion!

In light of Eternity ...
Posting the article to this forum has been a wonderful experience. Some have offered truly insightful feedback, and since Web Media is so organic, I've been able to go back and make several changes that I really felt rang true (including some grievous grammatical errors). This article will exist forever, essentially, until Hubpages goes away, or some other unforeseen event causes it to not be so, so I would like it to exist in its best form.

In fact, all of my artistic projects go through many, many, sometimes hundreds of revisions before I consider them "complete works". So, in this type of publishing environment, where everything is so real-time, and exiciting, it has certainly been and will continue to be a fun process.

So, as time goes on, I will probably dive into the article and further refine it. Maybe take out the spoiler warning and dive a little deeper into the supporting elements that gave rise to my concerns. I think that might be a fun idea! Not that many of you care enough to read it again after such alterations, but still, it should continue to exist in its best form.

Even David Gaider chimed in!
Crazily enough, Mr. Gaider made an appearance in this thread, and I - in a foot in mouth moment - did not even recognize who I was talking to (Sorry about that!). It wasn't until some time today that I realized he is a Bioware lead writer for DA:O, and the companion novels. HA! Crazy. Doesn't change the fact that we had a nice honest exchange. But one does tend to communicate differently with a peer than a member of the creative development team of the exact entity your criticizing! Oh well.

Thanks for chiming in, David!

Modifié par Time Spiral, 07 février 2010 - 09:21 .

[Long Lankin]

It strikes me that there is a flaw in criticizing the fantasy setting, elves dwarves and the like are part of our cultural history, and ring true in a way that totally created creatures do not. One of the reasons that Lord of the Rings was so good as a story, was that Tolkien drew on European mythology and adapted it to his creation.(He was amongst other things a professor of early English, and an expert on northern European mythology). I personally think that Bioware made an understandable decision in keeping their world on familiar territory, (this includes the use of names such as Morrigan, Loghain and such which are drawn from celtic mythology) to my ears there is nothing more false than a made up name, and while it might be possible to create a totally original gameworld with no references to real history or mythology, it would be have to be a work of real genius. (A dragon has resonance, a godoplinar from blatworg would have most of us scratching our heads), and as such is beyond most mere mortals. For the record I have found this to be one of very few games that I have actually found worth playing. Personally I think that creating really new worlds is more the realm of Science fiction, (and I am thinking more of Ian .M. Banks than StarWars in this case}.

[soteria]

Wow, I never thought the comment about "tout" would garner so much attention. The sentence does read better, now, by the way. I'd like to make it clear, though, that I don't think of myself as the grammar police and you'll almost never see me criticizing someone's forum post for any sort of grammatical error. I do think any sort of professional literature should be as error-free as possible, though, which is why I made the comment.



I do agree with some things--being able to craft items in combat is silly. The default tactics system is weak, but it's not "completely broken," not on the PC, at least. Something you might consider bringing up earlier is the fact that you're looking at the XBOX platform, and whether you have ever seen or played with the PC version. As others have mentioned, some of the problems are from the necessarily limited console UI.