Review Elzair takes a look at Dragon Age: Origins

Click here and disable ads!

wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf

Bullshit.

Indeed.

This was less of a review, more of a whine.

I thought the review was very informative actually. Yes, it nitpicked, but you know what? Anytime a game is hyped the way DA is and any time a game gets such high scores from mainstream "journalists" it needs to be nitpicked. Bioware made some lofty claims and Elzair is only pointing out what wasn't met or what was exaggerated.

A large portion of the Codex seems to like DA:O. Who is he appealing to?

Moran. When a review is negative, it can be perceived as whiny. If it's positive it can be perceived as praiseful. Just simple opposites.

Nice review.

Damn, I didn't know that the presentation of the world is so... outdated.

Dude, what? No. Fuck 'em.

That said, I would like to offer some more constructive criticism than all this "roofles terrible bullshit!" stuff

He's talking about the BioWare history lesson he opens with and he's right.

I went into this review assuming that since Volourn hates it, it's probably pretty good. But it both is and isn't. A shame because it looks like a lot of work went into it.

But dr. one is right, brevity would have been such a boon here. The moment you started writing post-BG2 BioWare history and realized "hey I don't actually know anything about this first-hand", you should have selected the entire history and pressed delete. It adds absolutely nothing to the review, it's not referred to or called back to in the rest of the review, it does not actually do what you state was the reason for writing it, namely to explain the general like and/or Codexian dislike for BioWare.

So; can I get a what?

What?

And then you bring in a 6-year old FAQ, from around the time the game was first announced and had - in fact - a different engine, world, ruleset and I think even basic story idea. And then you compare the current product to completely irrelevant promises made on a different product 6 years ago? Are you serious?

Anyway, the same golden brevity rule mentioned above applies to a lot of the rest of the review. For every paragraph - nay every sentence you write, you have to look at it and think "what does this add?" Are you giving the reader a relevant bit of information or just filler? Are you going to return to your summation of facts with later conclusions?
This?
When Duncan recruits you, you travel to the front-line of the war on the Blight, the fortress Ostagar, and you meet Cailan, the king of Ferelden, and Loghain, his "trusted" advisor. (PROTIP: For more on Loghain, read my review of Dragon Age: The Stolen Throne.) Next, you must do a few simple tasks to get properly inducted into the Grey Wardens. The ritual involves drinking Darkspawn blood. Then, the battle begins. As any five-year-old would expect, things go wrong: Loghain and his forces flee the field, thereby leaving Cailan and the Grey Wardens (and, consequently, you) to die
This is bullshit. What was the point of having me read that? This dry summation just drones on and on without any hope of you making relevant points or analyzing the storytelling in any way in between.

Why in Frith's name are you telling me the NPC voice actors? Were you writing a review or an online guide?
The odd thing is your points really are solid and apart from your lazy dismissal of things you just didn't do - like not knowing Sten because you let him die - it seems well-researched. Your discussion of combat and why you feel it fails is fair enough. There's just so much unnecessary bleating before and around it.

As a Dutch person, I'd call this review "a lot of shaving and little wool". A lot of words but not a lot of reason for that many words. In fact, ironically, your writing here is pretty much like BioWare's take on combat design in Dragon Age.

Brother None, how much did that second revision improve the review? I went through it and tried to remove everything I thought was extraneous. I still think the plot summary should stay because one first needs to know the plot to understand how dry and barebones it is.

"I went into this review assuming that since Volourn hates it, it's probably pretty good. But it both is and isn't. A shame because it looks like a lot of work went into it."

You wanna know what's fuckin' hilarious about your ASSumption is that my favorite Codexian official review is one that bashes my favorite game. Go figure. And, it's by someone who LOATHED me.

R00fles!

stop the lies, start the truth! Moran.

r00fles!

Look at that ass.

I'm not going to read all of it but at glance it looks like you shortened but without considering why and what you were shortening, to some extent. Again: the BioWare history intro is an egregious example of "doing it wrong": it serves no purpose to the review, so it should not be there. Either that or it should serve a purpose, but your ratio of dry descriptions-to-clever conclusions is off. More analysis, less describing.

The overarching plot of Dragon Age is cheap and nondescript. How indepth do you have to describe it to get that message across? Do you have to describe the opening location and cutscenes? I'd say no. "There's a big evil and you're the good guy, oh no someone betrayed you!" There, described.

Also I don't like the idea of revising existing reviews. Going back, my original BioShock review sucks. It is overly descriptive, misses key points, and is way too kind to the game, especially in the score. That just is what it is, take the criticism, learn for next time, but let the review itself be.
At least that's my take.

Your assumption that I - or indeed anyone - remotely cares what your favorite Codexian review is beats mine for hilarity, though.

Roofles!