Dragon Age: Inquisition Pre-Release Thread

[eremita]

"But still, no one really gave a shit a Qunari MAGE was leading the entire Inquisition. Leading a force of, like, Templars and heroes from around the lands. It was a Qunari mage at the top of that and no one really minded."

And that *claps hands* says all that needs to be said.

That's a preview from demo. The same guy behind this video already completed the game and is praising it in another video. But he's a fag cause playing on casual.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfgY9By_zt4&list=UUR1wCXM9e7NshYfonwa5BAg

"After a shaky start, Dragon Age: Inquisition has won Chris around."

EDIT: People already whine about difficulty, lot of them dying on hard even in tutorial... This comment from youtube destroyed me: "So...enemies don't scale to player level? Please tell me that I'm wrong. I don't want the game dictating me in which order I should explore the world just to keep myself from streamrolling through an area."

 

[Carrion]

The Eurogamer guy said in comments he criticized it, because he expected best game evah, yet he only got solid game and that's why he gave it 8/10. Isn't that retarded? He has absolutely zero understanding about the "neutral" base reviews should start with and build upon that (or go beneath in case of shitty game) - you should start on "zero axis", then for example praise some aspect (it's good), yet specify it's actually not without flaws/shortcomings (it's not great). If you state "great" as a basis for your review (without even making it clear for your readers), than you're gonna naturally criticize the game whole time for its good parts and say "yep, this is as expected" in case of great ones (which he does and says he couldn't elaborate because of spoilers). In the end, after constant bashing, you end up with 8/10. What a completely fucked up and unprofessional approach...

Then again, what does a 8/10 even mean? I don't know if Eurogamer, Kotaku or other sites even have definitions for different ratings. It's just a number, make of it what you will.

For example, the old PC Gamer ratings went something like this:

0-40%: So bad that there's usually no point in even including it in the magazine unless it's a high-profile release. Poorly-made indie games, bug-ridden abominations and license game cash grabs (such as Who Wants to Be A Millionaire? and the likes) often fall into this category.
40-50%: Avoid.
50-60%: Might be a decent choice for a hardcore fan of the genre who's starved for something to play. Might have lots of good things about it but also some major flaws.
60-70%: Mediocre. An alright choice for fans of the genre.
70-80%: A good or very good game in its own genre, definitely worth checking out if you're a fan of the genre and not a bad choice for others either. Although it might seem counter-intuitive, the threshold for an above average mainstream game goes somewhere around 70% rather than 50%, as the lower end of the scale is mostly reserved for terrible small-budget shit and in practice the scale is more like 40-100%.
80-90%: An excellent game, must-buy for fans of the genre and a great starting point for others.
90-100%: A future classic, you should be getting it if you like games in general.

But what the fuck is an 8/10 or a 90% nowadays? It's just a number that someone pulled out of his ass based on his gut feeling because he had to. It isn't at all helped by sites like Metacritic who then compile an average score from the ratings on different sites, even if the scales of those sites could be entirely different. For someone an average game could be a 50%, for someone else it's 3/5 and apparently for Eurogamer it's at least 9/10. Then you get a metacritic score of 88 which says absolutely nothing about the quality of the game. Ratings themselves can be useful, it's just that there needs to be some meaning to those numbers other than the amount of Doritos given.

 

[Mystary!]

Im no mathemagician but I believe 8/10 is equal to 80%

 

[Helly]

:Updated my ride:

 

[NotTale]

Reviews should not have a score, for all the crap Kotaku does, i very much support their "should i buy this? Yes or No recommendation" reviews. Because with scores, you get stuff like the eurogamer review, which spends half the article criticizing the game and then goes on to give it a high score.

Observation: Reviewers are too moronic to use a score-based grading system properly.
Diagnosis: Score-based grading systems should be abandoned.

I don't see the logic. There is nothing wrong with game reviewers giving a game a score, as long as they are willing to actually use the entire scale. "Yes" or "no" is just another example of a scoring system, but with a 2-point scale.

It's the readers who are too moronic to use a numerical score system properly. Yes or no at least is cleared than a 7 or 8.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Reviews should not have a score, for all the crap Kotaku does, i very much support their "should i buy this? Yes or No recommendation" reviews. Because with scores, you get stuff like the eurogamer review, which spends half the article criticizing the game and then goes on to give it a high score.

Observation: Reviewers are too moronic to use a score-based grading system properly.
Diagnosis: Score-based grading systems should be abandoned.

I don't see the logic. There is nothing wrong with game reviewers giving a game a score, as long as they are willing to actually use the entire scale. "Yes" or "no" is just another example of a scoring system, but with a 2-point scale.

The grade, regardless of the grading system, should be a natural conclusion of the review itself, the problem with these system is that they send a mixed message... game is bug ridden mess? 8/10... how does that make sense?

So yes, i think a recommendation to buy or not is preferable.

 

[kris]

Reviews should not have a score, for all the crap Kotaku does, i very much support their "should i buy this? Yes or No recommendation" reviews. Because with scores, you get stuff like the eurogamer review, which spends half the article criticizing the game and then goes on to give it a high score.

Observation: Reviewers are too moronic to use a score-based grading system properly.
Diagnosis: Score-based grading systems should be abandoned.

I don't see the logic. There is nothing wrong with game reviewers giving a game a score, as long as they are willing to actually use the entire scale. "Yes" or "no" is just another example of a scoring system, but with a 2-point scale.

Scores are quite retarded to begin with. The ones that score different aspects of the game is okay. I don't know about Delterius, but I won't be giving a score, I didn't do that in my previous two reviews (which confused some people). Just read the conclusion of "headings" if you are lazy. what is the score gonna tell you anyway? Especially since it is so arbitrary. No, if I read a review I want to see how it compare to similar games, what features it have and how they work. Etc. Sometimes just a few words is enough (what it has loads of combat and that part is shitty?) and other times I might need to read it all.

Of course, for any informed person it is also about who makes the review. a trust issue. this is the only time the score makes some sense, if you trust the reviewer, you trust his 8/10 makes a worse game than a 9/10. you don't agree after playing? Well, trust is then gone or you are a retard.

 

[Azarkon]

Scores are useful for review aggregators eg metacritic. A simple yes/no is also not necessarily easy to give, because of personal preference, etc.

I myself use review aggregators for a lot of content, though for games I turn to the user reviews rather than the critic reviews.

I know we all want to believe that our informed bro opinions matter. But from what I've seen, people rely a lot on sites eg metacritic, rottentomates, imdb than on individual reviews.

 

[Zeriel]

Reviews should not have a score, for all the crap Kotaku does, i very much support their "should i buy this? Yes or No recommendation" reviews. Because with scores, you get stuff like the eurogamer review, which spends half the article criticizing the game and then goes on to give it a high score.

Observation: Reviewers are too moronic to use a score-based grading system properly.
Diagnosis: Score-based grading systems should be abandoned.

I don't see the logic. There is nothing wrong with game reviewers giving a game a score, as long as they are willing to actually use the entire scale. "Yes" or "no" is just another example of a scoring system, but with a 2-point scale.

The grade, regardless of the grading system, should be a natural conclusion of the review itself, the problem with these system is that they send a mixed message... game is bug ridden mess? 8/10... how does that make sense?

So yes, i think a recommendation to buy or not is preferable.

I really do believe this is a case of terrible standards subverting the whole thing, aka "80 is mediocre, 70 is the game won't install". Review scores do serve a very real purpose, and are fine when they are used properly (i.e, never in modern games journalism). There's a reason Metacritic exists. It even works fairly well for film reviews where the scores more clearly match the opinions of the writer. Switching to a scoreless system is just a way to compensate for reviewers not doing their jobs. It slaps a fresh coat of paint on top, but doesn't solve the underlying problem.

 

[eremita]

Reviews should not have a score, for all the crap Kotaku does, i very much support their "should i buy this? Yes or No recommendation" reviews. Because with scores, you get stuff like the eurogamer review, which spends half the article criticizing the game and then goes on to give it a high score.

Observation: Reviewers are too moronic to use a score-based grading system properly.
Diagnosis: Score-based grading systems should be abandoned.

I don't see the logic. There is nothing wrong with game reviewers giving a game a score, as long as they are willing to actually use the entire scale. "Yes" or "no" is just another example of a scoring system, but with a 2-point scale.

The grade, regardless of the grading system, should be a natural conclusion of the review itself, the problem with these system is that they send a mixed message... game is bug ridden mess? 8/10... how does that make sense?

So yes, i think a recommendation to buy or not is preferable.

I just explained the grade reflects the text, the guy just made a mistake when he approached the game from higher ground (great game) in terms of expectations. Thus, bashing it because he considers it only good. There's nothing wrong with scores in reviews, only reviewers are retarded. and if they're retarded, then "should you by system" won't help you...

 

[Lhynn]

Actually a "should you buy" system would be a huge compromise on the part of the reviewer, a score means nothing, but when we talk about money people will be more honest.

 

[Infinitron]

I didn't do that in my previous two reviews (which confused some people).

??? When was this

Review scores are popamole, we'll never have them.

 

[Hinterhog]

I know we all want to believe that our informed bro opinions matter. But from what I've seen, people rely a lot on sites eg metacritic, rottentomates, imdb than on individual reviews.

And that says as much about people as it does the industry as a whole. With an ideal review-culture, who would give two fucks about the opinion of the plebs? I agree with you at a base level. Scores of a kind are useful - but only as long as they conform to a set model that is universally accepted and have some damn weight to them. What does 8/10 mean? Eighty percent of what, perfection? In order to mean anything at all they have to have weight, and more importantly, be a staple of game-journalism. Otherwise, yes - we might as well be taking the ramblings of the masses seriously. Lack of regulations is degrading the culture of game-reviews.

 

[eremita]

A lot of reviews (the ones wehere people bother to complete the game) have one thing in common. They say for the first 10-15 hours, the side quests feel like a fucking fed-ex/Iquisition doesn't seem important and having a real influence. Then something happens apparently and the game kicks in, lot of people are praising it from that moment. I wonder what that is. Anyway, this is gonna be a slow and long one, that's for sure.

This: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfgY9By_zt4&list=UUR1wCXM9e7NshYfonwa5BAg

 

[Lhynn]

I didn't do that in my previous two reviews (which confused some people).

??? When was this

Review scores are popamole, we'll never have them.

I thought we had the 3 star rating:

1- its shit.

2- good for what it is.

3- buy extras for your friends.

 

[Zeriel]

A lot of reviews (the ones wehere people bother to complete the game) have one thing in common. They say for the first 10-15 hours, the side quests feel like a fucking fed-ex/Iquisition doesn't seem important and having a real influence. Then something happens apparently and the game kicks in, lot of people are praising it from that moment. I wonder what that is. Anyway, this is gonna be a slow and long one, that's for sure.

If so, that was a huge mistake on Bioware's part. Most games frontload all the cool bits because that's all reviewers have time to play.

 

[Dreaad]

... I have always just gone along with non-"professional" reviews. Except for metacritic which for whatever reason I am highly suspicious of. GameFAQs and HLTB has never failed in providing me with solid information on if I will like a game or not especially since GameFAQs forces people to write more than one broken sentence. More often than not I find that people who don't get paid for writing reviews talk mainly about the gameplay avoiding the "it's art" "it's a miracle" "ah citizen kain you've done it again" crap.

 

[RPGMaster]

Well, maybe thats because the game is actually... fun?

Considering the reviews say its 15 hours of banal MMO side quests before anything remotely interesting happens... I doubt it.

 

[mastroego]

I don't read critics' reviews, except for the odd time when I'm curious about a feature or something.

I do check metacritic (user side ONLY) to get a basic feeling of the real user reaction.
Then I try and find comments from users (like on codex) who SEEM to have tastes similar to mine.

All of this UNLESS I already know that the game is worth buying or that the game is useless shit, not even worth the time spent on reading a review (which is DA:I's case).

 

[DeepOcean]

You come from a portal to hell and appear right nearby some dead priest or something then you are made prisioner... so, you think that isn't that bad isn't it? Nope, this is Bioware we are talking about, from what I seen, your character is amnesic(Yep, prepare for predictable plot twist later fuckers), has a green hand that shoot green lasers that conveniently can close green portals to hell and come out of hell conveniently right on an inquisition fortress.

On just two short cutscenes, you go from being a supposed prisoner and murder to the only guy that can save the world. Well... I already tought that NWN 2 start was already contrived with you having some shard inserted on your ass, this is even more so. So, ladies and gentleman, if you had any hope that Bioware writing could at least not suck so much, the start will dispell that delusion.

 

[Sammael7]

It amuses me that the first thing the german reviewer does in his conclusion is saying sorry on behalf of the whole magazine that it gave DA2 a much higher score than it actually deserved. (Even though he still maintains he liked it better than most people made it out to be. I agree with him on both statements.)

Main gripe seems to be that, even though there is a huge world to explore, its mostly filled with shitty filler sidequests. These take up hours of gametime, which hurts the focus of the MQ.

Overall they like the game and say its better than DA2 but worse than DA:O. They also say BW should have stuck to its strengths rather than trying to streamline the game in order to get the Skyrim and Assassins Creed crowd. That is something that I feared from the very beginning when BW said they are using Skyrim as inspiration. They should have tried to go back to their own roots rather than trying to be Biowarethesda.

Fun fact: The review has a whole paragraph exclusively dedicated to how awesome Sera is and how she is the most fun of all the characters in your party. Go figure.

It can't be any worse than the elder scrolls series in that regard, and people seem to give skyrim a pass for all the non core story beats being mostly filler. Even if this is just a sort of hybrid of skyrim and a bit more focused core story from bioware, it will be a massive improvement over DA2, but I'll judge for myself in a weeks time.

 

[kris]

I didn't do that in my previous two reviews (which confused some people).

??? When was this

Review scores are popamole, we'll never have them.

Tactical cancer, strategy games.

 

[Azarkon]

My biggest gripe about the DA series and for that matter every Bioware game from BG 2 onward has been the party members. For a company that spends 10x the amount of resources on party members that other gaming companies do, Bioware has rarely been able to deliver. The constant barrage of tumblr SJWing by Gaider and co. is also nauseating. I'm not paying for a LGBT shout-out. I'm not paying for Gaider's personal social agenda. I pay for well-designed, interesting characters and few of Bioware's recent offerings have been such.

I constantly dream that Obsidian had Bioware's resources, though deep down I know they're liable to squander it all the same.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Neogafer's fapping to someone's attempt at a waifu elf

the fuck is wrong with these peoples taste

 

[Abu Antar]

I got creeped out when I read the responses after seeing that character.