Dragon Age Origins

[Daft]

Freudian slip?

[Sheikah]

Don't agree with this...

I would have to agree with him. EDGE is one of the worst gaming magazines there is, and their scores are often just silly. Don't waste your money on their magazines that are 75% blank space. They're arty tossers like that.

 

On topic: loving this. Asked for it as a present and it's awesome. I expect many not to like it, as it's a far cry from your typical RPG fare with dumbed down mechanics and easy playing.

[The Bard]

I would have to agree with him. EDGE is one of the worst gaming magazines there is, and their scores are often just silly. Don't waste your money on their magazines that are 75% blank space. They're arty tossers like that.

 

You sir, are a dipshit.

 

To be fair, the Edge review had some pretty good points. That doesn't mean you have to agree with it though, and say the entire publication is worthless, which by the way, it isn't.

Edited December 27, 2009 by The Bard

[Daft]

What are the issues the Edge review had?

[The Bard]

What are the issues the Edge review had?

 

"Why is it that fantasy, a realm only circumscribed by the imagination, always manages to feel so familiar?"

 

The Bard's review:

 

Why is it that, whenever anyone makes a game involving fantasy elements (especially true of Bioware) it is always either set in some hilariously cliched romanticization of a middle age land of sword wielding, and magical kingdoms of dwarves, elves and humans...or in Star Wars land? And no, it doesn't help that the elves are slightly shorter in this game, they are still proponents of that Tolkien-esque childish myth-land of pompous speech mannerisms, flagons of ale, and any other hilariously transparent wish fulfillment of pre-teen male fantasies; the only difference being that when Tolkien wrote his take on it, retarded as it was, it wasn't so damn played out.

 

The story is told pretty poorly aswell, and for a game that apparently gives you some highly lauded moral agency, you are nothing but a vector of altruism; it is impossible to get a sense for what your character would do, because he has no personality to speak of (not even a characaturised one), and it's impossible to do what you would do because, well, you aren't a T1000. So the only thing you can really do is say "I'm going to be a dick," or "I'm going to be a saint," thereby perpetuating this tolkien esque world of moral black and white, good and evil. Maybe it's not as binary as something like Bioshock, but then its still (to use the same mathematical metaphor) like base-4 math...there's hardly any nuance, and if you have even the most rudimentary appreciation of how to interact with people, the illusion is broken.

 

Another thing that breaks the illusion is how incredibly ugly the game is. My god.

 

I can understand why this game appeals so much to neckbeard D&D kids, I can. But 20 hours into it, I'm just clicking through it because in theory it is fun to click on shit. It's a convoluted version of Torchlight, for all its ambition.

 

Oh yeah, this is my review; not Edge's.

Edited December 27, 2009 by The Bard

[Daft]

I'm only about 6 hours into it and I agree with a lot of what you just said (it's damn ugly) but I don't find the decision making black or white at all. In fact it's the one thing that is keeping me playing it.

 

Like I said on the first page, it would be nice if BioWare did do something that wasn't this kind of fantasy or Star Wars.

 

And as far as elves go, these are different enough to warrant paying attention to. Dwarves are dumb, in all cases.

[The Bard]

I dunno, I couldn't play Oblivion, for the same reason that I couldn't get past its aesthtic. Can't stand high fantasy. But I guess, for all I said, Dragon Age isn't that bad a game, and for sure it obscures the machinations of the morality system way better than Mass Effect did, but I really enjoyed Mass Effect for reasons entirely different to those I find in Dragon Age.

 

Just curious, you playing it on PC or something else?

[Sheikah]

 

You sir, are a dipshit.

 

To be fair, the Edge review had some pretty good points. That doesn't mean you have to agree with it though, and say the entire publication is worthless, which by the way, it isn't.

I'm disagreeing with the magazine as a whole; a magazine with absolutely zero integrity due to their mostly idiotic reviews. And idiotic long-term reader base, if you're anything to go by. I wouldn't waste any more time reading their reviews, as I know it'd be time I'd wish I could have back. Having played about 8 hours of the game so far I can instantly revoke their '5/10'. Whatever points they've made, they clearly haven't appreciated the core gameplay and the fact that it's actually quite enjoyable. 5/10 sends the message 'poor', or at best 'low-average'. Again; their points are always fine if justified, but the /10 scoring system is a universal format that can instantly be interpreted without additional information. I interpret that they've completely missed the point of the game.

 

To make an impression they commonly do this; that is, score games bizarrely or just completely differently to what the vast majority of gamers, and often critics, believe. And really, what's the point in buying a magazine where the reviews are so out of touch with what you might genuinely believe yourself? I actually feel sorry for people who base most of their game-purchase decisions on this magazine (perhaps those who don't rely on the internet), as they'll end up missing out on genuinely good games, or possibly pointed towards piles of shit. Take FFXII for example; EDGE are in the firm belief that this was a masterpiece. Fair enough, I completely disagree, but that's their opinion. What is worrying is when they place this game as their 8th best video game of all time. Ahead of Tetris and Super Metroid, actually. So then, this sounds alarm bells in my head - "Does this magazine think the same as me? Is their opinion likely to reflect what I, or many others, would think about this particular game anymore?" Long story short; no. And I definitely wouldn't pay them for the pleasure of being informed about which games that I might enjoy that I should avoid.

 

Just to put this semi-rant into perspective: EDGE's review for this game, as far as I can tell from Metacritic, would be the lowest out of 38 critic reviews (PS3), should it be placed in there. It differs from the average of 87 by a whole 37. Or 65th out of 65 for the PC version, with a difference of 41. Now it's fine to differ somewhat in scoring, but by such a huge margin you really should start to realise that their reviews are the thoughts of one or two individuals, with little thought to how the public may find the game.

 

tl;dr version: EDGE have reviewed enough games poorly for me to not give a tiny rat's ass about what they think. Give the cost of the magazine to charity each month instead; far better spent.

 

Edit: RE Bard's review -what did you expect? Your problem lies mostly with the genre of game, and the fact you've stated it's 'something that would appeal to D&D kids'. Well yeah - it is a D&D style game. Of course you'll find it dire if you aren't a fan of such games. It's like how Zelda games are usually rated 9-10 despite having similar game mechanics or consistently appealing to one style of gamer.

 

Can I ask - did you ever play the original PC Baldur's Gate series? I'm interested in whether you thought the same things about what is typically believed to be one of the finest PC games of all time. Many of your gripes were present in that game.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Sheikah

[Daft]

I dunno, I couldn't play Oblivion, for the same reason that I couldn't get past its aesthtic. Can't stand high fantasy. But I guess, for all I said, Dragon Age isn't that bad a game, and for sure it obscures the machinations of the morality system way better than Mass Effect did, but I really enjoyed Mass Effect for reasons entirely different to those I find in Dragon Age.

 

Just curious, you playing it on PC or something else?

 

I'm playing it on PS3.

 

Yeah, I really did not like Oblivion, just couldn't play it. The fighting was crap and generally I hate fantasy. My friend's enthusiasm for this sold it to me, plus he told me about the rape and blood splatter.

 

I think the dialogue options in this are much better than Mass Effect but I'm much more into sci-fi. I think the story in ME was awful (in part due to the amazingly bad pacing) and the interplay between the characters is much better in DA (from what I've played).

 

Hopefully ME2 takes note of the improvements in DA.

[The Bard]

I'm disagreeing with the magazine as a whole; a magazine with absolutely zero integrity due to their mostly idiotic reviews. And idiotic long-term reader base, if you're anything to go by. I wouldn't waste any more time reading their reviews, as I know it'd be time I'd wish I could have back. Having played about 8 hours of the game so far I can instantly revoke their '5/10'. Whatever points they've made, they clearly haven't appreciated the core gameplay and the fact that it's actually quite enjoyable. 5/10 sends the message 'poor', or at best 'low-average'. Again; their points are always fine if justified, but the /10 scoring system is a universal format that can instantly be interpreted without additional information. I interpret that they've completely missed the point of the game.

 

To make an impression they commonly do this; that is, score games bizarrely or just completely differently to what the vast majority of gamers, and often critics, believe. And really, what's the point in buying a magazine where the reviews are so out of touch with what you might genuinely believe yourself? I actually feel sorry for people who base most of their game-purchase decisions on this magazine (perhaps those who don't rely on the internet), as they'll end up missing out on genuinely good games, or possibly pointed towards piles of shit. Take FFXII for example; EDGE are in the firm belief that this was a masterpiece. Fair enough, I completely disagree, but that's their opinion. What is worrying is when they place this game as their 8th best video game of all time. Ahead of Tetris and Super Metroid, actually. So then, this sounds alarm bells in my head - "Does this magazine think the same as me? Is their opinion likely to reflect what I, or many others, would think about this particular game anymore?" Long story short; no. And I definitely wouldn't pay them for the pleasure of being informed about which games that I might enjoy that I should avoid.

 

Just to put this semi-rant into perspective: EDGE's review for this game, as far as I can tell from Metacritic, would be the lowest out of 38 critic reviews (PS3), should it be placed in there. It differs from the average of 87 by a whole 37. Or 65th out of 65 for the PC version, with a difference of 41. Now it's fine to differ somewhat in scoring, but by such a huge margin you really should start to realise that their reviews are the thoughts of one or two individuals, with little thought to how the public may find the game.

 

tl;dr version: EDGE have reviewed enough games poorly for me to not give a tiny rat's ass about what they think, and Bard is a toolshed for thinking otherwise. Give the cost of the magazine to charity each month instead; far better spent.

 

Ah so a magazine that tells you exactly what they think; a magazine with little or no pressure from external factors (publishers, developers, advertisers) due to the fact that they are sustained by their subscriber base, are clearly a magazine with no integrity. You talk about the /10 format being one that is universal; this is inherently bullshit since within the realms of videogames each publication ascribes its own abstraction to this meter. From EDGE, a 5/10 is average because it fits dead center into the middle of the scale. It was one persons experience of the game, and trust me, most publications, even if they felt the same way, wouldn't have the balls to post that score. They would feel that they would need to elevate it in order to in some way reflect the general public consensus. Again: This is not why criticism exists, and is also the reason why the majority of game criticism is utter trash.

 

By telling me that the /10 scale is universal, you're trying to tell me that a 9/10 from Nintendo Power is the same as a 9/10 from Games TM? You're hilariously delusional. This is also why Metacritic is the most pointless thing on the face of the earth; it aggregates scores that ostensibly mark the same point on a scale, but mean entirely disparate things.

 

You are also saying that "They missed the point of the game." Right because every other review of the game has been "objective," I'm sure. Let me tell you something: there is no such thing as an objective review, and hypothesising the existance of someone who would enjoy the game (a "fan of the genre") helps nobody. Go read Roland Barthes' "Image, Music, Text," and the chapter on the "Death of The Author." The authors' intention is irrelevant; “He is after all the presupposition of his work, the womb, the soil.†The work (in this case, the game) is autonomous, so far as the critic is concerned. The critic is not a psychologist; he is not looking into the collective mindset of the team creating the fucking thing. He's judging the game on its own merit, whilst judging where it stands in relation to what has come before.

 

Game criticism, in fact, any criticism, doesn't exist to mimic the public opinion, it exists to inform it. If it gives you a perspective detached from your own, well then its doing its job. EDGE don't pander to idiots like you who can't fathom, or deal with the existance of an anomaly.

 

Now, tell me about the core gameplay: Yes, its spell system is great and whatever, but you cannot stetch it over 80 hours of gameplay without some additional incentive. Many would argue that this is the point of the story: which quite franky does not cut the mustard.

 

You are a mental midget, and I can see that trying to explain anything to you socratically would be like arguing the merits of animal protein consumption to your ex-girlfriend.

 

Daft: Ah cool, well apparently its better on PS3 than it is on XBOX anyway. Maybe I'll get more into it after a while.

[dwarf]

I don't usually go by review scores, I usually watch game play to see if a game warrants a purchase. If it gets a high score from certain reviewers then it is on the consideration list.

 

From looking at a video of this I just knew I wouldn't like it. A dungeon-fest, a Lord of the Rings PS2 look-a-like and generally looked a bit drab and uninspired. Plus, like the Bard suggested, clichéd.

[The Bard]

Actually, fuck this. I've had better conversations with paper.

[Sheikah]

 

Ah so a magazine that tells you exactly what they think; a magazine with little or no pressure from external factors (publishers, developers, advertisers) due to the fact that they are sustained by their subscriber base, are clearly a magazine with no integrity. You talk about the /10 format being one that is universal; this is inherently bullshit since within the realms of videogames each publication ascribes its own abstraction to this meter.

 

Oh, pardon me. Forgive me for thinking that a well-rounded assessment of a game's merit formed from collective critic opinions (many with larger subscriber-bases) was far better to go on than one, particularly snide magazine's two cents. And let's be honest, people will buy shit. It's the arty gaming magazine with the nice cover and the presentation of a modern, stylish magazine. It would sell copies even if it headed an edition stating "Ocarina of Time: Worst game of all time", albeit for the wrong reasons.

 

They can ascribe whatever they like to their scoring system, but that doesn't mean a thing. People who do not wish to pay for this turd of a magazine are therefore exempt from their explanation behind what their scores mean, and can really then only ever judge their scoring against other review scores. And in fact, we do this all the time. We directly compare the scores of games from different websites and believe that they are directly comparable. It's EDGE's responsibility to put across their final view in a manner that can be understood by anyone, not just their pompous, egotistical gentleman's club following.

 

 

By telling me that the /10 scale is universal, you're trying to tell me that a 9/10 from Nintendo Power is the same as a 9/10 from Games TM? You're hilariously delusional. This is also why Metacritic is the most pointless thing on the face of the earth; it aggregates scores that ostensibly mark the same point on a scale, but mean entirely disparate things.

 

No, clearly not. Nintendo Power, like any other official magazine, is usually heavily biased in scoring games. Metacritic is still a far more reliable interpreation of a game's merit than any single score alone. This is, unless, you consider EDGE to be the divine word on gaming; and FYI, this would be the most ridiculous thing to believe ever. EDGE's opinion on the game is not the gospel truth, while all other reviews are trash, as you assume. As a scientist, strength in understanding is formed by averaged repeat readings, whereby crap (extremes) are filtered out. I genuinely believe that, should I chose to spend £30-40, I'd rather base that decision on the view of a number of sources, and particularly user opinion for that genre rather than one cuthroat, possibly anti-genre article. And no, I don't go solely on point scores, but they are an easy way to quickly and roughly guage whether a game has some acclaim or not. A game which has the majority of scores around 40-50% is unlikely to require a read of reviews.

 

You are also saying that "They missed the point of the game." Right because every other review of the game has been "objective," I'm sure. Let me tell you something: there is no such thing as an objective review, and hypothesising the existance of someone who would enjoy the game (a "fan of the genre") helps nobody.

 

 

Ok, so I'm officially arguing with an idiot. Since when can a review about a game ever be anything but subjective? Are you completely retarded? I think it's funny how you use elaborate language in an attempt to appear far more intelligent than you clearly are - in my experience, people throwing around heavy language on places like Nintendo forums are usually the most insecure and pretentious fuckers you'll likely ever meet, and are rarely ever intelligent.

 

To cut your waffle short, here is the very purpose of reviews: to provide the reader with a person's opinion of a game. Usually, this is so the reader can determine whether they want to purchase the game. Now consider a magazine that consistently reviews games differently to both overall gamer and critic opinion - the chances are, probability-wise, you'll be one of the gamers who might actually appreciate the game in question. Now consider that you might be making purchase decisions based on magazine reviews; why would you honestly continue to buy a magazine that differs in gaming tastes and opinions to your own? You wouldn't - it'd be stupid.

 

Game criticism, in fact, any criticism, doesn't exist to mimic the public opinion, it exists to inform it. If it gives you a perspective detached from your own, well then its doing its job. EDGE don't pander to idiots like you who can't fathom, or deal with the existance of an anomaly.

EDGE panders to idiots who like to waste their money on skewed opinions and those who are incapable of setting up an internet connection.

 

You are a mental midget, and I can see that trying to explain anything to you socratically would be like arguing the merits of animal protein consumption to your ex-girlfriend.

 

Yeah, a mental midget. If I recall how you initiated this conversation, it went along the lines of "You sir, are a dipshit." You couldn't even format that properly. You then proceeded to argue a point about reviews being subjective, as if there was ever a more needless issue that needed to be defended, and that the game was too D&D for you. Oh gosh - this tetris game is a bit too 'puzzly' for me. This Mario game is a bit too 'platformy' for me. If there was ever better proof of your sheer idiocy in choosing a game to which you disliked the genre of, this is it. Funnily enough, you haven't even gotten back to me on whether you even played the original Baldur's Gate, which shares many of your gripes. You're clearly a moron, and I've sussed that in the 30 or so minutes I've spent arguing with you.

 

I particularly like how you've formed the opinion that you're smarter than me, because I choose not to waste my time, money or attention on a gaming magazine. Yep, I'm 22 and don't buy video game magazines. I must clearly be one horrendously unintelligent motherfucker, as opposed to the Einstein's in library until 2AM every morning reading their copies of EDGE. Instead, I'll rarely play games these days and instead focus on my research masters, like your typical 'mental midget'.

 

 

Actually, fuck this. I've had better conversations with paper.

 

Oh look at me, I'm The Bard! I'm so important that I enter arguments on Nintendo forums with this arrogant attitude and air of self-importance. I feel the need to belittle the other person by dressing my posts with language that you wouldn't find used by anyone else in such an informal situation. Even Supergrunch, someone who is undeniably more intelligent than you, doesn't feel the need to post like an all-round, pretentious git.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Sheikah

[The Bard]

Oh, pardon me. Forgive me for thinking that a well-rounded assessment of a game's merit formed from collective critic opinions (many with larger subscriber-bases) was far better to go on than one, particularly snide magazine's two cents. And let's be honest, people will buy shit. It's the arty gaming magazine with the nice cover and the presentation of a modern, stylish magazine. It would sell copies even if it headed an edition stating "Ocarina of Time: Worst game of all time", albeit for the wrong reasons

Hell, I’d rather the critics I read and listen to be artsy than to be car salesmen. The cover and the image simply reflect what you get.

They can ascribe whatever they like to their scoring system, but that doesn't mean a thing. People who do not wish to pay for this turd of a magazine are therefore exempt from their explanation behind what their scores mean, and can really then only ever judge their scoring against other review scores. And in fact, we do this all the time. We directly compare the scores of games from different websites and believe that they are directly comparable. It's EDGE's responsibility to put across their final view in a manner that can be understood by anyone, not just their pompous, egotistical gentleman's club following.

This excerpt is so thoroughly meaningless that responding would be pretty much fruitless. But I guess I may aswell. What do you mean, it “doesn’t mean a thing”? EDGE are not the only magazine that do so, every magazine does; they’re just one of the only ones that don’t seem to hold high and holy this internal meta-logic that videogame publications have of a 7/10 being an average score, and anything below this being unworthy. This is clearly an abstraction since mathematically a 5/10 would be the average. It’s in this fairly small idiosyncrasy that they’re addressing the collective dumbassery of game criticism.

 

You believe that review scores from different websites are directly comparable, and this is presumably without any intermediate stage of reconciling the terms that each website attributes to its scoring system (I presume this is what you mean, from your use of the word “direct”). Right, well that’s your own personal delusion, and precisely what I meant by “abstract.” Every scale is arbitrary, and therefore does not conform to some ridiculous indisputable standard that you seem to have ingrained into your consciousness of what a numerical scale should represent.

No, clearly not. Nintendo Power, like any other official magazine, is usually heavily biased in scoring games. Metacritic is still a far more reliable interpreation of a game's merit than any single score alone. This is, unless, you consider EDGE to be the divine word on gaming; and FYI, this would be the most ridiculous thing to believe ever.. EDGE's opinion on the game is not the gospel truth, while all other reviews are trash, as you assume. As a scientist, strength in understanding is formed by averaged repeat readings, whereby crap (extremes) are filtered out. I genuinely believe that, should I chose to spend £30-40, I'd rather base that decision on the view of a number of sources, and particularly user opinion for that genre rather than one cuthroat, possibly anti-genre article.

No, metacritic isn’t reliable, because its score isn’t nominative in the least. It means nothing, it, unlike the individual scores of the publications that it assimilates, is just a number. To understand a score, you have to understand the persona and respective individual standpoints of either the critics, or the publications that you read. I never claimed that EDGE is the gospel truth, only an imbecile would do so; nobody reads (or at least should read) a review with the perspective of accepting everything that it has to say. It is a mutual process, not a dictatorial one; what I AM saying is that it should at least qualify what it has to say, even if you wholeheartedly disagree with it. EDGE is not perfect, far from it. But it is one of the few that aspires to challenge and build, rather than starting every 9/10 review with “You already know this game is awesome...let me tell exactly what you already suspect!”

 

You are a scientist, and not an artist, a writer or a critic, which pretty much explains why aggregates and reductions are so important to you. Reductionism of the kind that Metacritic provides does not help anyone; because, quite frankly, a score isn’t a mathematical and objective evaluation of the game’s content. A 5/10 score doesn’t tell you “THIS GAME IS 50% FUN!” does it? Any reliance on the idea that an aggregate will give you anything other than a number is fallacious. You are not the deity of some pantheistic faith (ooops, sorry, a metaphor. Should I cut that out, or will your scientific sensibility deem it a pretentious perversion of the collective N-Europe mood?) and the opinion of the world combined does not reflect yours. A game I really enjoyed recently, Lucidity, got a metascore of 58 based on an assimilation of 5 reviews. That tells me nothing compared to the individual opinion of one person whom I heard talking about it at length on a podcast, and whose opinion I felt would most accurately reflect mine.

Ok, so I'm officially arguing with an idiot. Since when can a review about a game ever be anything but subjective? Are you completely retarded? I think it's funny how you use elaborate language in an attempt to appear far more intelligent than you clearly are - in my experience, people throwing around heavy language on places like Nintendo forums are usually the most insecure and pretentious fuckers you'll likely ever meet, and are rarely ever intelligent.

To cut your waffle short, here is the very purpose of reviews: to provide the reader with a person's opinion of a game. Usually, this is so the reader can determine whether they want to purchase the game. Now consider a magazine that consistently reviews games differently to both overall gamer and critic opinion - the chances are, probability-wise, you'll be one of the gamers who might actually appreciate the game in question. Now consider that you might be making purchase decisions based on magazine reviews; why would you honestly continue to buy a magazine that differs in gaming tastes and opinions to your own? You wouldn't - it'd be stupid.

Chastising someone for using words that you would be expected to understand and use at GCSE is like calling someone out for having a bigger dick than you. Stop deflecting; the vocabulary I use is the same I use everywhere, it isn’t gilded in the least, and the situation is as informal as you want it to be. It’s a forum, so don’t tell me that I’m disrupting some casual ambiance that you perceive this place to uphold by writing a certain way.

Don’t credit your inability to communicate what you supposedly mean (although, I doubt you’re sure on this front either) to my idiocy. Leave my idiocy alone.

EDGE panders to idiots who like to waste their money on skewed opinions and those who are incapable of setting up an internet connection.

 

Secondly, you were talking about EDGE’s review being “bizarrely” divergent from the norm, which I interpreted as you telling me that, because it doesn’t mimic the general consensus of the gaming cabal (as ridiculous a notion as that is), it must somehow be broken. Well, correct me if I’m mistaken, but the whole merit of an “opinion” lies in the possibility of its divergence. So, while you just retort with the idea that you understand reviews to be subjective, and immediately contradict yourself with “wasting money on skewed opinions,” don’t try and divert me with broken syllogisms.

I would continue to buy EDGE, even though it often doesn’t reflect my opinion on a regular basis for the sole reason that it tells me things that I wouldn’t have thought of, different perspectives from what you always hear, crystallisations of things that I might actually have thought, but never had the temerity to put into words, because its interested in the growth of a medium that I hold very dear, and because even when it does diverge, I can always chalk this down to intellectual difference, rather than idiocy and lack of understanding.

Yeah, a mental midget. If I recall how you initiated this conversation, it went along the lines of "You sir, are a dipshit." You couldn't even format that properly. You then proceeded to argue a point about reviews being subjective, as if there was ever a more needless issue that needed to be defended, and that the game was too D&D for you. Oh gosh - this tetris game is a bit too 'puzzly' for me. This Mario game is a bit too 'platformy' for me. If there was ever better proof of your sheer idiocy in choosing a game to which you disliked the genre of, this is it. Funnily enough, you haven't even gotten back to me on whether you even played the original Baldur's Gate, which shares many of your gripes. You're clearly a moron, and I've sussed that in the 30 or so minutes I've spent arguing with you.

Hmm interesting (by using sarcasm in this situation, I’m making a rudimentary attempt to communicate on a level that you can understand). I never said the game was “too D&D for me,” I said the fantasy setting was more than I could really stand, (and not even that, because fantasy can be compelling) When a genre that’s supposed to, oh I don’t know, focus on the fantastical, instead is a repetition of every stagnant cliché that the mind can conjure when thinking of videogames, one tends to become jaded. What I did say, is that it would appeal to D&D kids, for the sole reason that, hmm, they seem to be into the whole swords and magic scene. There is no D&D genre. That’s like saying there’s a hadouken genre. So what? By that standard, every time someone finds a fault with a game, you just retort with “well, you’re clearly not a fan of the genre?” Imbecilic, and unhelpful.

 

And no, I never played the original Baldur’s Gate. Maybe I should. Maybe my opinion is worthless without it, but then, yours is worthless regardless.

 

I particularly like how you've formed the opinion that you're smarter than me, because I choose not to waste my time, money or attention on a gaming magazine. Yep, I'm 22 and don't buy video game magazines. I must clearly be one horrendously unintelligent motherfucker, as opposed to the Einstein's in library until 2AM every morning reading their copies of EDGE. Instead, I'll rarely play games these days and instead focus on my research masters, like your typical 'mental midget'

Oh look at me, I'm The Bard! I'm so important that I enter arguments on Nintendo forums with this arrogant attitude and air of self-importance. I feel the need to belittle the other person by dressing my posts with language that you wouldn't find used by anyone else in such an informal situation. Even Supergrunch, someone who is undeniably more intelligent than you, doesn't feel the need to post like an all-round, pretentious git.

Yes, because this whole argument is a dick swinging competition. That’s what I intended. I don’t care about your research masters, and nobody else does either. Intelligence doesn’t come into it at all, but unfortunately you’re one of those people who seem to have developed some specific skill in some specialised sector of knowledge, and you think you can apply it to everything. No, Mr. Scientist, having a research masters does not make you clever, primarily because there exists no quantitative valuation of that particular quality (your IQ...lets say thats your genotype, rather than your phenotype. The latter is what really counts), as much as you would like there to be; your world revolving around syllogisms and observational studies as it probably does, maybe hasn’t taught you that there are things that science isn’t equipped to deal with. The area of videogame criticism is one of many.

 

Delightful attempt at dramatic satire there by the way. Subtle, and in no way transparent.(Fight fire with fire, I always say)

 

Grunchie. Yes, a person whom I have respect for; but here you’re falling into the trap of thinking that a man of intelligence conducts himself in a necessarily reserved and in no way inflammatory regard. Phallus-y. Stop pigeon-hole-ing people brah.

Edited December 28, 2009 by The Bard

[drahkon]

I like this game.

[Dan_Dare]

I like this thread.

[MATtheHAT]

I like Pies.

[Dan_Dare]

at the end of the day, who doesn't?

[Sheikah]

There is no D&D genre. That’s like saying there’s a hadouken genre.

I think it's very predictable how this argument would continue should I choose to waste my time addressing all of your points--verbal tennis, and I honestly don't want to spend more time doing that. Instead, just realise some of the stupidity behind what you're saying. Of course there is a video game RPG D&D genre; you should do some research before making such ridiculous statements. It's a subdivision of western RPGs, and was made popular by Diablo/Baldur's Gate due to their originality and contrast to other existing RPGs. It wouldn't be right to just class them as simply RPGs since you may be a typical RPG fan but dislike the tactical/archaic gameplay style of these traditional roleplay-style games.

 

Also know that the majority of critics use the 1-10 score in a similar manner, therefore the system is not arbitrary. Stellar games consistently score 8 - 10, demonstrating that the scoring system does conform to a loose standard. If it didn't, then the scoring system would not exist. To validate this point, critically acclaimed games will typically feature numerous similar scores (9,10) from various publications on their box art. Multiple opinions of a game will always provide a more rounded view than any single review alone; this in undeniable fact. To conclude: if you're going to spend £30-40, you aren't damn well going to go off a single person's review; a review by a person that may have completely different opinions about game genres than you do. At the very least, Metacritic allows you to sift through a number of critics for the ones that you may appreciate the most, rather than going by the Metacritic averaged score.

 

You've basically argued your way through this topic having bought/acquired a game that you had no prior knowledge of the type of gameplay involved. You've then defended EDGE, despite being a mostly shitty magazine, for awarding the game 5/10, yet you've gone and acquired the game anyway. You can't have valued the review much, then? And if you hadn't read that review before you bought it, you could have at the very least found out previously what kind of game it was, or that it was a spiritual successor to BG. And if you got it as a present, then why the hell are you complaining? It wouldn't be as if you had paid anything for it.

 

And by the way, there's no doubt in my mind that you don't dress your language in real life as you do here on these forums, or in any other place where you're not trying to appear intelligent. I've actually had a message from someone saying that they completely agree with what I'm saying. Not that I would particularly care too much, but it at least confirms that I'm not the only one who thinks you're full of it. AFAIK you're a 20 year old undergraduate, and to my knowledge nobody else with your limited life experience has gone full-blown Stephen Fry just a year or so after school/college. You are an all-round douche, and exchanging comments with you is even more depressing than with Rokhed and O_W, and that's saying something.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Sheikah

[Aimless]

This just in: if a magazine doesn't agree with your opinion it's shit and lacks integrity. Also, because review scores have numbers in them they are a form of mathematics and not a convenient abstraction of more qualitative terms such as "good", "very good", or "worth renting if you like that sort of thing".

 

I dislike pork pies. Who wants to fight me?

[Sheikah]

This just in: if a magazine doesn't agree with your opinion it's shit and lacks integrity.

 

Well that's definitely not what I've been saying. I've downplayed their integrity because of the way they go about their reviews. As I've said, they'll commonly draw on minor flaws and blow them out of proportion to award games a poor review and score. A magazine that consistently reviews bizarrely is unreliable in assisting you in finding the next game you want to buy. I presume many people are buying this magazine in order to influence their game purchases; which would pretty much be a dick move. You probably won't think the same as them, given they consistently go against what the majority of gamers believe. But hey, it's your call. If you want to pay for a guy's ramblings, given that there are free alternatives available on the internet, then it's up to you.

 

 

Also, because review scores have numbers in them they are a form of mathematics and not a convenient abstraction of more qualitative terms such as "good", "very good", or "worth renting if you like that sort of thing".

 

I presume people are intelligent enough to translate the numbers themselves. But as it stands, there is a loose system of understanding in place regarding the 1-10 format. It has been used for decades. Now I'm not saying every reviewer is as reliable as another, or that the exact meaning of each integer score is the same - official magazine scores I would always avoid. I'm also not saying that review scores are the be all and end all. However, I am saying that a compilation of review scores such as on Metacritic is a more reliable method of determination of game quality than a single score alone. You can also sift through the critic scores on MC for reputable reviewers; upon seeing that their score is, say, above 7, you may feel inclined to read their review. If anything, scores for me are like a quality control stage before reading a review, and a reassurance, before I then go on to read the review and address whether it's a game I would enjoy playing. If I saw a game was rated 4/10, I'd have been saved the time and effort of even reading a review.

 

 

Here's a good example of why I support collated reviews:

 

You go to buy a product on Amazon and there are two different versions available from different manufacturers. One of these products has five stars, with only 1 customer review. The other product has 97 costumer reviews, with a 4.5 stars average rating. The product with 97 customer reviews is much more reassuring, even before you've examined the actual reviews in detail. Upon closer inspection of the 97 reviews, some of the reviewers are 'Top 100' reviewers, and appear to have given a very good review writeup, while some of the reviewers gave just 1 sentence and formatted text terribly. Even putting the poorly-typed reviews to one side, there are a number of positive reviews from people who seem to know what they are talking about. Contrast this to the single review - the reviewer may have little expertise on rating (the type who mark full if simply 'satisfied'), or it could have been a fluke that he was satisfied. Statistically speaking, you are more likely to be one of the majority than the minority. This is what makes it the majority. So you have a higher chance of being statisfied with the stronger-support product, so it's logical to opt for that one.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Sheikah

[Aimless]

That's nice and all, but let's go back and browse one of your earlier paragraphs:

I'm disagreeing with the magazine as a whole; a magazine with absolutely zero integrity due to their mostly idiotic reviews. And idiotic long-term reader base, if you're anything to go by. I wouldn't waste any more time reading their reviews, as I know it'd be time I'd wish I could have back.

So, because their reviews aren't in line with your own opinions or expectations they're "bizarre". I suppose I can see where you're coming from, although I've no idea why it annoys you so much that you not only insult the magazine but also its readership.

Having played about 8 hours of the game so far I can instantly revoke their '5/10'. Whatever points they've made, they clearly haven't appreciated the core gameplay and the fact that it's actually quite enjoyable.

We're back to you disagreeing again, I see. And then rubbishing another person's opinion because they don't see things the same way you do. Classic internet.

5/10 sends the message 'poor', or at best 'low-average'. Again; their points are always fine if justified, but the /10 scoring system is a universal format that can instantly be interpreted without additional information. I interpret that they've completely missed the point of the game.

It isn't a universal format. You've said as much yourself by acknowledging the variable reliability of reviewers; for you a 9/10 from an independent publication is of greater value than one from an official variant. Perhaps you mentally adjust the score, interpreting a 9 as an 8 or 7, but in that case the only 'universal' scale exists in your own head.

 

Hell, even Metacritic sees the world through its own lens: the weight of each publication's opinion is decided by the site's creator, Marc Doyle, with all scores converted to percentages — at the man's discretion, hence 1UP.com's letter grades often converting to strange numerics — and then averaged based on a clandestine scale of reliability; a score from Eurogamer would probably be taken into greater consideration than one from N-Europe, although as the calculations aren't viewable by the public there's no way to tell how things are really weighted.

 

That isn't to say that Metacritic is worthless, it can be a useful tool for roughing in opinions of games you were previously ignorant of. However, it is not opinion as science and is no more accurate than walking into a cinema after the movie's over and saying, "Okay, everyone who enjoyed that put your hands up".

 

For the record I don't agree with Edge's Dragon Age review. It has a lot of faults but, much like Mass Effect, it's greater than the sum of its parts. Then again I have the game on PC, not the 360 which was the format reviewed. Going back to your ostenisble universal scale for a moment, Eurogamer gave the game an 8 on PC and 6 on console — same reviewer both times — so even if I did care about one magazine's opinion to get in a rage about it there's some fairly obvious reasons not to do so.

 

Review scores are abstractions of the text that only still exist because all the people who argue about them generate lots of traffic and mindshare. They are not universal. They are not a science. They are not worth arguing about.

[Daft]

Soooooo..... How do you heal serious injuries without using an injury kit?

 

Also, does anyone else use the war dog? (From the noble human's start) I do simply because I think it's cool to have a dog...but I think it's a bit shit tbh.

[Goafer]

Soooooo..... How do you heal serious injuries without using an injury kit?

 

Also, does anyone else use the war dog? (From the noble human's start) I do simply because I think it's cool to have a dog...but I think it's a bit shit tbh.

 

I do because I've stuck with the first 3 characters you get (Dog (called Muttface), Alistair and Morrigan). You can get the dog with other races/backgrounds early on in the game. I forget where. Think it might be at the kennels at the Grey Wardens place.

 

I might start ditching the dog since he adds nothing to conversations and other characters can be just as useful in combat.

 

 

I'm currently at the Landsmeet, but I don't want to play it at the minute as it feels near the end.

[Sheikah]

That's nice and all, but let's go back and browse one of your earlier paragraphs:

 

So, because their reviews aren't in line with your own opinions or expectations they're "bizarre". I suppose I can see where you're coming from, although I've no idea why it annoys you so much that you not only insult the magazine but also its readership.

 

They're bizarre because they consistently differ from what the vast majority of gamers actually believe. They often mark down games heavily for trivial aspects - which is what I believe to be bad reviewing style, and seem to give praise to far less deserving games (e.g. FFXII - they placed it at 8th best game of all time). It's fine to differ in opinion sometimes, but their magazine commonly trashes games regularly that many, many people would disagree with. And when what you're selling is opinions on games that will influence purchase decisions, their magazine becomes trash. I'd rather ask my little brother whether I should buy an upcoming game, as he's more likely to suggest a game that I might actually enjoy.

 

I'm sorry, but the whole 'wahh it's their opinion' thing is bollocks. If you pay good money for this magazine, you'd expect a) a reviewer who was an expert and fanatic about the genre in question (if you know you like archaic RPGs already, you'd just want to know how good of one it is), as many reviews these days seem to put across the viewpoint: 'this isn't for me', and b) dicussion amongst numerous people. Perhaps in the style of Famitsu. Again, for the reason that some people just don't take to particular games.

 

 

It isn't a universal format. You've said as much yourself by acknowledging the variable reliability of reviewers; for you a 9/10 from an independent publication is of greater value than one from an official variant. Perhaps you mentally adjust the score, interpreting a 9 as an 8 or 7, but in that case the only 'universal' scale exists in your own head.

 

Yes, if I look through a list of individual scores on Metacritic, I won't pay attention to the official reviewers. Scoring from 1-10 is a copied format amongst reviewers, and the very reason it is so is because any reader can instantly understand it. If the reviewer did not wish to have their reader instantly interpret their review, they should omit the scoring system altogether. And indeed, some do. Game publishers often include several scores on their game boxes because there is a universal understanding of such numbers. Ratings out of 10 are used across several mediums, not just video games, and any person will instantly understand 9/10 or 10/10 to be a great game. That's just the way it is. This isn't written down; it is an understood concept, to which I won't argue any further.

 

So when I see, in a list of critic scores, far more 9-10 scores than lower scores, I'm somewhat reassured that the chances are it's a game of good quality that I will enjoy. Then, to make sure, I will often choose to follow up by reading a few of the more reputable reviewers. I don't go solely on scores, but I'd never go solely on a single review. It's entirely possible that a game rated 8/10 lost marks due to particular aspects I find annoying, thus I would avoid a game as a result of reading a review. But if we went solely by EDGE's review of 5/10 for the 360 version, rather than looking at the bigger picture, we might completely bypass what many believe to be a good game.

 

 

Hell, even Metacritic sees the world through its own lens: the weight of each publication's opinion is decided by the site's creator, Marc Doyle, with all scores converted to percentages — at the man's discretion, hence 1UP.com's letter grades often converting to strange numerics — and then averaged based on a clandestine scale of reliability; a score from Eurogamer would probably be taken into greater consideration than one from N-Europe, although as the calculations aren't viewable by the public there's no way to tell how things are really weighted.

 

Well, for the recently released Bayonetta, there were 19 critic scores and these added up to 1757. Providing I added it up properly, this averaged to 92.5, which I'm guessing they rounded to 93 - which was the score. It seems to me as if the critic scores submitted are equally weighted. But as I say, I often scroll through the critic list to visit the web pages for the reviews from the review sites that I believe are more in line with my own tastes, and those I believe to have good reviewing style.

 

That isn't to say that Metacritic is worthless, it can be a useful tool for roughing in opinions of games you were previously ignorant of. However, it is not opinion as science and is no more accurate than walking into a cinema after the movie's over and saying, "Okay, everyone who enjoyed that put your hands up".

 

Now that's just not true. First of all, you expect actual VG critics to have played a vast number of games, and to at least somewhat know what they're talking about. Secondly, the reason people continue to visit the review websites of critics listed, I'm guessing, is because people went by their previous reviews of games said to be good, and actually enjoyed them themselves.

 

Your example also mentioned asking numerous people - which in fairness, is what my Metacritic argument was all about. Whatever way you look at it, it's better to go on more than one review, and MC is a way of letting you do that.

 

Review scores are abstractions of the text that only still exist because all the people who argue about them generate lots of traffic and mindshare. They are not universal. They are not a science. They are not worth arguing about.

 

Review scores, at the end of the day, reflect the overall review. If someone scored a game 4/10, there's no way in hell that the review is going to be full of praises. Similarly, a game that receives mostly 9s or 10s all round is likely to have a very positive review.

 

My point of these arguments has been this - Metacritic is a good tool for gauging the overall opinions of critics. It's better than sticking to one magazine, or basing game purchase decisions on one review. I know that there's surely people who do that from buying these magazines. For all we know, a single reviewer may dislike the D&D RPG genre, meaning you end up with a completely skewed opinion. Which is pretty much what Bard did way back somewhere.

 

I will not responding to this again. I've said what I've had to say - that I think EDGE is a particularly poor, pretentious magazine, and that I believe going by a number of reviews gives you a better picture than a single review. So if anyone wants to continue this argument, you can do so against a brick wall. Oh, and added Bard to my ignore list. One less pretentious, arrogant person to suffer on these forums. Let him brush up on his essay-writing skills on a Nintendo forum to high-five his ego in private.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Sheikah