Dragon Age: Inquisition - Wins Game of the Year at TGAS

[Thorwyn99]

Quoted from above:

"Because of a comment you made earlier. You stated that a game which has a user rating significantly different to the published rating must be treated with suspicion. If you take DragonAge as an example, this has a published review rating of 85. Therefore, quite obviously, trolls who score the game a "0" will obviously have a greater influence than trolls who score the game a "10". And that's if you accept the idea that there are as many trolls being paid by EA as there are trolls who want to "punish" EA or "Bioware" for reasons that have nothing to do with their product."

True with so many extreme reviews to both sides the score will probably never fully even out. The 5.8 seems alot closer to the truth than the 85 though.


The fact alone that there is alot of negative reviews which have played the game compared to the press score and the fact the game is as polarising as it is should make a player suspicious and investigate more, especially if he's on the fence.

The only really certain way you can find out if a game is for you before buying is a full iso demo IMO.
(Which to be fair you can probably do if you're willing to install Origins and have alot of time on your hands. With that 24 hour money back guarantee of EA)

And no need for EA to pay any trolls they can keep the paying for the press, as with most any game they should have enough unpaid fanboys to at least counter the trolls.

 

[drae]

The 5.8 seems alot closer to the truth than the 85 though.

The fact alone that there is alot of negative reviews which have played the game compared to the press score and the fact the game is as polarising as it is should make a player suspicious and investigate more, especially if he's on the fence.

Depends on where you go to. The only places I've been to which have a lot of negative views about the game are metacritic, and the places full of old RPG fans (this place and the Codex.)

Reddit is actually fairly positive towards the game, and 1281 users have rated Inquisition on Gamefaqs (across all platforms) at an average score of 8.4/10. Metacritic's is low because it's the first place trolls go to shout and stamp their feet.

 

[Archangel]

Older players don't really use Reddit. That is why Reddit has better score.

 

[joxer]

Depends on where you go to. The only places I've been to which have a lot of negative views about the game are metacritic, and the places full of old RPG fans (this place and the Codex.)

Reddit is actually fairly positive towards the game, and 1281 users have rated Inquisition on Gamefaqs (across all platforms) at an average score of 8.4/10. Metacritic's is low because it's the first place trolls go to shout and stamp their feet.

What do you mean full of negative views?
The game is not a masterpiece, that's something anyone who is actually playing it will tell you. Assuming it's not their first game ever. And assuming you're not reading the review from the same guy who gave 10/10 to DA2 (Escapist).
That guy probably never played a game with a proper inventory system that belongs to this decade but is probably playing only phonegames.

Stating that the game is a disaster is definite trolling. DA2 was a disaster.

The game contains a completely different approach in main story quests (no endless respawns, perfect c&c, no grinding) from free roaming maps (unbearable endless respawns, ignorable c&c, grinding like crazy). With that diversity they made sure everyone will get at least something to like. Sadly you can't film half A production and half B action and make a masterpiece out of that - the same thing goes with games too. In the end you get a product unsure what it is. DA3 is exactly that. A game unsure if it wants to be an epic RPG or a notorious grinder.

Thus, depending on people's taste, honest game scores should vary between 6-9, with 9 possible only on consoles. If you see anyone who plays the game with k/b giving it more than 8, tell them I said they're liars.

And what's reddit? Never heard of that.

 

[drae]

What do you mean full of negative views?
The game is not a masterpiece, that's something anyone who is actually playing it will tell you.

Didn't mean to imply you guys were trolling, people who prefer older RPGs have a reason their review of DA:I will contain a lot of negatives (didn't say full of, just said contained lots of.) The views on RPGWatch are definitely worth reading.

EDIT: Heh, on Reddit - http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2014/09/08/the-chronomaster

 

[Archangel]

We who are older grew up with games that needed to be read, had proper gameplay and needed some thought and not just clicking.
As TB said, secondary quests in DAI just waste his time. You don't even talk to people to hand them in (too expensive to put in more VO?) and there are no interesting stories around them.
You don't play games just for the main quest. When has it become acceptable to do this?

It is a terrible day when some creates a base console game (in everything), ports it badly to PC and than receives a GOTY for PC. Wtf?!!?!?
Give it goty for consoles, I do not care but don't pollute PC gaming with crap.

 

[drae]

Yes, I agree there are valid reasons that RPGWatch has for the negative opinions they have on the game.

The difference is Metacritic does NOT have an older fanbase, THEY have a lower score because the user base is riddled with trolls. Their user ratings are as untrustworthy, or even more so, than the published reviews they like to denigrate. Which makes them not only untrustworthy, but hypocritical and flat out a waste of time to visit.

And in case anyone was wondering, Metacritic does NOT have a good reputation on the web.

http://www.reddit.com/r/dragonage/comments/2mo48a/dragon_age_getting_blasted_by_user_score_on/

As an example of how out-of-kilter Metacritic is with the user reviews from most other sites:

Gamefaqs - 1281 reviews at 8.4
IGN - 635 reviews at 9.2
Gamespot - 302 reviews at 7.9
IMDB - 263 reviews at 9.4

Combined that's 2481 reviews at 8.64, compared with Metacritic's 1869 reviews at 5.8 . Metacritic is well known to be the troll capital of the review landscape, I don't see how people can continue to defend them.

 

[Archangel]

Because proper games (those where official reviews are not paid for) still seem to get similar score from both reviewers and users. Like D:OS, DAO and others. Even WL2, while user score is lower it is still similar to reviews score.

The trolls ,as you call them, only come out when paid reviews are obvious and I don't blame them. They are needed to balance the bullshit.

And these scores from game reviews sites directly, many people quit using those sites and don't bother to leave a score. I know I almost never visit and for sure don't leave a score there.

Also, do these other sites offer to give a different score to same game but on different platform? Because the 5.8 on meta is only for PC. Console version have much better score.

 

[drae]

Because proper games (those where official reviews are not paid for) still seem to get similar score from both reviewers and users. Like D:OS, DAO and others. Even WL2, while user score is lower it is still similar to reviews score.

No. Games produced by developers who don't cause butthurt in fans will get scores similar to published reviews. EA and Activision tends to bring them out, as well as a few other genres.

The trolls ,as you call them, only come out when paid reviews are obvious and I don't blame them. They are needed to balance the bullshit.

The trolls came out because people are butthurt at Bioware and EA. Metacritic are the trolls haunts. I hear a lot of complaints against Bioware, but most of the most recent ones are about "SJWs" and "EA".

And these scores from game reviews sites directly, many people quit using those sites and don't bother to leave a score. I know I almost never visit and for sure don't leave a score there.

Gamefaq is a review site?

Also, do these other sites offer to give a different score to same game but on different platform? Because the 5.8 on meta is only for PC. Console version have much better score.

They didn't differ significantly, about a half a point rating. I tended to combine them.

EDIT: Regarding your theory trolls only troll games who pay for their good reviews, I just went to check on everybody's favourite game Oblivion. The game which caused an uproar and sent Bethesda's forums into meltdown for a year with the accusations they paid for their good scores, and yet… I see no significant number of trolls on their page. Nor on Skyrim. If the trolls DO troll only games that are perceived to have "paid" for their good reviews, the trolls are obviously not doing their jobs…

 

[Archangel]

No. Games produced by developers who don't cause butthurt in fans will get scores similar to published reviews. EA and Activision tends to bring them out, as well as a few other genres.

That is just a story big publishers tell to fanboys so they can keep making bad games.

The trolls came out because people are butthurt at Bioware and EA. Metacritic are the trolls haunts. I hear a lot of complaints against Bioware, but most of the most recent ones are about "SJWs" and "EA".

Yea, yea. That is your theory. A fanboy theory.

Gamefaq is a review site?

Since you asked, it probably isn't. And as a result it has a lower score than IGN

They didn't differ significantly, about a half a point rating. I tended to combine them.

PS4 version got 7.5. That is a big difference. And that is the only non-PC that got a decent number of people reviewing.

EDIT: Regarding your theory trolls only troll games who pay for their good reviews, I just went to check on everybody's favourite game Oblivion. The game which caused an uproar and sent Bethesda's forums into meltdown for a year with the accusations they paid for their good scores, and yet… I see no significant number of trolls on their page. Nor on Skyrim. If the trolls DO troll only games that are perceived to have "paid" for their good reviews, the trolls are obviously not doing their jobs…

It was probably less of a meltdown than you remember. And Oblivion didn't fuck up PC controls. Also metacritic might not have been as popular back then. It was a time when people still believed reviews sites and those still had some integrity.
Skyrim is considered a good game by many, not need for people to bash it on metacritic.

Even I cannot really bash Skyrim although it is not my kind of a game. It was done well for its public and had some really memorable moments with Dragons and Giants.
Although a bit simplified compared to Morrowind it was still the same game.

DAI and DAO have less in common than Skyrim and Morrowind. As TB said, DAI only shares lore with DAO, he felt like he played a different game.

 

[drae]

That is just a story big publishers tell to fanboys so they can keep making bad games.

Well, the facts don't lie . We have almost every other site's user rating contradicting metacritic and matching the published review score and we have games known to have caused a massive outcry regarding "objective reviewing" escape "punishment free". So my theory looks fairly solid.

Not only that, but most of the sensible portions of the internet regard metacritic as a sewer. Say what you might of Reddit but it is one of THE best places for game information and discourse... unfortunately.

Since you asked, it probably isn't. And as a result it has a lower score than IGN

Ahaha, true. But higher than Gamespot. Gamefaqs is a place to get walkthroughs and discuss stuff. Mostly walkthroughs, hence the "faq"

PS4 version got 7.5. That is a big difference. And that is the only non-PC that got a decent number of people reviewing.

Which should tip you off that something's funny. Twice as many people on the PC than the consoles? How curious, and by curious I mean balderdash

It was probably less of a meltdown than you remember.

Nah, it was huge. The developers didn't reappear on the boards for about a year, the Codex got CENSORED ... as in your typed in "RPG Codex" onto the forums and they actually censored it to "I love oblivion." That wasn't to keep people from discussing RPG Codex on the board, that was to prevent people from linking the Codex review, which many on the site thought was the only truthful review of Oblivion out there. Censoring the name screwed up the URL. There was actually a huge influx of people onto the Codex, which were Oblivion refugees. Think of them as everybody who got banned XD.

Oblivion was the game where Bethesda turned its back on its fanbase.

Also metacritic might not have been as popular back then. It was a time when people still believed reviews sites and those still had some integrity.

If Trolls target companies that buy reviews, then Bethesda would have been in their targets. And yet Bethesda has NEVER been in their targets, because the trolls couldn't give one whit about companies which "buys reviews."

Skyrim is considered a good game by many, not need for people to bash it on metacritic.

DA:I is considered a good game by many, and yet people LOVE to bash it on metacritic.

 

[Archangel]

I guess the only logical conclusion is that Skyrim is considered a much better game than DAI.

 

[wolfgrimdark]

Interesting discussion but I am with Drae on this one - as he has backed it up with some good points unlike those defending it. From a more subjective personal observation I have also seen this backed up on many forums and sites I go to as well. Metacritic is a pretty useless site overall.

It is interesting the difference on age though. This site, I would guess, is an older crowd (I am 50 myself) and tends to prefer the older style games ... which makes some sense as old people tend to look back fondly on what they grew up with. The newer generation, less exposed to it (if at all), will like what they are growing up with.

While I like to gripe and complain about the direction of things with all the other old folks sometimes I try to remain objective about things in an attempt to avoid the "well back in my day ..." pit fall.

But then I seem to buck some of the trend as I like many of the new games as much as the older games. For that matter I find when I get my hands on some of the older style games my memories of those times is at odds with my actual enjoyment of them now. For example I think Morrowind has far better game mechanics than Skyrim yet I simply don't enjoy playing Morrowind now - to dated.

I think Project Eternity might be a big test of whether I still enjoy some of the old style games. Of course what I want is the newer games with deeper character customization, more in-depth quests, and better PC controls but that doesn't seem to be the trend. On the other hand the older games are lacking in other areas that I really miss so I suppose in the end it evens out.

DAI main story and companions is a good example of a nice blend of the old and new. If the PC controls and tactical set-up was improved, and they enhanced the side quests to be like the main/companion ones ... then it would be a pretty awesome game. But any game is going to have a budget and time restriction - even the top name ones. Not to mention the cost of VO.

Personally I think winning this award is a bit soon for a game so recently released and I think, from a PC player viewpoint, undeserved due to PC related issues. But I still give it an 8 myself as I really enjoyed it. But then I give Skyrim a 10 (when taking into account that Bethseda made it mod friendly) as one of my all time top favorite games so I know my review of games around this site is pretty much useless as I have different tastes

 

[joxer]

10 to Skyrim? LOL
Then Dragonborn DLC would probably get 20/10 from you. That DLC shows exactly what Skyrim could have been with a proper design choices.

But yes, different tastes…

Skyrim vs DA3?
Ill put PC UI and inventory aside as… Let's not go there, it's just bad, in both games.
But IMO DA3 wins at almost all possible points:
- Music and bard? Better in DA3.
- Graphics? Sorry, I like it more in DA3 (but TBH both of them can't come even close to Risen 3).
- Story/quests? DA3 totally shines in this department, although both have fetch crap.
- Bugs? Said before, DA3 on the release had less bugs than fully patched Skyrim has.
- Grinding? Skyrim has norespawn and slowrespawn mods that make it at least a bit enjoyable as Mage's Guild dragon doesn't respawn endlessly any more. In DA3 it's impossible to avoid superfast rate respawns.
- Mods? We comparing mods or the game here? If we'll compare mods and custom content, Sims 3 will eat both of these games for breakfast.

 

[wolfgrimdark]

Off topic but had to share as it shows some of the issues with user reviews

Steam Reviews: http://www.pcgamer.com/the-most-baf...m_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_291159

I like this one (note the hours played):

 

[Archangel]

So the guy is forbidden to not like the game he played a lot? Maybe he has a brother that liked it and played it? maybe he let friends play it. Maybe he tried many different mods but could not find any.

 

[joxer]

note the hours played

Probably based on those crappy youtube vids.

 

[purpleblob]

I'm obviously not far into DA:I but I think at this point Skyrim is a better game than DA:I, I'm certainly having more enjoyment out of it.

I'm not really good with words so I'm just going to quote some of the reviews I've found on the web.

This is exactly how I feel at the moment:

still haven’t completed one of the first storyline quests. I’m supposed to be getting horses for the Inquisition from Dennet. Instead, I’m exploring every marker I discover in my travelings through The Hinterlands. I’m feeling frustrated by every area that is seemingly inaccessible, and spending even more time trying to figure out the proper way to get there

As I mentioned in different topic, DA:I feels like:

The game is in no way a "bad game," just one without its own identity.

I don't quite agree with this quote below, but it certainly made me LOL:

It is the most marvelous epic game. Combat system, mechanics and level up system are all far worse than DA2. So… it is like a pizza covered with cockroaches, if you manage to clean it up and still think that the pizza is so delicious that you can ignore what happened, go for it. For me it has been painful, it literally causes me depression, sometimes I stop playing and sleep to make the pain go away, seriously, it is that bad.

It's really interesting how people's view/opinion on game changes over time. I think the game is truly a gem if you've enjoyed it when it was released and 10, 15 years down the track. It is possible that your taste could have changed due to developing technology or your life experience, but what game could possibly be better than the one you can enjoy for a long period of time?

I find those games sooooo rare. BG2 is probably the only one I enjoyed 10 years back and even now.

Games like DA:O I enjoyed a lot when it was first released, not so much now days. On the other hand, ME1 was the one I disliked in the beginning but got really fond of a couple of years later.

 

[joxer]

still haven’t completed one of the first storyline quests. I’m supposed to be getting horses for the Inquisition from Dennet. Instead, I’m exploring every marker I discover in my travelings through The Hinterlands. I’m feeling frustrated by every area that is seemingly inaccessible, and spending even more time trying to figure out the proper way to get there

That is the result of the completely wrong base design choice.
Endless mobrespawns.
Not cats and chicken, but dangerous hostile mobs that spawn on your head and attack you on the spot.
Without those to strangle your progess, you'd have more fun with exploration and wouldn't feel lost.

That early in the game Skyrim wasn't better for me at all. There is only one thing Skyrim has better than DA3. And it's not Bethesda's work. It's 3rd party norespawn mod.

 

[wolfgrimdark]

While I think I am a bigger fan I have to admit the exploration got a bit tedious due to respawns sapping some of the fun. Also sometimes some places were just very hard to figure out how to get to - I spent an hour trying to find some place with corrupted wolves and I had to stop playing for a bit. I still like the game though