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

Some of the comments ... such negativity lol. Ah well everyone has different tastes.

While I have some complaints with the game (grindy aspects, respawns to fast in many areas, filler content) overall it is a well made and enjoyable game to me so happy it got the award. Not a lot of games coming out that have this type of cool content (story, deeper companions, fun exploration, good visuals) so like to see it do well so there will be more of it.

Even the filler can be skipped over if one wants. I spent 80 hours doing the main story, some companion quests, the side quests I was interested in, and had a very good time. Was totally caught up in the story and the three weeks I spent on it were very fun and well worth the cost ... actually way more so. Considering the cost of dinner out is the same cost as the game ... and one lasts 2 hours at best and the other lasted 80 hours ... and I can replay ... more than fair. Actually a great deal. I never understand people who bitch about the cost of the game compared to the hours you get out of it.

The only thing hard to avoid is the respawns as you often need to travel to find things on quests. I can understand the need for some respawns as you often need items that drop from them ... but they really need to change it to a slower timer.

Just started a new game with a Mage this time. This will be my more thorough play through where I try to cover the majority of the content instead of just focusing on the main story.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
3,959
Location
NH
Joined
Mar 7, 2012
Messages
190
Metacritic? Real critics? No. Sorry man, but Metacritic is a den of trolls. There is probably more value in a "bought and paid for" review than those shallow reviews on Metacritic, where people mostly gives 10s and 0s, often before they have even played the game.

But the law of averages should kick in at some point right?
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
Metacritic? Real critics? No. Sorry man, but Metacritic is a den of trolls. There is probably more value in a "bought and paid for" review than those shallow reviews on Metacritic, where people mostly gives 10s and 0s, often before they have even played the game.

That is pure bullshit and just shows you have not read the reviews. Most of the people with low scores give a good reviews with explanations. There are those that only give a low score with stupid or no explanation but there are many of such that give it a 10.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
3,819
That is pure bullshit and just shows you have not read the reviews. Most of the people with low scores give a good reviews with explanations. There are those that only give a low score with stupid or no explanation but there are many of such that give it a 10.

I'm sorry but I disagree. Don't get me wrong, there are some reviews on there that are well written and thoughtful, but there is too much garbage to wade through to consider it a worthwhile source for reviews. I used to read metacritic when new titles came out, but I no longer bother. If I'm going to read community reviews, I'd rather check this site or other enthusiast sites where I know the people have actually played the games. Metacritic is often simply an outlet for complaining and nerd-raging.

And for the record, I have read reviews of DA:I on there, but not all 1500 or so.
 
Joined
Mar 7, 2012
Messages
190
So how is the combat in DA:I, is it like action combat in Dark Souls and Kingdoms of Amalur where you block with shields, dodge, different weapons/magic have different attack animations .. etc.?

Moreover, can you kill npcs in DA:I as you please like in the Gothics (i.e. simulation aspects)?

You can't kill none-hostile NPCs in DA:I. You can kill all the wildlife animals that aren't hostile by default though.

Combat is not like Dark Souls or KoA (even if Shield Wall is a block toggle and all the classes have something similar to a dodge in a tree somewhere). It's just a step more action based than DAO/DA2 if you play in action mode.
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
7,313
That is pure bullshit and just shows you have not read the reviews. Most of the people with low scores give a good reviews with explanations. There are those that only give a low score with stupid or no explanation but there are many of such that give it a 10.

No. Metacritics is the site which best illustrates how user reviews are just as bad, if not worse, than published reviews.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
118
True and the same goes for rottentomatoes.
But also I tend to trust imdb score more than RT when picking a movie. Somehow, even with trolls, scores on imbd (assuming not just a few people gave input) tend to be more believable than critics consensus after I watch a movie. Of course, not in every single case. Some movies are simply not ment to be watched by everyone so those get a lower score than they deserve, but well…

There is no perfect system. But when the average score from critics and the score from audience is very different, something stinks with that product. In such case I'd check on sites covering the genre just like with movies (a horror movie gets praised by critics and hated by the audience on imdb? I go check sites that cover only horrors).
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
So how is the combat in DA:I, is it like action combat in Dark Souls and Kingdoms of Amalur where you block with shields, dodge, different weapons/magic have different attack animations .. etc.?

Moreover, can you kill npcs in DA:I as you please like in the Gothics (i.e. simulation aspects)?

I'd say combat is like diablo 3.

Click,click,click then hit a skill on the hotbar in action mode.

There is a strategy mode which zooms out (not far enough though) and you issue commands like in DAO but it's broken due to terrible camera angle and trees, buildings, smoke etc blocking your view. My opinion of course.

You might be able to avoid the camera issues by switching between action and strategy camera but since they work completely different it's near impossible to get everyone to do what you want.

Also the omission of a lasso and a select all party members button is especially painful. imo.

It's nothing as glorious as DS combat. They should have either put in good action combat like DS or put in good RTWP like in DAO instead they tried to do both and it doesn't work very well imo.
 
No. Metacritics is the site which best illustrates how user reviews are just as bad, if not worse, than published reviews.

That is only because you found a game that you really care about but metacritic didn't give it a score you think it deserves. This comes down to not understanding how these sites work.

I spend a lot of time on movie forums and I see this all the time with people bashing IMDB because they really love/hate some movie but on IMDB it got a low/high score.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
3,819
I'd say combat is like diablo 3.

Click,click,click then hit a skill on the hotbar in action mode.

There is a strategy mode which zooms out (not far enough though) and you issue commands like in DAO but it's broken due to terrible camera angle and trees, buildings, smoke etc blocking your view. My opinion of course.

You might be able to avoid the camera issues by switching between action and strategy camera but since they work completely different it's near impossible to get everyone to do what you want.

Also the omission of a lasso and a select all party members button is especially painful. imo.

It's nothing as glorious as DS combat. They should have either put in good action combat like DS or put in good RTWP like in DAO instead they tried to do both and it doesn't work very well imo.

Well put, sakichop :)

I'm not having much fun with combat so I've put difficulty down to easiest (story mode). Blasphemy, I know... But I'm finding combat soooo tedious.
 
I think it's more a reflexion of the sorry state mainstream AAA gaming is in, it's just so soulless, generic and uninteresting.

Can you really expect an award made for xxtreme fratboy Do the Dew gamers to account for refined tastes?

The thought process probably went like this: AAAAAAAWESOME EPIC LOOT AND EDGY ACTION DUUUDE!!!
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
2,006
Location
Trois-Rivières, Québec
Well put, sakichop :)

I'm not having much fun with combat so I've put difficulty down to easiest (story mode). Blasphemy, I know… But I'm finding combat soooo tedious.
It's not a blasphemy.
With the neverending trashmobs in the game, I wish they added supereasy oneclick to kill all hostiles on the screen difficulty.

I suggested already, play the game on easy or normal. Save hard/nightmare difficulty for the moment they remove endless trashmob respawns or someone makes norespawn mod.
Keep in mind in some areas endless respawns are necessary as are a part of the sidestory (certain abandoned villa horror type mystery for example).
Also keep in mind that dragons and mobs in main story quests don't respawn. So if you feel uneasy with easy/normal difficulty, up it to hard/nightmare while on mainstory quest or while fighting a dragon then kill it back down when exploring Hinterlands Respawnlands.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
That is only because you found a game that you really care about but metacritic didn't give it a score you think it deserves. This comes down to not understanding how these sites work.

No, it comes from a ton of users scoring a product for reasons OTHER THAN how good the product is. For example, EA/Activision sucks, or Bioware is pandering to SJWs. If you look at a good number of the "0" votes, it's fairly obvious a good number haven't played the game and/or are parroting other people. And I'm not limiting this to just DragonAge either.

While you have to keep in mind that published reviews are affected due to business concerns, user reviews are affected by prejudices.

The trick is finding a bunch of users you trust, not going to a site like Metacritic and taking the score as "accurate."

I wouldn't say anything good about Metacritic if someone had a pistol to my testicles.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
118
Oh, yea, and it's trolls to blame, not EA.
If EA respected customers, there wouldn't be so many trolls. It's impossible to avoid trolls completely, but one can drop their number.
The game is not 0/10. But it's far from 10/10, how come you didn't mention trolls (or perhaps mc user reviews paid by EA) who put max on metacritic for obviously flawed game*?
And honestly, giving DA3 game of the year plaque almost before the game was even released and then advertising that all over Origin client can and will give birth to more metacritic trolls.

Blame EA. Not customers.


——————————————-
* Whoever decided to resurrect bloody Mass Effect 2 "sonar" as searching for loot mechanics should be fired instantly. If it wasn't pain in the arse, they wouldn't remove it's lootsearching part from ME3.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
Oh, yea, and it's trolls to blame, not EA.
If EA respected customers, there wouldn't be so many trolls. It's impossible to avoid trolls completely, but one can drop their number.

I will blame EA for the poor decisions relating to publishing, and the trolls for the poor actions relating to their behaviour. Behaviour which distorts reviews and ratings to untrustworthy proportions is the fault of trolls, NOT EA. You are responsible for your own actions.

The game is not 0/10. But it's far from 10/10, how come you didn't mention trolls (or perhaps mc user reviews paid by EA) who put max on metacritic for obviously flawed game*?

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.

And honestly, giving DA3 game of the year plaque almost before the game was even released and then advertising that all over Origin client can and will give birth to more metacritic trolls.

Like some of the other options were any better. Super Smash Bros - WiiU was released 2 days AFTER Dragon Age.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
118
No, it comes from a ton of users scoring a product for reasons OTHER THAN how good the product is. For example, EA/Activision sucks, or Bioware is pandering to SJWs. If you look at a good number of the "0" votes, it's fairly obvious a good number haven't played the game and/or are parroting other people. And I'm not limiting this to just DragonAge either.

There's about as many votes from users with hard ons for Bioware(insert other game dev here) that give 10s no matter what.
That's the thing, it evens itself out, at least to a point and the metacritic scores tend to be in the range what I would give the games.

It even works better with non AAA games that have like a 60 metascore for "professional" reviews and a really good user score.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
226
There's about as many votes from users with hard ons for Bioware(insert other game dev here) that give 10s no matter what.
That's the thing, it evens itself out, at least to a point and the metacritic scores tend to be in the range what I would give the games.

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."
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
118

Won't comment on comment as we'll agree to disagree or disagree to agree, something like that.

The whole problem of game reviews and why it doesn't work like theater or opera reviewing (which also aren't flawless, for example critics hated certain Verdi's masterpiece on it's premiere) is not reviewing the product but reviewing INITIAL IMPRESSION.

I bet none of reviewers, users and critics, especially the Escapist schmuck, didn't finish the game at least once before writing the review.
And that practice IMO has to stop. Finish the game then write a review. Or write you can't finish the game because of gamebreaking bugs. Or be honest and say "this review is based on unfinished game after completing just a few mainstory quests, just a few missions, just a few areas, just a few puzzles, etc".
Till that's changed, metacritic will remain an average score not to be trusted.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
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.
What are you talking about?! Who cares about reviews score, it is a paid one just like it was for DA2.
And even if it was not, it is not a reference point for user scores. Reviews score is average score from 20ih people, user score is average from 100s of people.
Sorry but I trust average from 100s more than some 20ih.

BTW, you just proved my point. You don't trust user scores because their average does not fit your personal view of DAI.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
3,819
Back
Top Bottom