Dragon Age - Reviews @ Gamespot, Eurogamer, Giant Bomb
 

The review flood has begun. Here are a few reviews for Dragon Age: Origins that have already surfaced.
The first is from Gamespot 9.5. You can read the review or watch their video review. The reviewer felt that this is the RPG we've been waiting for. To best sum up Gamespot's take on Dragon Age all you need to do is look at what they thought was good and bad:
In contrast we now have Eurogamer 8/10. This review is a little confusing. After reading it I thought the score would be much lower. The reviewer didn't like the standard cliché roles, the vast differences between easy and normal difficulty levels, the wooden scripts for the main characters, their lifeless animation and contrived storylines, and many more complaints. There were a few kind words for Dragon Age, but mostly I would of expected a much lower score after reading this review. Here is a snippet from the beginning that sums up the general theme of the review:
The last review comes from Giant Bomb 5/5 stars. Giant Bomb also has a video review or a written one for you. It's a very positive review highlighting the story and gameplay. Here is a snippet from the review:
More information.

Things look good, what remains is to actually try the game myself.

Looking good. Thanks, skavenhorde.

My pleasure.

I'm most surprised by Gamespot's ultra high score. This is no Oblivion or even Fallout 3. This, from what I've been reading, is Baldur's Gate: The Next Generation. That isn't the kind of game that I would of thought could garner such high praise from Gamespot.

Just goes to show you that when you think you know something, or in this case some site, the world throws you a curve ball.

Agree 100%. Gamespot isnt very keen in giving 90+ scores, much less a 95 one. Its wayyy over my best expectations for a score there. I was expecting 89-90%, but never more than that (especialy for the not brilliant graphics).

If you check what games gamespot has ever given 95% you would be startled how good this score is and it realy amazed me.

I don't buy games based on reviews, but i can understand a score like this will get A LOT of copies bought for EA/bioware. Congratulations to them, it seems the game is realy worth all the hype around.

I must be thinking of a different review site, because when Gamespot gives a high rating, the first thing I think is: The developer must have bought a TON of advertising on Gamespot.

Aye, I just see the GameSpot score as an extension of Dragon Age's massive PR campaign. GS is not exactly amongst the sites I take seriously in any context. Hell, if anything, GS's high score just makes me concerned about how mainstream-adapted this game is.

Just out of pure curiosity, can you name a few of those sites you take seriously in any content ?

Exactly. It is interesting to peruse the different review sites and you can see definite biases whether it is certain game genres' or platforms.

Gamespot is certainly not RPG friendly and really is pro XBox and Playstation. By the way this is the same site that gave Risen a 7.

Before we get into a gamespot debate, I'd like to know if anyone else was as confused as I was by Eurogamer's review and that number? It's like two different people did that review. One wrote it and the other attached a number to it.

The least they could do was back up what they're saying with an actual number that reflects the contempt written in that review. It wouldn't be the end of the world if someone didn't enjoy the game and gave it a lower score than the other sites.

Even one of the characters that the reviewer liked was one that made fun of the game. I especially liked this "I'm partial to the hilariously terse warrior Sten, purely because he seems to enjoy making an impossible, contrary mockery of the game's careful art of conversation" My god, if he hates the game so much then give it a score that reflects that opinion. Don't pussyfoot around and give it a relatively high score and then trash it in the review.

I'm not sure what you're asking with "in any content"? I rely on sites like RPGWatch and GameBanshee for my RPG reviews, which is my main genre. The list of sites whose opinion I take seriously (though that does not mean I always agree with them, often quite the opposite, it just means I'm interested in their opinion) is really, really long, including the likes of GamerNode, Rock Paper Shotgun, Strategy Informer, GameShark, AtomicGamer, Giant Bomb and GamingTrend. It just excludes sites whose tastes are too wildly unlike mine, or - and this is more often the case - who have shown a consistent lack of professionalism, like IGN, GameSpy, GameSpot, Escapist Magazine, G4 X-Play, Jolt and Xbox/PS World. Doesn't mean I never agree with them, just that I don't care about their opinion regardless of what kind of game they're talking about.

Not really. Eurogamer belongs to those sites that use a full 1-10 scale for all non-AAA games and a 8 to 10 scale for AAA games, so 8 is the lowest possible score he can give.

German and czech versions of eurgamer gave the game 10/10 . That always surprise may how different they rate compared to the english version of the site.

Just noticed the GT review, giving it a 9.1

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/re…agon-age/58517

Edit: Might be a bit spoilerish at times, skip this one if you're sensitive to spoilers.

That does make sense now, it's sad. At least I'm not saying "WaiWut???" Anymore :) I had to drudge through that review twice to make sure I read it correctly and it made as little sense the second time through as the first (until now).

So once again thanks, BN. Being a sole rpgwatcher for many years has hidden me from the evils of these other sites :lol: But now, I'm starting to see what is what around the web.

I think that videoreview was a little bit too spoilerish for my taste, had to stop it halfway through. Gave away a few things that I didn't want to know beforehand.

I didn't read much contempt into the review - it comes across as a really good, polished game. Just one that lacks a certain innovative something and is hampered by the things that have affected Bioware games for years. One of the better reviews IMHO.

I stopped taking Eurogamer seriously after their Witcher and Risen reviews.

As far as Gamespot is concerned, I have seen some good and bad reviews but most of the time when they say the game is AMAZING, it's fun to play (though you won't find it "AMAZING", but it won't suck as well).

Either way, I am just glad to learn that they haven't killed the texture quality on PC version and console versions perform and look crap in comparison. But it's OK, they can game on couch so it evens it out.. [/sarc]


PS: My local retail store should have the copy soon. I am definitely not downloading something this big over Steam.

Something interesting about the Gamespot reviewer.

He is the one who gave Risen a 7.0.

While he gave the PC version of DA a 9.5, he gave the PS3 a 9 and the XBox 360 a 8.5.

A big difference, it seems to me.

Eurogamer gave Fallout 3 a 10/10? And DA a 8/10?

Gee NO bias detected here at all.

The sad thing about that - aside from it being true - is tat it used to be a 7-9 scale, so even that has seen inflation ;)

Gamespot has always been known to hand out 9+ scores like Halloween candy.

I actually like their site, because they're usually one of the first places to have decent previews on future titles, but I really don't pay much attention to their review scores.

I don't think those games were reviewed by one person on all platforms.

But then again, I can't seem to find the name of the reviewer in the first place (nameless reviewers FTW).

Uh, it's Kevin VanOrd. It's written at the end of the article where it ought to be.

In his bio, you can even see the list of every games he reviewed. Quite a lot. The last game he gave a 9 to was Demon's Souls he reviewed about a month ago. It's a console PS3 rpg title that I havent heard anything about so I can't judge if the review is fair or not.

lol, I search for names after the title so I didn't expect his name at the end.

Anyways, I agree with Risen review there, rating is fine (it's pretty much a fixed version of Gothic 3). Still, I go there to read user reviews and views mostly, site reviews hardly matter (or even user reviews since they are mostly fan reviews with 10/10 ratings on such games).

I had a teacher at school who did a similar thing : Writing a text full of criticism, but indeed giving it a higher score than one would have expected from the review itself …

That is what you want from teachers. My philosophy lecturers will usually write me a solid page of criticism to go along with the High Distinction, which is great, because I know why my work is good, I want to know what is wrong with it, so I can improve.

Teachers don't write reviews, though. Writing a review is about presenting a complete picture of a work to an audience that knows nothing about it. That's exactly why I wouldn't call Yahtzee a reviewer either, he purposefully lifts out only part of the subject matter.

Similarly, a teacher's purpose when revising is primarily to point out spots of improvement. Most of my profs would put in detailed notes on whatever I did wrong and leave strong points in the sum-up statement at the end.

Welcome to the wonder and drudgery of newsposting. Wear your hardhat, there's a lot of stupidity out there.

A curve ball?

Gamespot gave Baldur's Gate a 9.2
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/baldursgate/review.html

Baldur's Gate 2 a 9.2
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/baldu…rgames;title;1
The first line from the BG II review:
Seems pretty in line with what Gamespot has thought about good RPGs for over a decade.

When I said I was a sole rpgwatcher, I wasn't kidding. I only got my news from them and them alone. I only read reviews from them because I knew they could be trusted. So yes, we have established that I am new to other gaming websites (other than mods or indie websites). When I see a big company handing out an almost perfect 10 (no such thing btw) then I was a little surprised. I was as surprised to note that in addition to BG scoring high Planescape 9.0, WIz 8 9.1, and Neverwinter Nights 1 9.1 seemed to be well liked by them as well. These scores surprised me coming from a 'made for the masses' website. Is that so odd? Of course they also have the kinds of reviews I expect from them like:

Arcanum 7.3: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/arcan…result;title;0

Bloodlines 7.7: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/vtmb/…result;title;1

Temple of Elemental Evil 7.9: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/greyh…result;title;0

Troika sure got it rough from Gamespot.

Risen 7.0: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/risen…result;title;0
While Gothic 3 is 7.6 (odd I thought Gotchic 3 sucked compared to risen) http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/gothi…result;title;1

Quest for Glory 5 7.4: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/quest…result;title;0 (This right here is why I would never take anything they said seriously. This game was the perfect balance between adventure and rpg, imo. Though, that opinion is not shared by gamespot)

Dues Ex 8.2: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/deuse…rgames;title;3

Those are the kinds of reviews I expected to find at gamespot. Maybe I was wrong, but that review from my point of view was a curve ball.

No no no, you see, those are actually 'good' games. You can't expect Gamespot to give them a deserving score. ;)

Exactly what I thought. If a game scored low there then more than likely it's a game that I'll love ;)

I use this same principal with movie reviews from major critics. If they hate it, then I gotta watch it. If they loved it then I'll probably be asleep in the first 20 minutes.