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:

The Good
* Intricate, involving storytelling
* Amazing dialogue and voice acting bring characters to life
* Rich fantasy world filled with interesting lore
* Enjoyable questing with plenty of twists and surprises
* Lots of spells and abilities make combat fun.

The Bad
* A few glitches.

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:

Somewhere in its journey back to its roots, BioWare has got lost in the dense tangle of what it was trying to accomplish. It hasn't been able to see the wood for the trees. It has summoned an entire world into existence in the most meticulous detail, but failed to give it an identity beyond the blandest cliché. It has created living characters that respond like humans, but speak like dictionaries and move like mannequins. It has engineered solidly absorbing RPG gameplay and character progression and stranded them in a succession of hackneyed and hide-bound scenarios.

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:

In the end, Dragon Age: Origins feels like a real throwback to the good old days of PC role-playing epics. It also feels like exactly what you expect the makers of Baldur's Gate to come up with as a follow-up to that classic. While that means you could rightfully fault the game for not being especially innovative, it's this adherence to a classic style of gameplay that will ensure that it's welcomed by the legions of nostalgic RPG players that make up this genre's core audience. That said, this is definitely not the game for those frightened of the idea of micromanaging a game to the point where a large portion of it will be spent in a pause screen. However, as the sort of guy that has lovingly played an Infinity Engine game at least once every year for the past decade, I can think of no higher praise for this throwback than to say that Dragon Age: Origins leaves me feeling fairly confident I won't need to dig out the classics for this ritual next year.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
That isn't the kind of game that I would of thought could garner such high praise from Gamespot.

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.

Originally Posted by Brother None
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 ?

Originally Posted by KnightPT
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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
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?

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.

Originally Posted by Brother None
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.

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 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.

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
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.

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.

Originally Posted by Brother None
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.

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