Preview VGTribune Slams Dragon Age

[Rhalle]

Surely it is just like NWN with quasi-rounds.

But I guess if you market it like a console button-masher then you will get this sort of response.

 

[NOVD]

EA is predicting Dragon Age to be its best-selling game of FY2009 by a decent margin.

They're going to go on an ad blitz near release date, and I don't doubt that the reviews will be artificially high.

 

[Rhalle]

ME2 is going to outsell it by a mile.

I think they probably still feel there will be some LOTR entusiasm out there that will give it a boost. And while LOTR was popular when the game was concieved, it's been too long to cash in on that.

Of course DA now wants to be seen as next-gen consoletardfest, but the mechanics and visuals are outdated (something the hardcore fans wouldn't have cared about).

The drooling button-mashers they are currently trying to hype are going to hate it.

 

[Dark_Paladin_Anti_Hero]

To state the even more obvious, turn-based works in TURNS, not by spaced time intervals. I guess you might be hung up on the term "turn", where it means it has the gameplay set up for regular intervals as in a ruleset term of "turn", and this is a fallacy BioWare and others have been cashing in on some time. RTwP is simply phase-based RT, and hitting the spacebar just gives you a command phase, the rest of the combat goes on after you hit the spacebar again, and it's in slowed RT intervals. There is nothing even close to TB about it.

I think we're saying the same thing but in different words. I'm saying, in your words, the "space time intervals" give an illusion of being both combat systems, while in reality it is, again in your words, "phase-based RT."

Unfortunately, with a lot of today's kids who tend to believe the world started with their own memories, this holds true. If they aren't willing to educate themselves, then they too can be regarded on the same level as the dumb shits who said "Though I've never played a FPS before, I have to say that Daikatana RULES!!"

Real quote.

Of course it holds true for the majority. That's why it's so annoying when people get hung up over stereotypes - they are stereotypes for a reason. It seemed like you were labeling everyone who began on the NES as part of the problem, when in fact there are exceptions. I am all for stereotypes, we have them for a reason, when they are admitted to be stereotypes.

The only reason I got into computers is because my parents did not buy me an SNES and I received a hand-me-down ][c followed by a 386. So, really, the only problem with these creatures are that they are uneducated. You wouldn't berate a toddler for not knowing division, and it probably would not be a good idea to have him do your taxes.

Unfortunately, most rags go for the kids who are easily impressed and help spew hype versus those who could remember a bit more about the industry. I'd agree that veterans should give them credibility with knowledge and experience, but then you run into where their experience says: "This Fallout 3 bullshit isn't really that innovative and new, and where's the expressive Talking Heads and speech system from Fallout? Congrats, they made and overhyped an Oblivion mod."

There's a way to be critical without being harsh. You obviously could not give the game the lashing it deserves, but that might not be the best way anyways. In your example, for example, not being innovative or having the talking heads isn't what provided Fallout 3 with it's bad taste in my opinion. It was mostly the Disney World wasteland and juvenile dialog - but that's a topic that has been covered too many times. I thought Vault Dweller's review was a good idea of how things should be handled, even if it was a little too praising and gave Bethesda pats on the back for meeting the bare minimum.

Welcome to the uneducated, ignorant filler that comprises most of the gaming industry and the audience as well. The gaming industry, specifically the marketing/PR departments, love sheep. Otherwise, how else would they be able to make a slight modification on an existing mechanic (as in the combat system above) and then pat themselves on the back for being "innovative"? How else could they tweak something so it could have another mechanic name-dropped, ignoring the difference between turn-based and RT/phase-based. The fact that they are easily able to sucker in these sheep speaks volumes for the general stupidity of the audience, as well as a general ignorance of what came before, else the PR would be caught in a lie.

Do you think they could do that with the wolves? Hardly. We first chew apart the PR guy and then eat the rest of the flock. That isn't a good thing when your gaming rag publisher wants to kiss ass and not alienate anyone.

So you get the gaming press of cheerful, happy retards, who are eternally optimistic and not really calling out a dev on their mistakes - unless they grow a set of surrogate balls from the rest of the gaming media cattle all doing the same, making it permissible to say something bad.

I think we're slowly getting away from the heart of the matter - which isn't about the sheep and their sheep like behavior, but rather why when left unattended by marketeers they turn into perpetual twelve year olds with bad tempers? That's obviously what has happened here. No one delivered the new hype letter. However, it is curious that the old hype was not ingrained into their system, nor the dissipated hype from the other hot new Bioware titles. The recent Dragon Age Hate articles have been bad even if the first one was a nice novelty because it actually criticized the game. When we look further though they're all more poorly written than usual and have complaints that don't make sense or have been endemic of the company since the beginning (but that isn't brought up... likely because it would put the hurt on Mass Effect). "Worse than usual" is pretty damning to such a hokey industry as the gaming press.

Again, this requires people that are knowledgeable in their field and can draw convincing, not matter how contrived, parallels between games such as Ultima VII and Oblivion (name dropping is effective, just look around your friendly neighborhood Codex for examples).

And if you approach that subject with most of the gaming cattle today:

"WTF is Ultima? Is that some kind of Final Fantasy spin-off?"

Bethesda name-dropped Fallout, to great success. Bioware is now name-dropping Baldur's Gate. If sheep can be convinced of the wrong thing they can also be convinced of the right thing just as effectively. You simply say that Ultima VII is a venerated classic and one of the most influential role playing games. If what we believe about the sheep is correct, then they should believe that without question.

Despite that, sometimes his "reviews" or rather rants are spot on. Watch his Oblivion review.

While I give him credit for often explaining a game mechanics and using them to bash a game, as well as having some game history behind him and not being completely blinded by the "oooooh shiny!" effect that afflicts the rest, he can't go past his biases. There is also a problem with the form he uses for his rants, which was fun at first but is now completely stale. As it is now, he is just a web curiosity that stands out because, as Rosh said, he doesn't completely go with the flow.

He is a novelty but there has to be a way to extend that attitude to readable media with less dick jokes. Movies spend millions on marketing but professional critics are still able to bring on the pain. That's not to say, of course, that there are not obviously bad and pandering reviews. That's also not to say that studios do not pay off reviewers - but it is an obvious sign of the movie's inferiority and will be painfully obvious since the poster or trailer will have something like the Porterville Recorder calling it "An epic thrill ride!"

 

[Gylfi.Fenriz.Conquests]

I think it just means the combat has rounds, therefore characters have to wait a little before using their default attack again. Reviewer mashed buttons expecting to see God of War level of sword spam

Ah whew, there you go. It's what i thought too at first but i started doubting.

 

[Turok]

Most game that are maded for use the brain always get less atention.

 

[Thrasher]

perfect

 

[BLOBERT]

Oh boy, some people have the need to feel superior!

Here are some fun facts- a good 99% of the population are either stone stupid, don't give a shit about video games to care about what they play, or just want mindless fun anyways. I guess these are your "sheep".

You really aren't smarter than anybody else because you have more refined tastes in video games. You just happen to be really passionate and knowledgeable about something that most people don't give a shit about.

 

[circ]

If you know how to unpack a RAR file, you really are smarter than anybody else.

If you know how to operate a remote, you really are smarter than anybody else.

If you know how to lift a box of dildos and place it in a numbered aisle, you really aren't smarter than anybody else.

If you know how to use a keypad whilst a computer does your calculations for you, you really aren't smarter than anybody else.

 

[Hory]

You just happen to be really passionate and knowledgeable about something that most people don't give a shit about.

Oh, "we just happen to", such a scientifically sound reason. Did Einstein just happened to be really passionate and knowledgeable about something that most people don't give a shit about too?

 

[Saxon1974]

EA is predicting Dragon Age to be its best-selling game of FY2009 by a decent margin.

They're going to go on an ad blitz near release date, and I don't doubt that the reviews will be artificially high.

Isn't it interesting the age we live in now where companies say a game is going to be a huge seller even before its released?

You know what that means? It means even the companies know that marketing hype is what sells....

Very sad.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

The best answer receives a free equippable ring.

Come to think of it, there's the girdle of sex change; do you think there is a ring of sex change?

Heh, one of my childhood memories of gender dysphoria actually has to do with the Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity. I was reading the 2nd Ed DMG, and got to the section on magic items, where, among others, the Girdle of Masc/Fem was described. I thought that sounded like the coolest thing ever and wished they really existed so I could find one for myself. I think I was about 7 or 8 at the time.

 

[BLOBERT]

You just happen to be really passionate and knowledgeable about something that most people don't give a shit about.

Oh, "we just happen to", such a scientifically sound reason. Did Einstein just happened to be really passionate and knowledgeable about something that most people don't give a shit about too?

I could be wrong, but what Einstein did took a little more brains than being snobby about video games.

 

[bhlaab]

I don't think reviewers get 'bought out' as much as people seem to think. I think reivewers just suck because they feel obligations to appease fanbases and culture zeitgesit-- I mean, who wants to be the asshole that gave Call of Duty 4 a 6/10 when everyone else in the world LOVES it.

That, and I don't think most (or any) reviewers care enough to look deeper than
-nice graphics (check)
-good play control (check)
-lots of things to unlock (check)
etc

 

[Volourn]

I think it's mostly the case that most reviewers are like most gamers - they just want to play fun games and not be so nitpicky and literlaly bash a game to death. Unless the game is simply unplayable, they're likely to rate it decent or high (since ratings are obviously inflated since nowadays anything less than an 8 means crappy, and anything less than 9 is blaisse).

 

[bhlaab]

I think it's mostly the case that most reviewers are like most gamers - they just want to play fun games and not be so nitpicky and literlaly bash a game to death. Unless the game is simply unplayable, they're likely to rate it decent or high (since ratings are obviously inflated since nowadays anything less than an 8 means crappy, and anything less than 9 is blaisse).

I'm not talking about nitpickyness, I'm talking about the ability to really examine the merits of a game beyond "fun" and "sick graphics!" and give some insight as to why the game is a failure or a success-- instead of just reporting on the quality and assigning it an arbitrary number out of 10.

 

[Volourn]

If a game is fun, it's a success. Period. If it's fun, it's a failure. Period.

 

[RK47]

If a game is fun, it's a success. Period. If it's fun, it's a failure. Period.

:shock: Very Deep.

 

[Occasionally Fatal]

If a game is fun, it's a success. Period. If it's fun, it's a failure. Period.

 

[Jaesun]

If a game is fun, it's a success. Period. If it's fun, it's a failure. Period.

 

[Turok]

The fact is simple, if a game begin to lose his fun and become a work people will tend to go away from then, this is what happening with the RPG games that we know and we like, the old ones with isometric view, lot to read and nice story.

People just want smash buttons.


I call this the Generation of Brutons :D



By the way and is kinda weird but the only game i am really waiting for are the Divine divinity 2, diablo 3 and starcraft.

All other can go fuck a goat.

 

[Lurkar]

50 Cent Bulletproof scores:

* Gamespot - 4.8/10
* IGN - 6.5/10
* X-Play - 1/5

Gee IGN, you look a little off there. In fact, by your own scoring system, you put the game at:

"6.0 to 6.9 (Passable): "Rent these games or download the demo first before spending your hard-earned money on it.""

A game that most called an unplayable turd, you put as passable and worth a rent.

Anyways, as for the problems in the gaming industry, the message has been sent a few times that reviewers who don't give super high scores just get flat out fired. What's amusing is the number of reviewers being so open about how they don't even do their job - there was that bit awhile back when a reviewer mentioned he gave Fallout 3 game of the year despite disliking it along with other reviewers because they felt obligated to. It's a nasty cycle - once the hype starts, it feeds off itself to become bigger. By the end, if you give a bad review to a game that's heavily hyped, the gamers don't turn on the game - they turn on you. Granted, I'm not saying that reviewers are completely innocent - they're a huge part of this problem - but gamers are just as big of a problem.

Lastly, it issue isn't with "casual" games or "casual" gamers. The original Playstation was regarded as a hateful and loathsome casual system when it came out, and it was a damn good system. The problem is with game producers and marketing realizing that it's a lot easier to make a bad game and sell it as a good one then it is to make a good one in the first place. Convince people it's a good game and, even if it's not, they'll still sing that it is.

 

[Chefe]

50 Cent Bulletproof let me live out my dream of being a fad rapper who shoots stuff. 10/10

 

[1eyedking]

Congrats Bioware! That's now your target audience for ALL YOUR GAMES NOW! Welcome to EA!

r00fles!!!

Suffer, motherfuckers.

Well, a lot of user reviews give games a zero because of a stupid reason like "I can't install this ****in gaem!!!!"

Yeah, kinda like those reviewers that give games a 10 because ITZ SO AWESOEM!!!1!

 

[Rosh]

I think we're saying the same thing but in different words. I'm saying, in your words, the "space time intervals" give an illusion of being both combat systems, while in reality it is, again in your words, "phase-based RT."

An illusion for people a bit too confused by chess, checkers, or other similar board/card games. Or, apparently, D&D rules themselves, which also operate in turns (last time I checked they were...)

To put it in medieval terms and disregarding caste structures, there is a reason why the more ignorant folks were thrown into a Real-Time battleground, while chess was the Turn-Based sport of kings. One involves brains, the other involves someone else thinking for you.

Of course it holds true for the majority. That's why it's so annoying when people get hung up over stereotypes - they are stereotypes for a reason. It seemed like you were labeling everyone who began on the NES as part of the problem, when in fact there are exceptions. I am all for stereotypes, we have them for a reason, when they are admitted to be stereotypes.

A few rare exceptions, and those exceptions are NOT what the gaming rags want as happy developer asslickers.

It also helps to have seen this happen over and over with each (de)generation of console games. As the games get shinier and more vapid while cloning the shit out of each other, the audience gets more naive and in fact, dumber for the ignorant claims they often make.

The only reason I got into computers is because my parents did not buy me an SNES and I received a hand-me-down ][c followed by a 386. So, really, the only problem with these creatures are that they are uneducated. You wouldn't berate a toddler for not knowing division, and it probably would not be a good idea to have him do your taxes.

Nope, but I also wouldn't believe a Toddler who doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about when it comes to game design when they also ignorantly claim the shit Bethesda has over the last few years.

Innovations in graphics only...if you can count Bloom as innovative by now. Maybe using more = MOAR INNOVASHUN!

BioWare also seems to be going into decline with a focus upon more juvenile appeals under the guise of mature, while at the same time makes excuses as to why they aren't going to try for the extra effort. Really? As a "top" development house, that shouldn't stop them from trying to pull an Origin with creativity, instead of being turned slowly into a Western Hentai CRPG developer. Their recent work sounds like they will soon be licensing the Princess Maker series.

There's a way to be critical without being harsh. You obviously could not give the game the lashing it deserves, but that might not be the best way anyways. In your example, for example, not being innovative or having the talking heads isn't what provided Fallout 3 with it's bad taste in my opinion. It was mostly the Disney World wasteland and juvenile dialog - but that's a topic that has been covered too many times. I thought Vault Dweller's review was a good idea of how things should be handled, even if it was a little too praising and gave Bethesda pats on the back for meeting the bare minimum.

Wait until mine is posted. Yes, I've taken quite a while on it, mainly through being a bit busy elsewhere, but needlessly to say it's quite complete. It takes apart the speech system, the talking heads, even to the barter where an overseas developer can do better in capturing Fallout's barter system with Gothic 3 than the mess the overhyped chimps at Bethesda came up with. The sad thing is, what Bethesda came up with wasn't that good, either, so why the fuck did they change it unless they just didn't have the talent there capable of doing something apparently too complex for them?

I think we're slowly getting away from the heart of the matter - which isn't about the sheep and their sheep like behavior, but rather why when left unattended by marketeers they turn into perpetual twelve year olds with bad tempers? That's obviously what has happened here. No one delivered the new hype letter. However, it is curious that the old hype was not ingrained into their system, nor the dissipated hype from the other hot new Bioware titles. The recent Dragon Age Hate articles have been bad even if the first one was a nice novelty because it actually criticized the game. When we look further though they're all more poorly written than usual and have complaints that don't make sense or have been endemic of the company since the beginning (but that isn't brought up... likely because it would put the hurt on Mass Effect). "Worse than usual" is pretty damning to such a hokey industry as the gaming press.

I think it's where the dissatisfaction of a game or style of development meets the ignorance of the author, so they want to complain but just don't know how to really do so while having no experience to draw upon to make a complete comparison.

Think of it from their standpoint. They went from happy, ignorant little sheep, into sheep that were left out in the rain, and so all they can do is offer some smelly, unhappy bleating. We can only hope that they educate themselves by playing some older games and learn how to growl.

Bethesda name-dropped Fallout, to great success. Bioware is now name-dropping Baldur's Gate. If sheep can be convinced of the wrong thing they can also be convinced of the right thing just as effectively. You simply say that Ultima VII is a venerated classic and one of the most influential role playing games. If what we believe about the sheep is correct, then they should believe that without question.

"But teh grapix r awful!!"
"I can't get it to work!"
Etc.

Sheep care mostly about graphics and little else, and are generally too stupid to anything more complex than open a web browser or install a game. Hence why consoles sell very well to the moron majority. Though, as amusing as it sounds, the moron majority CAN learn yet it takes time. After a point, they keep seeing references and details of other games with comparisons, and gradually educate themselves.

The same happened with the clannie trash brought in with Fallout Tactics. Some stayed morons, while I think a fair degree were in turn influenced by the community to check out the source material.

I would think the same would happen when the blissfully ignorant Fallout 3 fanboys check out Fallout 1 & 2, learn something about the setting and design, and Bethesda's lies and garbage are debunked early into Fallout 4's development. After all, they've been lied to since Oblivion, Fallout 3, Any Other Recent Bethesda Title, etc.

He is a novelty but there has to be a way to extend that attitude to readable media with less dick jokes. Movies spend millions on marketing but professional critics are still able to bring on the pain. That's not to say, of course, that there are not obviously bad and pandering reviews. That's also not to say that studios do not pay off reviewers - but it is an obvious sign of the movie's inferiority and will be painfully obvious since the poster or trailer will have something like the Porterville Recorder calling it "An epic thrill ride!"

The movie industry has been around for quite a while, and hasn't really grown. There have been many instances of bad movies, good movies, and enough of each genre to give a decent example of what can be considered a good idea, or just a wad of shit that isn't deserving of anyone's money. The visionary work still stands out.

The "new" game industry, with each pulse of the next generation on consoles, has to catch up as the industry grows. It wasn't as large as it is now, while the movie industry has enjoyed a large audience for decades.

Just wait until the publishers have to compete for the same people because they can't draw in new crowds by dumbing down their gameplay. When gaming has reached a saturation point of being common, then the publishers will have to either truly innovate to stand out - or be known as the recycling garbage peddlers they have become. Just wait until the number of people who can remember the game industry fuck-ups start to outweigh the clueless newbies, and then the marketing departments and publishers will be in serious trouble, because that means their smoke and mirrors approach can only work on children.

And that is why Wil Ferrell doesn't really have a career anymore. He was a novel child in man's body at some point, but now he's nothing but the same recycled joke.