It all comes tumbling down, tumbling down.

We'll just have to disagree on that. I liked Inquisition a lot even if it had several problems and was inferior to Origins.
haha, I'm that one weirdo in the world that liked DA2. Inquisition was good from what I've played of it, although I never finished it. I got to the part where you meet Morrigan and I lost interest for some reason. Unfortunately, I didn't find the new characters to be too interesting in that one but I appreciated that they brought back a lot of the old characters and continued some of their incomplete story arcs, which I think a lot of the fans appreciated. I think the new combat system is what ended up bothering me the most though, removal of healing, having to hold down attack button, ugh.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It was repetitive and unfinished. The graphics were bad in some areas, a lot of repeating assets and dungeons, the difficulty was more artificial, they removed playable races and made it human only, they added the mass effect styled dialog wheel with voice acting and with that came all of it's problems, along with every companion being bisexual which was really lazy, all of these things, rightfully pissed off a lot of the fans. EA pretty much fucked over Bioware, they had less than a year to make the game. I think EA didn't meet sales expectations for DA1, so they wanted to push a sequel out as quickly as possible and turn it into an action RPG that was more friendly to new players to try to salvage the sales somehow, this completely failed of course and we didn't see another dragon age game for like 4 years. Keep in mind that is speculation on my part.

So what's good about the game? Well, I like the fast paced combat and I thought the story was pretty good, they did a good job at characterizing the Qunari and the Templar vs Mage stuff was truly fucked up and awesome. I liked most of the characters, the only character I can think of that I didn't like was Anders but that was deliberate decision by the developers, to make him a complete jackass, so I'll forgive them for that. The game has a great score and an interesting location with a really rich and horribly dark backstory involving lots of slavery. I'd recommend the game if it's cheap, simply because the game feels cheaply made and shame on EA for being bastards and rushing them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It was repetitive and unfinished. The graphics were bad in some areas, a lot of repeating assets and dungeons, the difficulty was more artificial, they removed playable races and made it human only, they added the mass effect styled dialog wheel with voice acting and with that came all of it's problems, along with every companion being bisexual which was really lazy, all of these things, rightfully pissed off a lot of the fans. EA pretty much fucked over Bioware, they had less than a year to make the game. I think EA didn't meet sales expectations for DA1, so they wanted to push a sequel out as quickly as possible and turn it into an action RPG that was more friendly to new players to try to salvage the sales somehow, this completely failed of course and we didn't see another dragon age game for like 4 years. Keep in mind that is speculation on my part.

So what's good about the game? Well, I like the fast paced combat and I thought the story was pretty good, they did a good job at characterizing the Qunari and the Templar vs Mage stuff was truly fucked up and awesome. I liked most of the characters, the only character I can think of that I didn't like was Anders but that was deliberate decision by the developers, to make him a complete jackass, so I'll forgive them for that. The game has a great score and an interesting location with a really rich and horribly dark backstory involving lots of slavery. I'd recommend the game if it's cheap, simply because the game feels cheaply made and shame on EA for being bastards and rushing them.

Oh... sounds something Bethesda would come up with... unfinished, bland and sometimes boring.
 
Blame EA for that.

I'm fairly certain Bethesda has decided to move to developing titles like EA now. It's the only explanation for the massive marketing of this game only to deliver a celebration of mediocrity.

"Blame our ambition" if Fallout 4 sucks they said.
 
I'm fairly certain Bethesda has decided to move to developing titles like EA now. It's the only explanation for the massive marketing of this game only to deliver a celebration of mediocrity.

"Blame our ambition" if Fallout 4 sucks they said.
>Fallout 4
>Massive marketing
>One E3 presentation and a launch trailer
>One of the biggest pre-release criticisms was how they showed nothing about the game before its relase
>Massive marketing.
 
Fallout 4 had one of the biggest marketing campaigns in gaming. Ads were everywhere. What they didn't do is 10+ trade shows and let magazines do hands on previews, because all of that is of limited actual marketing value.
 
Fallout 4 had one of the biggest marketing campaigns in gaming. Ads were everywhere. What they didn't do is 10+ trade shows and let magazines do hands on previews, because all of that is of limited actual marketing value.
I dont recall seeing that many Fallout 4 ads, I saw the Tv commercial all of one time, and most of the "ads" on internet sites where shit made up by those sites themselves because they were hyped for it.

Bethesda themselves did basically nothing advertising wise because they know they don't have too after Skyrim. they just let word of mouth and fan devotion carry it.
 
5TlGvAv.jpg
 
I'm fairly certain Bethesda has decided to move to developing titles like EA now. It's the only explanation for the massive marketing of this game only to deliver a celebration of mediocrity.

"Blame our ambition" if Fallout 4 sucks they said.
>Fallout 4
>Massive marketing
>One E3 presentation and a launch trailer
>One of the biggest pre-release criticisms was how they showed nothing about the game before its relase
>Massive marketing.

And they pretty much didn't.

Compare New Vegas by Obsidian, Fallout 4 by Bethesda and the information that was released about both games. As far as Fallout 4 goes, there was almost no information available.
 
What's bad with DA2? Never played the games.

Dragon Age 2 forced a voiced-protagonist and a dialogue wheel and you were forced to only play as a Human instead of the many races to choose from in the original. So basically EA is teaching Bethesda with Fallout 4.

Dragon Age: Origins (1) to Dragon Age 2 was the same thing Bethesda did with Fallout 4. EA forced a dialogue wheel, you were confined to ONE location, Kirkwall (some terrible city with TONS of reused locations everywhere).

Dragon Age: Origins was one of the greatest role-playing games ever created and the PC version was by far the best. Then EA got a hold of it and threw everything that was good about the original out the window and made it a console action game with a dialogue wheel instead of the previous text-based system. The combat went from a real visceral, realistic combat style to this arcade-game childish combat where characters would do backflips 100 yards through the air. The animations became WAY OVER THE TOP to be taken seriously.

Even one of the composers was quoted as saying Dragon Age 2 was a rush job trying to capitalize on the success of the first game. The writing was awful.

And it was clear from the start the "critics" were all paid to give the game high ratings, which certainly seems to be the case with Fallout 4.

Basically, if you hated what Mass Effect 3 did to the series, it's the same for Dragon Age 2 except even worse. By all means play Dragon Age: Origins though. One of the greatest games ever made.
 
Some people really take reviews seriously? The game has evidently made $750 million in. just thhe first 3 days, that's hardly indicitive of a bad game. No telling how many copies have been sold now that it's days later.
 
Some people really take reviews seriously? The game has evidently made $750 million in. just thhe first 3 days, that's hardly indicitive of a bad game. No telling how many copies have been sold now that it's days later.

It's sad that this is actually the opinion of a lot of decision-making executives in the AAA games industry including now Bethesda.
 
Did I say that the sales is what makes me purchase a game? No? Ok then. ;-)

They are however a good indication of the quality of a product. Common sense that loe quality products simply dont sell.

It's a lot easier to take that serious than a site with mostly "best game evar!" "Worst game evar!" reviews.
 
Did I say that the sales is what makes me purchase a game? No? Ok then. ;-)

They are however a good indication of the quality of a product. Common sense that loe quality products simply dont sell.

It's a lot easier to take that serious than a site with mostly "best game evar!" "Worst game evar!" reviews.

All I can say is that it is very sad that while you are clearly trolling there are actually executives in high-level, decision-making positions at Bethesda and other large AAA game companies that actually believe this.

This line of reasoning is exactly what leads to Fallout 4, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 3, Elder Scrolls after Morrowind or Oblivion, etc.
 
Last edited:
Did I say that the sales is what makes me purchase a game? No? Ok then. ;-)

They are however a good indication of the quality of a product. Common sense that loe quality products simply dont sell.

It's a lot easier to take that serious than a site with mostly "best game evar!" "Worst game evar!" reviews.

Are you 100% sure about that? Bought some broduct from Apple recently? Sales are not the best way to measure quality. Measuring quality is the best way to measure quality. In other words, taking something like the I phone 5 or what ever is the newest model and comparing it to the competition. Or in Fallout 4s case, taking it's dialog and comparing it to Fallout 1 and 2. And there can be no doubt that that quality of the dialog was of higher quality in the previous games, that Fallout 1 and 2 have been also the better role playing games offering you more oportunities to role play and so on.

Sales to measure quality? In my experience it is way to easy to sell people mediocre products as quality. Most of the mass market works on that principle. And that's what the main job of all those marketing gurus are today. Look at Fast Food for example, like Mc Donalds. Probably one of THE most succesfull food franchises out there. Is it the best indication for quality food though? I would say no.

Bethesda and a couple of other AAA companies are game developers creating products that which are meant to be consumed in the way how you treat a fast food product from Mc Donalds or Tacco Bell.

That's not always a bad thing! I love fast food, at least sometimes. And I can enjoy mindless entertainment. And I would say that counts for most people here on NMA. Thing is, don't sell me a Mc Donalds burger as filet mignon please.
 
Did I say that the sales is what makes me purchase a game? No? Ok then. ;-)

They are however a good indication of the quality of a product. Common sense that loe quality products simply dont sell.

It's a lot easier to take that serious than a site with mostly "best game evar!" "Worst game evar!" reviews.

All I can say is that it is very sad that while you are clearly trolling there are actually executives in high-level, decision-making positions at Bethesda and other large AAA game companies that actually believe this.

This line of reasoning is exactly what leads to Fallout 4, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 3, Elder Scrolls after Morrowind or Oblivion, etc.

Please enlighten me as to how I'm a troll kiddo.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top