Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Dragon Age II Patch

The BioWare Social Network now offers a new patch for Dragon Age II, updating the action/RPG sequel to version 1.03. The patch is a 23 MB download, which is mirrored on AtomicGamer, Gamer's Hell, and The Patches Scrolls. Word is: "Some fixes are retroactive, but not all. Players with plot-breaking bugs may need to revert to an earlier save, particularly a save prior to visiting the affected area during the current year in the game." The patch notes are startlingly long, and they follow, though it should be noted that the section on quests includes a spoiler warning.

NOTE: Some fixes are retroactive, but not all. Players with plot-breaking bugs may need to revert to an earlier save, particularly a save prior to visiting the affected area during the current year in the game.

GAMEPLAY

  • The Epic achievement was not unlocking properly for some users. This no longer occurs.
  • The Supplier achievement now always unlocks after finding at least 66 resource varieties, including resources purchased from the Black Emporium.
  • A codex entry that helps unlock the Archaeologist achievement is now easier to acquire in the Viscount's Keep during the first year in Kirkwall.
  • In many fights, enemies now move less quickly at the start of combat. This slower initial pace makes tactical positioning more useful and important.
  • If the force of an enemy attack interrupts a party member's current action, the party member now resumes the action once he or she has recovered. This means, for example, that party members who have been instructed to consume a health potion will now do so as soon as they are able, and do not need to be told to consume a health potion again if they are interrupted.
  • Enemies are now much less likely to explode into body parts upon death.
  • Attacks that hit a stealthed assassin are now more likely to disrupt stealth.
  • Abilities that apply a silence effect now also cancel the target's current action in addition to preventing the target from using further abilities.
  • When an enemy wakes from a sleep effect due to suffering damage, other status effects that were applied by the same ability that caused the sleep effect are no longer removed at the same time.
  • Items that bear the property "100% of basic attack damage vs. enemies that attack in melee" no longer harm the user when equipped in conjunction with abilities like Blood Magic or Sacrificial Frenzy that reduce the user's health.
  • The items known as Final Thought, Sataareth, Sundering, and Trepanner's Gift now have damage types that match their elemental damage bonuses.
  • The items known as Allure's Crook, Corrupted Acolyte's Staff, Defender of the Wall, Void's Hammer, and Volcanic Shield can now only be equipped by the appropriate classes.
  • The high dragon's fireballs no longer track moving targets.
  • Pride demons can no longer be affected by their own Crushing Prison spells.
  • The size of the area affected by an ability is now explicitly described as diameter or radius (usually diameter).
  • When a party member's armor changes after consummating a romance, runes inscribed on his or her old armor now carry over to the new armor.
  • Using the Maker's Sigh potion on an archer no longer alters inventory capacity.
  • It is no longer possible to create more than one Elixir of Heroism.
  • It is no longer possible to simultaneously enable sustained modes that are supposed to be mutually exclusive.
  • In some cases, enemies would freeze while entering combat. This no longer occurs.
  • In some cases, saw traps or spike traps would throw party members back even when the trap was not visible. This no longer occurs.
  • The Special Deliveries chest can no longer get into a state where it contains items but cannot be opened.
  • The storage chest is now present in the Hawke estate after completing the main campaign.
  • If the Black Emporium premium content is installed, the mabari hound now follows his master more reliably.
  • Various character-corruption issues now correct themselves automatically when you load your game.
  • Various minor gameplay issues no longer occur.

QUESTS (SPOILER WARNING)

  • "Who Needs Rescuing" can now be completed.
  • "Friendly Concern" is now available after consummating a romance.
  • In "Act of Mercy," Thrask can no longer die, which could block completion.
  • In "A Murder of Crows," it is now always possible to fight the varterral.
  • In "A New Path," Merrill no longer remains locked in the party after the quest.
  • In "Bait and Switch," the chest in the abandoned house can now always be opened.
  • In "Demands of the Qun," Aveline's guards no longer turn hostile if the player declines to enter the Qunari compound during the day and then returns at night.
  • In "Dissent," it is no longer possible to loot Ser Alrik's body before the appropriate time. This ensures that the quest can always be completed.
  • In "No Rest for the Wicked," Isabela now always begins the opening conversation at the appropriate time.
  • In "The Captain's Condolences," it is now possible to ask Aveline about her father even if she is not currently in the party.
  • In "The Last Straw," Anders now responds much differently if he is a rival.
  • In "The Last Straw," Aveline no longer attacks Meredith when the party is supposed to be stunned. This prevents a subsequent issue where the game could freeze after loading the post-campaign save.
  • In "Wayward Son," it is no longer possible to speak to Thrask after speaking to Samson. This ensures that the quest progresses correctly.
  • If Merrill's clan members die, she no longer speaks as if they were alive.
  • If Anders is a rival, giving him the Tevinter Chantry Amulet now results In rivalry points instead of friendship points.
  • If the Black Emporium premium content is installed, a new conversation between Fenris and Hawke's dog is available during the fourth year in Kirkwall.
  • Alternate Merrill/Aveline banter is now available if Merrill's clan is killed.
  • Various references to the events of Dragon Age: Origins are now more accurate.
  • Various minor story-scripting issues no longer occur.

FUNCTIONALITY

  • Users with a large number of promotional items were timing out when attempting to log in. This no longer occurs.
  • Combat audio has been rebalanced so that it is no longer louder than exploration and dialogue audio.
  • The Epic achievement or trophy can now always be unlocked.
  • The Supplier achievement or trophy now always unlocks after finding at least 66 resource varieties, including resources purchased from the Black Emporium.
  • A codex entry that helps unlock the Archaeologist achievement or trophy is now easier to acquire in the Viscount's Keep during the first year in Kirkwall.
  • In the tactics menu, actions that use Items no longer become blank.
  • Various minor art issues no longer occur.
  • Various technical changes should improve performance and limit crashes.

PC/MAC-SPECIFIC FUNCTIONALITY

  • The game now runs correctly for Windows administrator accounts that were receiving errors about insufficient privileges.
  • An error about AWC.dll that prevents the game from launching no longer occurs.
  • A rare issue that caused the configuration utility to crash no longer occurs.
  • In the gameplay options menu, It is now possible to enable persistent highlighting on usable objects, similar to holding down the tab key. To reduce clutter, however, this setting does not highlight characters.
  • In the gameplay options menu, it is now possible to disable enhanced targeting. Disabling this setting improves framerate but makes it more difficult to highlight characters or objects in some situations.
  • The DirectX 11 renderer is now disabled if your video-card drivers are older than version 11.4 (for AMD cards) or 267.14 (for NVIDIA cards).
  • The game no longer erroneously uses the DirectX 11 renderer if the DirectX 9 renderer was selected in conjunction with a full-screen gamma value other than the default. This change should improve performance for players who were using those settings. As well, the full-screen gamma value is now saved correctly.
  • If the game is set to use a language other than English, it no longer reverts to English upon installing a patch.
  • Various issues specific to DirectX 11 no longer occur.
  • Various issues preventing the game from launching no longer occur.

BALANCE
NOTE:
Patch 1.03 introduces significant changes to the overall balance of the game, improving the strategic elements and making combat and class progression more engaging and enjoyable for players. Here is a detailed summary of the balance-related improvements:

  • Enemies' basic attacks now apply much less force, which means that party members' actions are not interrupted as frequently.
  • The secondary attribute requirement for equipping armor or shields (constitution for warriors, willpower for mages, and cunning for rogues) is now significantly smaller.
  • The rate at which rogues regenerate stamina while performing basic attacks has been significantly increased. Rogues now regain 1% of their stamina per hit with dual weapons or 2% per hit with a bow.
  • Traps no longer inflict injuries.
  • Enemies now gain more health as the game progresses.
  • Enemy assassins now have less health.
  • Lieutenant-rank and boss-rank enemies now have less health.
  • Lieutenant-rank enemies can no longer lose more than 40% of their health from a single hit, and boss-rank enemies cannot lose more than 20%.
  • Enemy commanders now occasionally throw stun grenades while encouraging their troops to concentrate attacks against a single party member. Previously, this behavior was limited to nightmare difficulty.
  • Values for armor and elemental resistances now cannot exceed 95%. The game displays values of up to 100%, but characters now suffer 5% damage from an attack even if they show 100% resistance.
  • The DISORIENT effect now applies a 50% penalty to enemy defense, as described in the codex, instead of only 25%.
  • The Rune of Valiance now provides a +2 bonus to all attributes instead of a variable bonus that could rise as high as +7. As well, equipping and unequipping multiple pieces of armor that each bear a Rune of Valiance no longer results in incorrect attribute scores.
  • Items that improve the Blood Magic cost ratio now provide 0.25 mana per point of health instead of 1 mana.
  • On hard and nightmare difficulties, status effects now persist on enemies for a slightly longer duration.
  • On nightmare difficulty, enemies now inflict more damage than before.
  • On nightmare difficulty, party members no longer suffer friendly-fire damage from warriors' basic attacks.
  • On nightmare difficulty, party members can no longer suffer more than 75% of their health in damage from a single friendly-fire attack.
  • The warrior's Aftershock upgrade to the Tremor talent now has a 30% chance to STAGGER normal enemies instead of 40%.
  • The warrior's Claymore upgrade to the Cleave talent now has a 10% chance to STAGGER normal enemies instead of 40%.
  • The warrior's Cleave talent now increases damage by 75% instead of 100%, while while the cost has been increased from 20 stamina to 30 and cooldown from 20s to 25s.
  • The warrior's Shield Bash talent no longer automatically STAGGERS enemies within range of the attack who were not targeted directly. The primary target is still automatically STAGGERED, but other normal enemies within range have a 40% chance to STAGGER.
  • The warrior's Shield Defense talent now increases threat generation by 100%.
  • The warrior's Sunder talent now has a 20% chance to STAGGER enemies on a critical hit instead of 50%. As well, the talent now only STAGGERS enemies if the warrior is wielding a two-handed weapon, as originally intended.
  • The berserker's Berserk talent now calculates the damage bonus differently, substantially increasing the ability's effectiveness.
  • The reaver's Blood Frenzy talent and Fenris's Veneer of Calm talent now provide a maximum bonus of +50% damage instead of +100%.
  • The rogue's Ambush talent now functions as described.
  • The rogue's Burst Shot talent now inflicts approximately 50% more damage (and 3x physical force instead of 2x).
  • The rogue's Brand talent now provides a 25% bonus to warriors' and mages' critical chance instead of 10%.
  • The rogue's Disorienting Shot upgrade to the Pinning Shot talent now always DISORIENTS the victim, regardless of whether the victim was pinned in place.
  • The rogue's Inconspicuous talent now extends the reduced threat generation to other rogues and mages within a 10m diameter.
  • The rogue's Lacerate talent now provides a 10% chance to re-apply the damage from any ability over 5s, instead of a chance to apply a fixed amount of damage.
  • The rogue's Merciless Strike upgrade to the Explosive Strike talent now applies 300% damage vs. STAGGERED targets instead of 400%.
  • The rogue's Pinning Shot talent now pins the victim for the correct duration.
  • The rogue's Pinpoint Strikes talent now includes a 100% bonus to attack for the duration of the ability.
  • The assassin's Assassinate talent now has a 50s cooldown instead of 40s. The Annihilate upgrade now applies 200% damage vs. BRITTLE targets instead of 400%.
  • The shadow's Decoy talent and Sebastian's Guardian Angel talent now have a 45s cooldown instead of 30s.
  • The shadow's Disorienting Criticals talent now functions as described, and provides a 50% bonus to critical damage when obscured instead of 25%.
  • The shadow's Pinpoint Precision talent now provides a 50% bonus to critical damage instead of 25%.
  • The mage's Walking Bomb spell now inflicts damage equal to 50% of the victim's maximum health upon explosion, within a 4m radius, instead of 100%.
  • The mage's Arcane Wall upgrade to the Arcane Shield spell now continues to provide a 20% defense bonus to the mage, as described. Previously, the upgrade reduced the bonus to 15%. Other party members receive a 5% bonus.
  • The mage's Chain Reaction upgrade to the Chain Lightning spell now applies 300% damage vs. DISORIENTED targets instead of 600%.
  • The mage's Death Syphon spell now drains multiple corpses more quickly.
  • The mage's Entropic Cloud spell now applies for 30s instead of 15s (against normal enemies), but the cost has been increased from 35 mana to 50 and the cooldown from 40s to 50s. The Death Cloud upgrade now applies damage every 2s instead of every 4s.
  • The mage's Fireball and Firestorm spells now both inflict approximately 40% more damage and apply 3x elemental force instead of 2x.
  • The mage's Misdirection Hex spell now applies for 15s instead of 10s (against normal enemies).
  • The mage's Petrify spell now applies for 12s instead of 15s (against normal enemies).
  • The mage's Sleep spell now applies for 15s instead of 10s (against normal enemies).
  • The mage's Spirit Mastery spell now includes a 10% bonus to critical chance instead of 5%.
  • The mage's Spirit Strike upgrade to the Spirit Bolt spell now applies 300% damage vs. DISORIENTED targets instead of 200%.
  • The mage's Winter's Blast upgrade to the Winter's Grasp spell now notes that it affects nearby enemies.
  • The blood mage's Blood Magic spell and the spirit healer's Healing Aura spell are now mutually exclusive.
  • The blood mage's Blood Magic spell now reserves 70% of the mage's mana instead of 50%.
  • The blood mage's Blood Slave spell now enslaves the victim for a longer duration. As well, if the spell is ineffective, the victim's current action is now canceled. The Blood Spatter upgrade now inflicts damage equal to 75% of the victim's maximum health upon explosion instead of 100%, within a 4m radius. As well, the spell description now displays this information.
  • The blood mage's Grave Robber spell now affects a 12m diameter instead of 6m in order to make the ability more useful. The One Foot In upgrade now inflicts 100% of the mage's maximum health in damage instead of 10%.
  • The blood mage's Paralyzing Hemorrhage upgrade to the Hemorrhage spell now applies 500% damage vs. STAGGERED targets instead of 900%.
  • The force mage's Fist of the Maker spell now inflicts approximately 50% more damage. The Maker's Hammer upgrade now applies 600% damage vs. STAGGERED targets instead of 900%.
  • The force mage's Unshakable spell now provides a +50 bonus to fortitude instead of +100.
  • The spirit healer's Group Heal spell and Anders's Aid Allies spell now restore 25% of party members' health instead of 30%. When upgraded, Group Heal restores 40% of health instead of 50%.
  • The spirit healer's Healing Aura spell and Anders's Panacea spell now provide a +100 bonus to health regeneration instead of +50, and a +200 bonus when upgraded instead of +100. As well, the diameter of the spell has been increased from 6m to 10m, and from 8m to 15m when upgraded. In addition, a rare case in which the spell previously provided an abnormally high rate of health regeneration no longer occurs.
  • Anders's Swift Justice spell now reduces cooldowns to 90% of their normal duration instead of 80%.
  • Aveline's Bodyguard talent no longer allows her to absorb the damage from Anders's Martyr spell.
  • Aveline's Immovable talent now provides a stacking 8% bonus to damage resistance per hit instead of 2%.
  • If Bethany or Carver rejoin the party near the end of the game, they now learn the Force Mage and Templar specializations, respectively. Existing save games from after the Deep Roads Expedition will not receive the benefit of this fix.

View
92 Replies. 5 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Older >

92. Re: Dragon Age II Patch Jun 7, 2011, 11:51 nin
 

Oh, did they finally get tired of stoking each others dicks?

 
http://www.nin.com/pub/tension/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
91. Re: Dragon Age II Patch Jun 7, 2011, 06:52 Dades
 
You didn't win anything, you just posted until other people got tired of responding.  
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
90. Re: Dragon Age II Patch Jun 7, 2011, 04:42 Bhruic
 
Congratulations, you have the unique ability to participate in a heated debate over a game you don't really care about, despite the fact that you played through it three times and started the debate by defending it.

Yay, I win.

Also as an aside, I never said I didn't care about it, I just never confirmed I did care about it. It was a no-win situation for me, because if I said I didn't care about it, you'd pull the above line, and if I said I did care about it, you'd just use that as proof that I must be influenced by my caring about it, which somehow meant that my point was invalid.

I just refused to play your game.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
89. Re: Dragon Age II Patch Jun 7, 2011, 02:42 Jerykk
 
Ugh, I give up. You apparently don't abide by the same logic or mental processes that everyone else does. No matter what I say or what factual or logical evidence I offer, you'll just say "You don't know what I'm thinking and unless I explicitly state something, it can't be true!" Congratulations, you have the unique ability to participate in a heated debate over a game you don't really care about, despite the fact that you played through it three times and started the debate by defending it.  
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
88. Re: Dragon Age II Patch Jun 7, 2011, 02:14 Bhruic
 
You perceive the harshly negative reviews of DA2 as an offense because they strongly contradict your own personal opinion of the game.

You know what? Stop fucking telling me what I think, believe, perceive, or anything of that sort. You have no idea. You want to talk about my actions? Fine. But stop trying to act as if you've got some sort of insight into me or my thinking, because you don't.

Once again, your opinion is completely relevant to the point you're making because it's the only reason you're making that point to begin with

Yes, you keep repeating this, and you're wrong every time.

If you didn't have an opinion of DA2, you wouldn't have started this debate

Everyone has a fucking opinion. How many times does that have to repeated before you grasp it? It's not a matter of whether or not I actually have an opinion, because that's a given. Saying I wouldn't have started this debate without an opinion is like saying you wouldn't have started this debate without English language skills. You're not concluding that I have an opinion, you're concluding that I must have a favourable opinion, and that it's only because I have a favourable opinion that I've started this debate. Which I've repeatedly pointed out isn't true.

Common theme to this response being "what you are saying isn't true".

So you're basically saying that you don't follow the logical thought processes that every other living thing does?

No, I'm saying just because you've decided your thinking process is the default "logical thought process" doesn't make that the case.

That you can somehow decide upon appropriate reactions without making any sort of judgment of the offense itself?

As I've said repeatedly, I can judge the offense perfectly fine. The offense is not DA2. Therefore, I can judge the offense without judging DA2.

If someone pulled a gun on you, what would you do? How would you decide upon the appropriate reaction? Apparently you wouldn't have any opinion about being held at gunpoint so I'm not sure how you'd react.

Wait, what? This doesn't even make any sense. I've never had someone pull a gun on me, so how would I have any clue how I'd react? You're asking me to decide how I'd react to something that I've never experienced. How is that in any way similar to reacting to something that I have experienced?

The natural reaction to something you don't care about is apathy. dtarting and participating in a lengthy debate is not an action driven by apathy

I can care about people's over-reactions to something without actually caring about the subject itself.

Similarly, when someone attacks your opinion, as the harshest critics of DA2 have done, your natural reaction is to treat them as a threat.

No one has attacked my opinion. I wish someone had attacked my opinion, because then we could have actually spent time discussing it. Instead, what you've done is decide what my opinion is for me, then decide that I must be defending this hypothetical opinion, and then decide that having this hypothetical opinion would somehow negate my point even if I did possess it.

The only person that's be getting all defensive is you. You've decided that I must be trying to make it sound like DA2 isn't bad, and since you're convinced it's terrible, you've decided that you can't let anyone else say it's not. And so you've spent all this time and effort attacking this imaginary position.

The truly sad thing about it, is your defensive reaction is completely misplaced, as I'm not attacking you or your opinions at all. But you're so locked in the mindset that I am, you can't see the forest for the trees. Pathetic, really.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
87. Re: Dragon Age II Patch Jun 6, 2011, 23:41 Jerykk
 
And I've said repeatedly that the offense here is NOT DA2. Yeah, I'm forming on opinion on the offense.

You perceive the harshly negative reviews of DA2 as an offense because they strongly contradict your own personal opinion of the game. Your reaction is to defend DA2 by accusing these critics of being biased. The offense would not exist without your opinion of DA2.

See, this is what I'm talking about. I've never denied having opinion about it, everyone who's played it has some sort of opinion, as I've said previously. All I've said is that my opinion isn't relevant to the point I'm making.

Sigh. Once again, your opinion is completely relevant to the point you're making because it's the only reason you're making that point to begin with. If you didn't have an opinion of DA2, you wouldn't have started this debate. Therefore, this debate only exists because of your opinion.

Get it through your thick head that not everyone is you. Other people do things that you don't do. Not everyone is the same. You not doing something has no bearing on whether I would do something. Stop acting like it does.

So you're basically saying that you don't follow the logical thought processes that every other living thing does? That you can somehow decide upon appropriate reactions without making any sort of judgment of the offense itself? If someone pulled a gun on you, what would you do? How would you decide upon the appropriate reaction? Apparently you wouldn't have any opinion about being held at gunpoint so I'm not sure how you'd react.

The natural reaction to something you don't care about is apathy. dtarting and participating in a lengthy debate is not an action driven by apathy. If a dog sees an ant crawling by, he's not going to start growling because an ant represents no threat. The dog will instead react with apathy because he doesn't care about the ant. However, if the ant were bigger than the dog, the fog probably would start growling because it would perceive the ant as a threat. Similarly, when someone attacks your opinion, as the harshest critics of DA2 have done, your natural reaction is to treat them as a threat. Faced with this threat, you feel the need to defend your opinion. Hence the reason why this debate started.

This comment was edited on Jun 6, 2011, 23:51.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
86. Re: Dragon Age II Patch Jun 6, 2011, 22:53 Bhruic
 
I'm more concerned with making you realize that the only reason you perceive the negative reception of DA2 as an over-reaction is because you personally enjoyed the game. As I've mentioned about a hundred times, you cannot decide that something is an over-reaction without first forming an opinion on the offense

And I've said repeatedly that the offense here is NOT DA2. Yeah, I'm forming on opinion on the offense. The offense is expectation bias.

So ok, if your only goal is supposedly to make me realize something, just stop posting. You are never going to make me realize something that isn't true. So really, just stop bothering. If you want to debate the actual argument, that's fine, but I'm not going off tangenting into outright falsehoods with you.

If you had no opinion of DA2

See, this is what I'm talking about. I've never denied having opinion about it, everyone who's played it has some sort of opinion, as I've said previously. All I've said is that my opinion isn't relevant to the point I'm making. And you've absolutely no way of showing that it does. You're left to making stupid statements like...

If a bunch of people claim that Madden 2012 sucks, I'm not going to start an 80+ post debate about whether or not those people were overly influenced by Madden 2011. Why? Because I don't care about Madden.

Fine, that's you. Get it through your thick head that not everyone is you. Other people do things that you don't do. Not everyone is the same. You not doing something has no bearing on whether I would do something. Stop acting like it does.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
85. Re: Dragon Age II Patch Jun 6, 2011, 22:36 Jerykk
 
You obviously are incapable of accepting that I'm not actually trying to make the point you so desparately want me to be making. What I don't understand is why you are being so defensive. You seem obsessed with trying to prove that there's absolutely no way people could have over-reacted to DA2. Why is that concept so scary to you?

I'm more concerned with making you realize that the only reason you perceive the negative reception of DA2 as an over-reaction is because you personally enjoyed the game. As I've mentioned about a hundred times, you cannot decide that something is an over-reaction without first forming an opinion on the offense. You keep saying that this debate isn't about you or your opinion of DA2 except that's not true. It can't be true because it would defy all logic and completely contradict the thought process of human beings. If you had no opinion of DA2, you would not be calling the negative scores over-reactions, nor would you believe that people's opinions were heavily influenced by DAO. You wouldn't have even started this debate because, again, you'd have no opinion of DA2 and therefore wouldn't care about its reception. If a bunch of people claim that Madden 2012 sucks, I'm not going to start an 80+ post debate about whether or not those people were overly influenced by Madden 2011. Why? Because I don't care about Madden. I have no opinion on Madden 2012, 2011, 2010 or any Madden game ever. The only reason I'd ever start such a debate is if I played and enjoyed Madden 2012 and wanted to defend it against the critics.

I don't know how many times I or others have to repeat this logical fact before you finally acknowledge it.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
84. Re: Dragon Age II Patch Jun 6, 2011, 22:13 Bhruic
 
You believe that if people weren't influenced by DAO, they would share your opinion and consider the game to be at least decent.

No, I fucking don't. I've said over and over and fucking over again that I don't think people would spontaneously decide the game is decent. They still might hate the game. They still might think that the game mechanics are horrible.

Nor does this have anything to do with "sharing my opinion", as I'm not suggesting anyone should share my opinion. I've said repeatedly that people who hate the game for legitimate reasons (like you do) hold perfectly valid viewpoints of the game, and I'm not trying to change your opinion.

You obviously are incapable of accepting that I'm not actually trying to make the point you so desparately want me to be making. What I don't understand is why you are being so defensive. You seem obsessed with trying to prove that there's absolutely no way people could have over-reacted to DA2. Why is that concept so scary to you?

As for Spider-Man 3, yeah, I thought it was an ok movie. I liked the portrayal of Sandman, I thought the fight scenes were decent. The multiple villain/hero thing they had going seemed strange, but after now having watched the previous movies, I can kinda understand how that was set up, although I think they could have done a better job.

And you can say "watching the first two movies wouldn't change that", but unfortunately the evidence isn't on your side. And yes, the same applies to DA2.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
83. Re: Dragon Age II Patch Jun 6, 2011, 21:55 Jerykk
 
Bah. I grow weary of replying to each of your sentences on a one-by-one basis. That doesn't seem to be going anywhere so I'll just reply to this:

In my view, the same thing has happened here with DA2. By constantly comparing it to DA:O, it has got maligned in a way that is beyond the scope of the game itself. Now once again, that doesn't mean there isn't anything wrong with the game. Valid criticism abound. But it does mean that the reaction some people had was more about their expectations from a DA:O sequel, and less about their actual feelings about the game.

If DA2 was a good game, people would not hate it. Even if they liked DAO better, DA2 would still be considered a good game. However, DA2 is not a good game. It has a number of fundamentally poor design choices and these are the main reasons why people dislike it. These reasons would not change if they had not played DAO. Based on everything you've said, you clearly don't believe that DA2 is a bad game. You believe that if people weren't influenced by DAO, they would share your opinion and consider the game to be at least decent. But I disagree. Random people on Metacritic can say whatever they like but the fact remains that DA2's biggest issues would feel no less severe unless you never played a videogame before DA2.

As for Spider-Man 3, you really thought it was okay? The character development was terrible and the story was a convoluted mess. Watching the first two movies beforehand would not change that. If you've ever watched a decent movie before, that should be enough to set your standards well above what Spider-Man 3 delivered. Same applies to DA2.

For what it's worth, I do agree that expectations can make a sequel feel a lot more disappointing than it would be if you hadn't played the original. Deus Ex: Invisible War isn't a terrible game. I might even call it average. It didn't have any particularly atrocious design choices (except for the lousy UI) and it did some things well. It was certainly compelling enough for me to actually finish. However, it utterly failed as a successor to DX. Had I never played DX, I wouldn't have been so disappointed with DX2. DA2, on the other hand, doesn't just fail as a successor to DAO. It fails as a game. Its design choices would piss me off regardless of whether I had played DAO beforehand.

This comment was edited on Jun 6, 2011, 22:04.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
82. Re: Dragon Age II Patch Jun 6, 2011, 20:58 Dades
 
I've never pretended to be objective or apathetic. What you can't seem to get through your skull is that my opinion of the game doesn't factor into this discussion at all. Worst game, best game, mediocre game, any point on the spectrum, it doesn't matter. I'm not arguing about the quality of the game. I never have been. I'm arguing about whether, to use my previous words, the "hate for this game is a severe over-reaction".

You can't argue that without your own opinion influencing it as you could not have arrived at that conclusion without forming an opinion first which Jerykk correctly pegged you on and you haven't been able to refute. How have you even formed that opinion? Based on some vague metacritic reviews or comments on the internet? The internet you acknowledge is full of trolls and fanboys who seek nothing more than a response from others. People judge the game based on the game. You're a perfect example of it. It doesn't matter how good or bad Origins was, you're sitting here defending your opinion on how misunderstood this title is because you liked the game, not because you saw some grave injustice occurring on the internet.

This comment was edited on Jun 6, 2011, 21:03.
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
81. Re: Dragon Age II Patch Jun 6, 2011, 17:41 Bhruic
 
If someone has a negative bias towards something, doesn't that generally mean that they genuinely don't like that thing?

That's usually the case, I would assume.

You have a bias too. You don't think DA2 is a 0/10 game. You think anyone who gives it said score is biased.

Well, in the sense that everyone is biased to some degree or other, yes, anyone who gives it a score of 0/10 is biased. But I'm not talking about general bias, I'm talking about specific bias.

You also seem unable to comprehend concepts like inference and you apparently believe that something is only true if someone explicitly states it.

What you have a problem with is the concept of burden of proof. You make all sorts of claims, back them up with your "inference", and when asked for evidence, present your own opinions as fact. Sorry, inference doesn't work that way.

You also don't seem to understand that people generally don't invest a lot of time and effort into things they don't really care about, like, say, a mediocre game.

So what if people generally don't do things? People don't generally spend hours on a forum arguing that there's no possible way people could over-react to something either, but here you are.

You very clearly have an opinion of DA2

Yes, I have an opinion of it. Everyone who's played it has some sort of opinion of it (as do lots of people who've merely heard about it).

Stop pretending to be objective or apathetic.

I've never pretended to be objective or apathetic. What you can't seem to get through your skull is that my opinion of the game doesn't factor into this discussion at all. Worst game, best game, mediocre game, any point on the spectrum, it doesn't matter. I'm not arguing about the quality of the game. I never have been. I'm arguing about whether, to use my previous words, the "hate for this game is a severe over-reaction".

Let me give you another example, maybe this one will finally sink it. I went to watch Spiderman 3, having not seen the previous 2. When I came out, I thought it was an ok, movie, but not really that great. The friends I was with thought it was a horrible movie. I asked why, and they went into a long explanation of how much better the previous 2 movies were. Well, that wasn't the question I asked. I wasn't trying to find out how good the previous 2 movies were, I was trying to figure out why this movie was, in their opinion, horrible. But there was no way to separate the two. In their mind, the previous two being good was why this one was bad.

Now does this mean there weren't problems with the movie? Of course not. If you wanted, I could sit here and find flaws in the movie for hours. But not having seen the previous 2 movies, I didn't end up having the same expectation bias they had, so my perception of the movie was greatly different from theirs.

In my view, the same thing has happened here with DA2. By constantly comparing it to DA:O, it has got maligned in a way that is beyond the scope of the game itself. Now once again, that doesn't mean there isn't anything wrong with the game. Valid criticism abound. But it does mean that the reaction some people had was more about their expectations from a DA:O sequel, and less about their actual feelings about the game.

Oh, because I'm sure you'll go there... This has nothing to do with you. If the specific criticisms of the game that you have are sufficient to cause you to dislike the game, fine. You haven't been framing your dislike of the game in relation to DA:O, so you aren't one of the "some people" that I've been talking about.

edit: Maybe this will make things simple for you:

"DA2 is bad because DA:O was better" is not, in my mind, a valid statement (there are statements that could come after this to make it valid, I'm talking purely on the face of it).
"DA2 is bad because of X, Y and Z" is entirely valid.

You've been doing the latter. Some people have been doing the former. My arguments entirely deal with people who have been doing the former.

This comment was edited on Jun 6, 2011, 17:49.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
80. Re: Dragon Age II Patch Jun 6, 2011, 17:27 Bhruic
 
Except you think a 0/10 score is inherently irrational because you don't think DA2 deserves that score.

I personally don't think it deserves that score, but that doesn't mean that I don't think someone can validly give it that score. We are talking about the motivations, not the end result. There might be someone who has legitimate reasons to consider it the worst game they've ever played, and justify a 0/10 score.

The difference between you and I is that I'm not pretending to be objective and I recognize that my own opinions establish what I consider "rational."

When have I ever said I'm being objective. My opinion on the game is just as subjective as anyone else's. But my opinion of the game is also not relevant to the point I'm making, any more than your opinion of the game is relevant to the point I'm making. Neither of us, at least, afaik, are judging DA2 based on our feelings about DA:O.

There's no reason to withhold that information, even if you think it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Of course there's a reason to withhold it. You are doing your utmost to try and make this all about me and my opinion of the game. Why would I help you try and derail the point I'm making?

If I have a broken foot and some jackass intentionally stomps on my foot, yes, I'm going to punch him in the face

Sure, but I never said anything about someone intentionally stomping on your broken foot. If, in the course of someone walking across the room, they accidentally step on someone else's non-broken foot, would you consider turning around and punching them an over-reaction?

And your opinions are not biased..? Aren't opinions inherently biased? That's what makes them opinions.

Of course, all opinions are biased. That doesn't mean you shouldn't strive to eliminate as much bias as you can from opinions. Or that systemic bias is a good thing.

I guess it's a good thing I've never published a review for the game. Sharing an opinion is not quite the same as writing a formal review.

And yet you describe people "sharing their opinions" on this site as reviews ("as are reviews by people in this forum").

No, I mean the numerous reviews that gave it less than a 70.

So reviews by professional media outlets are more reliable, as long as they don't give the game too high a score? And you determined that they needed to give it less than 70 how?

You can't deem a reaction excessive unless you have an opinion on the offense.

True, but the offense here is not DA2. The offense is people's reviews of DA2. I don't need to have a personal opinion of DA2 to determine if someone has over-reacted in a review. Yes, I need to have an opinion of their review, but that's a separate entity.

Or, to give an example you understand, if someone constantly uses poor grammar and spelling, I can determine that they are either poorly educated, or a non-native English speaker without needing to have an opinion of DA2.

What does that have to do with racist hiring practices?

Nothing at all. It has to do with what racist hiring practises was an analogy for, ie, my argument.

There's no logical reason why someone would have a heated debate about a game they consider mediocre and unremarkable, nor is there any logical reason why they would invest 80 hours into that game.

No, you don't admit the existence of any other logical reason. That doesn't mean that there aren't any.

Those examples show claims that people would have liked the game more if it weren't a sequel to DAO.

Sure, and as I said, there is no way for absolute definitive proof without going back in time. As time travel is somewhat problematic, the next best proof available is people's claims. You know, actual evidence. Ignore the evidence all you want, it won't make it disappear.

As I've mentioned before, DA2's worst flaws have nothing to do with comparisons to DAO. They are flaws by any standard.

And as I've mentioned before, that is completely irrelevant to the point I'm making.

You said that DAO had a large influence over people's opinions of DA2. By large, I assume you mean that people would have rated DA2 much more highly.

What did I say about making incorrect assumptions?

Read between the lines and consider things like fact and logic.

I'm sorry, did you have all sorts of "facts" and "logic" that you were keeping to yourself that proved all the negative posts on metacritic were by bored people? By all means, bring it forth, I'd love to see it.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
79. Re: Dragon Age II Patch Jun 6, 2011, 17:13 Jerykk
 
Yes, exactly. Someone could, say, use words that make something appear worse than their actual opinion of something. Almost as if they have, I dunno, a bias.

If someone has a negative bias towards something, doesn't that generally mean that they genuinely don't like that thing? I have bias against military shooters. I don't claim to hate them more than I do. I genuinely hate them. You have a bias too. You don't think DA2 is a 0/10 game. You think anyone who gives it said score is biased.

Apparently you care, because you've been sitting here arguing against that point for the past, what, 40+ posts?

I'm mainly concerned about trying to understand your mental process. You seem unable to comprehend that calling something an over-reaction first requires judgment of the offense. You also seem unable to comprehend concepts like inference and you apparently believe that something is only true if someone explicitly states it. You also don't seem to understand that people generally don't invest a lot of time and effort into things they don't really care about, like, say, a mediocre game.

I like how you ignored the part about having no problem with it getting harsh criticism. That's the part that explains that I'm not suggesting the game would have significantly higher scores. It may, in fact, have the exact same score it has now, although that seems unlikely. I will stipulate that I expect it would have higher scores without the expectation bias. That does not mean it "deserves" to have higher scores, nor does it have anything to do with me, or my opinions of the game, simply that I suspect that expectation bias has resulted in it getting a lower score than it would have gotten without expectation bias. And as evidenced by numerous people stating that that would be the case for them.

I think we need to go back to what you actually said at the very start of this debate:

Yeah, honestly the massive hate for this game is a severe over-reaction. Everyone wanted Origins 2.0, and when we didn't get it, they flipped out. Without making comparisons to other games, this one is fairly enjoyable. That's not saying there aren't areas that could be improved - significantly in some cases, like the enemies spawning, and the re-used maps, but those aren't, imo, enough to sink the game.

I think that pretty much says it all. You very clearly have an opinion of DA2. You very clearly think it is not a bad game. Stop pretending to be objective or apathetic. You obviously enjoyed DA2 and don't think it deserves the low scores it has received. That's the reason why you played through the game three times and why you've been engaging in this debate. I know you want to save face but it's time to man up.

Cripes. I've been in some epic debates before but never one where my opponents refuse to acknowledge their own opinions.

This comment was edited on Jun 6, 2011, 17:18.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
78. Re: Dragon Age II Patch Jun 6, 2011, 16:51 Jerykk
 
Whether I personally think it "deserves" better than a 0/10 is irrelevant to the discussion. If I thought people were giving it a 0/10 for rational reasons, I wouldn't have a problem with that fact.

Except you think a 0/10 score is inherently irrational because you don't think DA2 deserves that score. You've even said as much in this thread. Hell, I even agree with you. 0/10 means the game has no redeeming qualities whatsoever and I disagree with that. The difference between you and I is that I'm not pretending to be objective and I recognize that my own opinions establish what I consider "rational."

No, I've never said what I think the game deserves as a score.

Care to share? There's no reason to withhold that information, even if you think it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I'll gladly tell you what I think of any game.

The funny thing here is how you keep ignoring your thoughts on the subject. Are you trying to tell me that you don't think that punching someone in the face is an over-reaction? If not, what sort of response to stepping on someone's toes would be? If so, why do you refuse to admit that people can over-react to their expectations coming from DA:O?

My judgment of the reaction depends on the offense. If I have a broken foot and some jackass intentionally stomps on my foot, yes, I'm going to punch him in the face. Same thing applies to DA2. If I really hate poorly-designed combat encounters and recycled environments, I'm going to give it a low score regardless of its title.



No, I've gone out of my way to argue that their opinions were biased because their opinions were biased.

And your opinions are not biased..? Aren't opinions inherently biased? That's what makes them opinions.

Really. So by your logic, since you've played less than 1/2 of the full game, you aren't qualified to review the game. Hence, all of your arguments about the quality of the game are now completely invalid. Well done!

I guess it's a good thing I've never published a review for the game. Sharing an opinion is not quite the same as writing a formal review.

You mean the reviews that gave DA2 an average rating of 82/100?

No, I mean the numerous reviews that gave it less than a 70.

I can judge that someone is over-reacting to DA2 without making any judgments of DA2 at all.

No, you can't. That's impossible. You can't deem a reaction excessive unless you have an opinion on the offense. If a cop shoots someone, do you immediately berate him and demand that he be arrested? I don't. I need context. Who did he shoot and why did he shoot? I need to form an opinion on the offense before I can form an opinion on the reaction.

You mean like there have been scientific studies proving that the Contrast Effect is a completely valid bias?

What does that have to do with racist hiring practices?

You personally wouldn't put 40+ hours into a game, or have long debates about a game that you consider mediocre, so you're assuming that no one else would. News tip: Not everyone thinks the same way you do. Not everyone does the same things you do. Not everyone has the same motivations to do things you do.

That's not much of a rebuttal. Logic supports my claim. It doesn't yours. There's no logical reason why someone would have a heated debate about a game they consider mediocre and unremarkable, nor is there any logical reason why they would invest 80 hours into that game. You can say that I just don't understand you but I don't think any rational person would understand your train of thought.

I like how you latch on to that one exaggerated example, and ignore the rest of the examples that show proof of a definite bias.

Those examples show claims that people would have liked the game more if it weren't a sequel to DAO. There's a difference between a claim and a fact. I can claim that DA2 would be the best game ever if DAO didn't exist. That doesn't make it true. As I've mentioned before, DA2's worst flaws have nothing to do with comparisons to DAO. They are flaws by any standard.

Where have I said anywhere that it would turn DA2 into a good game? Or that it should be perceived as a good game.

You said that DAO had a large influence over people's opinions of DA2. By large, I assume you mean that people would have rated DA2 much more highly. Going from a 4/10 to a 5/10 does not constitute a large influence.

Let's see you try and prove that someone couldn't do what I've done out of boredom.

Hey, it's entirely possible that you spent hours debating about a game you don't care about simply because you were bored. I just don't think it's very likely.

Wow. A new low for stupidity. Me being bored only works if I claim that I'm bored. It doesn't work if you claim it. And as none of the people on metacritic have claimed to be bored, it doesn't work if you claim it for them either.

You have a very simplistic understanding of reality. People don't always explicitly state what they feel or believe. And when they do, they aren't always being sincere. I really hope you aren't that naive. Read between the lines and consider things like fact and logic.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
77. Re: Dragon Age II Patch Jun 6, 2011, 16:40 Bhruic
 
Bhruic you're normally a pretty level headed guy

Well, I'm glad to hear that part.

It doesn't really matter if people like the game more or less because of Dragon Age: Origins, they still judge the game based on the game they are playing.

Look, I'm not making this up. Go research Contrast Effect. It's a documented and accepted bias.

Let me sum up the argument for you to demonstrate why I'm still here arguing this:

Person A: Should I get DA2? I've been seeing good and bad reviews
Me: While there are valid concerns with the game, I suspect some of the bad reviews are exaggerated based on people expecting a game as good as, or better than DA:O. Why not get the demo and decide yourself
Person B: Nooooo! DA2 sucks for all sorts of valid reasons.
Me: Yes, there are valid reasons that it sucks, but some of the negativity probably came from people who expected it to be as good as or better than DA:O
Person B: Nooooo! DA2 sucks for all sorts of valid reasons.
Me: Well, yes, I already said that's true. But the original poster was talking about seeing good and bad reviews, and being on the fence, and I was giving a reason for why they shouldn't simply accept the bad reviews, and might as well look into DA2 themselves.
Person B: Nooooo! DA2 sucks for all sorts of valid reasons.
Me: You're not reading anything I write are you?
Person B: Nooooo! DA2 sucks for all sorts of valid reasons.

And that's how we got here. For some reason the idea that the game can have many flaws that are completely valid reasons to dislike it, but some people could still have had over-reactions to it is like a foreign concept.

If you want to speak of defense, which you do later, it's like people are feeling a need to defend their dislike of the game. As if the fact that some people have had an over-reaction to the game means that their individual criticism of the game would be any less valid. It wouldn't be. Jerykk's criticism of the game is entirely valid. His problems with the game are entirely valid. I'm not attacking his dislike at all, so I'm puzzled why he's here defending his dislike so vehemently.

If you look at the actual written reviews you'll begin to see a pattern of why people dislike the game

Yes, exactly, that's my point. I did read the actual written reviews. 95+% of them were making direct comparisons to DA:O. In that context, it's easy to understand why someone who is looking for DA2 to be DA:O 2.0 would be upset. But imagine if the reviews were all, say, comparing DA2 to Gothic 3, or some other RPG that's generally considered poor. Do you think the written reviews would be as critical?

You claim that you understand this but go on to indicate that the game quality is somehow higher than people say based on an opinion that they unfairly compare the game to its predecessor.

Where? Where do I claim the quality is higher? I've been asking this repeatedly, and no one has been able to point it out.

Look it's simple. If someone says "Cheerios suck compared to Fruit Loops", then I'm not going to accept them at their word. If someone says "Cheerios suck because they aren't coated in sugar and don't have multiple colours", then fair enough. Even if I don't like sugar or multiple colours, if someone else does, that's a valid reason to not like something.

Now, yes, that's not a perfect analogy, so don't try and read too much into it, but hopefully it gets across my point. I'm not talking about the actual game quality, I'm talking about the perception of the game quality. Again, go look at my wine example, and if you can somehow refute that as a valid analogy, well, I'll give up.

If people unfairly libel DA2 then it's only fair that they unfairly love it too. You can't have it both ways

Where am I trying to have it both ways? Where have I ever said that it's not equally a problem if people unfairly love it as well?

And I would argue against them, if you'd point them out to me. Frankly, I haven't seen sufficient people saying "DA2 is so much better than DA:O", or "I'd have rated DA2 lower if not for DA:O" to consider it worth the bother to counter that point. But I'd happily argue it, if you find some.

and you're certainly not the objective observer you claim to be here, you're obviously invested judging by your almost fervent defense here.

Sigh. I'm not defending the game. If I were defending the game, I would be A) trying to point out something good about the game, and B) trying to point out that actual game flaws aren't as bad as people are saying. I'm not doing either of those things. I have no problem with people attacking the game based on the actual game.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
76. Re: Dragon Age II Patch Jun 6, 2011, 16:12 Bhruic
 
Whether or not people's words reflect their actual opinions is another matter.

Yes, exactly. Someone could, say, use words that make something appear worse than their actual opinion of something. Almost as if they have, I dunno, a bias.

If the erasure of DAO from existence made everyone hate DA2 slightly less than they do now, who cares?

Apparently you care, because you've been sitting here arguing against that point for the past, what, 40+ posts?

The only reason you'd keep arguing about this is if you believe that they'd actually enjoy the game.

Oh, back to telling me what I belive. Sorry sparky, I don't believe they'd enjoy the game.

You even said yourself that DAO had a large influence over people's opinions of DA2, meaning they'd actually like DA2 instead of disliking it.

Or, say, meaning that they'd express themselves in a less negative fashion over the game. Like what I actually said, as opposed to what you invented.

So you never stated that DAO had a large influence over people's opinions of DA2?

What I've actually said: People expectations based on DA:O have caused them to react more negatively towards DA2 than they would have if DA2 had not been a sequel to DA2. What that does not mean: People would have liked DA2 if it wasn't for DA:O. That's you once again putting words into my mouth that I have not either said nor meant.

"I have no problem with it getting harsh criticism, as long as that isn't largely influenced by expectation bias."

Emphasis on the "largely influenced" part. By saying "largely influenced," you are suggesting that the game would have significantly higher scores (again, emphasis on the "largely") were it not for the expectations set by DAO.

I like how you ignored the part about having no problem with it getting harsh criticism. That's the part that explains that I'm not suggesting the game would have significantly higher scores. It may, in fact, have the exact same score it has now, although that seems unlikely. I will stipulate that I expect it would have higher scores without the expectation bias. That does not mean it "deserves" to have higher scores, nor does it have anything to do with me, or my opinions of the game, simply that I suspect that expectation bias has resulted in it getting a lower score than it would have gotten without expectation bias. And as evidenced by numerous people stating that that would be the case for them.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
75. Re: Dragon Age II Patch Jun 6, 2011, 16:00 Bhruic
 
If you think people should try the demo, you must believe that DA2 has merits that might appeal to them.

Well, yes, it might appeal to them. It might not. I'm not in a position to judge what might appeal to other people, so I leave that up to them.

If you believed that DA2 deserved a 0/10 score, would you question the validity of reviews giving it that score?

Whether I personally think it "deserves" better than a 0/10 is irrelevant to the discussion. If I thought people were giving it a 0/10 for rational reasons, I wouldn't have a problem with that fact.

You believe the game is mediocre at worst and thus deserving of a 5/10, at the very least.

No, I've never said what I think the game deserves as a score.

Since people have given the game a lower score than that, you've gone out of your way to argue that their opinions were biased because they played DAO.

No, I've gone out of my way to argue that their opinions were biased because their opinions were biased.

This is a defense of DA2 and your opinion of it.

No, it is pointing out an expectation bias that people have.

Let's analyze this analogy of yours. You must consider stepping on toes to be a minor offense, otherwise you wouldn't call the resulting punch an overreaction.

The funny thing here is how you keep ignoring your thoughts on the subject. Are you trying to tell me that you don't think that punching someone in the face is an over-reaction? If not, what sort of response to stepping on someone's toes would be? If so, why do you refuse to admit that people can over-react to their expectations coming from DA:O?

You obviously do take them seriously because they are the basis of your entire argument.

No, they are an example of my entire argument. I've seen the same issues arise in various other forums, metacritic is simply the most convenient place to acquire the examples that are present.

If I wanted, I could write a user review right now stating how Black Ops is the worst game ever made and give it a 0/10

Certainly you could. But I refuse to believe you don't have an understanding of statistics, which would suggest that while there are likely to be a small number of people doing what you suggest, the larger majority are going to be from people who have, at the least, played the demo - more likely played at least part of the game.

If someone is going to write a review for the full game, they should actually play the full game.

Really. So by your logic, since you've played less than 1/2 of the full game, you aren't qualified to review the game. Hence, all of your arguments about the quality of the game are now completely invalid. Well done!

Reviews by professional media outlets are probably more reliable

You mean the reviews that gave DA2 an average rating of 82/100? You find those reviews to be reliable?

as are reviews by people in this forum

Because people on this forum are required to finish the game before they review it? There's no way they could write a bad review here because they hate Activision?

If you truly believe that DA2 is just mediocre, I highly doubt you'd invest that much time into it.

You can doubt all you want, but, well, that's all you have. Your personal doubts. Which don't amount to a hill of beans.

Over-reaction is subjective. In order to judge whether a reaction is excessive, you have to judge the offense. If you feel the offense is not significant enough to warrant the reaction, you have formed an opinion.

What you seem to be overlooking is that you are judging the reaction, not the source of the reaction. I can judge that someone is over-reacting to DA2 without making any judgments of DA2 at all.

You don't believe the game deserves the lowest scores it has received.

I've never said it doesn't deserve the lowest scores it has received. Do I need to walk you through this again?

If someone says "DA2 was an absolutely horrible game compared to DA:O, I'm giving it a 0/10", I consider that an over-reaction. If someone says "DA2 was a horrible game, with flawed mechanics, and poor environments. I'm giving it a 0/10", I consider that a valid opinion. I don't have any problem with the fact they gave the game a 0/10. You are one who is projecting that I do.

I haven't presented any evidence to the contrary so sure, you can conclude that if you want. Similarly, you haven't presented any valid evidence to refute my conclusion that you believe DA2 is an above-average game and that you are defending it.

Sure I can conclude it. I can conclude anything I want. I can conclude there's an invisible pink unicorn standing behind me right now. But without sufficient evidence to prove it, concluding such is foolish. As are the conclusions you are making.

Are you speaking from experience or something?

Yes, I watch a lot of courtroom dramas. Never seen one?

McDonald's provides a cheap and convenient source of food

Wait, you are admiting there's a reason you could do something that isn't just because you think it's above average? Stop the presses!

That depends entirely on the reasoning behind your accusation. Do you have proof that the guy is racist?

You mean like there have been scientific studies proving that the Contrast Effect is a completely valid bias?

So you regularly have long debates about games you don't care about and you regularly invest 40+ hours into games you consider mediocre. Yeah, that's totally logical. No contradictions or holes in there.

Again, you are stuck in your own mind. You personally wouldn't put 40+ hours into a game, or have long debates about a game that you consider mediocre, so you're assuming that no one else would. News tip: Not everyone thinks the same way you do. Not everyone does the same things you do. Not everyone has the same motivations to do things you do.

That means you personally don't believe it is a crappy movie.

Oh, good, we've got back to the you telling me what I think stage of the argument. Ooh, I've got a nice #3 for my argument tips: You're not allowed to tell other people what they think and believe.

And how do you determine how much influence DAO had?

By a pattern of behaviour.

Because some guy on Metacritic said he'd have given DA2 a perfect score if he had never played DAO?

I like how you latch on to that one exaggerated example, and ignore the rest of the examples that show proof of a definite bias. It's like arguing with a Creationist, you ignore all the evidence that proves that your position is incorrect.

High enough to turn a shoddy game into a good game? Not even close.

And back to this. Where have I said anywhere that it would turn DA2 into a good game? Or that it should be perceived as a good game.

You won't find it. And the reason you won't find it is because A) I never said it, and B) I don't think it.

"I don't care about this topic at all! I've just spent hours fervently arguing about it because I'm bored!" Never seen that one before. Once again, logic and your own actions undermine your claims.

Go ahead and refute it. Let's see you try and prove that someone couldn't do what I've done out of boredom. Actually, don't bother, because all you'll do is spend hours making arguments that have nothing to do with the actual topic, and won't be able to prove a damn thing.

Oh wait, let's try this. You know all those "over-reactions" you see on Metacritic? Well, you see, those aren't really over-reactions at all because the critics were just bored and didn't really care about DA2. Hell, most of them didn't even play DA2. They just had nothing better to do so they decided to have some fun in an anonymous and consequence-free form. Uh oh, I just made your entire argument non-existent!

Wow. A new low for stupidity. Me being bored only works if I claim that I'm bored. It doesn't work if you claim it. And as none of the people on metacritic have claimed to be bored, it doesn't work if you claim it for them either.

So all you've done is make yourself look dumb.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
74. Re: Dragon Age II Patch Jun 6, 2011, 11:39 Creston
 
Verno wrote on Jun 6, 2011, 08:56:
Good grief, it looks like a bomb went off here. I think there's more content in this thread than the entire game of Dragon Age II.

Rotfl

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
73. Re: Dragon Age II Patch Jun 6, 2011, 08:56 Verno
 
Good grief, it looks like a bomb went off here. I think there's more content in this thread than the entire game of Dragon Age II. Bhruic you're normally a pretty level headed guy but you're just not making a lot of sense here. It doesn't really matter if people like the game more or less because of Dragon Age: Origins, they still judge the game based on the game they are playing. Every game will have trolls and biased fans, those opinions aren't important in this context.

If you look at the actual written reviews you'll begin to see a pattern of why people dislike the game. While you may forgive those gameplay elements they are obviously a game breaker for others. You claim that you understand this but go on to indicate that the game quality is somehow higher than people say based on an opinion that they unfairly compare the game to its predecessor. Do you not see the internal logic problem there? You are trying to present a scenario where you have it both ways regardless of where people land in their opinion on the game.

So why exactly are you arguing again? If the erasure of DAO from existence made everyone hate DA2 slightly less than they do now, who cares? They'd still hate the game and not want to play it. The only reason you'd keep arguing about this is if you believe that they'd actually enjoy the game. You even said yourself that DAO had a large influence over people's opinions of DA2, meaning they'd actually like DA2 instead of disliking it. Stay consistent please. Sarcasm is all well and good but only when you actually have a valid point.

Exactly. If people unfairly libel DA2 then it's only fair that they unfairly love it too. You can't have it both ways and you're certainly not the objective observer you claim to be here, you're obviously invested judging by your almost fervent defense here.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: South Park, Dark Souls 2
Watching: Enemy, Network, Wer
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
92 Replies. 5 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo