Comments on: Review of the Reviews of Dragon Age: Origins

By: Lord Soth

Lord Soth — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:13:29 +0000

@ Sol Invictus !!!! Thumbs Up!!!
@ Krelith you are right but they have to push the game! a general grade offers a general we meant …that …

Its hard to believe but i have do it after having a fight with my boss , (u can guess who won:( )
PROMOTION. its all about mobney (yes moBney) they rip us and we loving it!

To the last spam bot… Please I wish ur maker have all his emails bombed!!!

Have a nice day! GO LOOM!!!! GO PACMAN!!! GO CS!!! GO C&C GO Monkey Island! I&II…

3D just fucked (sorry for my french and sorry for being a sovinist bastard as Frenchs are:P ) most of the plots in the games… i really hate ConSoLeS!!!

btw,,, AmiGa RuleS!!!!

By: linshoes

linshoes — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 04:19:54 +0000

KicksNike1.com is the No. 1 online Store for authentic Nike Shoes. Please come and visit us if you are looking for Nike Air Force One, Nike Dunks, Nike Air Force 1,Air Force 1, Air Force One, Air Force Shoes and Air Force 1's.

By: Wolfgang

Wolfgang — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:20:59 +0000

The first priority of any reviewer should be to clearly define under what circumstances the results were achieved. Like you pointed out, many sites/magazines are failing to do so, and it isn’t just the multi-platform sites who are guilty.
Reviews from PC magazines aren’t much better: many fail to list the hardware inside the rig used to test the game which makes it hard to get an idea of how well it may run on older technology.

I don’t believe we can hold amateur bloggers to a higher standard because many of us are simply blogging in our free time. However, paid bloggers/journalists should be honest and upfront about the platform/specs used so that the reader can make an educated decision. The fact that this standard isn’t always adhered to leads me to believe that either gaming is starting to go down the political road, where words are spoken but seldom make sense, or the journalist simply isn’t a gamer; either way, there is a problem imo.

By: Krelith

Krelith — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:52:57 +0000

I feel I need to reiterate a few things…

Firstly, the premise of my article was not to judge Metacritic or how Metacriic operates. It was instead pointing out that ALL reviews should specify the reviewed platform. If Metacritic breaks these down seperately and presents them accordingly, then I have yet to see it. But again, it’s not Metacritic I’m rallying against.

Secondly, I didn’t say the console versions were unplayable, and should the PC SKU not be an option for the player, the console versions are still the same game. BUT, they should be forewarned that there will be – in this case – graphical and gameplay flaws that are impossible to avoid.

By: Nemisys

Nemisys — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:15:36 +0000

Ok, I admit that the game doesn’t need that much hardware to play it. My point was that it would cost me a lot of money to upgrade at this time my other desktop gaming rig. It might be $1000 or it might be $1500 or whatever. The point was it was a lot more money to spend just to play the game on a PC for ME, thus the reason why I opted for a console version.

By: DUFF McWALIN

DUFF McWALIN — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:26:34 +0000

there is no way that it costs 2000 to run this game. My laptop cost around 1000 and it can run it just fine on the recommended settings. plus a laptop costs more than a nice tower anyways so its even cheaper if you just want to buy or build a tower.

By: DUFF McWALIN

DUFF McWALIN — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:23:28 +0000

a reviewer should always state what platform he is reviewing the game for. i rented the 360 version from gamefly and the controls suck and its buggy as hell but the story is so good and it has so much potential that i’m going to go buy it for the pc today

By: Nemisys

Nemisys — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:36:35 +0000

Agreed Gamedoc.

Any controversy surrounding the game is dismissed when you actually play the game. You have to play a good 3-4 hours into this game to develop any sense for this game because it is so massive. It would be like playing 20 minutes of Oblivion and then saying it sucked, which some people did. Even with the crippling graphics on the 360, you can still enjoy the addictive combat, massive world, engaging story, and in-depth loot system. I’m not saying the 360 version doesn’t suffer some problems, but I would much rather deal with these problems and run it on my 360 than I would to upgrade to the latest and greatest gaming rig and spend $2000 plus the cost of the game.

By: Gamedoc

Gamedoc — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:12:55 +0000

Actually metacritic breaks down console reviews separately and only includes a review under each console if the review STATES its for each console like the giantbomb review which is the first one listed. The basic thesis of this article is completely untrue.

By: Chubbaluphigous

Chubbaluphigous — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:30:30 +0000

Gamespot gave the different versions different scores. PC:9.5 PS3:9.0 360:8.5

IGN gave the PS3 and 360 the same reduced score, and the PC version a higher one.

I agree with you about the number system. It is broken. Especially the ones that rate to the 10th of a point.

By: Sol Invictus

Sol Invictus — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:54:05 +0000

As a former ‘PC only’ gamer I feel the urge to gloat. Now console gamers know what ports feel like.

By: eao

eao — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:30:17 +0000

Don’t you just love it when that happens.

By: Diortem

Diortem — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:02:18 +0000

….you timed this brilliantly.. my brother and I have been arguing the worth of review scores, and this is the PERFECT example of the kind of reason WHY they are not worth as much as he thinks!

By: bluemanrule

bluemanrule — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:49:01 +0000

Nice comment on the reviews out there. As the owner of the 360 version, I didn’t have high expectations for this version. However, I’ve been pleasantly surprised.