Dragon Age Origins, Overated?

Overated?

  • NO, Dragon Age Origins is a materpiece!

    Votes: 11 40.7%
  • I was disappointed, but its still playable.

    Votes: 10 37.0%
  • I CANT BARE THIS ABOMINATION! I AM NOT AMUSED!

    Votes: 6 22.2%

  • Total voters
    27
Level 5
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
110
OK, so a little while back DAO came out, got scores like 90/100 9.5/10 5/5 etc for gaming reviews. People rages about how amazing it was, how awsome blah blah blah.

Now I never take people word for it when it comes to games. But with all this great mention it just had to be atleast enjoyable. Right?

RIGHT?

I must admit I was dissapointed. Take everything generic and done before in every fantasy RPG ever, cram into 1 game, add some pad, rip off your characters from mass effect, (obligatorily over-hyped moral system where "Your choices actually have an affect on the world." (PS utter bullcrap)) and to top it off the fight mechanics feel like im grinding WoW.

So do you think it was overated, GREAT, or just plain pile of crap?
 
Level 13
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,608
I never finished the game so I can't judge it completely. However in my opinnion, while it was an OK RPG, at some points it just felt too slow. Sure they had good dialogue, but there was simply too much of it! The dialogue was good but it wasn't good enough to justify for the amount of it.

Also there were some horrible cliches like certain characters and the whole "dark horde of inhuman creatures attacking" storyline. Hell, for the amount of what I played the Darkspawn felt like horrible villains.
 
Level 19
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,185
No, it's not. It has excelent dialog, beautiful graphics artisticly seen, and the way the players actions affect the game are spledid. For a single player RPG, I think the battle system delivers just fine. The only thing that bothered me were the stiff facial animations and the loading screens. (I like sandbox games.)
 
Level 11
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
1,001
to me the dialogue just took over the game... i kept skippin it, and i havent beat the game yet but i guess it pretty fun but then again i dont have the PC version which i heard was the best :D hehe
 
Level 5
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
110
I hav to agree with geazer, it is the same in Mass Effect (which was way better IMO) when you save just before a big dialog sequece. If you died several times it would get severly annoying. In DA:O almost every conversation feels dragged out.
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 59
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
26,639
Well the fact it contained anything sex related automatically boosted ratting by like 1 point just because of that. The excessive blood also boosted ratting like 2 points. Being made by the mass effect producing company boosted ratting further. Yes it is most definatly over ratted as how the hell can a game like that get 9.5/10 from a lot of reviewers when FFXIII was getting 7/10 or less.

As this was a western RPG I believe a lot of the ratting was part of a political busniess game of the west to try and drive out Jrpgs who largly rule the market. Where as japan scored FFXIII very highly, the west was giving it meaninglessly low scores like some even a 3/10 with bullshit nonsense reviews where as any western RPG like dragon age was scoreing 8+/10 automatically as a move to try and kick out JRPGs being released in the west (as japan will only translate and release them if they sell).

These reviews are also often made by rather shallow people, failing to see even the most major underlying gameplay faults. Although I can not comment on dragon ages gameplay directly, I can say that a lot of people were complaining about how some skills were totally usless and pointless to even look into while others were rediclously weighted and were a must have, showing poor skill design which the reviews clearly did not spot seriously (in contrast to FFXIII where all unlocked skills are useful and will be used as you play). Like wise many people have complained how poor the trees and foliage looks in dragon age and that clearly did not peanalise the review score.

In the end the 5/5 or 9.5/10 people probably only gave it that score because it turned them on in some way while playing it. Contrasting with FFXIII where the racist reviewers were pissed seing only japenese or black people and that they perosnally had issues with hope and vannile.

In the end reviews are shallow, and only stupid people follow them. For the best and only true review of a game, I can advise going to youtube a few days after a game is released and watching the gameplay for yourself and seeing if that game is for you or not. Frankly from the first hour or so of footage, the game appeared to me to be a TES oblivion rip in a lot of ways where the underlying gameplay was slightly altered.

In the end, yes the game will keep you busy as you wish to try new things or under stand the story better. However so will many other games like FFXIII, tes oblivion and diablo II.

I personally would have given dragon age a very low review. It appears to try and replace TES oblivion as a more modern game. It also is just another RPG, yes just another RPG where you go and kill dragons, and enemies and level up, and gain power, and have a goal, there is nothing new about that part at all next to it is a more modern and slightly more cleaver way of doing it. I could also bring up the selfish attitude of the game (which most RPGs follow mind you) that humanoids are the one and only true races and all other species can rot in hell as they are monsters, again good for the odd RPG but so commonly used it is boring. The common sense was also lacking like most RPGS, whereas in real life when a situation is going south for both people and animals, they will usually attempt a withdraw (except when they do not realise it), change of stratergy or rally of forces to attempt another assault, in this game they just keep attacking you despite it being clear they are as good as dead.

To emphisise common sense (or AI as it should be called) which needs to be put into a game. In real life if a cat is attacked by an obviously much larger dog it will attempt to escape it by running and hideing from it, it would only fight it if it is trapped, has a reason to fight it (protecting young) or if the cat is prety big as well so the outcome is not clear. Like wise with humans if you attack a gang of 3 people with a group of 5 other people and you suddenly find 4 of those people dead and the 3 people you are figthing almost totally unharmed, you sure as hell would try and run or surrender to them as you probably are not in the mood to commite suicide. I understand armies are different as you then have orders and the people in charge can be retarded but for your average every day gang of bandits or animal like dragon, you certainly would see some of them atempting to run when a group of people are near totally unharmed and they are approaching their final breath. This is not a knock at dragon age directly, but with RPGs in general that the underlying mechanics behind why stuff does not flee is lacking. Diablo II does have units fleeing from time to time but suffers largly from the same fault (why is the concil of normal not running from a level 95 hammerdin?) however it has the excuse as all the badies are meant to be demonic demons who have served their purpose and are largly mindless or excessivly agressive even if they die (baal still won technically). Even FFXIII had an excuse as all soldiers literally though that unless the heroes were stopped the world would end and that most creatures were excessivly agressive, mechanical or mindless. Did dragon age have such a reason why people sacrifised themsevles to your party all the time?

Thus I would give the game a review of between 5/10 and 6/10 where 10/10 is impossible to obtain due to the game having to be infinitly good and 1/10 is also impossible to obtain as the game would have to be infinitly bad (no game at all). Yes it is something new and an adventure and I would definatly play it if I was given the game, however it is nothing special due to it largly recycleing ideas from other RPGs and lacks any reason to choose it over other single player RPGs (as far as I know the PC version is single player).

If I rated by personal opinion I would rate it 2/10-3/10 due to the fact it is just another game to kill dragons in. This is the sort of review professionals do and why you have rediclous things like FFXIII receiving 3/10 while dragon age getting 9/10. As you can clearly see, a 2/10 ratting is far far far too low for a game with the ammount of effort that was put in, but equally well 9.5/10 is far too high for a game which largly repackets already availble RPG ideas and that has some flaws of it own.

I did not take into account the bugs people reported of quests breaking as bugs should not be included in reviews unless maintenence of the game stops leaving you with them permantly. This is because a game breaking bug could result in a review of 3/10 despite the game being able to score 7-8/10 once it is fixed.
 
Level 7
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
241
I played the game, and enjoyed it. But there were some annoying parts of it.

-You often got stuck at a place for some time becaues a npc ''refused'' to speak with you.

-There were some glitches making you able to repeat stuff (even got stuck in a room once).

-Loading time is ridickulus near the end (5-10 mins for a small part of a city).

-The actual fight with the archdemon was incredibly simple, like the creators had given up.

-There was some issue in every city, not very realistic if you ask me.

-The dragons seemed crippled (could not move an inch). They had to fly to the location.

-If you repeat the game you notice how little effect your response really had.

+-They got the gordon ramsey something wrong squeek.

+Some units had great hitboxes. You actually had to hit the dragons leg!!

+Loved the dialouge. Great RP feeling.

+Not the quest grinding you get in wow (you actually know what to do and why!!).

+There actually is such things like sexism and racism in it (wow completely removed that making it rather dull if you ask me).

I think of it as and overall great game.:thumbs_up:
 
Level 13
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,608
Well the fact it contained anything sex related automatically boosted ratting by like 1 point just because of that. The excessive blood also boosted ratting like 2 points. Being made by the mass effect producing company boosted ratting further. Yes it is most definatly over ratted as how the hell can a game like that get 9.5/10 from a lot of reviewers when FFXIII was getting 7/10 or less.
Yes, let's ignore the fact that the game (Dragon Age) had EXCELLENT writing for a mainstream game and also lots of deep dialogue and actual choices and consequences for them.

As this was a western RPG I believe a lot of the ratting was part of a political busniess game of the west to try and drive out Jrpgs who largly rule the market. Where as japan scored FFXIII very highly, the west was giving it meaninglessly low scores like some even a 3/10 with bullshit nonsense reviews where as any western RPG like dragon age was scoreing 8+/10 automatically as a move to try and kick out JRPGs being released in the west (as japan will only translate and release them if they sell).
Yeah, it's not like JRPGs don't ever change and have been pretty much been the same since the beginning. Also it's not like it takes 20 FREAKING HOURS for FF XIII to actually get even enjoyable. Then again, you didn't even play Dragon Age yet you say it sucks.

These reviews are also often made by rather shallow people, failing to see even the most major underlying gameplay faults. Although I can not comment on dragon ages gameplay directly, I can say that a lot of people were complaining about how some skills were totally usless and pointless to even look into while others were rediclously weighted and were a must have, showing poor skill design which the reviews clearly did not spot seriously (in contrast to FFXIII where all unlocked skills are useful and will be used as you play). Like wise many people have complained how poor the trees and foliage looks in dragon age and that clearly did not peanalise the review score.
"I heard from a friend..." Well I heard from a friend that FF XIII sucks dicks and is totally gay. See what I did there? You are basically just going by what a few people have said and COMPLETELY ignoring all the great reviews Dragon Age got (professional reviewers (no wait, you say these are useless) AND Gamer reviews). Also, having played alot of Final Fantasys I can pretty much beat that there will always be useless skills. There have always been IN ALL OF THEM!

In the end the 5/5 or 9.5/10 people probably only gave it that score because it turned them on in some way while playing it. Contrasting with FFXIII where the racist reviewers were pissed seing only japenese or black people and that they perosnally had issues with hope and vannile.
Racist people... Oh man that made me laugh. You do realize that the Japanese are one of the most prejudiced people in the world? Everytime they feature any people outside Japan in an anime, manga or a game they are always the same! Americans are either blonde whites or gangsta blacks. They are always aggressive and angry.

In the end reviews are shallow, and only stupid people follow them. For the best and only true review of a game, I can advise going to youtube a few days after a game is released and watching the gameplay for yourself and seeing if that game is for you or not. Frankly from the first hour or so of footage, the game appeared to me to be a TES oblivion rip in a lot of ways where the underlying gameplay was slightly altered.
Yeah, because watching a gameplay video totally tells you what the game is. Also TES Oblivion rip off? Just what the hell!? TES Oblivion is a solo first person action game, while Dragon Age is a more traditional realtime "turn based" squad RPG like alot of other RPGs. Also TES Oblivion sucks balls and has horrible writing compared to Dragon Age.

I personally would have given dragon age a very low review. It appears to try and replace TES oblivion as a more modern game. It also is just another RPG, yes just another RPG where you go and kill dragons, and enemies and level up, and gain power, and have a goal, there is nothing new about that part at all next to it is a more modern and slightly more cleaver way of doing it. I could also bring up the selfish attitude of the game (which most RPGs follow mind you) that humanoids are the one and only true races and all other species can rot in hell as they are monsters, again good for the odd RPG but so commonly used it is boring. The common sense was also lacking like most RPGS, whereas in real life when a situation is going south for both people and animals, they will usually attempt a withdraw (except when they do not realise it), change of stratergy or rally of forces to attempt another assault, in this game they just keep attacking you despite it being clear they are as good as dead.
YOU HAVEN'T EVEN PLAYED THE GAME! It doesn't try to replace TES Oblivion, they are whole different games! TES Oblivion is a sandbox first person action game, while Dragon Age is a whole lot more linear (sure it has a world map and some open maps). Also the whole "humanoid supremacy" is there because it makes it easier it easier for the player to connect with the characters. Also I can't see cats doing worth shit since they don't even have fingers!
And the whole "enemies who fight to the death" is simply to make the game easier, and you know, playable! If all the enemies suddenly started running away, it would get more frustrating than fun.

To emphisise common sense (or AI as it should be called) which needs to be put into a game. In real life if a cat is attacked by an obviously much larger dog it will attempt to escape it by running and hideing from it, it would only fight it if it is trapped, has a reason to fight it (protecting young) or if the cat is prety big as well so the outcome is not clear. Like wise with humans if you attack a gang of 3 people with a group of 5 other people and you suddenly find 4 of those people dead and the 3 people you are figthing almost totally unharmed, you sure as hell would try and run or surrender to them as you probably are not in the mood to commite suicide. I understand armies are different as you then have orders and the people in charge can be retarded but for your average every day gang of bandits or animal like dragon, you certainly would see some of them atempting to run when a group of people are near totally unharmed and they are approaching their final breath. This is not a knock at dragon age directly, but with RPGs in general that the underlying mechanics behind why stuff does not flee is lacking. Diablo II does have units fleeing from time to time but suffers largly from the same fault (why is the concil of normal not running from a level 95 hammerdin?) however it has the excuse as all the badies are meant to be demonic demons who have served their purpose and are largly mindless or excessivly agressive even if they die (baal still won technically). Even FFXIII had an excuse as all soldiers literally though that unless the heroes were stopped the world would end and that most creatures were excessivly agressive, mechanical or mindless. Did dragon age have such a reason why people sacrifised themsevles to your party all the time?
You do realize how difficult such a system would be to code? Also it would become more annoying when you constantly have to chase down an enemy just to kill him. Also the enemies in Dragon Age sorta do have a reason to fight you. Either they are demons or possessed people who are simply out to kill you, or then they are mindless monsters who wish to kill you.
Bandits on the other hand attack in such large numbers so that the survivors probably think you are too exhausted and easy to finish off.

Thus I would give the game a review of between 5/10 and 6/10 where 10/10 is impossible to obtain due to the game having to be infinitly good and 1/10 is also impossible to obtain as the game would have to be infinitly bad (no game at all). Yes it is something new and an adventure and I would definatly play it if I was given the game, however it is nothing special due to it largly recycleing ideas from other RPGs and lacks any reason to choose it over other single player RPGs (as far as I know the PC version is single player).

If I rated by personal opinion I would rate it 2/10-3/10 due to the fact it is just another game to kill dragons in. This is the sort of review professionals do and why you have rediclous things like FFXIII receiving 3/10 while dragon age getting 9/10. As you can clearly see, a 2/10 ratting is far far far too low for a game with the ammount of effort that was put in, but equally well 9.5/10 is far too high for a game which largly repackets already availble RPG ideas and that has some flaws of it own.

I did not take into account the bugs people reported of quests breaking as bugs should not be included in reviews unless maintenence of the game stops leaving you with them permantly. This is because a game breaking bug could result in a review of 3/10 despite the game being able to score 7-8/10 once it is fixed.
Once again: YOU DIDN'T EVEN PLAY THE GAME!
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 59
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
26,639
Yes, let's ignore the fact that the game (Dragon Age) had EXCELLENT writing for a mainstream game and also lots of deep dialogue and actual choices and consequences for them.
"EXCELLENT writing" is an opinion and does not belong in a review. If the writing diserves to be emphisised above other games you need to explain what it has that the other games do not and only then can you actually say weather the writing is excellent or not. Also what exactly does deep dialogue mean, I take it you mean that it makes you think, but so do a lot of other games so that is nothing really special. As for choices, there are dozens of less famous RPGs from consols like the SNES and PS1 which have what you described, where one action can totally alter the plot, who joins you and what happens so basically is a more modern interprretation of the concept.

Also it's not like it takes 20 FREAKING HOURS for FF XIII to actually get even enjoyable.
Very strange, I found FFXIII enjoyable since the far beginnning. Yes you do not particually want to replay that 20 hours repetetivly and thus why the free play is at the end but while playing it it is perfectly exciting and fun. People just blew it out of proportion that it was a problem. All the time the stages are absolutly beautiful, almost completly bug free and you will find yourself stopping often to take in where you are and think what is happening.

Also, having played alot of Final Fantasys I can pretty much beat that there will always be useless skills.
Well FFXIII actually did a good job at avoiding this. Yes some skill are of limited use noteably the resist X element buffs from the synergist, but even they will be useful to cut your healing in some battles. In contrast in a few of the user written guides I read of DA there are noticable skills which they say to avoid as their use is no where near as effective as another skill also available to you.

Racist people...
Well the comment this was from I did not fully get why it was there. All I know is that dragon age rattings certainly were higher than they should have been as they were matching or better than the rattings the same companies gave games which gamers voted the best games in the world.

Also TES Oblivion rip off? Just what the hell!?
Well yes this might not be all too clear to some people. Yes they are made by different companies and different engines and even different storys but there are still multiple similar aspects. Most noticable is the fact that some of the mod support sites support games like fallout 3 (yes simalarity is shared with this to a degrree in some of the concepts behind character development) or TES oblivion as well as dragon age mods. The fact that the same site would support such apparenntly different games must mean there is atleast some part of simalarity in it. Infact you could probably compare it with WC3 (a sort of RPG RTS combo) and SC2 (a designed pure RTS), being totally different in many axpects while still being very simlar in a lot of ways so attracting people of simlar mindset. Using your argument you could call WC3 a totally different game from SC2 however you can not argue that they do have some bond between them. Basically dragon age is the modable singleplayer RPG of 2009/10 just like fallout III and TES oblivion were of previous years and thats actually about the largest similarity next to them all having RPG aspects which are related in some ways.

You do realize how difficult such a system would be to code?
Well unfortunatly I would have to counter that by asking you the same thing. It probably is a lot easier than you would like to imagine as it is basicly weighing up risks and then basing AI response on that (WC3 AI even has this to a degree where the enemy will try atleast to save some of its units). Obviously it would vary from stage to stage as in some situations it would probably call for them being a lot more willing to sacrafice themselves but overall it makes more sense. If you are refering to the dragons and other wild life in it by "mindless monsters" then the game must be rather shallow as most things that size that are living can not be mindless or monsters. Logically if they are artificially created, conjured up (not truely living) or controled in some way by an idiot then it would be valid.

Yeah, because watching a gameplay video totally tells you what the game is.
Yes it does and I did it for most games before I get them. This is how I discovered how good the castlevania RPGs were by watching their tool assisted speedruns. Infact this was how I even discovered how good WC3 was. A few hours of gameplay footage tells you more than all the nonsense words from all the professional reviewers in the world.

Frankly from all the concept art and fan art you can clearly see that blood and killing was a major part of DA, and frankly I do not want to be seen playing such a game where so much processing power goes wasted into making sure your character gets unnescescarilly plastered with blood.
 
Level 13
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,608
"EXCELLENT writing" is an opinion and does not belong in a review. If the writing diserves to be emphisised above other games you need to explain what it has that the other games do not and only then can you actually say weather the writing is excellent or not. Also what exactly does deep dialogue mean, I take it you mean that it makes you think, but so do a lot of other games so that is nothing really special. As for choices, there are dozens of less famous RPGs from consols like the SNES and PS1 which have what you described, where one action can totally alter the plot, who joins you and what happens so basically is a more modern interprretation of the concept.
Ok, excellent writing: a plot which isn't easily guessable. Dragon Age sorta suffers from some predictability, but there are alot of twists and turns in the story which help to unique it out of the mass of other fantasy stories. The main villain themselves (the Darkspawn) are pretty much generic Fantasy Monster Horde, but it is in fact the other parts of the story, like Loghain, which are the really good parts and which actually make you interested in the story and makes you wonder what happens next. Excellent writing is almost something that, after beating the game, you are left with this fulfilled feeling, like you've gone through an epic journey and really feel like you finally completed it.

Deep dialogue is something which makes you think, but also is something which is excellent, as in it is consistent with the setting and the conversation, and it's also something which actually sounds logical and something which you'd feel like you'd reply in the setting. Excellent dialogue doesn't force words into the players mouth and always gives a choice. Excellent and deep dialogue also doesn't give you fake choices, as is "oh you can say this but the outcome will still be exactly the same".

Very strange, I found FFXIII enjoyable since the far beginnning. Yes you do not particually want to replay that 20 hours repetetivly and thus why the free play is at the end but while playing it it is perfectly exciting and fun. People just blew it out of proportion that it was a problem. All the time the stages are absolutly beautiful, almost completly bug free and you will find yourself stopping often to take in where you are and think what is happening.
When alot of people complain that the game takes too long to get interesting, then we are in fact dealing with a real problem. Yes, Dragon Age has suffered from people whining about things like bugs and etc. but the overall opinnion which I've seen from forums and fellow gamers that the game is still good and captivates you from the beginning. If a game does not make you want to finish it since the beginning then it is not a good game!

Well FFXIII actually did a good job at avoiding this. Yes some skill are of limited use noteably the resist X element buffs from the synergist, but even they will be useful to cut your healing in some battles. In contrast in a few of the user written guides I read of DA there are noticable skills which they say to avoid as their use is no where near as effective as another skill also available to you.
Welcome to the world of RPGs. Also, I wouldn't say that there are necessarily useless skills, it's just that some skills are situational and very strict when it comes to builds. Each skill has their use somewhere, it's just that some tend to be more universal than others. Then again, all RPGs suffer from this, atleast all I've played (both JRPGs and WRPGs).

Well the comment this was from I did not fully get why it was there. All I know is that dragon age rattings certainly were higher than they should have been as they were matching or better than the rattings the same companies gave games which gamers voted the best games in the world.
Once again: YOU. HAVE. NOT. PLAYED. THE. GAME!

Well yes this might not be all too clear to some people. Yes they are made by different companies and different engines and even different storys but there are still multiple similar aspects. Most noticable is the fact that some of the mod support sites support games like fallout 3 (yes simalarity is shared with this to a degrree in some of the concepts behind character development) or TES oblivion as well as dragon age mods. The fact that the same site would support such apparenntly different games must mean there is atleast some part of simalarity in it. Infact you could probably compare it with WC3 (a sort of RPG RTS combo) and SC2 (a designed pure RTS), being totally different in many axpects while still being very simlar in a lot of ways so attracting people of simlar mindset. Using your argument you could call WC3 a totally different game from SC2 however you can not argue that they do have some bond between them. Basically dragon age is the modable singleplayer RPG of 2009/10 just like fallout III and TES oblivion were of previous years and thats actually about the largest similarity next to them all having RPG aspects which are related in some ways.
Yes, nexus supports DA:O and FO 3 and TES:Oblivion, and you know why? BECAUSE THESE GAMES ARE HIGHLY MODDABLE! Modability does not similar game make. Both TES Oblivion and DA:O are generic fantasy settings yes, but even they have alot of similarities, in terms of setting, story and even gameplay. Comparing them due to their modability and being fantasy RPGs just sound stupid. And yes, WC 3 and SC 2 have a bond between since they are made by the SAME EXACT COMPANY!

Well unfortunatly I would have to counter that by asking you the same thing. It probably is a lot easier than you would like to imagine as it is basicly weighing up risks and then basing AI response on that (WC3 AI even has this to a degree where the enemy will try atleast to save some of its units). Obviously it would vary from stage to stage as in some situations it would probably call for them being a lot more willing to sacrafice themselves but overall it makes more sense. If you are refering to the dragons and other wild life in it by "mindless monsters" then the game must be rather shallow as most things that size that are living can not be mindless or monsters. Logically if they are artificially created, conjured up (not truely living) or controled in some way by an idiot then it would be valid.
Well yes, depending on how advanced you want to make the system, then sure coding would be easy. However, I'd argue that to make it actually an engaging and interesting system you'd need to put alot of resources to it, perhaps even so much that the question would rise if it's truly worth it.
With mindless monsters I meant undergound beasts, zombies and other beings which are either: 1. possessed by demons (as there are alot in DA:O) or 2. summoned with magic. The dragons attack you because usually in the game you are entering their nests. You know how birds defend their nets furiously? Well these dragons are doing the same thing. Also alot of times the wildlife in the game has also been infected by the Taint (something which happens during the Darkspawn invasion), which in turn makes them highly aggressive and almost mindless.

Yes it does and I did it for most games before I get them. This is how I discovered how good the castlevania RPGs were by watching their tool assisted speedruns. Infact this was how I even discovered how good WC3 was. A few hours of gameplay footage tells you more than all the nonsense words from all the professional reviewers in the world.
I find it funny that you claim that all professional reviewers just spat nonsense? Perhaps you should actually read some reviews and realize that they do in fact bring alot of valid points and are not as biased as you'd think. Sure there are some reviewers who obviously wrote their reviews while smelling money, but there are alot of professional ones who actually know what they're talking about.
Dragon Age is also more than combat. There are lots of great dialogue in it, something which you simply CANNOT experience thought a video. It's something you have to play yourself.

Frankly from all the concept art and fan art you can clearly see that blood and killing was a major part of DA, and frankly I do not want to be seen playing such a game where so much processing power goes wasted into making sure your character gets unnescescarilly plastered with blood.
Believe it or not, but the goryness and the grittiness actually aid the atmosphere. It aids in the game's grimdark feeling and makes it feel consistent. Sure there are a few points where getting covered with blood and initiating dialogue just feels silly, but all in all the blood feels like part of the game, and to be honest doesn't feel all that excessive. It's something that is there and suits it. It doesn't break the immersion, rather it helps it.
 
Level 17
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
1,538
The modding community is really starting to come into itself.
There's not a TES level of mods yet, but there are still quite a few that range from graphical improvements/enhancements, new weapons, armour, locations, new quests, new abilities, and even a new class, the Cleric.
 
Top