HYPOCRISY: If Kingdoms of Amalur is marked down for being generic, than why.....

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] Is Jade Empire generic? Nope. Mass Effect has some generic parts, but the sum of those parts is not generic. Not like DAO.texasgoldrush

OK, can I ask you something? WHY should we care? That's your opinion. Your opinion doesn't mean that the game is indeed generic and boring for the rest of us.

Seriously, are you all trying to take DarkLink down from his pedestal as being the Most Egotistical Person on System Wars? This ain't the way to do it, ya know.

1. Assassin's Creed games are indeed reviewed by Kevin. CoD games are being reviewed by Chris Watters. They have different opinions, in fact Kevin isn't exactly a big fan of CoD if memory serves me correctly.

2. Did you see last year where everyone got upset over ridculous scores? I mean, seriously, the Dark Soul's 9.5 vs. Skyrim's 9.0 and Skyrim getting GOTY debacle, Uncharted 3 getting massive amount of hate EVEN THOUGH THE GAME GOT A FREAKING 9.0, Infamous 2 and Skyward Sword getting 7.5'd, and a whole lot of other messes for the GS team.

After 2011 and the whole shabang I'm, GLAD GS is upping their harness on games. This will mean now that if a game gets a really high score it will, hopefully, be something actually meaningful for gamers rather than users thinking they're getting paid off.

It clear Kevin just didn't care about the world and it's lore. Is it that hard to understand?

DAO didn't have generic quests or generic characters, hell the dialogue and characters were exceptionally well done. Bah, what am I saying. I'm talking to a person who think DAII is ****ing Pulitzer prize worthy. I'll give you the high fantasy setting is generic, but they created their own lore around it which helped give it some character. HoolaHoopMan

And how credible does a reviewer that changes his standards or apllies double standards? That is the point of this. Reviewers have double standards...like how Assassin's Creed Revelations scores are brought down for being a rehash while Modern Warfare 3 does the same thing. They should be criticized.texasgoldrush

2 different reviewers... Kevin VanOrd reviewed Revelations while MW3 is reviewed by Chris Watters. Gamespot is made up of more than 1 person you know.

Also, MW2 and Black Ops = 9.0. MW3 = 8.5.

And if you actually look into the review past scores, even in just the "The good/The bad section" ACR doesn't say anything under "The Bad" about being the same as last year. Yet in the MW3 review under the Good/The bad section: "Multiplayer sticks closely to familiar formula."

And then what really matters is actually reading the reviews, and not looking at the damn numbers. ;)

I just wish they'd actually write reviews that were less opinionated and more technical. But they can't do that because if they did they would of had to give Skyrim a lower score and they can't do that to the greatest game of all time.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]And how credible does a reviewer that changes his standards or apllies double standards? That is the point of this. Reviewers have double standards...like how Assassin's Creed Revelations scores are brought down for being a rehash while Modern Warfare 3 does the same thing. They should be criticized.MrJack3690

2 different reviewers... Kevin VanOrd reviewed Revelations while MW3 is reviewed by Chris Watters. Gamespot is made up of more than 1 person you know.

Also, MW2 and Black Ops = 9.0. MW3 = 8.5.

And if you actually look into the review past scores, even in just the "The good/The bad section" ACR doesn't say anything under "The Bad" about being the same as last year. Yet in the MW3 review under the Good/The bad section: "Multiplayer sticks closely to familiar formula."

And then what really matters is actually reading the reviews, and not looking at the damn numbers. ;)

I just wish they'd actually write reviews that were less opinionated and more technical. But they can't do that because if they did they would of had to give Skyrim a lower score and they can't do that to the greatest game of all time.

Jolt_counter119

[QUOTE="Jolt_counter119"]

I just wish they'd actually write reviews that were less opinionated and more technical. But they can't do that because if they did they would of had to give Skyrim a lower score and they can't do that to the greatest game of all time.

texasgoldrush

Point me to another free roam FP fantasy as high quality as Skyrim. Or even one that actually exists.

[QUOTE="Jolt_counter119"]

I just wish they'd actually write reviews that were less opinionated and more technical. But they can't do that because if they did they would of had to give Skyrim a lower score and they can't do that to the greatest game of all time.

texasgoldrush

You got to hand it to them though, it takes a lot of effort to make dragons boring but I thought they pulled it off pretty well.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="Jolt_counter119"]

I just wish they'd actually write reviews that were less opinionated and more technical. But they can't do that because if they did they would of had to give Skyrim a lower score and they can't do that to the greatest game of all time.

cyborg100000

Point me to another free roam FP fantasy as high quality as Skyrim.

TC Mad yo.

Final Fantasy XIII > Kingdoms of Amalur = Final Fantasy XIII-2

texasgoldrush

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]skrat_01

Final Fantasy XIII > Kingdoms of Amalur = Final Fantasy XIII-2

Aljosa23

And reviewers are more than just gamespot. AC:R got savaged by other reviews for being more of the same, while the higher matacritic MW3 didn't. And when I did make this topic, I DID read the reviews for Amalur and DAO. Thast where I am criticiing Kevin from.texasgoldrush

Well that's good then :P, I only use GS for reviews anymore really, I'll check a few others when I go to metacritic occasionally, but generally I just stay on one site.

You just see too much of people on here focusing on the numbers, and not the review itself. Or just seeing 7.0 and thinking Bad game or Average, when it actually is supposed to mean good.

Actually gonna check the review for KoA right now, since I haven't got around to it yet myself.

They're both generic, but DAO is better. Mystery solved.WithoutGraceXII

[QUOTE="cyborg100000"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] Skyrim was VASTLY overrated by the review community. Nevermind how generic that game was (although many of th eside quests weren't0. Nevermind the bugs and the unbalanced gameplay, as well as lack of enemy types.texasgoldrush

Point me to another free roam FP fantasy as high quality as Skyrim.

Exactly, all over a decade old.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="cyborg100000"]

Point me to another free roam FP fantasy as high quality as Skyrim.

cyborg100000

Exactly, all over a decade old.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]texasgoldrush

Because generic means it's the same exact thing and the same quality but it's not a name brand? I don't know why Bioware is considered a name brand though.

GS is so inconsistent with their reviews. KoA has been getting good reviews so GS's opinion is pointless.HaloPimp978

Wait....a 7.5 doesn't mean very good?!? :o

OH MY GOD! Teh conspiracy!:shock:

We have to go deeper. :evil:

That's actually a great point. I dunno why he did that, but hey people are hypocrites.

That's actually a great point. I dunno why he did that, but hey people are hypocrites.

cain006

So you're saying you DON'T want games to be better than they were before?

This seems more like an attempt to defend the godawful Dragon Age 2 than Amalur.

This seems more like an attempt to defend the godawful Dragon Age 2 than Amalur.

WTA2k5

dragon age origin story may have neem generic (i hate that word) but it excelled in everything else, unlike its sequel which failed almost at everything and still managed to get a better score than amalur

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]skrat_01

its all his posts are about, he does not agree, hence everyone is wrong

but i do agree gamespot is full of bs reviews, about time people noticed

dragon age origin story may have neem generic (i hate that word) but it excelled in everything else, unlike its sequel which failed almost at everything and still managed to get a better score than amalur

Krelian-co

Because one game released 3 years after the other.. things change.

Because all reviewers are inconsistent as hell.

You used to be all about Dragon Age Origins. I'm going to take this as evidence that you're the greatest troll that SW has ever known.

You used to be all about Dragon Age Origins. I'm going to take this as evidence that you're the greatest troll that SW has ever known.

hakanakumono

don't really care about Amalur, but of course the high-fantasy genre has been done to death by modern entertainment, especially in gaming. regardless of the quality of writing, there is not an ounce of originality left in the genre in terms of setting, plot or character, and i can hardly remember being surprised even ONCE in over 10 years playing rpgs. i'm honestly baffled at how much praise DA:O, for instance, received for its run-of-the-mill narrative.

so i agree.... Amalur is no more generic than any of its famous peers.

No I wasn't.....I always thought the game was mediocre and even made an Witcher vs DAO thread saying TW was a far better game. DAO isn't bad, it is just as good as Bioware's more inspired games. And thats the PC version. The console versions of DAO are terrible.texasgoldrush

BioWare games this gen:

Mass Effect 1 > Dragon Age: Origins >>>> everything else.

Gamespot has horrible reviews. They have no standards at all. They will fault a game for being too similar to it's predecessor when they came out many years apart but will constantly give yearly Maddens, CODs and such excellent scores.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]No I wasn't.....I always thought the game was mediocre and even made an Witcher vs DAO thread saying TW was a far better game. DAO isn't bad, it is just as good as Bioware's more inspired games. And thats the PC version. The console versions of DAO are terrible.waltefmoney

BioWare games this gen:

Mass Effect 1 > Dragon Age: Origins >>>> everything else.

Mass Effect 2.......96 Metacritc, tons of GOTY awards...ME1 and DAO around 90 Metacritic with very few GOTY's. And in one month, ME2 will be looked at as another flawed stepping stone to the next great Mass Effect title. And ME1 with its clunky combat and terrible inventory management, best Bioware game this gen, get real.texasgoldrush

.ti htiw leaD

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]Mass Effect 2.......96 Metacritc, tons of GOTY awards...ME1 and DAO around 90 Metacritic with very few GOTY's. And in one month, ME2 will be looked at as another flawed stepping stone to the next great Mass Effect title. And ME1 with its clunky combat and terrible inventory management, best Bioware game this gen, get real.waltefmoney

.ti htiw leaD

Nope...you deal with it....ME2 was more acclaimed than either ME1 or DAO. Thats a fact.texasgoldrush

True. That doesn't make it the superior game though.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]Nope...you deal with it....ME2 was more acclaimed than either ME1 or DAO. Thats a fact.waltefmoney

True. That doesn't make it the superior game though.

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

dragon age origin story may have neem generic (i hate that word) but it excelled in everything else, unlike its sequel which failed almost at everything and still managed to get a better score than amalur

texasgoldrush

i don't care about your "omg its cliche" stories, id rather have a cliche cast than the fail cast of dragon age 2, i qualify a game for the fun factor and it was incredibly fun with varied stories and scenarios, the game was fun, a bit unbalanced yes but is not a mmorpg so i dont care about balance in single player games