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

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]Yes it widely being considered to be a great movie is a fact. That's called popular recognition, a popular consensusArgumentum ad Populum if it's widely regarded as a being great, then it must be factually great'. Argumentum ad Populum is also It it being a well made, cast, written, executed and technically competent movie is separate.There's a difference between popular recognition and actual fact.Consensus is just consensus, and if you're implying consensus rules are and is definitive as overwhelmingly factual (even generalising about games development), you're just as stupid as your first quote applied. Again. Lets keep it nice and simple for you So if enough people say a circle is a square then that's a fact?texasgoldrush

In games, or anything, indeed - yes of course they're changing. They're always changing, expectations are not a static thing, nor is the general quality associated with certain aspects.

Even something a bit more digestable like function in games; compare how the cover shooter genre, has evolved since GeOW or the shooter genre in storytelling since Half LIfe.

Now: 'I make up crap'.
Hahahahahahaha, No no, I can be a prick but I don't make things up willy nilly:

Argumentum Ad Populum is a definition of 'the consensus is correct'.
That's exactly what it is, and it's entirely untrue.

You're factually incorrect, entirely, and horribly horribly wrong and silly for thinking that 'enough opinions make something a fact' - and should damn well pointed out for proposing something ridiculous as a rule. And it's okay to be incorrect and wrong, learning is good.

Now I'm being bitter about it because that's just bad on a whole different level - acting high and mighty but under the pretense of something that is completely inccorect, compared to arguing about video games on the internet.Reiterating - A lot of people like Skyrim, this isn't the reason Skyrim is a good game.

Learn about the definition of it and read into it and you might enjoy a bit of (faily) basic philosophy while you're at it; no snark - in all sincerity, seriously you will probably like it. Things just aren't clear cut.

Now back on cliches and generic.

Yes Bioware did break their mold, correctemundo, but the game wasn't beter enough for it, or enough for it to outweigh the negatives - or so the critics and community felt. I'd argue its execution let it down entirely in this regard.

Now while I'm at it I should apologise for being a utter **** in my previous post(s).
As wrong as you might be in regard to the whole 'consensus rules' ideal, you don't deserve me throwing verbal bile at you.
That is whiny in childish, true, true, and calling people stupid isn't encouraging in the slightest. It in itself is just plain bad, and for that I'm sorry.

Why are you listening to Gamespot's reviewers again? It's quite obvious some of their reviews are clearly paid for. (Every CoD gets a high score, but none are marked down for rehashing content?)

wasn't Dragon Age Origins? Same reviewer as well. Nevermind the fact that DAO also had generic plot, generic quests, generic characters, and generic world. The orcs are coming and we need a hero to stop them. The hero recruits every fantasy cliche imaginable was his party, goes through some very cliched sidequests, and ends in a very cliched way. The whole game was a rip off of LOTRs and parts of Ice and fire. Way to move the goalposts...... And its quite hilarious when Kevin says that Oghren was a stronger dwarven presence in DAO than Varric was in DAII...I wonder why? Maybe because Oghren was highly generic....lol. Also, another fail, Varric is a far better character than Oghren ever was. Even those that don't like DAII like him.texasgoldrush

Because that's how this generation works. If Bioware release a rpg, it's one of the best rpgs ever made because it's Bioware. But this other company is a no-name crap company so the game automatically becomes inferior.

It's how it works. If a no-name company were to release an identical yet slightly superior Call of Duty clone, it'd be a generic inferior mess and if Call of Duty were to be released with no physics at all that would be OK because it's Call of Duty.

Think like this:
No-name company: the games start at 0 and builds up to a review score. However, whatever score it may get, the score will automatically be reduced in the end. There are exceptions such as indie games, because it's indie games dudeee, that thing you know that looks like Tetris after a two week programming course? It's actually made like that on purpose because it's fresh, it's going back to the old school roots and it's original. Basically the rule for a no name company is: The better the game actually is, the lower score it will receive. The crappier and simpler the game is, the more original and awesome it is.

Big name company: the games automatically gets a "lowest-score"-score so even if the game would all of of a sudden would use ps1 graphics and even if the reviewer would like to place a "1/10" for that crap, it automatically gets increased to it's rather high "lowest-score"-score. The exception here is japanese companies that are not named Nintendo.

As someone else already stated, Dragon Age:Origins was only generic from anesthetic point of view. The racial tensions between the different races was something that was fairly original. Especially given the misunderstandings between humans and elves. The politics/religion background behind the Dragon Age games is simply very well done. Dragon Age:Origins got high scores because it was simply an all around solid game with a very interesting and complex setting.

As someone else already stated, Dragon Age:Origins was only generic from anesthetic point of view. The racial tensions between the different races was something that was fairly original. Especially given the misunderstandings between humans and elves. The politics/religion background behind the Dragon Age games is simply very well done. Dragon Age:Origins got high scores because it was simply an all around solid game with a very interesting and complex setting.

UnknownSniper65

And yet when did I say the consensus is always correct..........once again you are arguing something I did not say, like a moron. And you still believe storytelling standards have changed for RPGs in TWO YEARS??? Nevermind the fact that the bar was set in 1999 and still hasn't even been reached since. If I believe the consensus is always right, why do I use the words "overrated"? Maybe because they are not always right IMO. Consensus is fact, opinions derived from consensus is not. Think long and hard.texasgoldrush

and a consensus of opinions is fact.....texasgoldrush

And how now, really, name calling? Still?
Charming.

man...this game is super generic. none of the story lines are interesting at all. combat and leveling up is the only reason i like this game so far. it looks nice toomems_1224

[QUOTE="mems_1224"]man...this game is super generic. none of the story lines are interesting at all. combat and leveling up is the only reason i like this game so far. it looks nice tooRingx55

The areas that surround rathir are my favorite, they did a great job on the environments, it's closed in but still feels open.

so far the generic lore and flat characters are the only major complaints I have.

The combat in this game is fun as hell and the character building is great

so far the generic lore and flat characters are the only major complaints I have.

The combat in this game is fun as hell and the character building is great

Shinobishyguy

I just wish this game had more difficulty, hopefuly they release a 3rd diffculty, maybe with some new content.

A consensus of opinions is never definitive fact and or true. Ever. Don't even try throwing silly disputes or bother with petty name calling. All it is, is a consensus, which can be in many different contexts; e.g. a critical consensus or a popular consensus. And as I said. Standards are always changing, we've had an array of great RPGs since Dragon Age Origins, which will effect the judgements and expectations of games that come after them; be it The Witcher 2 to Mass Effect 2, as I've said before with other examples.Standards are always changing. That's a fact. Consensus isn't factual or truth full of anything other than being a consensus, and Argumentum Ad Populum is the very definition of this, which is why I posted it to begin with. A consensus can support something that is true, 'the Earth is round not flat after all', of course; but it is still a skrat_01

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]A consensus of opinions is never definitive fact and or true. Ever. Don't even try throwing silly disputes or bother with petty name calling. All it is, is a consensus, which can be in many different contexts; e.g. a critical consensus or a popular consensus. And as I said. Standards are always changing, we've had an array of great RPGs since Dragon Age Origins, which will effect the judgements and expectations of games that come after them; be it The Witcher 2 to Mass Effect 2, as I've said before with other examples.Standards are always changing. That's a fact. Consensus isn't factual or truth full of anything other than being a consensus, and Argumentum Ad Populum is the very definition of this, which is why I posted it to begin with. A consensus can support something that is true, 'the Earth is round not flat after all', of course; but it is still a texasgoldrush

Combat: KOA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Skyrim (Not even a contest, Skyrim's 'combat' is atrocious and KOA actually makes playing as a mage fun unlike Skyrim)

Story: KOA = Skyrim (Which isn't saying much because neither of them had a great story overall)

Content: KOA >>> Skyrim (Find the quests much more interesting than the Skyrim quests)