[QUOTE="Kevin-V"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Here's the thing Kevin, when you get down to the little things, everyone can nitpick at even the best games. No game out there is perfectly polished, or even perfect in any regard regardless of what some reviewers out there tout. I could sure as hell write plenty of things about, for example, Grand Theft Auto IV that detract from the experience that definitely did not make it worthy for the "prime" score, or even close to that darn score. I have to ask you in regards to Dragon Age: Origins, how does longer loading times, and quick-saving times not to mention lower quality textures and what not really detract from the direct user experience? Are those few minor occurances really big enough to make a game no longer worthy of that "editor's choice" when the overall picture still points to a superb experience? So, to reiterate, is the user directly effected by those said issues? How much shorter is the loading times? A few seconds, or a multitude of seconds ranging frm 10 to 20 seconds?
I didn't see that addressed in the review, and such ambuguity puts questions into my mind. You also stated in the DA:O sticky that you played most of your time with the game installed on the HDD itself, why not mention that in the review? It's one of those "little things" to improve the loading and what-not, right? Why not give mention to it, if every little bit helps, why not help the gamer out there by letting him know?
OK, last post before returning to virtual Venice. If Dragon Age on the Xbox 360 had inappropriate loading times or a terrible frame rate--let's say, like The Last Remnant--I may have indicated that the problems were alleviated by an installation. But the experience is not significantly improved in the case of Dragon Age. You could make the same request of any 360 review, but reviews aren't checklists; I am not going to install every game to test it for review, and set aside X paragraph and X sentence for a mention. I think it can be inferred for almost every game that you can improve load times and frame rate by installing it. And even when the game is installed, the load times are longer than on the PS3 (which of course features a required installation). And I also need to look at general standards outside of version comparisons. Dragon Age looks mediocre on the Xbox 360 when sized up against similar games on the platform. Perhaps it isn't important to you, but if you went in expecting the game to be in the same ballpark as Mass Effect or Fallout 3, there is a ruse surprise awaiting you. I know that much of this comes down to the age-old question of how important graphics are, but I think few of us could dispute that better visuals enhance the user experience. The low-res visuals on the Xbox 360 were frequently distracting enough to bother me and others playing in the office. Justin expressed to me that the load times were killing the game for him. Frankly, it's easier to get lost in the PS3 version because the game isn't constantly reminding you of its shortcomings. Example: Facial textures are much better on the PS3. In a game when you spend so much time talking to people, it makes a big difference. The immersion factor is all-important in a story-driven game, and the PS3 makes it easier to get invested. In a 2-page review, it makes little sense to spend three paragraphs outlining every detail regarding platform differences; I think the review does a good job of pointing out what's most important. What I mentioned above is just one example in how these particular factors can make a difference. A nitpick would be, for example, the comparisons I see drawn between Ghostbusters PS3 and X360. The differences here are immediately noticeable and blatantly obvious. We're putting together a Dragon Age graphics comparison, so if you are on the fence, hopefully that will help clarify how important the differences are to you. what about my question about mlb the show :(. dont be afraid to speak out with the truth. now i must read what you just posted. 
Log in to comment