How would you rate dragon age ?

[PhatoseAlpha]

If 1-10 ratings are a percentile, it's easily a 10. Better then every RPG I've played in quite some time.

 

[Hauk]

I just finished, it's like saying goodbye to someone. Party members each have wonderfully crafted personalities. Luckily I saved right before Morrigan presents her surprising alternative. I'll run through the ending saying yes this time.

At least a 9/10 for me. Any flaws were quickly overshadowed by the storyline. The combat system was good, effects using over-the-shoulder camera and max settings were great.

Morrigan.. hot enough to put up with her bitchiness!

 

[Arglebargle]

....
So of the literally thousands of games that have been released over the last decade or two, the top 20% of the rating spectrum is filled by 8 and 5 games respectively? There's nothing wrong with basing your ratings on the subset of good games that you decided to buy each year, but if you don't take that into account when working backwards you get silly results like this.

I grade on the bell curve.

If it doesn't keep my attention for a full year, I don't put it near a 10....

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Perhaps it's just your definitions that are annoying me but exactly half of the games that are released each year are average or better... so they "finally" come around every other release or so. I would LOVE it if Dragon Age was truly an average release this year because that would mean we would have 60 titles that were as good or better.



So of the literally thousands of games that have been released over the last decade or two, the top 20% of the rating spectrum is filled by 8 and 5 games respectively? There's nothing wrong with basing your ratings on the subset of good games that you decided to buy each year, but if you don't take that into account when working backwards you get silly results like this.

You're assuming I play every game that's released and that's it's a percentage system, which it's not.

 

[Obsoleet]

Rating games is hard to do because there's lots of very old games that I'd have to give a high personal ranking from myself, because it was influential on my life or impacted me in some way. At the time the games were released, they would've definitely been 10s.

So ratings would need to change unless the context of time is always kept in mind. Games from 1995 certainly deserve a 10, but there are newer games that do the same thing, with a lot better AI and graphics today.. so does that drop the original game that started it all to a 4?

Or, do you base the ratings off every other game released that year (increasing the 10's by a huge margin as -something- has to be given an A+)



Given my doubts and perspective, I'd stay away from ratings all together and prefer to rate games based on a single paragraph of thoughts on a game. This would keep time in context and not leave all these questions of scale and what's appropriate.

I've skipped a lot of great games over the years, because I don't want or try to play everything. That alone makes 1 persons view almost pointless.

 

[MGMorden]

Dragon Age for me was easily an 8.5/10 for me. I loved the characters, story, and dialog. Gameplay was very, very good, but the fights were often somewhat repetitive.

There were a few bugs in the game that were annoying. Graphics were fine but my character getting stuck in the "crouch and inch forward" combat movement style out of combat was annoying - as was the time my character's weapon graphics got screwed up and instead of the staff I had equipped I was wielding two swords with their handles joined together.

The other thing was I felt that the world that they created for a setting was just a little generic and uninteresting. Certainly good stories can be told within it (as evidenced by the DA story itself), but compared to any of the traditional D&D settings it's just bland. Too few classes, too few races, and a downright lack of variations for the monsters. Using the engine in the Forgotten Realms setting would be interesting for sure.

I'd certainly like to see further games though. I'll probably buy any DLC they come out with as well.

 

[JoshGuru7]

You're assuming I play every game that's released and that's it's a percentage system, which it's not.

You do not play every game that is released but specifically attempt to play the good ones and avoid the bad ones. This clearly creates a biased sample and you should be cognizant of that when you rate games.

There's nothing wrong with having your own personal rating scale for whatever, but any attempt to compare ratings with others (such as this thread) dictates that you start from the same base case. Our base case could very well be "the games that AyashiKaibutsu played" but you can see how that gets a lot more awkward than simply "PC games".

As far as the percentage system goes, I think relative ranking is a much more useful metric than an absolute scale based on only a subset of games that you have played which is unknowable to the other participants.

 

[JoshGuru7]

Given my doubts and perspective, I'd stay away from ratings all together and prefer to rate games based on a single paragraph of thoughts on a game. This would keep time in context and not leave all these questions of scale and what's appropriate.

I agree that the ability to write a paragraph of thoughts is far superior as it lets you explain the background of why you liked the game and make direct comparisons to similar games. Discussions of likes and dislikes are hugely helpful for gamers in general because most people already have strong opinions on how they prioritize graphics, gameplay and story. The problem with this is that people love scoring metrics and thus there is a need for an absolute scoring system that can attempt to capture that paragraph in a consistent method without requiring that paragraph of gaming history to interpret.

So ratings would need to change unless the context of time is always kept in mind. Games from 1995 certainly deserve a 10, but there are newer games that do the same thing, with a lot better AI and graphics today.. so does that drop the original game that started it all to a 4?

I believe this is the case, and games should be scored against all available games. That game that was a 10/10 in 1995 and a 4/10 today can still be featured on "most influential" and "greatest games of their time" lists, but I don't see why you would rank an inferior game above a superior game just because it came first. What people care about is how the current game they are looking at compares to all games, and if they happen to be looking at an old game like Secret of Monkey Island then they will be well served to know about the modern remake.

This wouldn't be a contentious issue regarding many other products like television sets, where the average poster would be more than happy to claim that their 2009 50" LCD was vastly superior to their 1995 32" CRT. I think there's a lot of nostalgia here that prevents people from being equally objective when it comes to PC gaming.

 

[Malladine]

OP will you please add a poll!

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

You do not play every game that is released but specifically attempt to play the good ones and avoid the bad ones. This clearly creates a biased sample and you should be cognizant of that when you rate games.

There's nothing wrong with having your own personal rating scale for whatever, but any attempt to compare ratings with others (such as this thread) dictates that you start from the same base case. Our base case could very well be "the games that AyashiKaibutsu played" but you can see how that gets a lot more awkward than simply "PC games".

As far as the percentage system goes, I think relative ranking is a much more useful metric than an absolute scale based on only a subset of games that you have played which is unknowable to the other participants.

Who is the single person that has played all games every and is thus where you get your ratings from? Otherwise, you carry the same bias. Everyones ratings are personal. You're pretty much just been rambling and not making sense in your replies. I listed games I would rate 10s, and I didn't make an exhausted list; I also can't magicly rate games I never played. Trying to rate games as a percentage of what's been released that year is just stupid and I've never heard it implied in any category that a 1-10 scale would be a percentage like that. I'm sorry dragon age is decent but doesn't excel in all areas that are important for it to be fun and has some very annoying quirks in it's marketing of extra content it doesn't deserve to be a 9 or 10; you don't have to twist what people are saying and say asine and untrue stuff about how people place games on a 1-10 to try to justify that you feel it's better.

 

[you2]

Ok. Poll added.

OP will you please add a poll!

 

[TidusZ]

7.5/10. High production values and obviously a quality game but not really my style of gameplay. You spend a lot of time reading and listening to dialogue - its sort of like an interactive book.

 

[JoshGuru7]

Who is the single person that has played all games every and is thus where you get your ratings from? Otherwise, you carry the same bias. Everyones ratings are personal. You're pretty much just been rambling and not making sense in your replies.

My argument makes a lot more sense than you're acting. What is the point of you giving a score to a game if there is no context to place it in? "Favorite RPG of the year" conveys your opinion clearly to anybody on these forums reading it while "7" does not if you insist on disassociating your score from the other titles released this year.

If "7" to you means a game that is mostly fun but irritates you with marketing in this case, then it's your explanation of what 7 means to you that is useful to others rather than your score. Your scoring system might as well not exist in that case.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

My argument makes a lot more sense than you're acting. What is the point of you giving a score to a game if there is no context to place it in? "Favorite RPG of the year" conveys your opinion clearly to anybody on these forums reading it while "7" does not if you insist on disassociating your score from the other titles released this year.

If "7" to you means a game that is mostly fun but irritates you with marketing in this case, then it's your explanation of what 7 means to you that is useful to others rather than your score. Your scoring system might as well not exist in that case.

If all RPGs of the year suck game of the year ends up being extremely misleading while a 7 atleast conveys some concept of how good one feels the game is. They didn't ask for a short opinion; they asked for a rating as per the title of the thread, but I also gave a very short reasoning on why I said it was 70s-80s so why are you even posting this crap if you agreed with me how I did things in the first place?