You had better be prepared then - Samara is one of the least likely squadmates to play any kind of role in Mass Effect 3.kelmar6821 wrote...
Massadonious1 wrote...
You want them to make it their way,
as long as Samara is in it, eh?
To be perfectly honest. If its a trade off between story quality that is equivilant between ME1 or Me2 with my favorite squadie. I'd picka better story.
Don't get me wrong. I'd still rage a little, but I'ld be happier in the end.
kraidy1117 wrote...
You got to be kidding, Its to early for this ****. The Metracritic score means notihng, you have to read the reviews. Every review complained about the combat system, the inventory, the MAKO, the texture pop-ins and such.ME2 fixed that.Bioware goesx by majority when it it comes to making a game. Look at the MAKO. Only a minority liked it, so should they keep the MAKO in just because some people like it? No, don't bring characters into this because it is alot diffrent. Gameplay was a mess in ME. Why do you think Bioware re-did the whole combat system? It's because there was alot of complaints.
Why you brought up characters is beyond me, but seeing as Tali was added just for the fan base I would say yes Bioware listens to the majority, not the minority. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has to do with how people enjoy it and like it.
I came into the ME fandom via the original game and i preferred ME2 over ME1.Terror_K wrote...
While I have no doubts that a majority of people prefer ME2 over the original, I still have my doubts that a majority of fans who came into the ME fandom via the original game prefer ME2 over the original. At the very least even if they do they usually at least admit that ME2 changed too much and/or is lacking in certain aspects.
Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 02 avril 2010 - 11:23 .
kraidy1117 wrote...
Every review complained about the combat system, the inventory, the MAKO, the texture pop-ins and such.ME2 fixed that.Bioware goesx by majority when it it comes to making a game. Look at the MAKO. Only a minority liked it, so should they keep the MAKO in just because some people like it? No, don't bring characters into this because it is alot diffrent. Gameplay was a mess in ME. Why do you think Bioware re-did the whole combat system? It's because there was alot of complaints.
Why you brought up characters is beyond me, but seeing as Tali was added just for the fan base I would say yes Bioware listens to the majority, not the minority. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has to do with how people enjoy it and like it.
klossen4 wrote...
bioware just do it your way.
Modifié par Terror_K, 02 avril 2010 - 11:32 .
Tlazolteotl wrote...
@IOCaster
On the subject of metacritic ... since metacritic generalises the critics, I'm going to do the same.
Reviewers have a tendency to give scores that seem higher than the games deserve.
Meaning, any half decent game would get >80 points, when for the sake of comparison, i.e. marking on a "curve," if a game is only better than average it should get a score in the 50s or 60s.
Now seeing as the scores are generally high, throw in a cap of 100, and the 91-100 scores would be the most difficult to attain (since they are still trying to rank games).
So we have:
ME (xbox) 91 vs. ME2 (xbox) 96
ME (PC) 89 vs. ME2 (PC) 94
Note that the PC version of ME is far superior to the xbox version. The score is lower because the PC is capable of more than the xbox. I.e. the ceiling of competence is higher.
Having said all that, according to the critics, the 5% gap between ME and ME2 is an enormous difference.
I may prefer the story in ME1, but the combat was ass.
Ok, maybe rpgs can generally get away with being ass, but a large chunk of my game collection are action-orientated, and those games are judged entirely on their gameplay.
And the fact is, remove the storytelling, and ME's combat doesn't stack up against decent action games from the late 90s.
It is bad.
IoCaster wrote...
Tlazolteotl wrote...
@IOCaster
On the subject of metacritic ... since metacritic generalises the critics, I'm going to do the same.
Reviewers have a tendency to give scores that seem higher than the games deserve.
Meaning, any half decent game would get >80 points, when for the sake of comparison, i.e. marking on a "curve," if a game is only better than average it should get a score in the 50s or 60s.
Now seeing as the scores are generally high, throw in a cap of 100, and the 91-100 scores would be the most difficult to attain (since they are still trying to rank games).
So we have:
ME (xbox) 91 vs. ME2 (xbox) 96
ME (PC) 89 vs. ME2 (PC) 94
Note that the PC version of ME is far superior to the xbox version. The score is lower because the PC is capable of more than the xbox. I.e. the ceiling of competence is higher.
Having said all that, according to the critics, the 5% gap between ME and ME2 is an enormous difference.
I may prefer the story in ME1, but the combat was ass.
Ok, maybe rpgs can generally get away with being ass, but a large chunk of my game collection are action-orientated, and those games are judged entirely on their gameplay.
And the fact is, remove the storytelling, and ME's combat doesn't stack up against decent action games from the late 90s.
It is bad.
That was never the point. The Metacritic score was used to demonstrate that regardless of the nitpicking about various aspects of the gameplay, ME is still considered a great game. The critics knocked off points for all of the stuff that they thought was sub-par and it still scored 91%. The PC version was not done in house and it came out months later after any backlash and nitpicking had been well established. All of this is still beside the point. The OP has a preference and is certainly entitled to it. Trying to make the case that their opinion is invalid because a majority of fans disagree is pointless and arrogant.
GHOST OF FRUITY wrote...
Whatever Bioware decide to do with ME3, a whole legion of people on this forum will claim Bioware gave them the finger. Be it the game mechanics, the story, the characters - there will be things that some people will love and some will hate. You can't please everyone, so what can they do? Bioware just have to make the game as best they can and accept that not everyone will be happy with the result.
Tlazolteotl wrote...
And my point was, if we acknowledge that ME2 lost points for having a weaker story.
Then the system improvements managed to acquire, for ME2, more than a 5% boost in metacritic score.
Those nitpicked details obviously mattered.
IoCaster wrote...
Tlazolteotl wrote...
And my point was, if we acknowledge that ME2 lost points for having a weaker story.
Then the system improvements managed to acquire, for ME2, more than a 5% boost in metacritic score.
Those nitpicked details obviously mattered.
What does this have to do with my initial point? I wasn't making the case that ME had a better Metacritic score than ME2. I was rejecting the dubious claim that "the gameplay was just bad". If the gameplay was so 'bad' then why did the game get reviewed so favorably?
Tlazolteotl wrote...
Because the lower score was due to the gameplay being bad.
Baldur's gate also had bad gameplay, you know.
IoCaster wrote...
kraidy1117 wrote...
You do know not everyone liked the first ME right because even with it's good story the gameplay was just bad. There have been topics, polls, and other stuff and ME2 always comes on top. The people who think ME2 sucked or perfer ME are at a minority.
I liked the gameplay in Mass Effect and it has a Metacritic score of 91% for X360 version. So guess what, your opinion that the "gameplay was just bad", is not everyones opinion. That's something that you seem to constantly accuse other people of doing.
MassAffected wrote...
I hope BioWare listens to you...
/sarcasm
kelmar6821 wrote...
It was all them in Me1, but they took alot of ques from fans and Me2 seemed to be rubbish in comparison.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut