443 réponses à ce sujet

[N7Raider]

Alex_SM wrote...

80s is a really high score. It means the game is outstanding.

doesn't matter he said they were getting perfect scores.  

[Labrev]

 Let me tell you the great myth about pessimism: it will make you less dissappointed, because you'll only be pleasantly suprised. It could not be more untrue.

Your attitude is huge toward dictating whether or not you will enjoy/get through ANYTHING in life. And I mean anything. Be that a video game, a sports-team you root for, how you approach recovery from illness/injury, etc. etc.

I frequent an NFL Forum and let me tell you, while the quality of posting is quite a bit better than here, there's still a lot of the same negativity you find on this site. Those fans that are always pessimistic never enjoy their teams' success. They bum themselves out of enjoying the good because, well, it won't be for long. And when something goes wrong, then the sky is falling. It's their loss, but pessimism sure as hell is not doing them any favors.

My approach to it has been low-expectations optimistic. I sure as hell don't expect perfection, I'm sure there will be plenty of things here and there I won't like, will cringe at, or will be dissappointed about. However, there will definitely be things that will be awesome, and when I experience those things, it'll be completely worth everything.

ME3 will be a blast, that much I am sure of.

Modifié par Hah Yes Reapers, 07 janvier 2012 - 03:20 .

[Someone With Mass]

It's pointless to expect everything about the game to be perfect, because I have yet to encounter a single game that was perfect in every regard from objective and subjective viewpoints.

[DiebytheSword]

I know I will enjoy ME3, even if I find things that could have been done better, expecting perfection is a perfect recipie for let downs.

[goofyomnivore]

I'm borderline optimistic. To name a few complaints; I think they dropped the ball with the Cerberus and Batarian plots specifically, the combat looks too fast(uber reload speed, rolls everywhere, etc).

[fatalfeline]

I'm very optimistic. The pessimists are all fans and out of concern for the quality of the new game they're nitpicking every little detail that comes out. Since most of the info has been combat-related, this has led to cries of ME3 becoming CoD IN SPACE. But the developers really believe in this game and the story it tells so they want to let out as little of the plot as possible. Then there was the leak that made everyone worry, but we've been assured that it won't be representative of the final product.

As for multiplayer and advanced gameplay... let me put it this way. I have a friend who I want to introduce ME to, but I don't think he'll like ME1. He likes good stories but as a gamer he's super focused on gameplay and he enjoys multiplayer (and yes... he is a CoD and Halo player). ME1 has weak gameplay and I'm sure that will turn him off. BioWare is making an effort to make ME3 the most accessible game for people just entering the series (as someone who started with ME2, this is something I would've really appreciated). BioWare is still making this for the fans who have stuck all the way through the series, but it's going to help broaden the horizons of newcomers too. ME3 is going to have a huge launch and for the first time it will launch on the 360, PC, and PS3 simultaneously. When you couple this with the newly added multiplayer, more people might get curious and pick it up. BW is trying to make the game so it can be an amazing experience for everybody, not just "RPG fans" and "people in the know" while taking measures to not sacrifice quality and I think that's really commendable.

[Sturmwulfe]

King Minos wrote...

Someone With Mass - If it is a big well known game with a **** load of hype, it immediately gets an 9 or 10/10. A perfect example is CoD. Same shot rehashed every year except new setting and guns and bam! 10 out of 10! Gears of War, bam! Perfect scores, Killzone 2 and 3, surprise surprise a perfect score! And if your game sucks, you can always bribe!

While I agree Modern Warfare 3 probably deserved an 8, Gears of War 3 was pretty stellar. Epic does a great job delievering a product and supporting it's community. Horde and Beast mode in Gears 3 is some of the most fun I've had gaming, and I've made some great friends through it. Not saying the game doesn't have it's downsides, but it is extremely well polished and offers a lot of content for it's asking price. Can't really comment on Killzone, haven't not owned a PS3 or played it at a friend's house (other than multiplayer, which was pretty fun). Although, I do think they hand out near perfect to perfect scores too often, but I think a part of the problem with the last year was so many great games came out, that earlier games that got a 9 or 10 or whatever were comparable in quality and value as the newer ones. I think some of the more fair ratings have been for the Assassin's Creed franchise, which usually gets around the 8 range because while there's steady improvements, each game pretty much plays out like the one before and doesn't break new ground (although adding multiplayer in Brotherhood was pretty huge). I think reviewers need to take that in account when reviewing new games, comparing them to previous games and seeing if it offers a lot to the table. Sometimes, the differences between games can be staggering (Half-Life 1 to Half-Life 2, Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2). Other times, it just seems like an expansion of the same game (Call of Duty after 4, Bioshock 1 and 2). I just take high ratings as the game's worth checking out, and paying attention to what people say about it, not critics. I only buy like 3-4 new games a year, max, so I need to know what's worth spending money on.

[Swampthing500]

I will give ME3 a chance, but the comments by the head of EA about "broadening the customer base" and the addition of multiplayer has made me somewhat worried.

Plus, based on the script, the ending is nothing more than an "I win" button.

Modifié par Swampthing500, 07 janvier 2012 - 04:21 .

[moneycashgeorge]

I am very worried about it, honestly I'm pretty sure I'll be dissapointed. But I'll certainly buy it.

Just because it won't live up to expectations, or the standard set by ME1, doesn't mean it will be bad relative to most games. I'm sure I'll still enjoy it, just not as much as I could have if BioWare had different design priorities.

Unfortunately it might not even be my favorite game of 2012. Bioshock Infinite looks like it will take that prize.

I used to think that Mass Effect meant it was certain to be my favorite, atleast of that year.

[Everan Shepard]

I think the only thing I'm extremely worried about is that I don't know for certain if I'll receive my CE. Mexico sucks!!!
But overall, I'm really dying for the game. Everytime I see something new, I cry

[AtreiyaN7]

I'm not interested in reading spoilers and/or making judgments based on what may not have been an entirely finalized script, so I'm neither pessimistic nor overly optimistic atm. I'm pretty much calmly waiting to see what happens. I almost think it's a hobby of people here to get their knickers in a twist over anything and everything.

[Sturmwulfe]

strive wrote...

I'm borderline optimistic. To name a few complaints; I think they dropped the ball with the Cerberus and Batarian plots specifically, the combat looks too fast(uber reload speed, rolls everywhere, etc).

I'm not sure they dropped the ball with Cerberus at all, I pretty much knew they were going to stab you in the back after the second game, regardless of what you did with the Collector base and without having read the books first. Just from what they did in the first game and all the things that's hinted at in the second game, they're hardly what I'd call trustworthy. Plus, I still think TIM is semi-indocrinated (reading the comic where he comes in contact with Reaper technology only convinced me more), so I think that he believes he's doing what's best for the galaxy, only he's being manipulated without realizing it. After all, Saren believed he was doing the right thing, even though he didn't realize until it was too late that he was being controlled. Besides, both have glowy blue bits, that's never a good sign in these games.

*ahem* BACK ON TOPIC! 

[Sweawm]

I'm in the optimism with this one, because I like what Mass Effect 3 has been shown as thus far. I never played Mass Effect for the game play (Think about it, if you took away Mass Effect 1's amazing story, the entire game would of just been terrible), though actually enjoying the combat in Mass Effect 2 was pretty great.

Once I actually really liked Halo for having a decent Si-Fi story where no over game did. It had lore and a great story (Though lacking on personality). I never bought Mass Effect 1 myself, I burrowed it. But once I started playing, I was immediately hooked on the gripping story and universe. I went on to buy Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect had a unique fleshed out universe like no game before it.

I remain optimistic about this trilogy and I will certainly look forward to what ever comes after, even the extended universe in novels, comics and maybe even future games and spin offs.

[abaris]

fatalfeline wrote...

BioWare is making an effort to make ME3 the most accessible game for people just entering the series (as someone who started with ME2, this is something I would've really appreciated). BioWare is still making this for the fans who have stuck all the way through the series, but it's going to help broaden the horizons of newcomers too. 

Excuse me, but that just sounds like a page from PR 101.

In fact, the added multiplayer is about the only thing making me a bit pessimistic, since it speaks very loudly about the good old "capturing the COD crowd". So why stop there? Why not ride the streamlining express to the final destination?

I'm playing the devils advocate here, but introducing multiplayer into the last game of a series seems like a last minute's decision. Here's hoping it doesn't influence the single player campaign in any negative way.

[King Minos]

Every shooter I said is the same crap, differen't story. Killzone, Halo, Gears of War, Battlefield, Callof Duty etc etc. Assassins creed my come out very yer but atleast the plot is exciting, added new features and a new setting. 80-90s are given out way too easily and it's the games with potential that suck or get shafted and the games with nothing new get the prizes and those games are...surprise. Shooters that focus on multiplayer. Multiplayer is a tool, nothing more. A tool that is intended to reap in millions upon millions and it works unfortunately. Multiplayer in Mazs Effect is not intended for us original fans, it is bait. Used to lure idiotic cod fans into the Mass Effect universe.

[Severyx]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's been said that's how BSN happens to be. Don't take these forums as any real indicator of how players really feel. Everyone I've talked to (myself included) is rather excited for ME3. The changes, in my opinion, seem to fit development progression quite nicely and the plot isn't as swiss-cheesy as a lot of people claim. All in all, I'm stoked.

abaris wrote...

In
fact, the added multiplayer is about the only thing making me a bit
pessimistic, since it speaks very loudly about the good old "capturing
the COD crowd". So why stop there? Why not ride the streamlining express
to the final destination?

I'm playing the devils advocate here,
but introducing multiplayer into the last game of a series seems like a
last minute's decision. Here's hoping it doesn't influence the single
player campaign in any negative way.

This screams "I don't really know, but everyone said it's bad." Truth be told, the multiplayer idea seems last minute, but I have to disagree with everything else said here. COD is competitive, ME3 multiplayer is pure Co-op. ME3 Never has and never will play like COD, so saying that it's catering to said fans is just a baseless opinion to justify yelling at BioWare (I'm not trying to single you out, I've been standing by this since the announcement).

Anywho, your fears about single player being affected are unfounded. It has been announced that multiplayer is COMPLETELY optional and can be avoided entirely if you wish. It's there for those who wish to partake in the feature, and only then does it help in the single player.

Modifié par Severyx, 07 janvier 2012 - 11:57 .

[nitefyre410]

Severyx wrote...

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's been said that's how BSN happens to be. Don't take these forums as any real indicator of how players really feel. Everyone I've talked to (myself included) is rather excited for ME3. The changes, in my opinion, seem to fit development progression quite nicely and the plot isn't as swiss-cheesy as a lot of people claim. All in all, I'm stoked.

  

Honestly if I  took  this place  as anything over that a  barrells of laughes,  with excellent examples of self indulgent delusions  I would probrably   give up  on  Mass Effect a long time ago.    Despite my concerns I am postive that ME 3 well be an enjoy experience that will not live my  stack of games for a  long time to come.

[King Minos]

Myltiplayer will take up valuable disk space, since I presume there will be two disks, the multiplayer itself will be on both disks. For example multiplayer takes up 20% of disk space. I said two disks so 20 add 20 equals 40! That's 40 percent of memory taken away, both disk have 80% of memory left. Let's not forget the software to protect from piracy so take another 10% of both discs so we no only have 70% worth of memory on both disks. I am not sure bu I remember someone saying there were 3 disks so do what I did for an example. Multiplayer takes up 20% on all 3 disks. That's 60% percent of memory lost. To accommodate feces.

[crimzontearz]

hey fatalfeline....it's because of people like you and the catering the devs are doing for them that ME2 never really reached its full potential

[abaris]

Severyx wrote...

Anywho, your fears about single player being affected are unfounded. It has been announced that multiplayer is COMPLETELY optional and can be avoided entirely if you wish. It's there for those who wish to partake in the feature, and only then does it help in the single player.

Yet it takes up development time and ressources.

And the "capturing the COD crowd" is based on repeated statements from EA brass. Not particularly about ME3, although it has been said about that too, but about a general strategem.

Modifié par abaris, 07 janvier 2012 - 12:49 .

[didymos1120]

King Minos wrote...

Multiplayer takes up 20% on all 3 disks. That's 60% percent of memory lost. To accommodate feces.

Well, your math is certainly feces.  20% on all three discs would be...20% of the total data.

[argonian persona]

abaris wrote...

Severyx wrote...

Anywho, your fears about single player being affected are unfounded. It has been announced that multiplayer is COMPLETELY optional and can be avoided entirely if you wish. It's there for those who wish to partake in the feature, and only then does it help in the single player.

Yet it takes up development time and ressources.

And the "capturing the COD crowd" is based on repeated statements from EA brass. Not particularly about ME3, although it has been said about that too, but about a general strategem.

One of the reasons I loved Mass Effect was because it wasn't Gears of friggin War! Oh, how it evolved into that. Should have focused on being a genuine role playing game with shooting combat.

Rpgs can sell very, very nicely .

[RyuGuitarFreak]

King Minos wrote...

Obviously it will get 10/10 just because it's Mass Effect! No game reviewer gives an honest review because they are either bribed or I they don't they get flames by fanboys. Keep your expectations real people, stop being so drunk on optimism.

I'm keeping my expectations real.

ME1 was amazing, ME2 was amazing. ME3 will be amazing.

What is so unrealistic about this? I think it's the most reasonable out of hype line of thought on this matter.

And you know what's so brilliant about it? Most people outside the internet warfare think like this.

[abaris]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...


ME1 was amazing, ME2 was amazing. ME3 will be amazing.

What is so unrealistic about this?

It's an assumption. I agree on the first two, but I haven't seen the third one yet. Calling something amazing, before having seen it with my own two eyes is wishful thinking or having high expectations.

[Sturmwulfe]

King Minos wrote...

Every shooter I said is the same crap, differen't story. Killzone, Halo, Gears of War, Battlefield, Callof Duty etc etc. Assassins creed my come out very yer but atleast the plot is exciting, added new features and a new setting. 80-90s are given out way too easily and it's the games with potential that suck or get shafted and the games with nothing new get the prizes and those games are...surprise. Shooters that focus on multiplayer. Multiplayer is a tool, nothing more. A tool that is intended to reap in millions upon millions and it works unfortunately. Multiplayer in Mazs Effect is not intended for us original fans, it is bait. Used to lure idiotic cod fans into the Mass Effect universe.

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but somehow I don't think you've actually played more than one or two of those gams. All of them, except for maybe Battlefield and Call of Duty, play quite differently and operate off different mechanics. As for plots, some games have great plots, others, not so much. Shooters like Half-Life 2 have amazing plots (and doesn't focus on multiplayer, suprise!) and some of the best story telling devices in gaming. Part of the reason I love Gears of War is because I came to associate with the characters and felt attached to their plight and I found the world really interesting (the novels written by Karen Traviss are some of my favorite books ever written, and I've read everything from A Song of Ice and Fire to Tom Clancy's classic offerings to non-fiction historical tomes, and everything in between). The Halo universe is one of the best fleshed out sci-fi worlds out there, and Halo CE was absolutely revolutionary and defined shooters to this day. There's a good chance if that game never was released, you wouldn't have Mass Effect.

Not all shooters focus on multiplayer, and while some seem to treat the single player as a warm up for multiplayer, it doesn't mean the game is garbage because of it. Developers wouldn't make multiplayer if there wasn't an appeal to it. I notice you aren't complaining about Assassin's Creed having multiplayer, which you seem to think sucks up a lot of disc space and wastes the potential of a single player game. Suprise, those games didn't suffer one bit from having a multiplayer mode, and it turned out being pretty awesome. Multiplayer games bring people together, and while I'm not the best at competitive games, and rather play a coop with friends, I still think it's fun and gaming now is what I've always wanted it to be since I was a kid. I like to test my skills against other people, and some of the funniest moments playing games are in multiplayer.

Instead of blanket statement trashing it, why not find a game that sounds interesting and try the multiplayer? You may find yourself enjoying the experience that you never could have alone. Just because a game has multiplayer doesn't mean the single player suffers. As others have pointed out, Assassin's Creed, Dead Space, and several other single player focused games eventually had a multiplayer mode included, and people generally agree the single player was better than the original game, and the multiplayer was actually pretty awesome. Why not give Mass Effect 3 that chance? If you still feel multiplayer is the devil incarnate when the game is released, you can completely ignore it exists and probably think that the third single player game was absolutely stellar.

Your logic with the memory useage for the games on the disc doesn't really check out either, because not all games use the same disc space (different file sizes), and a game's scope and size doesn't necessarily mean it'll be as long or fully developed as other games that take up less space. Take for instance Lost Odyssey, I have no idea why that game had to go on 4 discs when similar length JRPGs like Tales of Vesperia were on one or two discs (I don't actually remember how many Tales had, I think it was one). Meanwhile, Mass Effect 2 was on two discs, while Skyrim was on one. ME2 Can take anywhere from 20-60 hours to complete, depending how through you are at world exploring, doing side missions, et cetera, and Skyrim you can easily sink hundreds of hours into and still have parts of the world you've never been to, quests you never even knew existed, and dungeons that you haven't discovered. So even if 20% of ME3's disc space is multiplayer, like you fear, then that doesn't necessarily mean they were doing to use that resource anyways. You probably won't notice the quality or length of the single player to suffer at it's expense, unless you attribute design decisions as multiplayer compromising or whatever, regardless if it is or not.