806 réponses à ce sujet

[JeffZero]

FluffyScarf wrote...

Those turret sections were awful. I remember praying every time that the Hawk would avoid facing those fighters

My girlfriend played through KOTOR for the first time last year. I always knew when she was in a turret section despite her headphones because I'd hear sudden profanity from the other room.

[AlanC9]

Cody211282 wrote...
 At least the Mako, as broken and hard to drive as it was, added something to the game.

Yep. Tedium.

[JeffZero]

AlanC9 wrote...

Cody211282 wrote...
 At least the Mako, as broken and hard to drive as it was, added something to the game.

Yep. Tedium.

LOL. I don't actually despise the Mako (kind of neutral on it) but I laughed pretty hard at this.

[GirlPower23]

BobSmith101 wrote...


That game lacks the the final level of polishing that AAA games should have , feel free to disagree but you can see it just by looking. As such it's worth no more than 85% tops.

Well ME3 is supposedly bigger than ME2 and they had the same development time. So one can only come to the conclusion that ME3 will not be as polished.

[FluffyScarf]

Yes, because Uncharted, Lagrim, Crysis 2, Arkham, TW2 and all other AAA titles were extremely 'polished' upon their release too.

Notice that Lagrim was not singled out.

Modifié par FluffyScarf, 25 février 2012 - 09:26 .

[JeffZero]

GirlPower23 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...


That game lacks the the final level of polishing that AAA games should have , feel free to disagree but you can see it just by looking. As such it's worth no more than 85% tops.

Well ME3 is supposedly bigger than ME2 and they had the same development time. So one can only come to the conclusion that ME3 will not be as polished.

At least BioWare got that four-month-ish extension on ME3, assuming of course that that's indeed how it went down. Back when the release date was 'circa November 2011' a lot of people were flipping out over the decreased development time, especially following the infamy of Dragon Age II's more tepid reception and development time.

[AlanC9]

JeffZero wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Cody211282 wrote...
 At least the Mako, as broken and hard to drive as it was, added something to the game.

Yep. Tedium.

LOL. I don't actually despise the Mako (kind of neutral on it) but I laughed pretty hard at this.

I've had practice. So damn many threads turn into Mako/anti-Mako squabbling.

[JeffZero]

FluffyScarf wrote...

Yes, because Uncharted, Lagrim, Crysis 2, Arkham and all other AAA titles were extremely 'polished' upon their release too.

I think Uncharted generally is fairly polished, though, at least... isn't it? I mean, I've only played through the first game, granted. But my Uncharted-loving friends always squeal about how pretty and refined the sequels are.

Then again, there was that business with some patch for UC3 to make gunplay more like UC2... that's an odd one.

[AkiKishi]

JeffZero wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...

FlashedMyDrive wrote...

This guy sounds extremely bias. I don't doubt that he will give ME3 at least a 9 out of 10.

-Pretty much this.

Unless there's something seriously, seriously wrong with ME3, very few major outlets are going to give it less than a 9. A couple will be edgy and give it a 6 (there may be a bit of a pun in that statement yet; just you wait and see) to be different.

Maybe, but it's not like you could give it 2 like you could DA2.

[JeffZero]

AlanC9 wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Cody211282 wrote...
 At least the Mako, as broken and hard to drive as it was, added something to the game.

Yep. Tedium.

LOL. I don't actually despise the Mako (kind of neutral on it) but I laughed pretty hard at this.

I've had practice. So damn many threads turn into Mako/anti-Mako squabbling.

Haha, true that.

[JeffZero]

FluffyScarf wrote...
Notice that Lagrim was not singled out.

[Oblivious]

Uncharted, Skyrim, and Arkham had so much good that it vastly outweighed the bad. Crysis... nah, that game sucked. It's only a matter of time whether ME3's good can outweigh the bad or if it's another Dragon Age 2.

[AkiKishi]

GirlPower23 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...


That game lacks the the final level of polishing that AAA games should have , feel free to disagree but you can see it just by looking. As such it's worth no more than 85% tops.

Well ME3 is supposedly bigger than ME2 and they had the same development time. So one can only come to the conclusion that ME3 will not be as polished.

That should in no way influence the score though. You can't give "credits" based on tight schedules.

Like I said in another post if you look at individual elements of ME3 you get a better impression than when you look at the whole.

Drake 3 was amazing a lot more good than bad but I think 2 "peaked" Looking foward to seeing "The last of us" though.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 25 février 2012 - 09:30 .

[AlphaJarmel]

JeffZero wrote...

At least BioWare got that four-month-ish extension on ME3, assuming of course that that's indeed how it went down. Back when the release date was 'circa November 2011' a lot of people were flipping out over the decreased development time, especially following the infamy of Dragon Age II's more tepid reception and development time.

I really want to wonder what they could have done with an extra six months but I don't work at Bioware so I don't know.  It seems rushed, even with the extra time they got, but I'll have to wait until I give it a proper run through.

Modifié par AlphaJarmel, 25 février 2012 - 09:29 .

[GirlPower23]

Oblivious wrote...

Uncharted, Skyrim, and Arkham had so much good that it vastly outweighed the bad. Crysis... nah, that game sucked. It's only a matter of time whether ME3's good can outweigh the bad or if it's another Dragon Age 2.

 Crysis 2 was CryTeks sad attempt at making a game and failing. However, they did get to show off their pretty engine with DX11.  :innocent: To much effort into trying to be Modern Warfare and not enough effort into creativity. Which is ironic considering CryTek doesn't have publishers barking down their throat to make Corridor Shoooter XXX. Alas, that was the route they decided to go anyway. Not that Crysis was exactly Amaizng, more like a tech demo for their engine.

Modifié par GirlPower23, 25 février 2012 - 09:32 .

[Oblivious]

BobSmith101 wrote...

GirlPower23 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...


That game lacks the the final level of polishing that AAA games should have , feel free to disagree but you can see it just by looking. As such it's worth no more than 85% tops.

Well ME3 is supposedly bigger than ME2 and they had the same development time. So one can only come to the conclusion that ME3 will not be as polished.

That should in no way influence the score though. You can't give "credits" based on tight schedules.

True that. Otherwise Duke Nukem Forever would be Game of the Decade.

[JeffZero]

AlphaJarmel wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

At least BioWare got that four-month-ish extension on ME3, assuming of course that that's indeed how it went down. Back when the release date was 'circa November 2011' a lot of people were flipping out over the decreased development time, especially following the infamy of Dragon Age II's more tepid reception and development time.

I really want to wonder what they could have done with an extra six months but I don't work at Bioware so I don't know.  It seems rushed, even with the extra time they got, but I'll have to wait until I give it a proper run through.

They could probably do quite a bit with it. Give you some genuine vehicle sections, for starters. I know you aren't alone in that desire by any means.

Wonder if they're going the DLC route with that again.

[Oblivious]

GirlPower23 wrote...

Oblivious wrote...

Uncharted, Skyrim, and Arkham had so much good that it vastly outweighed the bad. Crysis... nah, that game sucked. It's only a matter of time whether ME3's good can outweigh the bad or if it's another Dragon Age 2.

 Crysis 2 was CryTeks sad attempt at making a game and failing. However, they did get to show off their pretty engine with DX11.  :innocent:

I agree, that thing was more a tech demo than anything else. A demo that evidently failed since I have yet to see another CryEngine game anywhere.

[AlphaJarmel]

Oblivious wrote...
True that. Otherwise Duke Nukem Forever would be Game of the Decade.

It is.  In that the mechanics are a decade old.

[JeffZero]

GirlPower23 wrote...

Oblivious wrote...

Uncharted, Skyrim, and Arkham had so much good that it vastly outweighed the bad. Crysis... nah, that game sucked. It's only a matter of time whether ME3's good can outweigh the bad or if it's another Dragon Age 2.

 Crysis 2 was CryTeks sad attempt at making a game and failing. However, they did get to show off their pretty engine with DX11.  :innocent:

Considering that's 99% of what anyone ever mentions when they bring that game up, I'd say they succeeded in ways that any other company would have been a called a failure over.

[FluffyScarf]

It's not like ME 1 and 2 were highly polished like Portal either. And even though ME 2 is seen as the black sheep, it still received high scores.

And only look at individual elements? You can break any game down and tear into it. Want me to start with Lagrim? Because that 'game' sure as hell isn't GOTY worthy if you look at its individual elements.

Modifié par FluffyScarf, 25 février 2012 - 09:33 .

[JeffZero]

AlphaJarmel wrote...

Oblivious wrote...
True that. Otherwise Duke Nukem Forever would be Game of the Decade.

It is.  In that the mechanics are a decade old.

Hell, I still play 1991-2001 games every year but what little I touched of DNF was just flat-out bad in the sense that pinning a year to could never truly explain. Just... bad.

[habitat 67]

Oblivious wrote...

GirlPower23 wrote...

Oblivious wrote...

Uncharted, Skyrim, and Arkham had so much good that it vastly outweighed the bad. Crysis... nah, that game sucked. It's only a matter of time whether ME3's good can outweigh the bad or if it's another Dragon Age 2.

 Crysis 2 was CryTeks sad attempt at making a game and failing. However, they did get to show off their pretty engine with DX11.  :innocent:

I agree, that thing was more a tech demo than anything else. A demo that evidently failed since I have yet to see another CryEngine game anywhere.

I liked Crysis 2. It was just a bit boring.