450 réponses à ce sujet

[Obro]

Daywalker315 wrote...

Obro wrote...

Honestly if anyone is basing his purchase on a review made by a site that got the copy ahead of time is insane.

They are giving it a good grade even if it's the worst game ever made cause they are paid to do so.

Paid to do so? Given a free copy of the game (or a couple/few) maybe but paid, no. Your conspiracy theories have no merit here.

wait wait... you actually believe that ...after spending ****load of money on developement and even more on marketing they would give a copy to someone for free so they can give a honest opinon on it? AHAHHAHAH where the hell do you live bro?

[Daggerville]

Obro wrote...

Daywalker315 wrote...

Obro wrote...

Honestly if anyone is basing his purchase on a review made by a site that got the copy ahead of time is insane.

They are giving it a good grade even if it's the worst game ever made cause they are paid to do so.

Paid to do so? Given a free copy of the game (or a couple/few) maybe but paid, no. Your conspiracy theories have no merit here.

wait wait... you actually believe that ...after spending ****load of money on developement and even more on marketing they would give a copy to someone for free so they can give a honest opinon on it? AHAHHAHAH where the hell do you live bro?

I still give more credit to reviewers than actual players who happen to have the 'luck' of getting access to early copies and making their own 'reviews'. The fact that someone has implied (on the spoiler board) that he finished the game in 23 hours only shows that this person obviously skipped content or is lying, simple as that.

[Dariustwinblade]

Obro wrote...

Daywalker315 wrote...

Obro wrote...

Honestly if anyone is basing his purchase on a review made by a site that got the copy ahead of time is insane.

They are giving it a good grade even if it's the worst game ever made cause they are paid to do so.

Paid to do so? Given a free copy of the game (or a couple/few) maybe but paid, no. Your conspiracy theories have no merit here.

wait wait... you actually believe that ...after spending ****load of money on developement and even more on marketing they would give a copy to someone for free so they can give a honest opinon on it? AHAHHAHAH where the hell do you live bro?

Da2 goat a fu.cking  8/10 from gamespot. The users gave it a 4/10

Really you think the are not paid for giving good review.

[Obro]

Daggerville wrote...

Obro wrote...

Daywalker315 wrote...

Obro wrote...

Honestly if anyone is basing his purchase on a review made by a site that got the copy ahead of time is insane.

They are giving it a good grade even if it's the worst game ever made cause they are paid to do so.

Paid to do so? Given a free copy of the game (or a couple/few) maybe but paid, no. Your conspiracy theories have no merit here.

wait wait... you actually believe that ...after spending ****load of money on developement and even more on marketing they would give a copy to someone for free so they can give a honest opinon on it? AHAHHAHAH where the hell do you live bro?

I still give more credit to reviewers than actual players who happen to have the 'luck' of getting access to early copies and making their own 'reviews'. The fact that someone has implied (on the spoiler board) that he finished the game in 23 hours only shows that this person obviously skipped content or is lying, simple as that.

you mean like those who gave Dragon Age 2 94/100?

[Garrus30]

Obro wrote...

you mean like those who gave Dragon Age 2 94/100?

So what? Because some Games are overrated/underrated that it doesn't share your view, so the mag isn't reliable?

No one should take the critics too serious, but to ignore them isn't good either, well only if they don't match your view at all.

The german mag at least clearly stated that DA2 has it's flaws instead of no mentioning them at all and guess what they gave ME1+2 a high rating too.

Modifié par Garrus30, 28 février 2012 - 04:38 .

[MB957]

what is a turret section? also, the review didn't address the endings being discussed so strongly in other threads. Are there any reviews of the game yet that talk about the rumored "unhappy" endings for all plot choices?

[MisterDoubleShot]

I am very impressed!
I pre-ordered the CE one and totally worths it!.

[Obro]

Garrus30 wrote...

Obro wrote...

you mean like those who gave Dragon Age 2 94/100?

So what? Because some Games are overrated/underrated that it doesn't share your view, so the mag isn't reliable?

No one should take the critics too serious, but to ignore them isn't good either, well only if they don't match your view at all.

The german mag at least clearly stated that DA2 has it's flaws instead of no mentioning them at all and guess what they gave ME1+2 a high rating too.

you want to tell me that DA2 deserved anything near 94? Are you serious? ARE you serious?

[Garrus30]

Obro wrote...

you want to tell me that DA2 deserved anything near 94? Are you serious? ARE you serious?

no, the mag I'm talkin about gave it 87/100, where DA:O had 92.
Still there are some people who enjoy it, so where is the problem? 
Because you don't like it? Fine I also don't like, but that doesn't mean that everyone else thinks so too.

You know what I'm trying to say? If not, than I guess you need some calibrations 

Modifié par Garrus30, 28 février 2012 - 05:06 .

[Eclipse_9990]

Turret section? Thats it I'll just play Skyrim for the time being..

[Nekator]

DenizYe wrote...

You all should know that Gamestar is a german magazine being very skeptical and are moaning about many things, so this is a pretty decent review i guess

really? GS and sceptical? i thought they are one of the magazines which hype ME3 the most..

[hagren]

MB957 wrote...

what is a turret section? also, the review didn't address the endings being discussed so strongly in other threads. Are there any reviews of the game yet that talk about the rumored "unhappy" endings for all plot choices?

A turret section is an oft-used gameplay mechanic in FPS and TPS where you man a stationary gun and shoot at waves of enemies for a period of time.

[fistandan77]

@ Jaegerbane

"That's odd. I personally thought the same when I played the demo - in fact there was one scenario that stuck in my mind - in the area with the Varren attacking the cerberus soldier in the Salarian level, I ordered Garrus and Liara to take cover on the lower level while I ran up the top. After cleaning that out I opened fire on the Cerberus soldiers advancing on the lower level - once one soldier got hit, the other three all moved to take cover under the overhand I was standing on, so I couldn't even get out of cover to keep shooting, I had to run to the other side of the balcony.. That felt like good AI."

I agree.  Also, I find it good to put the difficulty up to insanity as this plugs some of gaps in the AI, so to speak, since they are more aggressive and the fact they do more damage makes it feel more challenging and enhances the drama.  

When making a little mistake can lead to a game over screen the enemies feel more dangerous which makes the combat more tense and helps detracts from any of the dodgy enemy routines since you're a lot more occupied than on lower settings.  

Modifié par fistandan77, 28 février 2012 - 07:36 .

[Alex_SM]

Daggerville wrote...

Obro wrote...

Daywalker315 wrote...

Obro wrote...

Honestly if anyone is basing his purchase on a review made by a site that got the copy ahead of time is insane.

They are giving it a good grade even if it's the worst game ever made cause they are paid to do so.

Paid to do so? Given a free copy of the game (or a couple/few) maybe but paid, no. Your conspiracy theories have no merit here.

wait wait... you actually believe that ...after spending ****load of money on developement and even more on marketing they would give a copy to someone for free so they can give a honest opinon on it? AHAHHAHAH where the hell do you live bro?

I still give more credit to reviewers than actual players who happen to have the 'luck' of getting access to early copies and making their own 'reviews'. The fact that someone has implied (on the spoiler board) that he finished the game in 23 hours only shows that this person obviously skipped content or is lying, simple as that.

Reviews before release date must be approved by the game publisher in order to be published. Many reviewers have said so. Last time I read it was said by spanish website Meristation.

They have to send the review to the publisher, which reads it and "fixes" it in case they don't like it. Otherwise they are not allowed to publish it until the release date. 

And everyone wants their reviews for the most hyped games to be published before anyone else, because that means lots of unique visitors, and that means money. 


And then, even if they wait for the release date, if a website (or magazine) makes many bad reviews of the same publisher, they get kicked out from the beta/displays/free copies, etc... circuit.

For the major publishers, reviews are part of the marketting strategy, not "actual reviews".

[ncknck]

ncknck wrote...

hagren wrote...
-No loose ends or cliffhangers, the game is truly an appropriate end to the trilogy with a very intense and touching finale

Intense ending with no loose ends, so i take it everybody dies?

Looks like i was right. I am great!

[Ob4rul3r]

hagren wrote...

GreenSoda wrote...

Hmm, Gamestar -Germany's biggest print pc-magazine. They're reliable...but I believe they also gave DA2 a score around 87-89%. So there's that.

87, yes. So guys, beware

Well, "we", the users of their site (/subscribers to their print version), gave them a hard time for that rating, where they tried to explain it to us somehow in their forum ... they didn't rate it that high in comparsion to its predecessor Origins, but as a standalone Action-RPG, since they always tend to rate the mechanics a little more, and you if you look at Dragon Age 2 as a story-driven Hack&Slay, and not as a Party-RPG, you can come to that conclusion that it is still "good" ....


But despite some questionable decisions in the past, the GameStar is a pretty reliable source for reviews, so the (p)review that us subscribers already got inbox with the print version this weekend is somehow trustworthy, since they didn't rate ME1 and 2 that high after all, 85 and 88 if I recall that right. With the points already given in their test, and only havingg two X/10 categories left (Gfx/Controls), the max. rating atm would be a 94. Keeping their criticism and their moaning about gfx and the weird controls of the ME series in generell in mind, I'd say they end up giving a 90.

[Blooddsshott]

In regardes to enemy AI, i do believe it was an improvement over ME2 but not by much, i still think that if you want even decent challenge you need to play on Hardcore or insanity, anything below that is just too easy IMO.

[Alex_SM]

DA2 is not worth a 87 no matter how you tag it.  

Modifié par Alex_SM, 29 février 2012 - 01:56 .

[Sashimi_taco]

If there are no loose ends or anything, how could the leaked endings possibly be true!?

[bman40002011]

You can unlock armor for ME2 in the ME3 demo

Modifié par bman40002011, 29 février 2012 - 03:53 .

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

Daggerville wrote...

Obro wrote...

Daywalker315 wrote...

Obro wrote...

Honestly if anyone is basing his purchase on a review made by a site that got the copy ahead of time is insane.

They are giving it a good grade even if it's the worst game ever made cause they are paid to do so.

Paid to do so? Given a free copy of the game (or a couple/few) maybe but paid, no. Your conspiracy theories have no merit here.

wait wait... you actually believe that ...after spending ****load of money on developement and even more on marketing they would give a copy to someone for free so they can give a honest opinon on it? AHAHHAHAH where the hell do you live bro?

I still give more credit to reviewers than actual players who happen to have the 'luck' of getting access to early copies and making their own 'reviews'. The fact that someone has implied (on the spoiler board) that he finished the game in 23 hours only shows that this person obviously skipped content or is lying, simple as that.

I'm more inclined to believe someone who isn't paid to write reviews.

[BatmanPWNS]

Obro wrote...

Garrus30 wrote...

Obro wrote...

you mean like those who gave Dragon Age 2 94/100?

So what? Because some Games are overrated/underrated that it doesn't share your view, so the mag isn't reliable?

No one should take the critics too serious, but to ignore them isn't good either, well only if they don't match your view at all.

The german mag at least clearly stated that DA2 has it's flaws instead of no mentioning them at all and guess what they gave ME1+2 a high rating too.

you want to tell me that DA2 deserved anything near 94? Are you serious? ARE you serious?

Lol, it's funny watching you rage over a video game. :innocent:

[squee365]

There's no review embargo persay really,
the reason we've seen little reviews is because the MP servers aren't up for the reviewers. IGN touched on this.

[AxholeRose]

hagren wrote...

 Here's a summary:

-15-20 hour-long main quest
-Around 40 hours playtime in total- side missions are vital to amass enough opposition to the Reaper threat
-90 minutes of cutscenes
-No loose ends or cliffhangers, the game is truly an appropriate end to the trilogy with a very intense and touching finale
-More than 100 scenes, conversations and/or events change depending on our choices after importing a save-game from ME2- from something small like someone thanking us for completing a mission to bigger repercussions which would be to spoilerous to write down- you are definitely going to feel the consequences, and not always like them
-SPOILER: In order to rally allies, we search for a cure for the Genophage, build a Prothean weapon, disarm a Cerberus bomb before it destroys half of a moon, and are even inserted virtually in a computer program
-If and how many of these quests we complete influences how the game ends, and who- individually and globally- survives
-While the game can be enjoyable for newcomers as well, because the game is strong on its own mechanically and story-wise, it is recommended to play the first two entries to make more sense out of the wealth of information that the game builds on
-There's an interesting sequence after the end credits
-The „Role-Play“ mode of the game (In contrast to „Action“ and „Story“) feels very much like ME1
-The game gives you more opportunity to customize your Shepard. Each class has 8 talents with 6 levels each, and up from Level 4 there are two branches to choose from to level up each individual talent differently. Weapon customization is also a factor and noticeable, but the effects (which have both pros and cons) are only marginal
-Balancing isn't optimal
-The game is noticeably more difficult up from „Medium“, which makes using the correct weapon mods and talents integral to survive. Shepard also shoots more accurately in cover.
-The AI, on the other hand, is still not very advanced
-SPOILER: You are going to visit Krogan ruins, a Geth ship and the Turian moon Palaven, among others
-There are multiple turret sections which aren't very well directed
-Despite the shortcomings in level design, which are similar to ME2, the game is constantly thrilling, spectacular and dramatic- largely thanks to the well-presented story and dialogue- and there are lot of small and large choices again to ponder on
-Scanning isn't nearly as repetitive as before, because it works a lot quicker now and incorporates a new mini-game where you have to navigate your ship away from Reaper threat
-The new melee option is fun, but a little overpowered
-Graphically, the low polycount, lack of detail and low texture resolution disappoints- the characters are well animated and modeled however, and the overall look, despite its age, is quite moody
-Great dynamic soundtrack and sound-effects
-Our progress in the war effort is constantly trackable on a terminal on the Normandy

In summary, the game builds on the strenghts of ME2 and takes some notes from ME1 to create the most compelling experience in the franchise yet. 

I'd like to know what the Germans were smoking