450 réponses à ce sujet

[Techlology]

15 hours is kind of pathetic for a big RPG game.

[BrookerT]

that is really wierd, one of the things the demo really got right was the A.I.
even squadmates acted less that turrets and more like actual people, just odd.

[DenizYe]

JaegerBane wrote...

Warden130 wrote...

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

And yea: They gave ME3 a 9/10 
here is their rating:
Sound 10/10
Quests/Plot 10/10
Charaters 10/10
Combat 8/10 (because of "stupid" AI)
And all other areas 9/10 (don't know which areas they mean)
____

source:  http://www.masseffec...ts--id-861.html (german + SPOILERS)

From what I have played in the demo, the AI seems alot smarter than in the other ME games. Hell, smarter than in alot of games. Maybe they are refering to squad member AI, that AI always seems to be worse than the enemy AI for some reason.

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.

Yea I'm wondering too, to be honest.
They wrote: 
The AI tries to get into cover and pushes towards you in order to get you out of cover but on the other hand side thereare moments where the AI is standing around in the open field.

[FluffyScarf]

15 hours if you only do the MQ. It's longer than ME 1, 2, TW2. Even the MQ for a big argh-pee-gee like Lagrim was only about 10 hours.

[DenizYe]

Techlology wrote...

15 hours is kind of pathetic for a big RPG game.

15-20 hours MAIN QUEST is pretty good. 
Other RPGs only have 10 hours of main quest but they have plenty of side quests.
If I am not mistaking the main quest is a bit longer than ME1's and ME2's mainquest, but I could be wrong

[Goddy10]

I'm thinking the credibility of this review should remain questionable.

[Garrus30]

Yeah, it says the Mainquest is 15 ~ 20 hours long.

[DenizYe]

Goddy10 wrote...

I'm thinking the credibility of this review should remain questionable.

haha this german magazine could be a member of BSN they are maoning about everything jk.
But in fact, they aren't one of the best gaming websites / magazines in Germany

But I have to admit that this review sounds pretty good and not biased 

Modifié par DenizYe, 25 février 2012 - 12:28 .

[FluffyScarf]

Why? Because they praised the game and gave it a 9?

[AkiKishi]

I don't know if people are saying it's the PS3 version to make themselves feel better, but you can clearly see its 360 in the IGN preview.

[BrookerT]

Techlology wrote...

15 hours is kind of pathetic for a big RPG game.

Well considering everything in a single playthrough in Mass Effect 1 could be completed in less than 20 hours, and the main quest about 10, and some people consider ME1 the "true" RPG, I don't think that its anything but an improvement

[N00blet666]

My body is ready.

[FluffyScarf]

And yet, the reviewers so far have said they're using the PS3 version.

[N00blet666]

Techlology wrote...

15 hours is kind of pathetic for a big RPG game.

Realistically they always say it's about 15-20 hours long but, my first playthrough always takes way longer than that. My first ME2 playthrough took me 54 hours. I think it's becaue i have to look at everything and go everywhere and use every dialoge option. I also always play through on hardcore my first time. 

[FluffyScarf]

They already said there's no cliffhanger in one of the previous points.

Modifié par FluffyScarf, 25 février 2012 - 12:34 .

[DenizYe]

The PLC wrote...

"-There's an interesting sequence after the end credits"
Oh ****, please don't be some kind of stupid cliffhanger. Dammit, just end the series!

No, no cliffhanger.
In the article they are saying:

The story is finished, there are no open questions at the end of the game and no "backdoors" for a sequel

[Garrus30]

FluffyScarf wrote...

Why? Because they praised the game and gave it a 9?

Considering they gave ME1 (85/100), ME2 (88/100 and ME (9*/100)
I'd say it's good and I know that site, since I'm living in germany .

[android654]

For a review, it wasn't much of a critique.

[Phaedon]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...
I'm guessing it's a set up to a future spin off. Like a baby reaper slowly opening it's eyes as the camera zooms in with ominous music playing in the background.

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

Nice reading!

[Bleachrude]

If ME3 AI is "stupid" and is the reason why combat gets an 8, what did they give for ME2 then?

anyone know what their score was for that AI?

Like others, the AI I've seen so far was much better (both enemy and teammates...) even in the MP it is noticeable..

(Can you imagine ME3 MP with the AI from ME2? You'd be able to solo Gold IMO)

[efrgfhnm_]

Is this in a magazine or is it online?
If it is online can someone post the link please? All I can find are previews....

[FluffyScarf]

What more do you want them to critique without going into spoiler territory? They already noted the turret section, the shortcomings in level design, the sometimes dumb AI, and visual issues (at least on the PS3).

And Deniz posted the the link on the first page:  http://www.masseffec...ts--id-861.html

Modifié par FluffyScarf, 25 février 2012 - 12:41 .