557 réponses à ce sujet

[Namevah]

Wulfram wrote...
The lack of mention in these reviews of the increased auto-dialogue is bugging me. If they were praising it as a good move to improve the cinematic nature of the game, I could understand that. But I can't see how it can be considered not worth mentioning.

They apparently don't consider it as large a problem as many around here do, which doesn't surprise me. It definitely seems like a problem that would ****** off the hardcore fans more than everyone else.

Actually, the same could be said for every problem.

[Obro]

Ah yes official review sites are so "professional" and totally not paid to give good reviews.

[Catsith]

ReconTeam wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
The lack of mention in these reviews of the increased auto-dialogue is bugging me. If they were praising it as a good move to improve the cinematic nature of the game, I could understand that. But I can't see how it can be considered not worth mentioning.

Seems most "legit" critic reviews are just as worthless as most metacritic user reviews these days. I'm speaking in general terms too, not just about ME3.

It's this thinking that "yes, they removed some of the stuff that made the original great, but because it's a sequel we don't care."

Or maybe it wasn't a major issue worth mentioning for some, if not all of these reviewers? Is that so hard to comprehend? 

[UBER GEEKZILLA]

the users on metacritic are retarded...they havent even beat the game yet and they are spamming 0's......i seriously think we should all try helpin this game out...its not fair for a good games legacy to be ruined forever by trolls and morons

[Arcadian Legend]

Jarrett Lee wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

PDesign wrote...

metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect-3 user score

I guess trolls have nothing better to do with their time.

It's disturbing and probably will be quite damaging.

Yep, and critics suffer too, as their actual genuine review gets buried by troll reviews, who probably never even bought the game. It's next to impossible to actually get a genuine true average score with stuff like this. Hence why I chose to ignore Metacritic a long time ago.

Modifié par Arcadian Legend, 06 mars 2012 - 10:18 .

[AkiKishi]

UBER GEEKZILLA wrote...

the users on metacritic are retarded...they havent even beat the game yet and they are spamming 0's......i seriously think we should all try helpin this game out...its not fair for a good games legacy to be ruined forever by trolls and morons

People have been "beating" the game for over a week. The people who post on MC are a lot of those sorts of people.

[Kanon777]

Im playing the right now and i never had a moment where Shep say something i dont want to. There is more autodialogue than ME1 and 2 but for the most part they just removed the useless dialogue choices

[Rockpopple]

Only idiots use Metacritic as a rubric for what makes a game worth buying or not. Metacritic lost all of it's credibility with the Portal 2 fiasco. It's a joke. Nobody with half-a-mind takes them remotely seriously.

As an aggregate of professional critics, Metacritic somewhat useful. At least it's a quick and easy way to see what insiders think of a game. But the User Scores? HA! You don't take them with a pinch of salt, you take them with enough salt to cause cardiac arrest.

I mean if you're serious, and not just a troll, that is. In any case, it would seem that anyone with a pulse would look at a game published by EA, developed by BioWare, with a User Score of 1 or 2, and it might give them pause. Not about the game, but what was going on with the User Scores.

Modifié par Rockpopple, 06 mars 2012 - 10:21 .

[user1234567890]

squee365 wrote...

Jarrett Lee wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

PDesign wrote...

metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect-3 user score

I guess trolls have nothing better to do with their time.

It's disturbing and probably will be quite damaging.

I wouldn't worry about it! Same thing happened to portal 2. If the game is genuinely good (which is clearly is having played 3 hours and already wow'd), then it'll even itself out.

Preferences.

I thought Portal 2 was pretty boring.

[Wulfram]

Catsith wrote...

Or maybe it wasn't a major issue worth mentioning for some, if not all of these reviewers? Is that so hard to comprehend? 

For me, it is.  The difference seems stark, and it's to a key part of the game. 

I mean, they mention relatively minor shifts in gameplay mechanics.  Dialogue is as fundamental to Bioware games as the combat, so not mentioning a big change - even if it doesn't bother you, or you think it was a good decision - to how it plays out seems like an incomplete review.

[Rockworm503]

Obro wrote...

Ah yes official review sites are so "professional" and totally not paid to give good reviews.

You shouldn't trust anyone who says anything about anything unless its in a monotone voice or you agree with what their saying because.
Their obviously
1. trolling to make it look bad
2. being payed off.
And if they agree with you they are so obviously fair unbiased and know what their talking about.

There saved you a lot of trouble.

[AkiKishi]

user1234567890 wrote...

squee365 wrote...

Jarrett Lee wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

PDesign wrote...

metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect-3 user score

I guess trolls have nothing better to do with their time.

It's disturbing and probably will be quite damaging.

I wouldn't worry about it! Same thing happened to portal 2. If the game is genuinely good (which is clearly is having played 3 hours and already wow'd), then it'll even itself out.

Preferences.

I thought Portal 2 was pretty boring.

And very short.

[Rob_K1]

Amusing those metacritic reviews. There's no way the game objectively even warrants a 1.9 score as I saw one of the versions has, user wise, even if it is not as good as it could be (still waiting on my copy here, though I doubt it will be non-enjoyable). I bet they haven't played the game and waited for the reviews and ratings to become accessible.

Always said this would happen though regardless of how good (or not) the game is. People should learn some respect and grow up. I suppose it's the price to pay for popularity though. It's just cool to hate on BioWare now these days.

Anyways, this is my last and only post on the user review topic, as I ain't going to go through what I went through with DA 2 again where people used user reviews to validate their view.

Modifié par Rob_K1, 06 mars 2012 - 10:24 .

[fropas]

Wulfram wrote...

Catsith wrote...

Or maybe it wasn't a major issue worth mentioning for some, if not all of these reviewers? Is that so hard to comprehend? 

For me, it is.  The difference seems stark, and it's to a key part of the game. 

I mean, they mention relatively minor shifts in gameplay mechanics.  Dialogue is as fundamental to Bioware games as the combat, so not mentioning a big change - even if it doesn't bother you, or you think it was a good decision - to how it plays out seems like an incomplete review.

It's not very fundamental if they give you the option to skip it. On replays it's not even that important--ME2 dialogue involves tilting the joystick in one direction and pressing X after the first few playthroughs.

It's fine if you think it's important, but it's not a big part of the game. But that's just my opinion.

[LilyasAvalon]

You know, I'd like one professional reviewer to ignore the 'gift' sent by EA and actually do this review honestly. Label out everything they thought was good or bad and actually put EFFORT into looking into plot, story, character interaction, etc. instead of just essentially going 'WOW! AWESOME GAME! SO COOL! PLAY IT! LOL!" and slapping a 9/10 on it.

I'll be so happy when Good Game does their review, the guys on that show really put a lot of effort into reviewing the game.

[AkiKishi]

Rob_K1 wrote...

Amusing those metacritic reviews. There's no way the game objectively even warrants a 1.9 score as I saw one of the versions has, user wise, even if it is not as good as it could be (still waiting on my copy here, though I doubt it will be non-enjoyable). I bet they haven't played the game and waited for the reviews and ratings to become accessible.

Always said this would happen though regardless of how good (or not) the game is. People should learn some respect and grow up. I suppose it's the price to pay for popularity though. It's just cool to hate on BioWare now these days.

Anyways, this is my last and only post on the user review topic, as I ain't going to go through what I went through with DA 2 again where people used user reviews to validate their view.

It does not. But it does indicate a wider disatisfaction and that in itself is useful.

[Sporothrix]

Rockpopple wrote...

As an aggregate of professional critics, Metacritic somewhat useful. At least it's a quick and easy way to see what insiders think of a game. But the User Scores? HA! You don't take them with a pinch of salt, you take them with enough salt to cause cardiac arrest.

Right, remind Dragon Age 2 proffesional (only good and just a few mixed) versus user reviews.

[Obro]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Obro wrote...

Ah yes official review sites are so "professional" and totally not paid to give good reviews.

You shouldn't trust anyone who says anything about anything unless its in a monotone voice or you agree with what their saying because.
Their obviously
1. trolling to make it look bad
2. being payed off.
And if they agree with you they are so obviously fair unbiased and know what their talking about.

There saved you a lot of trouble.

I'm sorry but you almost sounded like you actually believe EA doesn't pay them for good reviews and they have professional credibility.

Don't get me wrong I am agains the 0 on metacritic that's reserved for ...well ****. But it sure as hell doesn't deserve 9+ with no importing your save file retcons auto conversation that gives you no choice in what you're going to say and complete nesessity for renegade/paragon choices in order to do something. 

[Rockworm503]

Wulfram wrote...

Ok I can't ignore this any longer.
You don't watch the show Angel by any chance?
I can't help but think of the evil lawfirm Wolfram & Hart when I see your name.

[fropas]

LilyasAvalon wrote...

You know, I'd like one professional reviewer to ignore the 'gift' sent by EA and actually do this review honestly. Label out everything they thought was good or bad and actually put EFFORT into looking into plot, story, character interaction, etc. instead of just essentially going 'WOW! AWESOME GAME! SO COOL! PLAY IT! LOL!" and slapping a 9/10 on it.

I'll be so happy when Good Game does their review, the guys on that show really put a lot of effort into reviewing the game.

http://www.giantbomb...-29935/reviews/

Jeff Gertsman--got fired from gamespot for giving Kane and Lynch a bad review. He's as close as you'll get to an "unbiased" opinion because he doesn't **** around when it comes to game reviewing.

[shepskisaac]

Obro wrote...

Ah yes official review sites are so "professional" and totally not paid to give good reviews.

It's not like User Score with people giving 0/10 "Trololo!" reviews is more helpful

Modifié par IsaacShep, 06 mars 2012 - 10:27 .

[Acidrain92]

Bioware forum goer logic - every reviewer that gave ME3 a good score was paid off

I love how fans of the mass effect universe actually want ME3 to get a bad score xD

you guys are laughable

Modifié par Acidrain92, 06 mars 2012 - 10:29 .

[PaulSX]

PDesign wrote...

metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect-3 user score

really a shame those people mindlessly bash a good game, still do not understand why people fancy first mass effect that much though. My initial impression of ME3 is just an Okay game, but after 8 hours into the game, I have to say it's the best in all 3 mass effect games so far.

[Catsith]

Wulfram wrote...
Dialogue is as fundamental to Bioware games as the combat, so not mentioning a big change - even if it doesn't bother you, or you think it was a good decision - to how it plays out seems like an incomplete review.

But, again, perhaps there wasn't enough of this alleged 'railroading' and auto-dialogue to bother these reviewers enough to remark on it. If they didn't notice a change, then they have no obligation to expose and comment on it.

[Duncaaaaaan]

Reviews are definitely paid...