428 réponses à ce sujet

[sheppard7]

How many of those reviewers actually finished the game? Vegas odds say less than 5.

[Draemian]

I had the same problem as spacehamster, everything but the last five minutes is at least an 8 or 9/10 for me. But the ending just steals so much of the point of the whole trilogy even that I have to halve my rating. Some endings that reflect and demonstrate the choices made in the series, and also show some of the aftermath of the battle would make me completely confident in rating 9/10.

[jinxter69]

Not sure of the point of posting great reviews, when the vast majority of players here cannot stand the endings. We can all pretty much agree that most of this game was amazing...but something is up when even Origin is taking full refunds as well as Amazon.

[RaggieRags]

ME3 is going to be a bargain bin purchase to me. I'm just not that excited to play it anymore.

Yes, they have the right to write the kind of stories they want. I also have the right to choose the kind of stories I want to hear. There's so much crap in the real world that there's a limit on how many defeatist stories I want to experience on my off-time.

[Tazzmission]

RaggieRags wrote...

ME3 is going to be a bargain bin purchase to me. I'm just not that excited to play it anymore.

Yes, they have the right to write the kind of stories they want. I also have the right to choose the kind of stories I want to hear. There's so much crap in the real world that there's a limit on how many defeatist stories I want to experience on my off-time.

honestly dude rent it if your that worried


i always suggest go by your own judgment and dont listen to any review possitive or negative

only you and you alone would know if you like it or not

just because i love it dosent mean im gona force and say hey man go drop 60 bucks take my word on it

[Killjoy Cutter]

sheppard7 wrote...

How many of those reviewers actually finished the game? Vegas odds say less than 5.

Besides the problem of bad reviews cutting off a publication or website from pre-release access to a publisher's games, there's also the fact that most game reviewers either don't care or don't have time to look at the story and character aspects.

Most game reviewers are looking at graphics, gameplay, splash and flash, and glaring bugs. 


Notice that the reviews that get into the story and character tend to give ME3 a significantly lower rating.

[LinksOcarina]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

sheppard7 wrote...

How many of those reviewers actually finished the game? Vegas odds say less than 5.

Besides the problem of bad reviews cutting off a publication or website from pre-release access to a publisher's games, there's also the fact that most game reviewers either don't care or don't have time to look at the story and character aspects.

Most game reviewers are looking at graphics, gameplay, splash and flash, and glaring bugs. 


Notice that the reviews that get into the story and character tend to give ME3 a significantly lower rating.

That is not exactly true, at least for RPGs the reviewer needs to bring up the story more, because that is the emphasis of what the players want to hear about. And you can do it without telling people about details.

I said this earlier, the problem seems to be that some reviewers have no idea how to address this problem with their writing, or that they have no idea what a good story is.

[rp2009]

Great reviews, I think I should buy it.

[Killjoy Cutter]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

sheppard7 wrote...

How many of those reviewers actually finished the game? Vegas odds say less than 5.

Besides the problem of bad reviews cutting off a publication or website from pre-release access to a publisher's games, there's also the fact that most game reviewers either don't care or don't have time to look at the story and character aspects.

Most game reviewers are looking at graphics, gameplay, splash and flash, and glaring bugs. 


Notice that the reviews that get into the story and character tend to give ME3 a significantly lower rating.

That is not exactly true, at least for RPGs the reviewer needs to bring up the story more, because that is the emphasis of what the players want to hear about. And you can do it without telling people about details.

I said this earlier, the problem seems to be that some reviewers have no idea how to address this problem with their writing, or that they have no idea what a good story is.

I agree -- I wasn't saying they shouldn't look at story and character, I was saying that they all too often don't.

[RaggieRags]

Tazzmission wrote...

honestly dude rent it if your that worried

i always suggest go by your own judgment and dont listen to any review possitive or negative

only you and you alone would know if you like it or not

But I can't make a judgement on it before I have already bought the game. If I'm going to make my game purchases based on this logic, I'm going to have to buy all of them, don't I?

[Lincoln MuaDib]

As far as the statement that keeps being made by Execs in BioWare about how "75 Game Sites gave us a Perfect!"

Sure, 99% of this game is just Liquid Awesome. But it means nothing when examining criticism of the ending.


Let's just examine this oddness.

1.
Did all 75 sites complete the Game? Really? Did they ALL spend 30+
hours completing ME3, let alone spend 60+ hours playing ME1 and ME2?

Because if they didn't complete the ending, they can't comment on it.
Let me be clear, those 75 reviews can all speak with authority about
gameplay- but they can't all speak with authority about the ending.
A
film critic that admitted they didn't stay for the end of a movie-
hell, even a film critic that admits they never watched the first 2
films of a trilogy before reviewing the third- would NEVER have any
credibilty in the Media.

We don't allow film critics to do this- why Game reviwers?

So, we take out the opinion of, let us say, 50 of those reviewers.

So now we have 25 Reviewers.

So
are we now saying that the opinion of 25 reviewers is more important
than the opinion of thousands of disgruntled ME3 players?

Because a Game Reviewer IS NOT A BETTER EXPERT ON GAMES THAN A PLAYER.

Their JOB is NOT to KNOW MORE about games than Gamers.

Their JOB is to know it FIRST, and give an OPINION as to whether they think the game is worth a purchase.

When we buy, on their recommendation, then get dissatisfied, WE have the right to have an opinion.

Normally,
when, say, Film reviewers give a positive review on films that bomb,
thety shrug and say, "Hey, just my opinion, you don't have to agree."

Yet certain sites *coughs* IGN *coughs*

Seem to think that it must be the unhappy ME3ers that are WRONG!


"Oh ho ho, no no! You are wrong, Plebeian!"




A FAR BETTER tack for the exceutives to take would have been to say,

"We
understand that many many people have hated the ending. We recognise
that. We also recognise that many many others love it. We seek to keep
everyone happy."

After all, if we seek only to placate the majority and ignore the minority, we're kinda setting a dangeroud precedent.

"How many Quarians are there?"
"About 6 million, Shepard."
"And how many Geth?"
"About 60 million, Ma'am."
"Oh, so the Quarians are in the minority? f**k 'em, then. Let 'em die."



I have no disrespect for those that love the endings. I wish you well.

For this reason, I do not want patches that changes the ending, such that the current ending no longer exists.

Let it be DLC.

Let there be CHOICE.

After all, isn't that what Mass Effect is all about?


:innocent::innocent::innocent:

[alx119]

Well to be fair, on rating, the game is pretty good, but the ending ****s it all up. Still on a serious review, the rating is for the overall of the game. If the ending was the only thing that counted, the scores there would have been way different.

[RaggieRags]

This is exactly why I never pre-order. I'm not buying anything until the audience itself has had their say. Very few reviewers finish the games to completion and far too many scores are up for sale. Game journalism has always been the industry's little lap dog, and that's a fact.

[Lincoln MuaDib]

[Lukanp]

I thought I'd drop this here.

http://computergames...ion/review.html

Modifié par Lukanp, 24 mars 2012 - 01:03 .

[LinksOcarina]

Lincoln MuaDib wrote...

they are doing that to get hits, you know that right?

What Forbes is doing is no better than what IGN did with Colin Moriarty, the difference is Forbes is better written and on your side. In the end they have some good ideas, but its still biased journalism. 

Hell, it's why I wrote this philosophical debate for the website I contribute for. As a journalist I already have a biased opinon on the entire ending and the game overall, as well as all of the events after the fact. There is no way I can rationally objectify it at this time because its too close to home, so I figured why not, why not just showcase everything both sides are saying in the end and let you decide on it.

If nothing else, it makes sense to me to stay neutral as a reviewer.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 24 mars 2012 - 03:21 .

[Shunt Mcblunt]

Well any reviewer that gave it a perfect score did not make it to the end. 9/10 is the best you can go with Identical graphics with a color shift. on 2/3 of the ending animation. It is bad when the Promo stuff before the game was release was better then the game ending.

[Murdock 4000]

And now that I've finished the game I know that all those review sites aren't trustworthy.

[kbct]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Lincoln MuaDib wrote...

they are doing that to get hits, you know that right?

What Forbes is doing is no better than what IGN did with Colin Moriarty, the difference is Forbes is better written and on your side. In the end they have some good ideas, but its still biased journalism. 

Hell, it's why I wrote this philosophical debate for the website I contribute for. As a journalist I already have a biased opinon on the entire ending and the game overall, as well as all of the events after the fact. There is no way I can rationally objectify it at this time because its too close to home, so I figured why not, why not just showcase everything both sides are saying in the end and let you decide on it.

If nothing else, it makes sense to me to stay neutral as a reviewer.

Forbes doesn't need the hits from gamers, you know that right?

The gaming sites have a conflict of interest. First, they receive ad revenue from companies like EA. Second, they have to suck up to the game companies for interviews and such. Isn't it strange the gaming industry sides with EA with their perfect reviews and dismissal of the fans that want a better ending?

Forbes is looking at the situation from a business perspective. In business, you don't view the customers as entitled whiners. In business, you look at how to maximize long-term profit.

[da mighty rEAper]

Lots of dollars there, heres my small review

MASS EFFECT 3

}(+){

-dialogue choices are lot less but differ greatly compared to rest of the trilogy
-better controls(cover usage, running, tumbles)
-character relationship feels more alive( both between crew members and shep with his/her LI )

}(-){

-story is silly (that crucible **** is so dumb)
-tailored for multiplayer
-retarded and uninteresting sidequests(eavesdropping)
-plot of other trilogy games was changed for some retarded( or just extremely bad executed) technological singularity idea
-despite refusing they still failed with day one dlc, as to there is no reason to not include such valuable content in the game
-reapers are dumb (oh hi dere Sovereign)
-Cerberus and TIM storywise potential is COMPLETELY WASTED
-retarded antagonist (that asian assassin is so retarded, i almost felt like i was watching some stupid anime)

thats not all

[Travie]

So how many good reviews did EA end up buying?

[wintervale]

kbct wrote...

Forbes doesn't need the hits from gamers, you know that right?

The gaming sites have a conflict of interest. First, they receive ad revenue from companies like EA. Second, they have to suck up to the game companies for interviews and such. Isn't it strange the gaming industry sides with EA with their perfect reviews and dismissal of the fans that want a better ending?

Forbes is looking at the situation from a business perspective. In business, you don't view the customers as entitled whiners. In business, you look at how to maximize long-term profit.

I've found the Forbes articles to be covering the whole affair with balance. A lot of people defending EA's side or the side of game reviewers seem to be relying on name calling (I've seen the term fan-trum crop up) and emotions. I haven't yet read a pro EA article that doesn't talk about fear or sad days for gaming (I'm happy to read some if you post the links).

Some bias is ultimately unavoidable but good journalism should try to present both sides equally.

[LinksOcarina]

kbct wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...


they are doing that to get hits, you know that right?

What Forbes is doing is no better than what IGN did with Colin Moriarty, the difference is Forbes is better written and on your side. In the end they have some good ideas, but its still biased journalism. 

Hell, it's why I wrote this philosophical debate for the website I contribute for. As a journalist I already have a biased opinon on the entire ending and the game overall, as well as all of the events after the fact. There is no way I can rationally objectify it at this time because its too close to home, so I figured why not, why not just showcase everything both sides are saying in the end and let you decide on it.

If nothing else, it makes sense to me to stay neutral as a reviewer.

Forbes doesn't need the hits from gamers, you know that right?

The gaming sites have a conflict of interest. First, they receive ad revenue from companies like EA. Second, they have to suck up to the game companies for interviews and such. Isn't it strange the gaming industry sides with EA with their perfect reviews and dismissal of the fans that want a better ending?

Forbes is looking at the situation from a business perspective. In business, you don't view the customers as entitled whiners. In business, you look at how to maximize long-term profit.

first off, the conflict of interest is only with IGN because they actually had someone in-game from their company.

Second, ad revenue  for most websites is not just from the companies, but small-time developers and publishers as well, indie games, and other things. The reason most review sites like to have a good rapport with the publishers is early copies, so they can meet deadlines on time and be relevant and topical, which is key.  It has little to do with sucking up t the companies or anything like that either, its honestly a major misconception about the journalist side I have seen.

But after talking with a lot of people who have finished the ending...its not strange at all. People agree and disagree on things. I think some of the reviews were a bit much, and I wouldn't personally give the game a 10 score...in fact I didn't. But the point is not all the fans dismiss the ending.

As for Forbes, whats your point? They may be looking at it from a business perspective, but the problem is they are being biased in their perspective; they attacked the ****ty part of the journalistic industry, but have not given new ideas on what to do with Mass Effect 3 for weeks now. Basically, they are retreading to keep things topical and to get hits. 

So thats not underhanded at all?

[Hospitallar]

Well sure, it IS a great game but I don't think that's what the players are complaining about. The players are not complaining about the game itself, they're complaining about the ending. They want the ending fixed, then they'd gladly accept the perfect scores on those reviews.