428 réponses à ce sujet

[Gigamantis]

Reorte wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Reviews require emotional levity.  You being, by your own admittance, too emotionally invested to rate the game on it's actual merits invalidates any attempt you make to critique the game.  Quite honestly, it's why professonal reviews are so much better than user ones. 

I would give the game a high score despite a bad ending and my investment in the series because I have perspective.  It's a game and no one ruined my life by ending the series in a way I deem insufficient.  If the rest of the game is good I will still consider it a good game.

The emotional investment is a large part of the appeal of ME that raises it above the run-of-the-mill stuff and because that has, so far, always been one of its big merits it can also be one of its big failings. Playing games has always been about emotion - excitement and frustation in the early days but now we've got the technology to make games that can appeal to other emotions too. It's the combination of all of those that I get from playing them that makes me want to (or not want to) play them. It's no different from a film or a book in that respect.

You still being that emotionally invested by the end of ME3 is a clear indication that it's an excellent game. 

What you don't get is that your emotionally exaggerated reactions to things aren't valid critiques.  A bad ending is just a bad ending.  You being so emotionally invested you can't handle it isn't a problem for the visitors at metacritic who just want some objective feedback on the game. 

[The Angry Hamster]

I would really like to see an ending to ME3 where you don't, we'll...DIE! There is a poll going on in the BLOGdom for those of us who have over the years come to love the excellent story, acting, and game play of this franchise but would really like to see an additial ending. As it stands, the blog entry just started up, recently and it already has well over a thousand ME fans who want an additional possible ending.

I strongly encourage Bioware to take a look what their customers are thinking right now.

http://social.biowar.../polls/29101/  

[Reorte]

Gigamantis wrote...

You still being that emotionally invested by the end of ME3 is a clear indication that it's an excellent game. 

What you don't get is that your emotionally exaggerated reactions to things aren't valid critiques.  A bad ending is just a bad ending.  You being so emotionally invested you can't handle it isn't a problem for the visitors at metacritic who just want some objective feedback on the game. 

It's that most of it is an excellent game as far as I can tell. When the result of that is killing desire to replay any of the games again? And "so emotionally invested that you can't handle it" is simply insulting. If I couldn't handle it I'd be jumping in front of a train. As I said, emotional investment is a key part of the game so if it doesn't satisfy there then that is a very, very valid critique. If it was a film or a book then everyone would agree it was one of the key elements. And a review that doesn't tell me this stuff and simply concentrates on technical aspects is an incomplete review.

[Gigamantis]

Reorte wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

You still being that emotionally invested by the end of ME3 is a clear indication that it's an excellent game. 

What you don't get is that your emotionally exaggerated reactions to things aren't valid critiques.  A bad ending is just a bad ending.  You being so emotionally invested you can't handle it isn't a problem for the visitors at metacritic who just want some objective feedback on the game. 

It's that most of it is an excellent game as far as I can tell. When the result of that is killing desire to replay any of the games again? And "so emotionally invested that you can't handle it" is simply insulting. If I couldn't handle it I'd be jumping in front of a train. As I said, emotional investment is a key part of the game so if it doesn't satisfy there then that is a very, very valid critique. If it was a film or a book then everyone would agree it was one of the key elements. And a review that doesn't tell me this stuff and simply concentrates on technical aspects is an incomplete review.

"Handling" it isn't just being able to continue on without killing yourself.  If you can't play through any of the other games or check your emotions when critiquing the game then you're not really "handling" it.  

A review isn't supposed to spoil key points of the game to warn you where you might get emotionally distraught.  In any story a character you love may die in a way you deem isn't satisfying enough.  The entire story doesn't suck just because that upset you.  Emotional levity is 100% necessary in a serious review.  If you  want reviewers to espouse your emotional reactions and cry with you then you don't get what a review is. 

Modifié par Gigamantis, 09 mars 2012 - 06:24 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Any reviewer that doesn't warn the readers about ME3 and all the issues isn't doing his or her job.

[Gigamantis]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Any reviewer that doesn't warn the readers about ME3 and all the issues isn't doing his or her job.

I haven't seen the ending yet, but I'm starting to think the issue is more about it not being what you all wanted it to be.  Most games have lackluster endings and it's never really weighted all that heavily in reviews.  The users just sound like they're speaking out of hurt, which is fine but it makes for horrible, meaningless reviews from them. 

Modifié par Gigamantis, 09 mars 2012 - 06:29 .

[Mole267]

Chris Priestly wrote...

•    1UP – A
•    4players (DE) - 75/100
•    9 Lives (BEL) - 90/100
•    Ars Technica – No Score, “Buy It”
•    Atomic Gamer – 10/10
•    Big Pond Game Arena – 9/10
•    CD Action (POL) - 9/10
•    Cheat Code Central – 4.6/5
•    CVG (UK) – 9.4/10
•    Destructoid – 8.5/10
•    Edge - 8/10
•    EGM – 9/10
•    Eurogamer (UK) – 10/10
•    Eurogamer (DE) – 10/10
•    Eurogamer (IT) – 10/10
•    Everyeye (IT) – 9.5/10
•    FZ.SE - 5/5
•    G4TV – 5/5
•    Game Arena (UK) – 9/10
•    Game Informer – 10/10
•    Gamer (NL) - 9.5/10
•    Gamer Limit – 9/10
•    Gamers.at (AUS) - 91/100
•    Gamerzines – 98/100
•    Games Radar – 9/10
•    Gamereactor (SE) – 10/10
•    Gamereactor (NO) – 9/10
•    GameSpot – 9/10
•    GameStar (DE) – 9/10
•    Gameswelt (DE) – 93/100
•    GameTrailers – 95
•    Gaming Trend – 99/100
•    Gaming XP (DE) – 95%
•    Giant Bomb – 4/5
•    Guardian (UK) – 5/5
•    IGN – 9.5/10
•    Inc Gamers – 9/10
•    Joystiq (Single Player Review) - 4.5/5
•    Just Push Start – 9.5/10
•    Kotaku – YES (no score)
•    Machinima – 9.5/10
•    Metro – 9/10
•    MSNBC – 10/10
•    Multiplayer (IT) - 9.5/10
•    Now Gamer (UK) – 9.2/10
•    OXM (UK) – 10/10
•    OXM (US) – 9.5/10
•    PC Gamer (UK) – 93/100
•    PC Powerplay 8/10
•    Pelaaja (FI) - 9/10
•    Pittsburg Post-Gazette – 5/5
•    Planet Xbox – 10/10
•    PlayStation Official Magazine (UK) – 10/10
•    Playstation Lifestyle – 10/10
•    Pressfire (NO) - 6/6
•    Shack News - Epic
•    SpazioGames (IT) - 9.5/10
•    The Escapist – 4.5/5
•    The Verge – 10/10
•    Thunderbolt Games – 9/10
•    USA Today – 4/4
•    VG Nett (NO) - 6/6
•    VG Revolution – 9.7/10
•    Videogamer (UK) – 8/10
•    Video Game Writers - 5/5
•    Xbox Achievements (UK) 96/100

No doubt a lot of those critics were paid handsomely by EA to give the game near-perfect to perfect scores... I have the game, I bought the CE locally, and at best it's an 8.5/10 for me. I love the game, but it has flaws.

Modifié par Mole267, 09 mars 2012 - 06:30 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

1) Sites that don't give good preview scores stop getting preview copies.

2) Reviewers are typically looking at graphics, gameplay, and flash, not digging into what matters.

[Reorte]

Gigamantis wrote...

"Handling" it isn't just being able to continue on without killing yourself.  If you can't play through any of the other games or check your emotions when critiquing the game then you're not really "handling" it.  

A review isn't supposed to spoil key points of the game to warn you where you might get emotionally distraught.  In any story a character you love may die in a way you deem isn't satisfying enough.  The entire story doesn't suck just because that upset you.  Emotional levity is 100% necessary in a serious review.  If you  want reviewers to espouse your emotional reactions and cry with you then you don't get what a review is. 

You are still ignoring the point about the emotional impact being a very important part of what the game is and hence what the review should be about. If the final emotional result is negative then that absolutely has to be part of the review. I don't understand why you seem to think that a review absolutely has to ignore this essential component when it's just as important as technical details. The wording of the review should of course do that without spoiling, whether the reviewer thinks the game is great or awful. Presumably a reviewer should pay attention to whether a game is exciting or boring? Then why not also uplifting or depressing?

Also, a big part of the problem many people seem to be having is the lack of variety as well as tone.

[Gigamantis]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

1) Sites that don't give good preview scores stop getting preview copies.

2) Reviewers are typically looking at graphics, gameplay, and flash, not digging into what matters.

1) When has that ever happened?  Review sites give bad scores a lot; I've seen it done.  How many companies have blacklisted major publications over one of those bad reviews?  I'm really curious to see. 

2) Graphics and gameplay are important.  They also mention sound quality, replayability, story, voice acting, performance and many other things.  Professional reviews are usually pretty long and hit on a lot.  What are the things that "matter" in your opinion? 

Modifié par Gigamantis, 09 mars 2012 - 06:52 .

[Gigamantis]

Reorte wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

"Handling" it isn't just being able to continue on without killing yourself.  If you can't play through any of the other games or check your emotions when critiquing the game then you're not really "handling" it.  

A review isn't supposed to spoil key points of the game to warn you where you might get emotionally distraught.  In any story a character you love may die in a way you deem isn't satisfying enough.  The entire story doesn't suck just because that upset you.  Emotional levity is 100% necessary in a serious review.  If you  want reviewers to espouse your emotional reactions and cry with you then you don't get what a review is. 

You are still ignoring the point about the emotional impact being a very important part of what the game is and hence what the review should be about. If the final emotional result is negative then that absolutely has to be part of the review. I don't understand why you seem to think that a review absolutely has to ignore this essential component when it's just as important as technical details. The wording of the review should of course do that without spoiling, whether the reviewer thinks the game is great or awful. Presumably a reviewer should pay attention to whether a game is exciting or boring? Then why not also uplifting or depressing?

Also, a big part of the problem many people seem to be having is the lack of variety as well as tone.

Hints at "uplifting or depressing" when discussing the plot or ending can be considered SPOILERS.  That's not what reviews are for.  The emotional ride is what you're supposed to experience for yourself; did you really want "Gametrailers" to detail the experience for you?  

An emotional game only deserves criticism if you feel nothing. 

[VAShield]

Gigamantis wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

"Handling" it isn't just being able to continue on without killing yourself.  If you can't play through any of the other games or check your emotions when critiquing the game then you're not really "handling" it.  

A review isn't supposed to spoil key points of the game to warn you where you might get emotionally distraught.  In any story a character you love may die in a way you deem isn't satisfying enough.  The entire story doesn't suck just because that upset you.  Emotional levity is 100% necessary in a serious review.  If you  want reviewers to espouse your emotional reactions and cry with you then you don't get what a review is. 

You are still ignoring the point about the emotional impact being a very important part of what the game is and hence what the review should be about. If the final emotional result is negative then that absolutely has to be part of the review. I don't understand why you seem to think that a review absolutely has to ignore this essential component when it's just as important as technical details. The wording of the review should of course do that without spoiling, whether the reviewer thinks the game is great or awful. Presumably a reviewer should pay attention to whether a game is exciting or boring? Then why not also uplifting or depressing?

Also, a big part of the problem many people seem to be having is the lack of variety as well as tone.

Hints at "uplifting or depressing" when discussing the plot or ending can be considered SPOILERS.  That's not what reviews are for.  The emotional ride is what you're supposed to experience for yourself; did you really want "Gametrailers" to detail the experience for you?  

An emotional game only deserves criticism if you feel nothing. 

I actually laughed when I saw the ending. To be fair, I am not really one to be that emotionally invested in rpg's, but I do understand that some people do and should become invested. I think the big issue, besides the other issues such as a ton of auto dialogue, what I feel is less character development than ME2, some really terrible graphics on the PC (seriously, Witcher 2 absolutely smokes this game and it was finished a year ago, for example just take a look at the Shepard dream sequences compared to any of the Witcher 2 environments and its pretty awful for ME3), and a good deal of bugs (fallen through the environment a couple of times) is that the ending between the 3 different choices doesnt really feel very different and there isnt very much closure for people. Having beat ME2 5 or 6 times, I can understand that people may not want to replay the game since the endings arent very good for them, but for me its that the husks, brutes, marauders, banshees, ravagers, etc arent very exciting opponents, Even with a heavily nerfed soldier class on insanity it was almost tedious to fight them, especially the banshees (takes like 3 full clips of a revenant with bonus warp ammo to take them down, just feels like artificial difficulty rather than anything really groundbreaking in terms of AI development). 

I can see what you're saying that if youre still emotionally invested in the game then ME3 succeeded, it is a fair point. My question to you is whether it is because they were emotionally invested in the first 2 so its a continuation of the investment or that ME3 makes this investment stronger. I think if ME3 was a terrible game, then you would have lost the investment built by the first 2, but its not a terrible game. It's definitely a good game, but probably not a great one due to the issues I have already talked about. Just seems like the game was rushed a bit (even the endings kinda recycle each other), I have a bigger issue with the gameplay than the endings but when you say that he is not qualified to review the game, I would say that you probably shouldnt say that since some people feel that the ending has a big impact on the game which may be helpful to some people. Overall, its probably a 8/10 in my book, its definitely a good game, but the rushed feeling and more linearity/guided feeling (take the war readiness indicator progress bar vs. the less overt Normandy upgrades/loyalty missions from ME2) hurt it a bit. 

Modifié par VAShield, 09 mars 2012 - 07:39 .

[Gigamantis]

VAShield wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

"Handling" it isn't just being able to continue on without killing yourself.  If you can't play through any of the other games or check your emotions when critiquing the game then you're not really "handling" it.  

A review isn't supposed to spoil key points of the game to warn you where you might get emotionally distraught.  In any story a character you love may die in a way you deem isn't satisfying enough.  The entire story doesn't suck just because that upset you.  Emotional levity is 100% necessary in a serious review.  If you  want reviewers to espouse your emotional reactions and cry with you then you don't get what a review is. 

You are still ignoring the point about the emotional impact being a very important part of what the game is and hence what the review should be about. If the final emotional result is negative then that absolutely has to be part of the review. I don't understand why you seem to think that a review absolutely has to ignore this essential component when it's just as important as technical details. The wording of the review should of course do that without spoiling, whether the reviewer thinks the game is great or awful. Presumably a reviewer should pay attention to whether a game is exciting or boring? Then why not also uplifting or depressing?

Also, a big part of the problem many people seem to be having is the lack of variety as well as tone.

Hints at "uplifting or depressing" when discussing the plot or ending can be considered SPOILERS.  That's not what reviews are for.  The emotional ride is what you're supposed to experience for yourself; did you really want "Gametrailers" to detail the experience for you?  

An emotional game only deserves criticism if you feel nothing. 

I actually laughed when I saw the ending. To be fair, I am not really one to be that emotionally invested in rpg's, but I do understand that some people do and should become invested. I think the big issue, besides the other issues such as a ton of auto dialogue, what I feel is less character development than ME2, some really terrible graphics on the PC (seriously, Witcher 2 absolutely smokes this game and it was finished a year ago, for example just take a look at the Shepard dream sequences compared to any of the Witcher 2 environments and its pretty awful for ME3), and a good deal of bugs (fallen through the environment a couple of times) is that the ending between the 3 different choices doesnt really feel very different and there isnt very much closure for people. Having beat ME2 5 or 6 times, I can understand that people may not want to replay the game since the endings arent very good for them, but for me its that the husks, brutes, marauders, banshees, ravagers, etc arent very exciting opponents, Even with a heavily nerfed soldier class on insanity it was almost tedious to fight them, especially the banshees (takes like 3 full clips of a revenant with bonus warp ammo to take them down, just feels like artificial difficulty rather than anything really groundbreaking in terms of AI development). 

I can see what you're saying that if youre still emotionally invested in the game then ME3 succeeded, it is a fair point. My question to you is whether it is because they were emotionally invested in the first 2 so its a continuation of the investment or that ME3 makes this investment stronger. I think if ME3 was a terrible game, then you would have lost the investment built by the first 2, but its not a terrible game. It's definitely a good game, but probably not a great one due to the issues I have already talked about. Just seems like the game was rushed a bit (even the endings kinda recycle each other), I have a bigger issue with the gameplay than the endings but when you say that he is not qualified to review the game, I would say that you probably shouldnt say that since some people feel that the ending has a big impact on the game which may be helpful to some people. Overall, its probably a 8/10 in my book, its definitely a good game, but the rushed feeling and more linearity/guided feeling (take the war readiness indicator progress bar vs. the less overt Normandy upgrades/loyalty missions from ME2) hurt it a bit. 

Even if I don't agree with you completely what you gave was a fair review. 

My main problem is with all the 0-3 reviews that are obviously just fans attempting to get revenge for an ending they didn't want or on a publisher they hate.  People here are lauding professional reviewers for not attacking the ending, and it's because they're upset moreso than because it actually deserves attacking. 

Modifié par Gigamantis, 09 mars 2012 - 08:52 .

[Reorte]

Gigamantis wrote...

My main problem is with all the 0-3 reviews that are obviously just fans attempting to get revenge for an ending they didn't want or on a publisher they hate.  People here are lauding professional reviewers for not attacking the ending, and it's because they're upset moreso than because it actually deserves attacking. 

It's a rather tricky one. Certainly your 0-3 points are fair enough, although I stand by my point that completely trashing it because of the ending is no better than ignoring the ending. How the game leaves you feeling at the end cannot be ignored - the reviewer doesn't have to spoil it by saying why.

What's it definitely illustrating is that a simple score can be a complete waste of time. To give it a low score just because of the ending is to ignore the good. To give it a high score ignoring the impact of the ending is to ignore a key part of it. To give it something in-between is completely misleading.

[super4star]

I disagree with those review ratings. Mass effect 3 is worse than me 2. 8,5 max.
But i do understend why

remember ????

ken and lynch review --> gamespot--> jeff gerstmann -->fired

lol

end of line

[Typo-R]

The game felt fine until the ending. Seriously BioWare what where you thinking?

[horas1990]

Guyz just asking if anyone has gotten the best ending which apparently you need to get lot of stuff to do i think?I ask this because well the story+ Lore are the most imp things to me in Mass effect and the sudden upsurge of fan outrage about the ending is very disheartening.I don't care if it is a sad or happy ending but is it any good? I remember reading the first official game reviews and saying yaay the developers go it perfect (unlike DA2 which in my personal opinion was not on par with DA:O) but the recent developments have made me disappointed. I have not even started the game so i beg you NO SPOILERS just answer my question if u can.

[AndroLeonidas]

The 'best' ending is the same as all the others with very little difference.

[horas1990]

Thanks for the answer so I'm screwed anyway i guess:D

[y6uBaTop]

Hello guys, I just wanna say... This is the best game I ever played: the best gameplay, the best music, the best story line and the !best endings. I am really happy now, your game mekes me cry again, don't listen anyone especially about endings, keep going and thank you for an excellent game. Mass effect 3 has changed my life. Sorry for my english, I just wanted to post it here.
From Russia with love.

[Mole267]

Gigamantis wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

1) Sites that don't give good preview scores stop getting preview copies.

2) Reviewers are typically looking at graphics, gameplay, and flash, not digging into what matters.

1) When has that ever happened?  Review sites give bad scores a lot; I've seen it done.  How many companies have blacklisted major publications over one of those bad reviews?  I'm really curious to see.

2) Graphics and gameplay are important.  They also mention sound quality, replayability, story, voice acting, performance and many other things.  Professional reviews are usually pretty long and hit on a lot.  What are the things that "matter" in your opinion? 

Look up Jeff Gerstmann on Google. He was an editor at Gamespot, who got fired shortly after giving Kane and Lynch a "mediocre" review. Gamespot even removed his review and put up a much more favorable one instead. The whole site was Kane and Lynch themed prior to its release. Eidos had given Gamespot a LOT of money for advertising it too.

But some good came of it, Gerstmann now has a pretty good and well-known website called giantbomb.com that does game reviews.

Modifié par Mole267, 10 mars 2012 - 03:20 .

[CSunkyst]

Gigamantis wrote...

So in the same way the game was prepared in a rushed and incomprehensible fashion

You played through the entire game before getting to the ending, so you tell me. Was the whole game rushed and incomprehensible or just the ending?

We're not talking about Pacman or Space invaders here.  Was the main draw of Mass Effect 1 the third rate shooting mechanics, the nightmare of an inventory, or was it the story?  If this were Ninja Gaiden 3, nobody would give a damn about the ending.  A game like that is focused on gameplay.  Mass Effect is a different beast, and there are different standards.  When judging ME3 the gameplay comes second oddly enough.     

So, in a game where for a lot of people the story is the MOST important feature, then DAMN STRAIGHT the ending is important. 

I'd gladly take gameplay that was a downgraded version of ME1 if only the story ended in a satisfying way. 

Modifié par CSunkyst, 10 mars 2012 - 03:38 .

[Super.Sid]

A nice review for a change
http://asia.gamespot...fect-3-6365175/

GameSpot – 9/10

Quite contradictory isn't it ? The truth will surely be out

Modifié par Super.Sid, 10 mars 2012 - 09:16 .

[noobcannon]

i wonder how many of those glowing reviews played through the whole game. maybe they made up their own ending.

[JSU76]

Great job Bioware, I have PC Collectors Edition and have had no problems.  Long time Steam user and got to say I was skeptical of Origin, but its new and not really that bad.  ME3 is awesome great franchise and game!!!