428 réponses à ce sujet

[ItsFreakinJesus]

Aside from the animations that date back to Mass Effect, too much auto-dialog, squadmates being mostly reduced to Zaeed/Kasumi level dialog, sidequests being reduced to scanning and running back to the Citadel when many of them would've benefited from an actual area/fight (even if those were reduced to repetitious, pre-fab areas ala ME1), and low res textures, Mass Effect 3 is easily a 9-10 game.


Up until the last 10-15 minutes. Everything before that deserves those scores. The end is a 6/10.

[Farbautisonn]

ItsFreakinJesus wrote...

Aside from the animations that date back to Mass Effect, too much auto-dialog, squadmates being mostly reduced to Zaeed/Kasumi level dialog, sidequests being reduced to scanning and running back to the Citadel when many of them would've benefited from an actual area/fight (even if those were reduced to repetitious, pre-fab areas ala ME1), and low res textures, Mass Effect 3 is easily a 9-10 game.

I dont know if you intentionally tried, but you made me lol Irl.

[VAIOMANIAC]

ItsFreakinJesus wrote...

Aside from the animations that date back to Mass Effect, too much auto-dialog, squadmates being mostly reduced to Zaeed/Kasumi level dialog, sidequests being reduced to scanning and running back to the Citadel when many of them would've benefited from an actual area/fight (even if those were reduced to repetitious, pre-fab areas ala ME1), and low res textures, Mass Effect 3 is easily a 9-10 game.


Up until the last 10-15 minutes. Everything before that deserves those scores. The end is a 6/10.

Agree that´s why I think many people are upset because the entire game except for those last few minutes are awesome, almost makes me wonder if the writers of lost got involved somehow.

[CombatWings11]

[I posted this elsewhere on the forums under the thread: "Disney" endings, and "good endings are bad"]

The endings we all got to this wonderful series furthers displays how utterly insulated the writers and producers are (or can be) from the real world end results of their creative decisions. I'm fairly certain that their first thoughts are purely towards self-gratification; i.e. how satisfied does this final product make us feel. I'm sure at this point the gamer's wants and concerns are merely a byproduct of what the company wants. In other words, we have gotten incredibly lucky that what the company is satisfied with, we have been satisfied with.

I can only think of three distinct points of view that BioWare (and other companies like it)  has about consumers:

1) The consumer is easy to placate (see: ignorant, unintelligent) and will buy our product regardless of whether we made it with them fully in mind.

2) This is our product, our creative vision, and our baby. Therefore, what the consumer wants is ultimately irrelevant, as we are responsible to ourselves to make products that only we need to be proud of.

3)We wanted to tell a story that ultimately pleased us (see list number two) and didn't truly strive to make a difference in the experience the consumers (gamers) were looking for. Sure our customers are important, but we've gotta take care of our creative passions first, right?

Number three is excusable to a certain extent, I admit, but Mass Effect 3 has shown that there was almost no thought given to the end satisfaction of the player whatsoever.

I would still love to know what was going on in the minds of the people responsible for the creative writing process. It's not necessarily the responsibility of BioWare as a whole, but they will go along with whatever prospect makes them the most money, even if it's a bad one.

I think I can safely say that we're NOT asking for a re-write! All we want are options - fitting options that better reflect our choices and investment into the story arc. Doing us this tiny, little courtesy will lessen the feel of being completely cheated. I don't hate you, BioWare, I just question your decision-making process.

Thanks for reading!

Modifié par CombatWings11, 11 mars 2012 - 11:10 .

[dkear1]

Very well put CombatWings11!!!!!! +10

[Dae0]

@CombatWings11
Agree!

[rinoe]

@CombatWings11
True.
I want to know the answer too.

[McAllyster]

I wonder if any of the reviewers played the game to the end. Because if they watched the ending they shouldn't give ~90% for ME3. They should be complaining about this epic fail.

[OdanUrr]

McAllyster wrote...

I wonder if any of the reviewers played the game to the end. Because if they watched the ending they shouldn't give ~90% for ME3. They should be complaining about this epic fail.

I wonder if the reviewers played the previous games at all.

[BraggleFraggle]

McAllyster wrote...

I wonder if any of the reviewers played the game to the end. Because if they watched the ending they shouldn't give ~90% for ME3. They should be complaining about this epic fail.

Generally, reviewers only have a few hours to play a game.  From the variety of articles and reviews I've read online though, you can tell who had time to get to the end of the game and how obviously didn't

[The Angry Hamster]

Omg! C'mon, Chris! Can you really even THINK that all is well and even though many of sites you mentioned are in the business of selling games? Then flooded this forum with many "people" who showered bioware with all sorts of plaudits extolling the virtues of ME3 with no more than a few hours to have played the game?

Sssoooo many of the sites I have posted my feelings on this game would at one side of the page ask your opinion, then right on the other sell multiple video games. Do you really think many of ME fans are that blind? Look, I understand that they need to pay for braces for their kids just like everyone else. But guys, this is NOT just a few malcontents grumbling about nepharious little foibles in the game. This IS TENS OF THOUSANDS of dedicated ME fans who have played this through every way and they are dissapointed with these possible endings.

It is a great game up until that point. Bioware–listen to your loyal fans. You can change this right now if you want to.

Kirk, out.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Mole267 wrote...

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.

That was one of the many examples I was thinking of.  The laughable overall state of the gaming media is an open secret if you take a few minutes and look.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Gigamantis wrote...

kalle90 wrote...

I can't help but to think that if the name wasn't "Mass Effect 3", but instead something like "Alpha Protocol 2" (sequel to not so popular game) or brand new would the game get similiar line of 10s? It seems plenty of reviews are completely forgiving very glaring flaws.

My short review
+ Gameplay is decent, but combat, upgrading, skills, AI etc. aren't anything you don't see in other games, often done better.
+ The base script is good up until the end. There's plenty going on.

- Audiovisually the game doesn't impress at all
- Reduced dialogue choices and often petty consquences of actions, plus complete ending failure

Otherwise I could give the game perhaps an 8, but that last minus is so huge I have to bump it down to 6/10. Stuff like killing off characters in Twitter, notable day one DLC, unable to play multiplayer solo offline and awful disc swapping routine are just extra stains on the carpet.

In my opinion the gameplay and story are both exceptional, the gameplay especially.  The reduced dialogue options are a point against ME3 but I think the gameplay improvements make up for it. 

Audio-visually the game is near the limit of what this generation of consoles can handle, and things like Day 1 DLC and single-player multi-player (wtf?) that you mention are irrelevant to rating the actual game.  

Users are really horrible at reviewing games.  This is why people are forced to default to, and give credence to, real journalists. 

"Real" journalists are horrible at reviewing games, usually ignoring or glossing over major issues exactly as you just did, and concentrating on superficial flash and the most basic of gameplay concepts.  They have a short amount of time to look at each game, and usually work for publications or websites that rely on a cozy relationship with the publishers in order to stay in business.

As for the consoles... just illustrates again the basic issues of publishing the same game on both PC and consoles.  Stop gimping games to cram them into the limitations of consoles (ME2 disks issue forcing the constrained order to squadmate aquisition, anyone?)  and you don't have the problem.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 12 mars 2012 - 06:41 .

[AlanC9]

OdanUrr wrote...

McAllyster wrote...

I wonder if any of the reviewers played the game to the end. Because if they watched the ending they shouldn't give ~90% for ME3. They should be complaining about this epic fail.

I wonder if the reviewers played the previous games at all.

Well, the NYT guy certainly did play the earlier games, since he reviewed them in detail. And while his ME3 review doesn't talk about the ending specifically, it's hard to imagine that he didn't have time to finish the game since the column appeared on Saturday.

[teknoarcanist]

Massive backlash over the endings.

Forums go down.

Forums come back up with a stickied post full of glowing reviews.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Oh wait, you're serious.

Let me laugh even harder.

[wesr]

Apparently they didn't finish the games or like most of these reviewers get so much free stuff they never say anything bad. I never trust reviews from anyone who gets paid to do it.

[TcomJ]

Yap, all endings suck.

Modifié par TcomJ, 13 mars 2012 - 04:53 .

[hunterday]

Am guessing he edited out the "before the last 10 minutes" part from the ratings before posting them... or it cost Bioware alot of give away stuff to get them because thats the only way they'd give those ratings with out it... Sorry Chris because the game really is amasing... up until the endings

[Bruno61]

And what about the thousands of dislikes of the endings? That's not counting I believe.
I haven't bought the game because of that.
Waiting for a better ending with DLC of somethng else.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Waiting for no Origin, no danger of a ban because of modding single player, no combat roll nonsense, and better endings.

So basically, never...

[killerscarab]

The ending felt like I had wasted all the time I had invested into the previous games. Was very disappointed.

[Les_Carver]

Has any of those reviews addressed the ending's horrible lack of closure to your actions from previous games?

[Iron Gecko]

Well done bioware!

[Thori]

I doubt it. As few folks mentioned earlier, reviews are probably fake and in service of advertising games. I wouldn't be surprised that EA gave more money on advertisement than on game development.

[Arppis]

"Pelit" gave ME3 92/100.

Saying that it's "honorable ending to Shepard saga, despite it's small annoyances".