53 réponses à ce sujet

[Montana]

Yeah, great review :/

Thanks for the spoilers, last time I read a review from them before I play a game.

[AkiKishi]

Tony77A wrote...

Yeah, great review :/

Thanks for the spoilers, last time I read a review from them before I play a game.

Icinix wrote...
Game isn't released here yet - so can't post in the spoilers section - but this is the best review I've read for Mass Effect 3, honest and fair - some spoilers obviously.
.

[Icinix]

BobSmith101 wrote...

DaJe wrote...

davidshooter wrote...

Yeah I liked it too, it covered a lot of things many people who have been playing since the beginning are saying which has been absent from almost all the big name reviews I've read.

ME3 is a very good cinematic action adventure shooter. But many people who are buying the game are expecting, or at least hoping, for something quite different - that needs to be factored into any thorough review.

If the next Gears of War has an incredible story with deep characters, lots of player input, dialogue choices and an inventory system a lot of it's core fans would freak out no matter how great the final product was.

I sometimes think Bioware's biggest obstacle is themselves and for every new fan they win over (with very good games IMHO) they lose one they already had. I think that is the biggest reason this (very good) IP hasn't grown into the kind of numbers that a game like Skyrim can pull in.

Anyway, thanks for posting

Indeed. Instead of improvements Bioware often tries completely different directions. This is ok with individual IPs but with one franchise it is natural to expect improved features and a continuation rather than removing one thing and adding something different.
This becomes really problematic when you take the subtle roleplaying out of a game (auto dialog) in a franchise where it seemed like you are building YOUR character that shapes the story, while making many decisions trivial.

Not everyone needs to like Bethesda games, but they atleast stick to their formular and improve it with every game, which keeps old fans and draws in new ones. The success speaks for it self.

ME could be so much bigger if it were one franchise and not 3.

The problem is they tie the game to a particular setting , which makes it hard to franchise. If you take FF , the games have common elements but they don't often share world settings and characters (exception being the -2 sequels).
This makes it very easy to accept change since it's always been this way. It also means they have much more of a free hand in design because they are not bound to a specific world lore or time line.

Writing a series invariably leads to writing yourself into a corner as we can see with ToB and now ME3.

A lot of the blame I place on the books which overode the choices made in the games and led to retcons.

I think it should set a good example that if you're going to be ambitious - be prepared to maintain that ambition, or keep it as a singular game.

If you believe you can make a game that is genre merging and has some crazy different ways of doing things - stand by them, evolve them, don't just cut and change them.

And yes, definitely, if you're going to branch the game out into other media, be careful how involved you connect the two - because it can really undermine the lore, quality and story.

Anyway you look at it though - I think its a good learning experience - Edit: Or experiment in the gaming industry.

Modifié par Icinix, 07 mars 2012 - 11:15 .

[Bad King]

Saving or destroying the Collector Base at the end of Mass Effect 2 has zero effect beyond a line of dialogue that tells you whether you saved or destroyed it.

This is totally lame, but I guess we were all expecting it to happen. All those thoughtful debates on whether to destroy or keep the base for nothing!

[AkiKishi]

Bad King wrote...

Saving or destroying the Collector Base at the end of Mass Effect 2 has zero effect beyond a line of dialogue that tells you whether you saved or destroyed it.

This is totally lame, but I guess we were all expecting it to happen. All those thoughtful debates on whether to destroy or keep the base for nothing!

That's not 100% correct. You get a different item that makes it easier to get one ending or another as well.

Of course the effect is negligable so if that is what the OP was getting it fair enough.

[Lucy Glitter]

davidshooter wrote...

I sometimes think Bioware's biggest obstacle is themselves and for every new fan they win over (with very good games IMHO) they lose one they already had. I think that is the biggest reason this (very good) IP hasn't grown into the kind of numbers that a game like Skyrim can pull in. 

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

[ThePhotoshop2]

BobSmith101 wrote...
That's not 100% correct. You get a different item that makes it easier to get one ending or another as well.

Didn't notice that - what's the item? A war asset?

[lumen11]

Eh,
Am I the only one who thinks this reviewer sounds annoyed, e.g. not objective?

Don't think it's necessarily a bad review mind you; it's quite in-depth although a bit too specific (bordering on spoilery) at times. However, critical does not equal unbiased to my mind and this is a good example of that.

[Bovolt]

I like how people only seem to think it's an honest review if it's below a 9. People CAN honestly like the game, crazy as it sounds. I know I do.

[TheRealJayDee]

lumen11 wrote...

Eh,
Am I the only one who thinks this reviewer sounds annoyed, e.g. not objective?

Don't think it's necessarily a bad review mind you; it's quite in-depth although a bit too specific (bordering on spoilery) at times. However, critical does not equal unbiased to my mind and this is a good example of that.

So he's not objective because he actually reviews the game within the context of it being the finale of a trilogy, and actually adressing the games shortcomings? You consider all the 9-10/10 reviews from the other magazines/sites as being unbiased? Besides, this reviewer gave the game a solid 8.

Bovolt wrote...

I like how people only seem to think it's an honest review if it's below a 9. People CAN honestly like the game, crazy as it sounds. I know I do.

I like how people seem to think it's an honest review if it's 9+? You might need to learn the difference between "liking a game" and giving it a near perfect/perfect rating. Do I doubt many gamers love the game as it is? Sure not. But this "9+ or hater"  attitude is really annoying me.

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 07 mars 2012 - 01:13 .

[varterral]

Best review after Giantbomb, slightly more critical and finally concentrating on what we've been voicing concerns over: the implications of choices from the first 2 games and how much of an impact they leave in this game. From what I've seen, the Geth/Quarian conflict and genophage dilemmas are the better implemented missions in the game which take note of all major decisions from ME2 and make you regret/appreciate choices you made.

Modifié par varterral, 07 mars 2012 - 01:19 .

[Bovolt]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Bovolt wrote...

I like how people only seem to think it's an honest review if it's below a 9. People CAN honestly like the game, crazy as it sounds. I know I do.

I like how people seem to think it's an honest review if it's 9+? You might need to learn the difference between "liking a game" and giving it a near perfect/perfect rating. Do I doubt many gamers love the game as it is? Sure not. But this "9+ or hater"  attitude is really annoying me.

Did I say that? No.... no I didn't. Quite the opposite in fact. I'm merely pointing out that people are taking a "8- or biased" approach to the review. In all seriousness, as far as the Bioware forum dwellers go, if the review doesn't conincide with thier own personal opinion, then the review is automatically biased or hating.

[Icinix]

lumen11 wrote...

Eh,
Am I the only one who thinks this reviewer sounds annoyed, e.g. not objective?

Don't think it's necessarily a bad review mind you; it's quite in-depth although a bit too specific (bordering on spoilery) at times. However, critical does not equal unbiased to my mind and this is a good example of that.

He's definitely annoyed, no doubt. He's been a Mass Effect fan for a long time. But - although as a fan he brought up issues with the game, as a reviewer he gave the game an 8 - which is still a damn good score.

Bovolt wrote...

I like how people only seem to think it's an honest review if it's below a 9. People CAN honestly like the game, crazy as it sounds. I know I do.

 

8 is a still a very good score. Its honest because in spite of the flaws a lot of people have brough up it, he said it still deserves an 8.

There was a good article on Bit-Tech asking since when did 8/10 become a bad score. Games that used to get 6 or 7 were worth a look if they appealed, but 8 was a definite purchase if you had the money and time, 9 was a score that was reserved for buy it even if you don't have the money or time and 10 was take time off of work / school to play it.

[lumen11]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

lumen11 wrote...

Eh,
Am I the only one who thinks this reviewer sounds annoyed, e.g. not objective?

Don't think it's necessarily a bad review mind you; it's quite in-depth although a bit too specific (bordering on spoilery) at times. However, critical does not equal unbiased to my mind and this is a good example of that.

So he's not objective because he actually reviews the game within the context of it being the finale of a trilogy, and actually adressing the games shortcomings? You consider all the 9-10/10 reviews from the other magazines/sites as being unbiased? Besides, this reviewer gave the game a solid 8.

No and no to your questions. I don't believe I suggested anything like that.

I would agree that perfect scores, like some reviewers have given ME3, are a bit sillly when there are certain shortcomings consistently being mentioned. However, I will say that ME2 more than deserved a 9, so similar scores for ME3 hardly give me reason to suspect bias.

[varterral]

I think his ending lines let us know how he feels and how a lot of fans who have played multiple times right from the start will feel: "Where its wonder was once defined by the traversal of uncharted worlds, here it’s defined by big explosions and space battle cutscenes. This is a spectacular galactic war, and Shepard will lose a lot to end it, but the series has also lost something in order to depict it."
Definitely a great game, but almost unrecognisable when compared to ME1.

Modifié par varterral, 07 mars 2012 - 01:26 .

[lumen11]

varterral wrote...

I think his ending lines let us know how he feels and how a lot of fans who have played multiple times right from the start will feel: "Where its wonder was once defined by the traversal of uncharted worlds, here it’s defined by big explosions and space battle cutscenes. This is a spectacular galactic war, and Shepard will lose a lot to end it, but the series has also lost something in order to depict it."
Definitely a great game, but almost unrecognisable when compared to ME1.

This is an interesting and eloquently phrased observation (and I like it when reviewers make those), but when I look at ME1 I have a hard time seeing 'the traversal of uncharted worlds' as defining to its sense of wonder. Riding around on those uncharted pieces of rock in my MAKO was pretty far from wonderous. To me, what was wonderous about ME1 was seeing the citadel appear though the surrounding nebula, communicating with a creature that was alive 50000 years ago, 'wondering' what was underneath Tali's mask and, yes, seeing Joker and the Normandy charge at this huge Reaper in a space battle cut scene was wonderous too. I suspect most would agree with me here.

You know, theoretically Biowore could have take the Mass Effect series in a very different direction, but if you look at ME1 objectively, as if it was 2007 and the sequals weren't there yet, you could still have predicted that ME3 was where the series was heading.

Modifié par lumen11, 07 mars 2012 - 03:24 .

[Icinix]

lumen11 wrote...

varterral wrote...

I think his ending lines let us know how he feels and how a lot of fans who have played multiple times right from the start will feel: "Where its wonder was once defined by the traversal of uncharted worlds, here it’s defined by big explosions and space battle cutscenes. This is a spectacular galactic war, and Shepard will lose a lot to end it, but the series has also lost something in order to depict it."
Definitely a great game, but almost unrecognisable when compared to ME1.

You know, this is an interesting and eloquently phrased observation (and I like it when reviewers make those), but when I look at ME1 I have a hard time seeing 'the traversal of uncharted worlds' as defining to its sense of wonder. Riding around on those uncharted pieces of rock in my MAKO was pretty far from wonderous. What was wonderous about ME1 was seeing the citadel appear though the surrounding nebula, communicating with a creature that was alive 50000 years ago, 'wondering' what was underneath Tali's mask and, yes, seeing Joker and the Normandy charge at this huge Reaper was wonderous too.

I agree with everything you said about the Thorian, the Citadel etc - but the Mako did give me that sense of awe and wonder.

I mention this a fair bit in Mako discussions, but there were so many moments I had that were great. One in particular sticks in my mind - thats landing on a snow world, with a snow storm whipping horizontally across the screen - a hazy sun setting on the horizon. It was epic.

You never felt constrained in your choices - in a sense I think thats more important than having the chioces themselves, if you feel you have that freedom - then it doesn't matter if you actually do.

lumen11 wrote...

You know, theoretically Biowore could have take the Mass Effect series in a very different direction, but if you look at ME1 objectively, as if it was 2007 and the sequals weren't there yet, you could still have predicted that ME3 was where the series was heading. 

 

Although it wasn't so obvious in ME1 - I think its clear now that ME has always been at war with itself about what it wanted to be. Instead of trying and becoming the merger of genres, it really ended up being a war of genres that often conflicted.

[lumen11]

Icinix wrote...

I agree with everything you said about the Thorian, the Citadel etc - but the Mako did give me that sense of awe and wonder.

I mention this a fair bit in Mako discussions, but there were so many moments I had that were great. One in particular sticks in my mind - thats landing on a snow world, with a snow storm whipping horizontally across the screen - a hazy sun setting on the horizon. It was epic.

You never felt constrained in your choices - in a sense I think thats more important than having the chioces themselves, if you feel you have that freedom - then it doesn't matter if you actually do.

Don't get me wrong, I do think exploring can be the most wonderous of experiences in games like this, but I think ME has done it wrong from the get go.

Icinix wrote...

Although it wasn't so obvious in ME1 - I think its clear now that ME has always been at war with itself about what it wanted to be. Instead of trying and becoming the merger of genres, it really ended up being a war of genres that often conflicted.

Partially agree. You do notice the conflict of genres, though in someways more so in ME1 due to some of its clunky mechanics (and then they overcompensated in ME2, but let's not get into that discussion again). Arguably though, this is more an issue of perception than the actual nature of the game. With the rise of increasingly more realistic and cinematic games, the actual distinction between the RPG and action genres itself becomes obsolete.

Many of the statistics based characteristics typically associated with RPGs stem from a time when gaming didn't have the technical capability to offer the kind of realistic interaction with the game world those statistics, combined with the player's imagination, were supposed to simulate.

Conversely, the kind of shooter that does not make use of the cinematic and choice-based storytelling possibilities offered by modern gaming will soon become obsolete as well.

In short, gaming is changing.

Modifié par lumen11, 07 mars 2012 - 02:40 .

[gabe2gg]

Bovolt wrote...

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Bovolt wrote...

I like how people only seem to think it's an honest review if it's below a 9. People CAN honestly like the game, crazy as it sounds. I know I do.

I like how people seem to think it's an honest review if it's 9+? You might need to learn the difference between "liking a game" and giving it a near perfect/perfect rating. Do I doubt many gamers love the game as it is? Sure not. But this "9+ or hater"  attitude is really annoying me.

Did I say that? No.... no I didn't. Quite the opposite in fact. I'm merely pointing out that people are taking a "8- or biased" approach to the review. In all seriousness, as far as the Bioware forum dwellers go, if the review doesn't conincide with thier own personal opinion, then the review is automatically biased or hating.

There are many flaws in this game, however, this is still a very good game, but many things Bioware tried to do in this game that are mindbloggling(the ending for example).


@lumen11

ME1 had good and orginal ideas like mako driving on different planets. You really cannot blame Bioware as the game was only one disk that was only like 4 gigs I beilive.Now each disk is close to 8gigs and it would be easy to put more orginality into each planet. Also they could of maybe added customization to the mako in terms of looks and weapons.

[TheOtherTheoG]

Awfully written review gives a slightly lower than usual score.
Everyone says, because it gave it a slightly lower than usual score, it's a 'more honest' review.
Oh dear.

[AkiKishi]

TheOtherTheoG wrote...

Awfully written review gives a slightly lower than usual score.
Everyone says, because it gave it a slightly lower than usual score, it's a 'more honest' review.
Oh dear.

Read the actual text of the PCGamer review then boggle at the 93% at the bottom.

[gabe2gg]

TheOtherTheoG wrote...

Awfully written review gives a slightly lower than usual score.
Everyone says, because it gave it a slightly lower than usual score, it's a 'more honest' review.
Oh dear.

Haha what? did you even read the review? No way is ME3 close to a 9.5 or 10, but it is still a great game however.

[Bigdoser]

I have to say this review and the giantbomb review is really good.

[Fireblader70]

The honesty in that review is no different to many others I've seen. The only difference was the man's opinions, which just happened to be less favourable than others.

There seems to be an element of schadenfreude when it comes to blockbuster games these days, or at least, that's what I've noticed. Just human nature.
(For those that don't know, schadenfreude = taking pleasure in someone else's misery. A common occurence in the media.)

[DaJe]

Bovolt wrote...

I like how people only seem to think it's an honest review if it's below a 9. People CAN honestly like the game, crazy as it sounds. I know I do.

I didn't care for the score, nobody should really. What was written in the review is important and this reviewer seems to have a better grasp of the ME franchise as a whole than most big name reviewers.