453 réponses à ce sujet

[Archyyy]

I can perfectly understand the angry reviews on metacritic. Yes they are
exaggerated but they shouldnt be taken literally. More as something
that shows how angry people over the dumbing down of great games. If
people really cant see where people like me are coming from that have
been with the series since the first game and love in depth and complex
rpgs then theyre complete drones.

Just started mass effect again after raging over the terribleness of ME3. The dialogue is great, the writing isnt cheesy or cliched and theres probably other great stuff Ive forgotten about thats been removed. Granted the inventory is a bit of a mess (still better than no inventory) and the gameplay is terrible (boring cover shooter wasnt a great fix though).

What pissed me off most in the few hours I managed to play ME3 was the auto dialogue (completely disconnects me from shepard), the lack of options (the polarized two hardly count as options), the terribly cheesy and cliched writing and dialogue, the (still) terrible character creation and same boring gameplay.

Apparently later on the game also features gaping plotholes, terrible endings, complete loss of credibility for reapers and more. Then theres also the time wasted on the multiplayer that couldve been put to better use, day one dlc and the overall desire to only attract new players instead of giving anything to old fans. Cant blame people for being angry.

Modifié par Archyyy, 08 mars 2012 - 01:19 .

[Range Rover]

Ah those poor middle age virgins with their bad skin. I'm my greatest and only reviewer. ME3 rocks and I'm in love. Everyone's just afraid of change(for the better), one day those people are gonna wake up in their basements and say wow: I'm almost 50yrs old and all i've done with my life is sit here masterbate and play videogames. Bioware don't worry its just part of being awesome, it's both a gift and a curse.

[Toyou4you]

I say metacritic should dump user reviews, they'll mostly bull to be honest.
For example MW3: Its MW3 Score(1)
ME3: I didn't like the graphics Score (1)

[Rockworm503]

See thats where you lose me.
You rather have a terrible game mechanic than better gameplay.
Everyone who misses the inventory or the Mako are complaining about how dumbed down the gameplay has become.
Know what I did in ME1?
I pointed and shot... Powers were less useful.

Sure its not what you want to hear but I see better gameplay and the auto dialog thing doesn't even bother me.

To be perfectly honest I'm glad I didn't grow up on RPGs I hate to have all my enjoyment of a game ruined because of the lack of inventory.

[HolyAvenger]

^^^^ Its funny how two people who both loved ME1 (you and me, to be clear) can have such different reactions to 3. 

I quite like the filler auto-dialogue as it makes conversations flow smoother and I can really get immersed in them instead of breaking out of immersion to make dialogue choices every couple of seconds. I think the writing is better in terms of dialogue than 1 (now that had some cheesy lines), the gameplay is much, much better. The CC is a pain, but it actually makes better-looking characters.

Nonetheless, I think a mob mentality affects internet user reviews and I'm pretty wary of taking them seriously. A 0/10 indicates to me an unplayable or abysmal game- ME3 is neither. People handing out those scores are just angry that its not the game they wanted or expected...which is fine, but no need to dish out vitriol on the game itself, plenty of others will like it.

Modifié par HolyAvenger, 08 mars 2012 - 01:24 .

[Abraham_uk]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Here's what people don't get.
A review should be the quality of the game.
It should NOT be how you complain about EA's practices.
Its not your time to say EA sucks because they suck.
Its time to talk about the game not what beef you have with Bioware or EA.
Thats just silly.
I thought a game review was to tell us what you thought about the game.
If I were to review this game I would treat the DLC like I do any DLC. Separate from the game and has no baring on my final verdict.
I don't care if your a professional getting payed to do it or a user angry at Bioware.
That should just be common sense!

That's a fair point. But not everyone is going to abide by that criteria.

I would rather people followed your approach. The simple fact is, if they have beef with Electronic Arts, even if the game is worthy of praise, they would be unable to enjoy the product. To them it is like finding out that the game was used to fund illegal wars in ravaged proverty stricken nations. Those individuals feel sick and feel that they have to review the game without even playing it.

Those that do play it, will find at least one thing they don't like and it would confirm what they've alway held as true regarding Electronic Arts. "Bioware don't make RPG's anymore. They do poorly made action games with derpy plot, characters and powers." In their eyes this is worth a 0/10.

Remember. Most normal human beings don't review video games, they review an experience of playing video games. Small issues can become major gripes and even envoke nerd rage from the average joe, especially if unrealistic expectations were involved. Perhaps you're expecting too much from these "normal" human beings who "normally" post their rage on review sites. That is the normal thing to do right.

(Normal was used in a sarcastic manner)

[slimgrin]

Sometimes the user reviews rate it 1 or 2 then give a perfectly good analysis of the game, basically discrediting their own review. So it's not all pure trolling. And I'm sorry but brand name recognition plays a huge roll in professional reviews, and many reviews...I just have to question. Metacritic is flawed.

Modifié par slimgrin, 08 mars 2012 - 01:35 .

[Rockworm503]

Abraham_uk wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

Here's what people don't get.
A review should be the quality of the game.
It should NOT be how you complain about EA's practices.
Its not your time to say EA sucks because they suck.
Its time to talk about the game not what beef you have with Bioware or EA.
Thats just silly.
I thought a game review was to tell us what you thought about the game.
If I were to review this game I would treat the DLC like I do any DLC. Separate from the game and has no baring on my final verdict.
I don't care if your a professional getting payed to do it or a user angry at Bioware.
That should just be common sense!

That's a fair point. But not everyone is going to abide by that criteria.

I would rather people followed your approach. The simple fact is, if they have beef with Electronic Arts, even if the game is worthy of praise, they would be unable to enjoy the product. To them it is like finding out that the game was used to fund illegal wars in ravaged proverty stricken nations. Those individuals feel sick and feel that they have to review the game without even playing it.

Those that do play it, will find at least one thing they don't like and it would confirm what they've alway held as true regarding Electronic Arts. "Bioware don't make RPG's anymore. They do poorly made action games with derpy plot, characters and powers." In their eyes this is worth a 0/10.

Remember. Most normal human beings don't review video games, they review an experience of playing video games. Small issues can become major gripes and even envoke nerd rage from the average joe, especially if unrealistic expectations were involved. Perhaps you're expecting too much from these "normal" human beings who "normally" post their rage on review sites. That is the normal thing to do right.

(Normal was used in a sarcastic manner)

I been one of the most people vocal against Origin and payed first day DLC.
I have a huge beef with EA.
How come I can enjoy the game just fine? 

Modifié par Rockworm503, 08 mars 2012 - 01:29 .

[Abirn]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Here's what people don't get.
A review should be the quality of the game.
It should NOT be how you complain about EA's practices.
Its not your time to say EA sucks because they suck.
Its time to talk about the game not what beef you have with Bioware or EA.
Thats just silly.
I thought a game review was to tell us what you thought about the game.
If I were to review this game I would treat the DLC like I do any DLC. Separate from the game and has no baring on my final verdict.
I don't care if your a professional getting payed to do it or a user angry at Bioware.
That should just be common sense!

It should also be free from pressure by the companies publishing those games.  Which is not the current case in the industry.  Listening to people who have played the game but don't have alterior motives for giving inflated scores is the best idea.

[Archyyy]

HolyAvenger wrote...

^^^^ Its funny how two people who both loved ME1 (you and me, to be clear) can have such different reactions to 3. 

I quite like the filler auto-dialogue as it makes conversations flow smoother and I can really get immersed in them instead of breaking out of immersion to make dialogue choices every couple of seconds. I think the writing is better in terms of dialogue than 1 (now that had some cheesy lines), the gameplay is much, much better. The CC is a pain, but it actually makes better-looking characters.

Nonetheless, I think a mob mentality affects internet user reviews and I'm pretty wary of taking them seriously. A 0/10 indicates to me an unplayable or abysmal game- ME3 is neither. People handing out those scores are just angry that its not the game they wanted or expected...which is fine, but no need to dish out vitriol on the game itself, plenty of others will like it.

ME1 had some serious flaws but I liked it. Didnt loooove it but it was very good. The gameplay was awful, the inventory was a mess and probably some other things I cant remember right now but they certainly havent been fixed the way they shouldve been.

My biggest disappointment in ME3 is the auto dialogue. I cant understand how it can improve anyones immersion. It completely breaks mine. Thats the reason Ive never liked The Witcher series that much despite otherwise being excellent.

When my character speaks without my permission I stop and think "this isnt what I'd want to say" and my whole experience is ruined. Immersion lost. Choices are the best thing about rpgs, be it in dialogue, story, classes or whatever. The more the better. If the dialogue had more than the occasional two options and shepard didnt say things without permission the game might even be entertaining despite all the flaws. Now I probably cant force myself to finish it.

As to the user reviews they shouldnt be taken literally. Its more of an expression that many people are angry. Not and actual score. Perhaps they should move to a thumb up/down system cause you can never get a coherent and objective view from user reviews. Theyre always just a general reaction towards a game. The "professional" reviews are even worse at this stage though cause all of the early reviews are pressured by ea/bioware to give good scores.

Modifié par Archyyy, 08 mars 2012 - 01:33 .

[LeBurns]

I totally agree the scores in the 1 to 3 range are trash. If a game runs at all it's better than that. I think the fanboiz 10 scores should be removed also. Same issue with them. Most never played the game and just giving it a 10 due to their BioWare or ME love and to combat the low scores from the ragers. You really can't remove one without the other and be fair about it.

[Abraham_uk]

Rockworm503 wrote...

I been one of the most people vocal against Origin and payed first day DLC.
I have a huge beef with EA.
How come I can enjoy the game just fine? 

I was refeering to a small group of people who can't get past their beef with EA. Since you can get past your beef you're not one of the people I was refeering to.

[Bourne Endeavor]

If I were to type up a review of M3, which I may do sometime this month. It would consist of the following categories:

Story
Characters
Gameplay
Sound
Replayability
---

Multiplayer
---

Continuality
DLC


Take note of the separation. This, I feel, is important because at the core Mass Effect 3 is story driven game despite conflicting opinion of the quality of said story. Therefore, multiplayer should be reviewed as a standalone aspect because for some. It may just be completely irrelevant. Continuality is unique to the series and purely for long time veterans as new players would have limited history or connection with characters like Garrus or Tali. Lastly, DLC. With the change of standards nowadays, it is certainly warranted to include DLC in a review. Whether you deem it worthy of effecting the overall score is your business.

To properly review the game under these parameters you will need of have invested a significant number of hours, although far from reaching completion. Now I personally am quite accurate in determining if a game will be worth my time; taking as little as fifteen minutes on one occasion. That said, you do need to allow the game to open up somewhat to provide a reasonably solid review. Some games simply take longer to reveal the bait to lure you in. Final Fantasy VII is a prime example of this. Even Mass Effect took time for some and you really need to play onward to get a feel for everything.

Of course, if you just want to toss up a paragraph listing issues. That is all well and good but I hardly call it a genuine review. ME3 may be considered a letdown but at score below six is reaching. People seem to neglect the reality anything below 8 is almost thought trash in this medium. We are a very fickle group, us gamers.

[Kilshrek]

HolyAvenger wrote...

Nonetheless, I think a mob mentality affects internet user reviews and I'm pretty wary of taking them seriously. A 0/10 indicates to me an unplayable or abysmal game- ME3 is neither. People handing out those scores are just angry that its not the game they wanted or expected...which is fine, but no need to dish out vitriol on the game itself, plenty of others will like it.

On the other side of that coin is those who can't hand out enough 10 scores. There's plenty of tribalism going around right now, especially around Bioware games. There are plenty of theories as to why, we don't need to discuss any of them.

I never poked around the Skyrim boards, but I wonder if Bethesda ever got as much hate as Bioware did for DA 2. But there was a clever little comment by Todd Howard over the success of TES games, core fans. Even allowing for marketing speak, it seems to me that Bethesda/Todd Howard is quite appreciative of the core fans. And mods, mods help keep fans pacified.

[HolyAvenger]

Interesting how immersion works differently for different people. I get caught up in the emotions of cutscenes, in the flow of the cinematic. When the game pauses for me to make a dialogue choice, that better be meaningful and important, not just some line of filler than really needed no input from me...or even worse, like in ME1, when all three choices led to the same line and outcome! What the heck was the point?

I really feel like ME3 hasn't cut back on your options, its just stripped away the illusion of choice the previous games had. That is a good thing in my mind. Of course others will not agree.

[Sphynx118]

JorgeMacD wrote...

Justin2k wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

It is a problem on metacritic and similar sites that people with actual valid complaints and dislikes are having their complaints ignored due to "trolls" who are using the sites to only casue problems. Until thise can be fixed, I'm not sue what the solution can be.

There are people that are a little upset about that you seem to care more about attracting new players to the game rather than delivering to the fans of the series, as evidenced by the ending, the action mode, the changes to characters sexual orientation, the shooter orientated gameplay, the multiplayer etc etc.... 

Those people aren't reviewing the game straight.  They are looking at what they expected from you as being a 10 and rating the game as a 3 or a 0 or whatever because you've delivered a shooter instead of an RPG.  Of course, that isn't the games realistic score, but they expected at least a decent ending, they didn't expect day 1 DLC or chargable multiplayer packs etc etc.

The game may very well be a 9 as a stand alone, but as the finale to something people have been playing and loving for years, you maybe spent a bit too much time appealing to a broader audience and not enough time giving the fans what they wanted (i.e a decent face for Tali, a decent ending and some sort of semblance that the choices they've been making mattered).

Same thing happened with Dragon Age 2.  It's a shame you seem more about squeezing every last dollar out of people than you do giving your core fan base what they've come to expect from you guys. 

word
up

QFT. Not that the drones will care. "Every negative review is a /v/ raid hurrrrr". DA2 failure all over again

[Abraham_uk]

HolyAvenger wrote...

Interesting how immersion works differently for different people. I get caught up in the emotions of cutscenes, in the flow of the cinematic. When the game pauses for me to make a dialogue choice, that better be meaningful and important, not just some line of filler than really needed no input from me...or even worse, like in ME1, when all three choices led to the same line and outcome! What the heck was the point?

I really feel like ME3 hasn't cut back on your options, its just stripped away the illusion of choice the previous games had. That is a good thing in my mind. Of course others will not agree.

Choice A: We go in and shoot everything in site.
Choice B: Let's kill those slavers.
Choice C: It's payback time.

Response to all three choices

I'm on it Shepard! Bang, bang, bang. All slavers dead.

[Rockworm503]

Sphynx118 wrote...

JorgeMacD wrote...

Justin2k wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

It is a problem on metacritic and similar sites that people with actual valid complaints and dislikes are having their complaints ignored due to "trolls" who are using the sites to only casue problems. Until thise can be fixed, I'm not sue what the solution can be.

There are people that are a little upset about that you seem to care more about attracting new players to the game rather than delivering to the fans of the series, as evidenced by the ending, the action mode, the changes to characters sexual orientation, the shooter orientated gameplay, the multiplayer etc etc.... 

Those people aren't reviewing the game straight.  They are looking at what they expected from you as being a 10 and rating the game as a 3 or a 0 or whatever because you've delivered a shooter instead of an RPG.  Of course, that isn't the games realistic score, but they expected at least a decent ending, they didn't expect day 1 DLC or chargable multiplayer packs etc etc.

The game may very well be a 9 as a stand alone, but as the finale to something people have been playing and loving for years, you maybe spent a bit too much time appealing to a broader audience and not enough time giving the fans what they wanted (i.e a decent face for Tali, a decent ending and some sort of semblance that the choices they've been making mattered).

Same thing happened with Dragon Age 2.  It's a shame you seem more about squeezing every last dollar out of people than you do giving your core fan base what they've come to expect from you guys. 

word
up

QFT. Not that the drones will care. "Every negative review is a /v/ raid hurrrrr". DA2 failure all over again

Just like every positive review is payed off by the develepor?

[ADLegend21]

I haven't fisnished my frist playthrough yet, but the hate is completely idiotic. I'm completely immersed in this game. It's taken the best things about Mass Effect 1 (story, Alliance controlled Normandy, reporting to high ranking military and the council, original team, weapon customization) and Mass Effect 2 (highly advanced Normandy, custimization of uniform galaxy map, weapon selection, cinematics, conversation depth, and combat) and added things like a shooting range in the spectre office, suadmates moving around the ship and interacting with each other, even talking to each other over intercoms. The War Room with a security check makes it feel like it's privelegded access only, the development of the squadmates (I went from being dissapointed in Garrus and Tali in ME2, to admiring how much they've grown since the mission and period between games) and how ach decision matters for your war assets. I feel the losses my PLaythrough has, Is top at the memorial wall on the crew deck to think about the dead, I hit EVERY deck and talk to any and everyone I can before I set of for another mission because of how deep this game is. There are some things I'm upset about yes, but they aren't enough to take away from the game as a whole because I see how hard the ME team worked and I know those tweets about giving up days off and not going on vacation and Casey falling asleep as his work desk were NOT bs to hype fans about the game, they were the truth. *goes back to playing*

[Archyyy]

HolyAvenger wrote...

Interesting how immersion works differently for different people. I get caught up in the emotions of cutscenes, in the flow of the cinematic. When the game pauses for me to make a dialogue choice, that better be meaningful and important, not just some line of filler than really needed no input from me...or even worse, like in ME1, when all three choices led to the same line and outcome! What the heck was the point?

I really feel like ME3 hasn't cut back on your options, its just stripped away the illusion of choice the previous games had. That is a good thing in my mind. Of course others will not agree.

One point of choices is to make you feel involved. If my character just does things with me doing nothing I feel like a spectator just watching the situation. I want to feel like the character. Doesnt even matter if all the choices do the same thing (much better if they didnt though), the point is to have them and immerse me into the character.

ME3 has cut options. We now have two polarized things to say. Thats retarded. How can anyone think of that as good and in depth dialogue? And as I explained the illusion of choice is far better than no choice at all. Of course real choices are always the best option.

[Bungie.Net Sucks]

I gave it a 9

[gabe2gg]

HolyAvenger wrote...

^^^^ Its funny how two people who both loved ME1 (you and me, to be clear) can have such different reactions to 3. 

I quite like the filler auto-dialogue as it makes conversations flow smoother and I can really get immersed in them instead of breaking out of immersion to make dialogue choices every couple of seconds. I think the writing is better in terms of dialogue than 1 (now that had some cheesy lines), the gameplay is much, much better. The CC is a pain, but it actually makes better-looking characters.

Nonetheless, I think a mob mentality affects internet user reviews and I'm pretty wary of taking them seriously. A 0/10 indicates to me an unplayable or abysmal game- ME3 is neither. People handing out those scores are just angry that its not the game they wanted or expected...which is fine, but no need to dish out vitriol on the game itself, plenty of others will like it.

I guess Bioware wasn't lying when they said people found chosing dialog was too much to handle.

[Kilshrek]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Just like every positive review is payed off by the develepor?

Paid off by the publisher, who knows? But we do know that publishers to use much indirect force to get what they want from gaming sites.

It's kind of like, we agree to give your games good reviews so long as you agree to give us advertising revenue and early/exclusive access to your products.

There are rumours of such things but without too many people coming out to confirm or deny, then the cynical minds of the world will surely take that silence as implied confirmation, no?

Although recently some french publication may or may not have gotten into hot water with Activision for outing BlOPs 2 before they were ready. The french were adamant that Activision was punishing them, but the PR took over and nothing much has happened after.

“I asked if we should consider ourselves blacklisted, and more precisely
if my journalist was still to attend a preview event that was planned
next week and to which we were already invited. Activision said no. They
also made clear that the relationship was to be severed, all
advertisement plans cancelled, games not sent, and invitations to later
events cancelled as well.

That apparently happened before the rest of the world picked up on the story and obviously sensing PR disaster, the sensible thing was said to be done.

[Archyyy]

gabe2gg wrote...

I guess Bioware wasn't lying when they said people found chosing dialog was too much to handle.

Indeed. Saddens me. There are so many games out there for people with the ability to barely handle the occasional two choices. Why couldnt rpgs stay as rpgs and not turn into the same crap.

[HolyAvenger]

Like I said, immersion or roleplaying works differently for different people. I'm not saying one way or the other is better, I'm just saying I don't find ME3 ruins my experience or anything silly like that, and that people should give it a try before making a decision.

And yeah lets not dump on each other about how we play our games. I've been a fan of RPGs for a long, long time. It doesn't mean I'm not looking for the genre to evolve and move on and for developers to try new things instead of being stuck in the past. I can handle plenty of dialogue. I can still like the way ME3 does conversations.