453 réponses à ce sujet

[Gigamantis]

Odd Hermit wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Travie wrote...

BiO_MaN wrote...

All it seems to happen is:

Someone is not happy - rate 0
Someone is happy - rate 10

Would you trust this?

I'd trust it more than the 7 100% 'professional' reviews currently displayed with top billing on each ME3 page.

At least if you read the reviews on metacritic (the user reviews mind you) you can see valid criticisms and real gameplay experience.

Why would you trust trolls who give no examples or detail over 7 reviews that actually address the game categorically in a calm and concise manner?  

There are good reasons not to trust reviews from most popular game review sites. They often don't play the whole game since they want the review out asap, there are integrity concerns since the sites they write for have mutually benefitial relationships with some game companies, and some of them are really just writers not gamers.

He does have a point that if you actually read the metacritic reviews you might find various real issues that other critics might not address or gloss over. But right now you have to wade through so much garbage that you'd really have to sift through it to find the minority that are reasonable reviews.

The problem is that even the sparse actual points made by users are issues of personal taste, not game quality.  The slight shift away from detailed conversation and towards cinematics and gunplay isn't bad gameplay and doesn't make it a crappy RPG.  Day 1 DLC being a perceived cash grab has NOTHING to do with the actual game, and whether or not you liked the ending is irrelevant opinion as well.    

Beyond that we see professional critics crap on bad games all the time.  There's no causal or even correlative evidence of the impropriety you people accuse gaming journalists of; you just pretend they're bought off or blackmailed when you don't agree with them. 

If ME3 wasn't a good game it wouldn't be doing well with the critics. 

[AkiKishi]

Gigamantis wrote...

Odd Hermit wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Travie wrote...

BiO_MaN wrote...

All it seems to happen is:

Someone is not happy - rate 0
Someone is happy - rate 10

Would you trust this?

I'd trust it more than the 7 100% 'professional' reviews currently displayed with top billing on each ME3 page.

At least if you read the reviews on metacritic (the user reviews mind you) you can see valid criticisms and real gameplay experience.

Why would you trust trolls who give no examples or detail over 7 reviews that actually address the game categorically in a calm and concise manner?  

There are good reasons not to trust reviews from most popular game review sites. They often don't play the whole game since they want the review out asap, there are integrity concerns since the sites they write for have mutually benefitial relationships with some game companies, and some of them are really just writers not gamers.

He does have a point that if you actually read the metacritic reviews you might find various real issues that other critics might not address or gloss over. But right now you have to wade through so much garbage that you'd really have to sift through it to find the minority that are reasonable reviews.

The problem is that even the sparse actual points made by users are issues of personal taste, not game quality.  The slight shift away from detailed conversation and towards cinematics and gunplay isn't bad gameplay and doesn't make it a crappy RPG.  Day 1 DLC being a perceived cash grab has NOTHING to do with the actual game, and whether or not you liked the ending is irrelevant opinion as well.    

Beyond that we see professional critics crap on bad games all the time.  There's no causal or even correlative evidence of the impropriety you people accuse gaming journalists of; you just pretend they're bought off or blackmailed when you don't agree with them. 

If ME3 wasn't a good game it wouldn't be doing well with the critics. 

But not being able to play the character you played in the other two games because of autodialogue does.

The same critics that proclaimed DA2 RPG of the decade ? Or outright lied about missing features being there?

[Mr. Big Pimpin]

I think one big difference is that the professional critics don't place near as much emphasis on the ending, and don't find it series-ruining like many of us do.

[Travie]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Odd Hermit wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Travie wrote...

BiO_MaN wrote...

All it seems to happen is:

Someone is not happy - rate 0
Someone is happy - rate 10

Would you trust this?

I'd trust it more than the 7 100% 'professional' reviews currently displayed with top billing on each ME3 page.

At least if you read the reviews on metacritic (the user reviews mind you) you can see valid criticisms and real gameplay experience.

Why would you trust trolls who give no examples or detail over 7 reviews that actually address the game categorically in a calm and concise manner?  

There are good reasons not to trust reviews from most popular game review sites. They often don't play the whole game since they want the review out asap, there are integrity concerns since the sites they write for have mutually benefitial relationships with some game companies, and some of them are really just writers not gamers.

He does have a point that if you actually read the metacritic reviews you might find various real issues that other critics might not address or gloss over. But right now you have to wade through so much garbage that you'd really have to sift through it to find the minority that are reasonable reviews.

The problem is that even the sparse actual points made by users are issues of personal taste, not game quality.  The slight shift away from detailed conversation and towards cinematics and gunplay isn't bad gameplay and doesn't make it a crappy RPG.  Day 1 DLC being a perceived cash grab has NOTHING to do with the actual game, and whether or not you liked the ending is irrelevant opinion as well.    

Beyond that we see professional critics crap on bad games all the time.  There's no causal or even correlative evidence of the impropriety you people accuse gaming journalists of; you just pretend they're bought off or blackmailed when you don't agree with them. 

If ME3 wasn't a good game it wouldn't be doing well with the critics. 

But not being able to play the character you played in the other two games because of autodialogue does.

The same critics that proclaimed DA2 RPG of the decade ? Or outright lied about missing features being there?

The reviews of DA2 tie this argument together in a neat little bow.

Bad games getting 8 or higher reviews just because a major developer is involved.... yeah.

[Rickin10]

Gigamantis wrote...



Beyond that we see professional critics crap on bad games all the time.  There's no causal or even correlative evidence of the impropriety you people accuse gaming journalists of; you just pretend they're bought off or blackmailed when you don't agree with them. 

If ME3 wasn't a good game it wouldn't be doing well with the critics. 

Please read: 

http://tvtropes.org/.../FourPointScale 

[Gigamantis]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Odd Hermit wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Travie wrote...

BiO_MaN wrote...

All it seems to happen is:

Someone is not happy - rate 0
Someone is happy - rate 10

Would you trust this?

I'd trust it more than the 7 100% 'professional' reviews currently displayed with top billing on each ME3 page.

At least if you read the reviews on metacritic (the user reviews mind you) you can see valid criticisms and real gameplay experience.

Why would you trust trolls who give no examples or detail over 7 reviews that actually address the game categorically in a calm and concise manner?  

There are good reasons not to trust reviews from most popular game review sites. They often don't play the whole game since they want the review out asap, there are integrity concerns since the sites they write for have mutually benefitial relationships with some game companies, and some of them are really just writers not gamers.

He does have a point that if you actually read the metacritic reviews you might find various real issues that other critics might not address or gloss over. But right now you have to wade through so much garbage that you'd really have to sift through it to find the minority that are reasonable reviews.

The problem is that even the sparse actual points made by users are issues of personal taste, not game quality.  The slight shift away from detailed conversation and towards cinematics and gunplay isn't bad gameplay and doesn't make it a crappy RPG.  Day 1 DLC being a perceived cash grab has NOTHING to do with the actual game, and whether or not you liked the ending is irrelevant opinion as well.    

Beyond that we see professional critics crap on bad games all the time.  There's no causal or even correlative evidence of the impropriety you people accuse gaming journalists of; you just pretend they're bought off or blackmailed when you don't agree with them. 

If ME3 wasn't a good game it wouldn't be doing well with the critics. 

But not being able to play the character you played in the other two games because of autodialogue does.

The same critics that proclaimed DA2 RPG of the decade ? Or outright lied about missing features being there?

There's "some" auto-dialogue and the existance of it doesn't make the game a crappy RPG.  There are plenty of opportunities in ME3 to make personality related decisions in conversation or otherwise.  This change is something that should be noted in a review, but it doesn't justify a bad one.  Some people may find the heightened cinematics more immersive than a few more conversation options. 

DA2 was a solid ARPG and deserved exactly the journalist scores it got on metacritic.  It was just a rather large deviation from DA:O. 

[Il Divo]

Gigamantis wrote...

If ME3 wasn't a good game it wouldn't be doing well with the critics. 

Thanks for the laugh.

[AkiKishi]

Gigamantis wrote...
There's "some" auto-dialogue and the existance of it doesn't make the game a crappy RPG.  There are plenty of opportunities in ME3 to make personality related decisions in conversation or otherwise.  This change is something that should be noted in a review, but it doesn't justify a bad one.  Some people may find the heightened cinematics more immersive than a few more conversation options. 

DA2 was a solid ARPG and deserved exactly the journalist scores it got on metacritic.  It was just a rather large deviation from DA:O. 

If it makes your previous Shepard personality unplayable that qualifies as crappy.

DA2 "solid" 

[Il Divo]

Rickin10 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...



Beyond that we see professional critics crap on bad games all the time.  There's no causal or even correlative evidence of the impropriety you people accuse gaming journalists of; you just pretend they're bought off or blackmailed when you don't agree with them. 

If ME3 wasn't a good game it wouldn't be doing well with the critics. 

Please read: 

http://tvtropes.org/.../FourPointScale 

Still, this is why the death of numerical reviews would be a good thing. They really tell us nothing about the good and bad aspects of the experience.

[Rickin10]

There are good reasons not to trust reviews from most popular game review sites. They often don't play the whole game since they want the review out asap, there are integrity concerns since the sites they write for have mutually benefitial relationships with some game companies, and some of them are really just writers not gamers.

He does have a point that if you actually read the metacritic reviews you might find various real issues that other critics might not address or gloss over. But right now you have to wade through so much garbage that you'd really have to sift through it to find the minority that are reasonable reviews.

Indeed.  Moriarty the Ign reviewer played th egame once, with no import and made the comment 'chock full of replayablilty'  Other gems like ' you making choices endlessly'  ' and 'it fully realises the promise and choices made in the previous 2 games'    
 
Combine that with the huuuuge ME3 advert splashed over the ign homepage, i'm sure no one in their right mind could even question impartiality.

[Gigamantis]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...
There's "some" auto-dialogue and the existance of it doesn't make the game a crappy RPG.  There are plenty of opportunities in ME3 to make personality related decisions in conversation or otherwise.  This change is something that should be noted in a review, but it doesn't justify a bad one.  Some people may find the heightened cinematics more immersive than a few more conversation options. 

DA2 was a solid ARPG and deserved exactly the journalist scores it got on metacritic.  It was just a rather large deviation from DA:O. 

If it makes your previous Shepard personality unplayable that qualifies as crappy.

DA2 "solid" 

Yes, DA2 was solid.  Played through the entirety of DA:O and DA2.  The games were very different and DA:O was better but you can't say DA2 was a bad game and be taken seriously.  That's just trollish nonsense.  

Also, auto-dialogue doesn't make any personality unplayable.  What you're doing there is called trollish hyperbole; acting like a few instances of auto-dialogue make the game completely non-interactive.  You're a bad source of objective opinion and a good example of why user reviews are useless. 

Modifié par Gigamantis, 08 mars 2012 - 04:45 .

[Il Divo]

Gigamantis wrote...

Yes, DA2 was solid.  Played through the entirety of DA:O and DA2.  The games were very different and DA:O was better but you can't say DA2 was a bad game and be taken seriously.  That's just trollish nonsense.  

Also, auto-dialogue doesn't amek any personality unplayable.  What you're doing there is called trollish hyperbole; acting like a few instances of auto-dialogue make the game completely non-interactive.  You're a bad source of objective opinion and a good example of why user reviews are useless. 

Tell me another joke.

[Gigamantis]

Il Divo wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Yes, DA2 was solid.  Played through the entirety of DA:O and DA2.  The games were very different and DA:O was better but you can't say DA2 was a bad game and be taken seriously.  That's just trollish nonsense.  

Also, auto-dialogue doesn't amek any personality unplayable.  What you're doing there is called trollish hyperbole; acting like a few instances of auto-dialogue make the game completely non-interactive.  You're a bad source of objective opinion and a good example of why user reviews are useless. 

Tell me another joke.

Ah well, at least you self-admit you're a troll.  Anyone else wanna try?  

[AkiKishi]

Gigamantis wrote...
Yes, DA2 was solid.  Played through the entirety of DA:O and DA2.  The games were very different and DA:O was better but you can't say DA2 was a bad game and be taken seriously.  That's just trollish nonsense.  

Also, auto-dialogue doesn't amek any personality unplayable.  What you're doing there is called trollish hyperbole; acting like a few instances of auto-dialogue make the game completely non-interactive.  You're a bad source of objective opinion and a good example of why user reviews are useless. 

Been there done that DA2 is a bad game period on any number of levels both objective and subjective.

Yes it does. My Shepard was a mix of of every option on the wheel depending on the situation. Nice guy in general, did what needed to be done in a pinch. Now the game takes over and plays out a set response rather than that personality type.

If you played your Shepard as either blue or red you would probably not notice.

[Rickin10]

Gigamantis wrote...


Also, auto-dialogue doesn't make any personality unplayable.  What you're doing there is called trollish hyperbole; acting like a few instances of auto-dialogue make the game completely non-interactive.  You're a bad source of objective opinion and a good example of why user reviews are useless. 

Auto-dialogue that comes out of Shepard's gob that directly contravines what the character you've built over 2 games would say doesn't make th egame unplayable, but it sure as hell renders 'your' character irrelevant. 

[Il Divo]

Gigamantis wrote...

Ah well, at least you self-admit you're a troll.  Anyone else wanna try?  

Well, at least you didn't go for why did the chicken cross the road.

Your arguments are still pretty laughable, though.

[nelly21]

Gigamantis wrote...

Ah well, at least you self-admit you're a troll.  Anyone else wanna try?  

Actually, Il Divo is one of the few people who actually critique and doesn't troll. According to BSN, I'm a bio drone and yet I find that Divo tries to back up his arguments and engage in discussion. I may not agree with him all the time, but he's a good conversation.

Give him a chance Giga, you may be surprised.

[Il Divo]

nelly21 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Ah well, at least you self-admit you're a troll.  Anyone else wanna try?  

Actually, Il Divo is one of the few people who actually critique and doesn't troll. According to BSN, I'm a bio drone and yet I find that Divo tries to back up his arguments and engage in discussion. I may not agree with him all the time, but he's a good conversation.

Give him a chance Giga, you may be surprised.

I'm cool with disagreement, as well as enjoying DA2. I'm just not cool with anything that builds off of "anyone who disagrees with me is trolling", as per his statements that no one can say DA2 is a bad game.

Oh, and much appreciated.

Modifié par Il Divo, 08 mars 2012 - 04:54 .

[Gigamantis]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...
Yes, DA2 was solid.  Played through the entirety of DA:O and DA2.  The games were very different and DA:O was better but you can't say DA2 was a bad game and be taken seriously.  That's just trollish nonsense.  

Also, auto-dialogue doesn't amek any personality unplayable.  What you're doing there is called trollish hyperbole; acting like a few instances of auto-dialogue make the game completely non-interactive.  You're a bad source of objective opinion and a good example of why user reviews are useless. 

Been there done that DA2 is a bad game period on any number of levels both objective and subjective.

Yes it does. My Shepard was a mix of of every option on the wheel depending on the situation. Nice guy in general, did what needed to be done in a pinch. Now the game takes over and plays out a set response rather than that personality type.

If you played your Shepard as either blue or red you would probably not notice.

Subjective levels are meaningless, but I'd love to hear any objective points that make DA2 a bad game.  I've never heard even 1 so that would be quite impressive. 

People don't care about how your Shepard plays out.  If I wanted to be overtly specific about who my character is I could go through 50 conversation options and proclaim "none of them fit my character, and if I can't be my Shepard this game sucks!"  That's just drivel; no one looking for objective feedback wants to hear it.  

[Gigamantis]

nelly21 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Ah well, at least you self-admit you're a troll.  Anyone else wanna try?  

Actually, Il Divo is one of the few people who actually critique and doesn't troll. According to BSN, I'm a bio drone and yet I find that Divo tries to back up his arguments and engage in discussion. I may not agree with him all the time, but he's a good conversation.

Give him a chance Giga, you may be surprised.

If he's got better than "tell me another joke" I'm listening. 

[DisobeyJesse]

Still playing the game but so far I love it!

I've read a few dozen of the posts and I just want to hit my head against a wall, jeez guys harsh much?
There will always be that one person in the room, (or rooms) saying they don't like a game over something, but I say just make your own opinion.  I realize that there are a few bugs in the game, but to say its horrible or say Bioware really messed up and ruined the series is taking it waaayyy too far.  A certian word comes to mind when I see these posts, starts with a T and ends with a L.

As for the gay option (I'm a girl), and I think its great that they added a romance option.  I don't think its a political message, I think they are simply staying to the fact that this is a game where you build your own character, (Gay or Straight, Hero or Anti-hero).  To be honest, I think the people who are offended that perhaps they were given the option to be gay in the game should really take a step back and look at what their saying. (Really, your offended over the option?)

Thank you Bioware for making another great addition to the series.  Great writing, characters and overall experience, well done, you should all be proud of your legacy

-Fan for Life

[sp0ck 06]

Travie wrote...

BiO_MaN wrote...

All it seems to happen is:

Someone is not happy - rate 0
Someone is happy - rate 10

Would you trust this?

I'd trust it more than the 7 100% 'professional' reviews currently displayed with top billing on each ME3 page.

At least if you read the reviews on metacritic (the user reviews mind you) you can see valid criticisms and real gameplay experience.

A lot of those 0 user reviews were up on the site literally hours after the game went live. So the critics with advance copies of game, who were able to play through, mull it over, and take their time composing a somewhat professional piece, are somehow less relevant than kneejerk "reviews" by angry nerds wanting to feel vindicated and somehow "stick it to the man" based off playing a demo or at most a rushed speedthrough of the game?

Give me a friggin break. Metacritic is a joke

[Alien1099]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Travie wrote...

BiO_MaN wrote...

All it seems to happen is:

Someone is not happy - rate 0
Someone is happy - rate 10

Would you trust this?

I'd trust it more than the 7 100% 'professional' reviews currently displayed with top billing on each ME3 page.

At least if you read the reviews on metacritic (the user reviews mind you) you can see valid criticisms and real gameplay experience.

A lot of those 0 user reviews were up on the site literally hours after the game went live. So the critics with advance copies of game, who were able to play through, mull it over, and take their time composing a somewhat professional piece, are somehow less relevant than kneejerk "reviews" by angry nerds wanting to feel vindicated and somehow "stick it to the man" based off playing a demo or at most a rushed speedthrough of the game?

Give me a friggin break. Metacritic is a joke

Apparently according to some people in this thread who shall remain nameless, it is perfectly logical for a person to be able to "review" a game after playing it for only 5 minutes since that is an acceptable amount of time to decide whether the game is good or bad and whether they hate it, like it, or love it.

[sp0ck 06]

Rickin10 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...


Also, auto-dialogue doesn't make any personality unplayable.  What you're doing there is called trollish hyperbole; acting like a few instances of auto-dialogue make the game completely non-interactive.  You're a bad source of objective opinion and a good example of why user reviews are useless. 

Auto-dialogue that comes out of Shepard's gob that directly contravines what the character you've built over 2 games would say doesn't make th egame unplayable, but it sure as hell renders 'your' character irrelevant. 

This would be a valid criticism, except Shepard isn't some blank slate character created completely by the player. He only exists within confines created by bioware. He's their character too. Not dictating everyy line he speaks does not mean shepard has been taken away from the player. We still control anything remotelt important. And because a lot of the "fluff" choices have been removed, conversations flow much better than the previous games. Shepard feels like a real character this time.

Is it a flaw in the game? Sure. But everyone needs to stop acting like this dialogue issue has utterly ruined the game. The story missions are frakking incredible, and I find it hard to see how any fan of the series can not enjoy them.

[Il Divo]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

This would be a valid criticism, except Shepard isn't some blank slate character created completely by the player. He only exists within confines created by bioware. He's their character too. Not dictating everyy line he speaks does not mean shepard has been taken away from the player. We still control anything remotelt important. And because a lot of the "fluff" choices have been removed, conversations flow much better than the previous games. Shepard feels like a real character this time.

Is it a flaw in the game? Sure. But everyone needs to stop acting like this dialogue issue has utterly ruined the game. The story missions are frakking incredible, and I find it hard to see how any fan of the series can not enjoy them.

I consider the autodialogue to have ruined the game. So no, I'm not going to stop with the criticism. Cut the whole "anyone who disagrees with me is wrong" attitude. It is a valid criticism, because some consider it important.

Modifié par Il Divo, 08 mars 2012 - 05:17 .