451 réponses à ce sujet

[Obrusnine]

Why is it that not a single one I have seen with a review has even mentioned the terrible ending. I mean seriously, wtf???

Adam Sessler in on X-Play literally said "this is how you end a trilogy!"

That one made me laugh, really hard.

[CompositeGNR]

Adam hasn't played the ending yet, I doubt many of them have.

[Skirata129]

I get the strong feeling none of the critics have played the previous two games, or that the versions they tested did not include the ending.

[The Ocean Man]

It's almost like video game reviewers are paid to give triple A games good reviews. But there is no way that could be the case. Right? /sarcasm.

[mybudgee]

they are getting $ to review games. They are biased.

[Salvatore510]

An ending does not make a game, and despite most people not wanting to admit it, it's the best game in the series

If a horrible game had an amazing ending, should it be an amazing game? That's the logic you guys are using, because most of you seem to think because the ending sucks, doesn't matter if the game is great, the game has to suck.

[Obrusnine]

rofl, no kidding Ocean Man.

[Kanner]

You remember how DA2 got an almost universal 9/10?

Yeah.

We've even had three different people from Penny-Arcade defending/explaining/praising the endings. You will not find genuinely useful opinions on Bioware products anywhere other than the fan base itself now. Bioware is literally the 'too-big-to-fail' monolith of the video game reporting world.

[sackyhack]

Even though I'm not as bothered by the endings as many other people, one thing I noticed in lots of reviews was how they used a new character to have the "every-man experience" instead of importing a save. I feel like many reviewers are not as invested in the story as we are since it's not "their" Shepard.

[Obrusnine]

Salvatore510 wrote...

An ending does not make a game, and despite most people not wanting to admit it, it's the best game in the series

If a horrible game had an amazing ending, should it be an amazing game? That's the logic you guys are using, because most of you seem to think because the ending sucks, doesn't matter if the game is great, the game has to suck.

I didn't say the game was bad, but the ending is, I was just wondering why absolutely NONE of the critics are mentioning it in their reviews. It is a major part of the game. It also seriously hurts replay value, I can't bring myself top play it again because of this very reason, I know how it ends.

[CompositeGNR]

Salvatore510 wrote...

An ending does not make a game, and despite most people not wanting to admit it, it's the best game in the series

If a horrible game had an amazing ending, should it be an amazing game? That's the logic you guys are using, because most of you seem to think because the ending sucks, doesn't matter if the game is great, the game has to suck.

Well it completly invalidates any reason to play the two previous games, because none of those choices matter, heck it even invalidates replaying 3

[Stanley Woo]

Perhaps they had no problem with the ending, and/or felt the endings did not detract from their game experience.

[Arkitekt]

I think people are jumping the shark a little. I am somewhat sad that a genius game like this one gets so bathmouthed for so many little minutes...

[Anthropophobic]

Gametrailers mentioned the ending.

Anyway, I think most reviewers are probably mature enough not to dock a game 9001 points just because the last 5 minutes weren't brilliant. Also, they probably weren't as deeply affected by it; most reviewers probably didn't have ME1 or ME2 saves lying around. And finally, maybe all the mainstream publications are in on it.

[JoeLaTurkeyII]

We've learned a lot about how game review magazines and sites relate to game developers through this debacle.

The former exist to appease the latter. Bioware bought IGN's support and it did nothing for them in the end.

[Obrusnine]

Kanner wrote...

You remember how DA2 got an almost universal 9/10?

Yeah.

We've even had three different people from Penny-Arcade defending/explaining/praising the endings. You will not find genuinely useful opinions on Bioware products anywhere other than the fan base itself now. Bioware is literally the 'too-big-to-fail' monolith of the video game reporting world.

While I don't think DA2 QUITE deserved a 9 (my preferred score is 8), it's not a bad game in any respect. The story was a little weak compared to the first, same with the length, but it's still loads better then other RPG's on the market. They also really did make some really notable improvements to the gameplay. I loved the new things they did with the dialogue wheel and the gameplay was A LOT better then in the first.

Honestly, I think both games (DA:O and DA2) have their own strengths and weaknesses.

[Anthropophobic]

CompositeGNR wrote...

Salvatore510 wrote...

An ending does not make a game, and despite most people not wanting to admit it, it's the best game in the series

If a horrible game had an amazing ending, should it be an amazing game? That's the logic you guys are using, because most of you seem to think because the ending sucks, doesn't matter if the game is great, the game has to suck.

Well it completly invalidates any reason to play the two previous games, because none of those choices matter, heck it even invalidates replaying 3

I know what you mean, man, it's like, I can't believe all that fun I had playing through the entire trilogy didn't even matter because the last five minutes were bad.

(Wait, what?)

[calabain]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Perhaps they had no problem with the ending, and/or felt the endings did not detract from their game experience.

I don't understand how a bad ending could not detract from a gaming experience, but that's just me.  An ending is either the second most important or the most important aspect to a story

I also think there's a huge gap between what the gaming journalists websites are saying people are having an issue with and what people are actually having an issue with.

Biggest example for me: What happened to my freakin' squadmates after I got hit and how/why they left me to get back on the Normandy.  Note, this isn't "speculation", this is "confusion".

Modifié par calabain, 15 mars 2012 - 10:26 .

[Adeph]

To be fair guys, these are the same critics that never, ever seem to experience any of the bugs that so many games release with and which you are I will find within a few days.

[Obrusnine]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Perhaps they had no problem with the ending, and/or felt the endings did not detract from their game experience.

No offense, but I don't see how it wouldn't... or how a even a FEW of them couldn't have noticed it.

There is a lot obviously wrong with it, and it's seriously going to hinder my trust in them in the future. Plot holes, stupidity with nonsensical stuff, and obvious problems are throughout the entire thing.

[Mizar_Panzar]

Because they don't have the connection to the characters as we do. They don't care what happened to them.

[Taltherion]

Given that many reviews were written before the game was released (day one reviews) ... maybe the reviewers didn't get to the endings?

[Salvatore510]

CompositeGNR wrote...

Salvatore510 wrote...

An ending does not make a game, and despite most people not wanting to admit it, it's the best game in the series

If a horrible game had an amazing ending, should it be an amazing game? That's the logic you guys are using, because most of you seem to think because the ending sucks, doesn't matter if the game is great, the game has to suck.

Well it completly invalidates any reason to play the two previous games, because none of those choices matter, heck it even invalidates replaying 3

Irrelevant. That doesn't make it a bad game, and the reviewers are judging the quality of the game, and if you liked Mass Effect before (IE it's your type of game) you would be lying if you think it's anything less than a great game. Sure the ending is a massive letdown, but it doesn't detract from the game.

I got so deflated after the ending I didn't touch my Xbox for 3 days but it doesn't change the fact it's still an awesome game and deserving of all the high praise it's getting.

And people seem to forget, that some people actually do like the ending. But in the end, peoples opinions of the ending are irrelevant when discussing the quality of the game. It's just bitterness if you think it changes an amazing game into an awful game.

[Obrusnine]

Taltherion wrote...

Given that many reviews were written before the game was released (day one reviews) ... maybe the reviewers didn't get to the endings?

Then they wouldn't have been able to publish there review really huh? It's a review of the entire complete game, not just a portion.

[thunderhawk862002]

Salvatore510 wrote...

An ending does not make a game, and despite most people not wanting to admit it, it's the best game in the series

If a horrible game had an amazing ending, should it be an amazing game? That's the logic you guys are using, because most of you seem to think because the ending sucks, doesn't matter if the game is great, the game has to suck.

An ending absolutely makes a game.  If you're playing a Mario game and you start going up the castle to fight Bowser.  You beat him but just as you rescue Peach he wakes up, throws you into a reinforced steel cage and runs off with the princess.  Game over.    The ending absolutely makes a difference.