5 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.

[Stanley Woo]

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

[Stanley Woo]

Adeph wrote...

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.

To be fair, a game reviewer's job isn't to be a bug hunter. It's to play the game and give people an idea of what it's like, to aid them in making their purchasing decision. If they feel that a bug or issue needs to be called out, I'm sure they would. I have read reviews which have called out things like install issues, connection problems, crashes, even hosts of minor bugs that, while noteworthy, ultimately did not hinder the game.

This is basically what it means to be objective, and most people can be objective to varying degrees.

[Stanley Woo]

EJ107 wrote...

But would you give a game with a terrible ending 100/100 and say it was a fantastic ending to the series? I'd deduct at least 10/100 from the score if the ending was as bad as mass effect 3's. 

Would I? Maybe. Would you? Obviously not. But would that reviewer you're talking about? Obviously he would and he did. Remember that the review you're reading isn't your opinion (though yuou might agree and disagree with different parts of it), it is the opinion of someone else who potentially does this as a job.

It doesn't mean the reviewer is right or wrong. You just decide whether you agree with him or not.

[Stanley Woo]

Harorrd wrote...

But if you let someone review something for some site that will have a massive impact at the sales, don't you think they should give you a realistic and genuine review, and not some mumbo jumbo? Even if they claim the game is good, and more people buy it because of this, it will mostly only result in the exact oposit, just like we are experiencing now.

I would hope that all reviewers are giving us a "realistic and genuine review," otherwise even more poeple will decide that reviews don't mean anything anymore.

Thousands of fans are angry because they trusted in some site, They trusted in EA, They trusted in Bioware.

They trusted that no one at any of these companies would ever make a mistake or create something that the players don't like, ever? While flattering, that appears to be an unreasonable expectation. Holding us to a higher standard, I can understand and am firmly in support of, since I believe we do make high-quality games. Holding us to a perfect standard, on the other hand, I wouldn't recommend, since no one can possibly live up to something like that.

[Stanley Woo]

EJ107 wrote...

I understand that, but 100/100 would imply a perfect game and between the various bugs (import ones in particular) and slightly clunky mission/codex log, I wouldn't say the game is perfect (very good, but never perfect) And the subjective endings only add to that (many, many people actively hate them, and I know some who are not even big fans of the series and dislike it). 

Is that what the reviewer means by 100/100? Because I can think of several other ways to interpret a perfect score for a video game review:

- HOLY CRAP IT WAS SO FUN!
- the game is an exemplar of its genre
- everything the game was trying to accomplish, it did so
- the game is completely problem free
- the game is perfect
- the game has tremendous value for its price
- the positives of the whole game experience vastly outweighed the negatives

And depending on the site or publication's policies, it may or may not be possible to get a perfect score. not saying you're wrong, but I can think of other reasons a game might get a perfect (or high or low) score.