451 réponses à ce sujet

[Shinwolverine]

The review site would never allow something like that to published. Notice all the mass effect, cod, gears, ect ect banners on video game sites. Well lets just say there is a reason why reviewers don't badmouth high profile games like that. Its bad for business. Thats why every COD game that comes out gets 10/10' s while other games get 7's for "lack of originality."

Modifié par Shinwolverine, 16 mars 2012 - 02:52 .

[DadeLeviathan]

Firstly, remember that a game reviewer's job is to recommend whether or not the game is worth playing. If you read many reviews, story is not exactly at the top of the list for most reviewers. Yes, it matters, but not to the point where it can make or break a game.

Aside from the ending, ME3 is a brilliant game. If I were a reviewer, I wouldn't let how bad the ending was detract from my review either.

[Nachtritter76]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

And his job relies on getting pageviews, which in turn depend on either an ability to stir controversy (nowadays anyway --- "ENTITLEMENT", BUZZWORD OF THE MONTH, AM I COOL YET?), and gaining access to exclusive interviews and content from the companies that make the games he reviews.

Hand that feeds, etc.

Modifié par Nachtritter76, 16 mars 2012 - 03:23 .

[Nachtritter76]

DadeLeviathan wrote...

Firstly, remember that a game reviewer's job is to recommend whether or not the game is worth playing. If you read many reviews, story is not exactly at the top of the list for most reviewers. Yes, it matters, but not to the point where it can make or break a game.

Aside from the ending, ME3 is a brilliant game. If I were a reviewer, I wouldn't let how bad the ending was detract from my review either.

For the big outlets, a reviewer's job is to make sure they don't ****** off the bigger publishing houses who can easily do without them. EA doesn't need IGN, for instance. But IGN being barred access to EA content would not be a good thing for them.

They'll be honest with the small stuff, from the smaller companies who need the publicity and will not bite them if the score isn't exactly high.

But the bigger stuff? Overhyped, game of the year all years, all the time. Gotta make sure everybody jumps on the bandwagon and BUYS BUYS BUYS (seriously though, what does it matter to them if I buy a game or not, why do they hype it so much, what do they have to gain?) !!!!!!!! Until the hype dies down, the initial sales run is over, and the big publisher gets most of their money back. After that, they can write all they want about it and go back on their initial "feelings" about a game, the publisher got their money, and the reviewer can't hurt the sales anymore.

Modifié par Nachtritter76, 16 mars 2012 - 03:28 .

[squidney2k1]

I actually read a few reviews that talk about the lackluster ending. They didn't go full-blown ape **** like a lot of the "fans" have, but they did say it was a bitter disappointment. They merely had the tact not to turn the last 2% of the game into 98% of the discussion and review.

I suggest you read through more of the reviews, because many of them do mention the strange ending.

[Nachtritter76]

squidney2k1 wrote...

I actually read a few reviews that talk about the lackluster ending. They didn't go full-blown ape **** like a lot of the "fans" have, but they did say it was a bitter disappointment. They merely had the tact not to turn the last 2% of the game into 98% of the discussion and review.

I suggest you read through more of the reviews, because many of them do mention the strange ending.

I never took 'PRO' reviewers seriously, but the killing blow certainly was "It's ok guys, Skyrim on PS3 9/10 --- not that we got a review version mind you, Bethesda never sent us any --- NO IDEA WHY!" and then a few weeks later "PS3 SKYRIM HAS PROBLEMS, WONDER WHY? STILL, THIS UNPLAYABLE GAME IS GOTY MATERIAL NO PROBLEM!!!"

[Obrusnine]

Nachtritter76 wrote...

squidney2k1 wrote...

I actually read a few reviews that talk about the lackluster ending. They didn't go full-blown ape **** like a lot of the "fans" have, but they did say it was a bitter disappointment. They merely had the tact not to turn the last 2% of the game into 98% of the discussion and review.

I suggest you read through more of the reviews, because many of them do mention the strange ending.

I never took 'PRO' reviewers seriously, but the killing blow certainly was "It's ok guys, Skyrim on PS3 9/10 --- not that we got a review version mind you, Bethesda never sent us any --- NO IDEA WHY!" and then a few weeks later "PS3 SKYRIM HAS PROBLEMS, WONDER WHY? STILL, THIS UNPLAYABLE GAME IS GOTY MATERIAL NO PROBLEM!!!"

What? I played through the entirety of Skyrim on PS3 days after release day... and aside from a single broken quest, it wasn't unplayable at all. I never even got that lag thing even after sinking over 100 hours. Even with that lag issue with large safe files, calling it unplayable is an overstatement.

[AppleJak]

money

[SyyRaaaN]

Its obvious that there is some kind of corruption behind many of the reviews. I mean, they all sound so similar that you suspect EA/BioWares pen behind them all. Its very likely that one of the above posters are right; The reviewer sites don't wanna lose the money for the ads. Also its basically proven that some publishers bad mouth reviewers (like duke nukem), uncharted etc.

Or maybe its because the gaming-journalists are nobodys. Unlike many movie-reviewers they haven't spent time on the university reading film theory or whatever. Also, they don't seem to be guys like me with high standards. In the end I just see them for what they are, marketing tools for the big publisher houses.

Modifié par SyyRaaaN, 16 mars 2012 - 04:57 .

[SyyRaaaN]

DadeLeviathan wrote...

Firstly, remember that a game reviewer's job is to recommend whether or not the game is worth playing. If you read many reviews, story is not exactly at the top of the list for most reviewers. Yes, it matters, but not to the point where it can make or break a game.

Aside from the ending, ME3 is a brilliant game. If I were a reviewer, I wouldn't let how bad the ending was detract from my review either.

Honestly, you really think this? You liked that almost all the side-quests were the scanner questing? You liked that the citadel was the only RPG area? You liked the severe reduction of the dialogue wheel? You liked oversexualization of the females? You liked Kai Leng? Etc? 

I mean, common, "brilliant"? 

[bobito64]

Possibly because they were told that this was not actually the ending, that DLC was to follow but their magazine/website would never get an exclusive about any EA game ever again if they breathed a word about it.

[Esquin]

Shinwolverine wrote...

The review site would never allow something like that to published. Notice all the mass effect, cod, gears, ect ect banners on video game sites. Well lets just say there is a reason why reviewers don't badmouth high profile games like that. Its bad for business. Thats why every COD game that comes out gets 10/10' s while other games get 7's for "lack of originality."

And you think thats ok? It's ruining the industry. We've got an entire industry where honesty is bad for business. Where game producers can get away with releasing bad games because review companies are afraid of reviewing them honestly. It's horrible.

[dynastyhan13]

Perhaps critics only get to play the demo and then give reviews. None had played and finished the main game. Remember that the critics were making a "game review", not a "game ending review" ... hehehhe

[Homey C-Dawg]

It's certainly suspicious (or perhaps telling) when there is such a huge discrepancy between publication reviews and customer reviews. One of them is wearing rose tinted glasses.

[hudakj]

Most probably haven't beaten the game and just played a large chuck of it to assess gameplay, graphics, etc. Also some reviewers aren't hardcore fans of the franchise, so the ending, while notably poor, is not likely to stick in their minds as much or provoke as much of a knee-jerk reaction.

[Petrikles]

This reminds me very much of the Deus Ex: Invisible War disaster. The game was good and enjoyable (I still play it now and then), but it ultimately did not deliver what was promised and what was expected from the precedessor. The reviews were good, and the fanbase slaughtered it.

Same here.

Modifié par Kailord, 16 mars 2012 - 08:55 .

[FDrage]

To me if a review is balanced I can live with a 10/10 and can even understand it. As no game comes without issues I'd personally expect a review to discuss issue within a game and not just mention it in a fleeting moment. If that is the case I can except a 10/10 if that isn't the case I won't trust a 10/10. However most of the time too many 10/10 would simply make me suspicious and would actually have the opposite effect one me. Call it past experiences.

I haven't read too many ME3 reviews (only about 2-3 max), but that experienced comes from other games incl. Bioware ones.

[Kronner]

- Angry Joe

[AnoraBlows]

I don't care about the review score. The score itself is extremely subjective. I mean, there are many of us who hate the ending but we'd still score the game differently. Some would go as low as maybe 5 or 6. Others would still rate it a 10 or close to a 10.

But, the problem is that either there is little to no mention of the controversiality of the endings or there are outright lies (e.g. "the best ending to a trilogy" or "the most satisfying ending to a trilogy"). Even to those people who like the ending amongst the userbase, I have never heard a single person describe the endings as the best endings one could possibly hope for but apparently, these moronic reviewers with their better (re: paid) opinions are superior than the average fan of the game.

[KotorEffect3]

Homey C-Dawg wrote...

It's certainly suspicious (or perhaps telling) when there is such a huge discrepancy between publication reviews and customer reviews. One of them is wearing rose tinted glasses.

Fans will review bomb, at least with the professional reviewers their reviews are thoughtout.  So many fan reviews tend to be "OMG WURST GAME EVAR!!" and usualy over a minor issue.

[FDrage]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Fans will review bomb, at least with the professional reviewers their reviews are thoughtout.  So many fan reviews tend to be "OMG WURST GAME EVAR!!" and usualy over a minor issue.

what's teh difference between so called "professionals" and so called "fans" ... on some occassion i get thr impression that "professional" reviews are just "OMG BEST / WORST GAME EVAR!!!" delievered with more words ...

While, I personally would not take a "OMG WORST / BEST GAME EVAR" from fans seriously if that is the only thing they say. Just as I wouldn't do it from professionals. They only thing so is .. why are people so willing to accept "BEST GAME EVAR" from fans but not the other way around?

[Nykara]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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

Or perhaps they actually know the truth after signing an NDA. If everyone else went in to the game knowing the same thing they would know it was a perfectly well excecuted ending to ME3. Bring on #4 I say!

[Nachtritter76]

Obrusnine wrote...

Nachtritter76 wrote...

squidney2k1 wrote...

I actually read a few reviews that talk about the lackluster ending. They didn't go full-blown ape **** like a lot of the "fans" have, but they did say it was a bitter disappointment. They merely had the tact not to turn the last 2% of the game into 98% of the discussion and review.

I suggest you read through more of the reviews, because many of them do mention the strange ending.

I never took 'PRO' reviewers seriously, but the killing blow certainly was "It's ok guys, Skyrim on PS3 9/10 --- not that we got a review version mind you, Bethesda never sent us any --- NO IDEA WHY!" and then a few weeks later "PS3 SKYRIM HAS PROBLEMS, WONDER WHY? STILL, THIS UNPLAYABLE GAME IS GOTY MATERIAL NO PROBLEM!!!"

What? I played through the entirety of Skyrim on PS3 days after release day... and aside from a single broken quest, it wasn't unplayable at all. I never even got that lag thing even after sinking over 100 hours. Even with that lag issue with large safe files, calling it unplayable is an overstatement.

It was not an overstatement for me and a lot of other people. Some of my friends had the same issues. Most later, but one even earlier than I did. I got a friend whose landscape lights up crazy and drives the fps crazy during the night because of all the Nirnroot glows that somehow 'pile up' from day to day and never go away (even after picking up the plant).

Trust me, 0FPS during the assault on Solitude is NOT overstating the unplayability.

True, the latest patch seemed to have fixed most of the problems. But it was still highly unstable for a high percentage of players on release.

[AkiKishi]

Nachtritter76 wrote...

Obrusnine wrote...

Nachtritter76 wrote...

squidney2k1 wrote...

I actually read a few reviews that talk about the lackluster ending. They didn't go full-blown ape **** like a lot of the "fans" have, but they did say it was a bitter disappointment. They merely had the tact not to turn the last 2% of the game into 98% of the discussion and review.

I suggest you read through more of the reviews, because many of them do mention the strange ending.

I never took 'PRO' reviewers seriously, but the killing blow certainly was "It's ok guys, Skyrim on PS3 9/10 --- not that we got a review version mind you, Bethesda never sent us any --- NO IDEA WHY!" and then a few weeks later "PS3 SKYRIM HAS PROBLEMS, WONDER WHY? STILL, THIS UNPLAYABLE GAME IS GOTY MATERIAL NO PROBLEM!!!"

What? I played through the entirety of Skyrim on PS3 days after release day... and aside from a single broken quest, it wasn't unplayable at all. I never even got that lag thing even after sinking over 100 hours. Even with that lag issue with large safe files, calling it unplayable is an overstatement.

It was not an overstatement for me and a lot of other people. Some of my friends had the same issues. Most later, but one even earlier than I did. I got a friend whose landscape lights up crazy and drives the fps crazy during the night because of all the Nirnroot glows that somehow 'pile up' from day to day and never go away (even after picking up the plant).

Trust me, 0FPS during the assault on Solitude is NOT overstating the unplayability.

True, the latest patch seemed to have fixed most of the problems. But it was still highly unstable for a high percentage of players on release.

I heard enough bad things about Skyrim to avoid/wait for GOYT.

[Jacody]

I'm done.

Modifié par Jacody, 16 mars 2012 - 10:19 .