451 réponses à ce sujet

[wombat_stalker]

If they like or don't like, I don't care. But I'm getting bloody tired of being called an entitled whiner and apparently having a bullseye painted on me for all "real" reviewers to use their best belittlement tactics on. I've been called moron, stupid, retarded, childish, and "uneducated" more in the last week that I've been all the last year, just because I happen to have ONE GODDAMN OPINION THEY DON'T SHARE.

[Everwarden]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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

Thank you for your completely objective and unbiased assessment of game "journalism", Mr. Woo. I am certain you have no conflict of interest on the subject, and are speaking from the heart. <3

[Farbautisonn]

Everwarden wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

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

Thank you for your completely objective and unbiased assessment of game "journalism", Mr. Woo. I am certain you have no conflict of interest on the subject, and are speaking from the heart. <3

-Caught your link in the sig. Much lulzy. Should make it an updated blog piece. Especially since it was more or less re-validated by the release of ME3.

Modifié par Farbautisonn, 16 mars 2012 - 11:15 .

[Killer3000ad]

Really Woo? That he actually said that when so many, sooooo many people on the forums are saying how MUCH THEY HATE THE ENDING, they HATE IT SO MUCH THEY've raised $50,000 for charity, that they hate it so much that mainstream newspaper in Germany and Sweden have reported the outrage, they hate it so much that threads about possible indoctrination theories to invalidate the endings have reached over 500 pages in a few days.......... and he actually said

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

Either these reviewers place very little emphasis on the ending or alot of them are very out of touch with the heart of gamers and the fans.

Modifié par Killer3000ad, 16 mars 2012 - 11:45 .

[Subject M]

As I mentioned before, In my experience, after having spoken to people, is that I see a clear correlation between how much you have invested emotionally and immersed in the story of Shepard and friends, and how pissed and bad you feel about the ending.

The more you love, the more you hurt, generally speaking of course, I know that there probably are some die hard fans who likes or even love then ending. But they seem to be in minority.

So, unfortunately, the ending delivers a traumatic sucker punch to the heart of the fandom crowd. That was never Biowares intention of course, but that where we are at.

We can only hope, they will offer us alternative endings besides that of their original vision. I would never demand they change their vision of the ending by removing it, only that they expand the ending to reflect the wishes of the fans and the choices and achievements of our Shepard. In that way, we can all find peace and satisfaction with the ending of this marvelous trilogy.

[elmephd1]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

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.

This is pretty much it.

With Mass Effect 3 the gameplay is good, the story and characterisation is excellent, the acting is top notch for most of the cast, your choices from way back in Mass Effect 1 are having an effect, they've listened to the fans and put RPG elements back in.

Basically Mass Effect 3 is a great game and the fact it has a awful ending doesn't negate that. This is what professional reviewers see and remark upon, including on the lacklustre endings, unlike the fandumb section of Mass Effect fandom who have an over-the-top immature tantrum and review bomb it (which really doesn't give EA much reason to spend ANY more money on it).

Bioware screwed up, but it's the small overentitled section of fandom that's going to kill it, if they haven't already.

Modifié par elmephd1, 16 mars 2012 - 11:46 .

[AnoraBlows]

elmephd1 wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

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.

This is pretty much it.

With Mass Effect 3 the gameplay is good, the story and characterisation is excellent, the acting is top notch for most of the cast, your choices from way back in Mass Effect 1 are having an effect, they've listened to the fans and put RPG elements back in.

Basically Mass Effect 3 is a great game and the fact it has a awful ending doesn't negate that. This is what professional reviewers see and remark upon, including on the lacklustre endings, unlike the fandumb section of Mass Effect fandom who have an over-the-top immature tantrum and review bomb it (which really doesn't give EA much reason to spend ANY more money on it).

Bioware screwed up, but it's the small overentitled section of fandom that's going to kill it, if they haven't already.

I wouldn't say "overentitlted". I would say reactionary. People who are review bombing the game reviews are morons, in my opinion. They only legitimize the sad excuse for reviews from "professional game journalist" websites.

The reason the "professional" reviews suck is because they failed to bring any real attention to the quality of the ending except for overexaggerated praise. Now, even if you like the ending, would you say it was the most satisfying way to end the trilogy? The best way possible? Many "professional reviewers" have said the same thing about the end. They failed at their jobs. They didn't have to give a lower score (in fact, I think the entire scoring system needs to go and be removed from game reviews) but they should have at least brought up the issue of the ending in a more substantial manner.

[jessielou]

Weskerr wrote...

I've been doing a little research concerning gaming journalism and what I've found is disturbing. Gaming publishers have tremendous power over these gaming sites in terms of money. This is achieved through advertisements. If it weren't for these advertisements, many gaming review sites would not be in business. Because of how this system works, reviews of games from publishers who provide advertisements for particular sites are skewed and not objective.

The conflict of interest is obvious. The most egregious example of game sites being in the pockets of game publishers was Gamespot's firing of their lead editor, Jeff Gertsmann. He gave a bad review to the game Kane and Lynch whose publisher provided heavy amounts of advertising to the site prior to the review. It is clear how easily the system can be abused. If there's even a possibility that game review sites can be manipulated by game publishers, then any reviews they write are essentially worthless. The onus is on the review sites to show that they uphold journalistic integrity. They can do so through transparency of their dealings with gaming publishers - showing statistics of exactly where their revenue comes from, informing the reader in a review if a free copy of the game being reviewed was given, listing any gifts given to the reviewer prior to the review and so on.

Right now, gaming review sites have little to no integrity, are corrupt and biased, and sometimes even take orders from publishers about when to post reviews. Objective journalism in gaming is nearly non-existent. The whole situation is akin to the political machines that existed in American politics in the late 19th century. It's disgraceful.

I agree with this to a certain extent.  That they seem to be set up this way at all makes them suspect imo.  I wouldn't go so far as to say they are all corrupt and biased, since I have no definitive proof, but at the same it casts enough doubt on their motivations for me view them with a wary eye and not take their opinions to heart.

This is why I prefer user reviews.  As someone else mentioned those to tend to be emotional and over dramatic, but if you read enough of them it's fairly easy to distiguish the actual flaws from the exaggerations.... imo.

[Mr.Pink]

Skirata129 wrote...

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.

Adam has put hundreds and hundreds of hours into the games, I think he ment the game overall is how you end the series. On a quick note of it, he said that he knows where people are coming from on it, but he just didn't have a huge problem with it. Just go watch Sessler's Soapbox on G4, find the one that is about Mass Effect 3, it's about 6 minutes long. 

[Rocharox]

Its well know that come critics got biased opinions; Also, they probably didn't reach the ending, as some of our most hardcore members took around 16-24 hours to finish it,.

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

elmephd1 wrote...
This is pretty much it.
With Mass Effect 3 the gameplay is good, the story and characterisation is excellent, the acting is top notch for most of the cast, your choices from way back in Mass Effect 1 are having an effect, they've listened to the fans and put RPG elements back in.

RPGs element back? Well, it depends on what you think RPG elements are:
-If it's about gameplay, yep, there's more than in ME2.
-If it is about role playing, it's a huge letdown as the game is totally unable to play a good "grey" Shepard. Actually part of the ending problem is about choosing between choices my Shepard would never do.
And bad ending can spoil a whole series, as it's effect doesn't differ that much of having no ending at all, as it can makes you wonder why you played/read/watched it at all to begins with.

[PSUHammer]

I think end users are just as bad, if not worse, than pro reviewers. How often do I see "I don't agree with that review so that reviewer MUST be paid off even though I have absolutely zero proof other than my hurting bum over disagreement !" ???

How about all the morons review bombing Amazon and Metacritic with 0 scores because they are angry with a piece of the game. If you enjoyed 90% of a game and hated 10%...wouldn't that lead to a 90/100 score? People are so prone to extremes. There is no middle. Reviewers you disagree with are paid shills, reviews you agree with are awesome!

Modifié par Hammer6767, 16 mars 2012 - 12:20 .

[titoarc]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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

perhaps they dont think that lie to costumers should get down the 10/10 , but i think thats worse than a bad ending

(i´m not trying to be disrespectful, sorry if i offend someone )

[Siegdrifa]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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

Totaly agree with you.

I would just like to state though that not every people play video game 8h a day, 90 games a years, wich could greatly diminish the "impact" on the ending than those who play few hours a week 5 or 6 by game, and may be their dear ME games regulary (i'm sure those people have tones of Shepards).
I don't doubt some people who were seeking in ME3 ending the good vib they had from ME1 and ME2 felt hit by a truck, while those who were expecting the real ME3 ending felt they were driving the truck, and other people who don't realy care about the characters or story was watching a truck passing.

[Farbautisonn]

Hammer6767 wrote...

I think end users are just as bad, if not worse, than pro reviewers. How often do I see "I don't agree with that review so that reviewer MUST be paid off even though I have absolutely zero proof other than my hurting bum over disagreement !" ???

How about all the morons review bombing Amazon and Metacritic with 0 scores because they are angry with a piece of the game. If you enjoyed 90% of a game and hated 10%...wouldn't that lead to a 90/100 score? People are so prone to extremes. There is no middle. Reviewers you disagree with are paid shills, reviews you agree with are awesome!

-How would you feel about 10 minutes that successfully destroys an entire IP, an entire franchise for you? 

[titoarc]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

They trusted that when you promise somethink it wont be a lie , not that the game will be perfect. if i tell you i will give you 16 widely diferent endings , and i give you 16 nearly identical endings (i would say 3 but there are small variations ) , it could be the best ending ever . but its not what you promise.

False advertising ?

[PSUHammer]

Farbautisonn wrote...

Hammer6767 wrote...

I think end users are just as bad, if not worse, than pro reviewers. How often do I see "I don't agree with that review so that reviewer MUST be paid off even though I have absolutely zero proof other than my hurting bum over disagreement !" ???

How about all the morons review bombing Amazon and Metacritic with 0 scores because they are angry with a piece of the game. If you enjoyed 90% of a game and hated 10%...wouldn't that lead to a 90/100 score? People are so prone to extremes. There is no middle. Reviewers you disagree with are paid shills, reviews you agree with are awesome!

-How would you feel about 10 minutes that successfully destroys an entire IP, an entire franchise for you? 

I would think you are being a bit dramatic, but that's just me.  If you were REALLY being objective, you would review the game as a whole...and I thoroughly enjoyed 95% of the game...didn't like the end.  I would say it was a better game than ME2 but ME2 had a better ending.  If you were honest, you wouldn't just bomb those sites with zero reviews.

[MICHELLE7]

To be fair they didn't mention the bugs in the game either...the import bug and various side quest bugs...I would think things like that would shave some points off the score. Even if they didn't consider the ending or some other issues like the auto dialogue, choices not really going anywhere in the ending etc it shouldn't have gotten a perfect score. Sometimes I wonder if these reviewers just rush their reviews in an effort to be the first review out there not really taking the time to inform the consumer or if they are afraid of losing exclusives with certain companies to the point that they give their games higher scores than they deserve.

[Farbautisonn]

Hammer6767 wrote...

I would think you are being a bit dramatic, but that's just me.  If you were REALLY being objective, you would review the game as a whole...and I thoroughly enjoyed 95% of the game...didn't like the end.  I would say it was a better game than ME2 but ME2 had a better ending.  If you were honest, you wouldn't just bomb those sites with zero reviews.

-Not really. I havent written an amazon review. But I undestand the sentiment. The game has zero replay value for me. Infact it was agnizing enough to complete as it were.

I dont know what "really objective" is. Is it akin to a true scotsman? 

If I feel that the game ruins my entire experience and make the effort and emotions I poured into it for the last five years a joke... then why should I not give the game a 1? Even if I did enjoy some of it? I cant replay it? I have 12 or so toons that will likely never be uploaded... and uploading the first was hard enough due to bugs and "features". Then I was pestered by a plethora of issues that insured I was never really able to suspend disbelief and "be shephard" like I could in 1 and 2.

I am completely honest. The game as it stands isnt worth jack to me. If others have the same sentiment, I dont have a problem with them giving a zero or 1 as a grade.

[PSUHammer]

Farbautisonn wrote...

Hammer6767 wrote...

I would think you are being a bit dramatic, but that's just me.  If you were REALLY being objective, you would review the game as a whole...and I thoroughly enjoyed 95% of the game...didn't like the end.  I would say it was a better game than ME2 but ME2 had a better ending.  If you were honest, you wouldn't just bomb those sites with zero reviews.

-Not really. I havent written an amazon review. But I undestand the sentiment. The game has zero replay value for me. Infact it was agnizing enough to complete as it were.

I dont know what "really objective" is. Is it akin to a true scotsman? 

If I feel that the game ruins my entire experience and make the effort and emotions I poured into it for the last five years a joke... then why should I not give the game a 1? Even if I did enjoy some of it? I cant replay it? I have 12 or so toons that will likely never be uploaded... and uploading the first was hard enough due to bugs and "features". Then I was pestered by a plethora of issues that insured I was never really able to suspend disbelief and "be shephard" like I could in 1 and 2.

I am completely honest. The game as it stands isnt worth jack to me. If others have the same sentiment, I dont have a problem with them giving a zero or 1 as a grade.

This is an example of a game I would consider worthy of a "0" or a "1":

www.gamespot.com/big-rigs-over-the-road-racing/reviews/big-rigs-over-the-road-racing-review-6086528/

ME3 is SO MUCH better of a game than that.  You have to admit you loved the majority of the game, even if the ending didn't suit you.

Being objective is to take as much personal emotion out of your thoughts and comment on what was done right and what was done poorly and add them up.  Subjective is to use emotion to give weight to certain aspects over others.

Modifié par Hammer6767, 16 mars 2012 - 12:43 .

[AkiKishi]

Hammer6767 wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...

Hammer6767 wrote...

I think end users are just as bad, if not worse, than pro reviewers. How often do I see "I don't agree with that review so that reviewer MUST be paid off even though I have absolutely zero proof other than my hurting bum over disagreement !" ???

How about all the morons review bombing Amazon and Metacritic with 0 scores because they are angry with a piece of the game. If you enjoyed 90% of a game and hated 10%...wouldn't that lead to a 90/100 score? People are so prone to extremes. There is no middle. Reviewers you disagree with are paid shills, reviews you agree with are awesome!

-How would you feel about 10 minutes that successfully destroys an entire IP, an entire franchise for you? 

I would think you are being a bit dramatic, but that's just me.  If you were REALLY being objective, you would review the game as a whole...and I thoroughly enjoyed 95% of the game...didn't like the end.  I would say it was a better game than ME2 but ME2 had a better ending.  If you were honest, you wouldn't just bomb those sites with zero reviews.

A user review is the personal feelings of a regular guy/gal who played the game. They have no obligation to be objective, the value is found in the spread of the scores not in an individual review.

If you leave Mass Effect 3 feeling like you just got kicked the quads it's not suprising someone would rate it as 1 or 0. It's a score of the users experience after all.


Approach user reviews like so.

***** - Should be a safe buy as long as it's the sort of game you like.
**** - Probably has some minor issues but nothing too bad
*** - Could go either way, either it's a very average game or a very polarizing game, it's a risk.
** - Something about this game is very wrong would require further research.
* - Either this game sucks, does something unforgivable which blights the experience or should never have seen daylight.

[b00mQQ]

Obrusnine wrote...

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.

Just because you didn't like the ending doesn't mean no one else is allowed to. Was it as dramatic and epic as the ending to Mass Effect 2? No. Was it a solid ending to the franchise? I'd have to agree with him, because I thought the ending was fine. No one says that each sequel has to be better than its predecessor. Video games are like movies - you get a movie that you think is perfect, then the sequel may not exceed the previous isntallament, but it's just as damn good and it still piques your interest. You know you have a good solid franchise when the sequels doesn't top their predecessors. If each Mass Effect game was better than the previous, then I would be left feeling like they were holding out on me.

To be honest, my first time playing and I seen what the Catalyst was, it literally made my jaw drop. And the whole last 5 minutes of the game just kind of left me dazed. And that's how any trilogy should end. If you are left completely content and understand exactly what happened, then later down the road there's no room to expand on it and there's no reason to even think about that trilogy ever again. When you are left dazed, confused and speculating what the ending was meant to mean, then you will be thinking about the franchise/trilogy for a long time to come, and that's what you want. You want it to stay on the consumers mind for many years to come.

[PSUHammer]

BobSmith101 wrote...
A user review is the personal feelings of a regular guy/gal who played the game. They have no obligation to be objective, the value is found in the spread of the scores not in an individual review.

If you leave Mass Effect 3 feeling like you just got kicked the quads it's not suprising someone would rate it as 1 or 0. It's a score of the users experience after all.


Approach user reviews like so.

***** - Should be a safe buy as long as it's the sort of game you like.
**** - Probably has some minor issues but nothing too bad
*** - Could go either way, either it's a very average game or a very polarizing game, it's a risk.
** - Something about this game is very wrong would require further research.
* - Either this game sucks, does something unforgivable which blights the experience or should never have seen daylight.

Agree to disagree, then.

I stand by the assertion that people spamming metacritic and Amazon with 0 reviews are being disingenuous and not helping anything by clouding over 40 hours of great gameplay with a review that focuses on 10 minutes of it.  At the same time, they call anyone who likes the game a "paid shill".

Modifié par Hammer6767, 16 mars 2012 - 12:55 .

[Everwarden]

elmephd1 wrote...

Bioware screwed up, but it's the small overentitled section of fandom that's going to kill it, if they haven't already.

'Entitled' is a word that needs to be culled from the fanboy vocabulary with a chainsaw. 

[Farbautisonn]

Hammer6767 wrote...
This is an example of a game I would consider worthy of a "0" or a "1":

www.gamespot.com/big-rigs-over-the-road-racing/reviews/big-rigs-over-the-road-racing-review-6086528/

ME3 is SO MUCH better of a game than that.  You have to admit you loved the majority of the game, even if the ending didn't suit you.

Being objective is to take as much personal emotion out of your thoughts and comment on what was done right and what was done poorly and add them up.  Subjective is to use emotion to give weight to certain aspects over others.

-That is a bad game. Especially for me because I have zero interest in the genre. So for me that would be zero, with extra zero. Asking me to review a purebred sports, car, or sim game would be a mistke because I really dont like either kind.

I dont have to admit anything. I can say that there were elements where I thought the game really shone, where I was moved and where I was reminded by why I loved the franchise in the first place, but there were equally many moments where I had that sentiment first only to be yanked out of it by either crap interaction, bugs or finding out that I now had to watch the whole frigging thing again because the game decided to drop me to lvl 1 again. That can only happen a select few times before frustration becomes so prevalent that you arent able to immerse yourself at all.

Thats your definition of objective. My definition differs. And if I was to be a really obnoxious twerp Id insist that socio-cultural and personal preferances STILL cloud the definition of objectivity so badly that its not really possible in this case. If you present me with empirical data or concrete examples Ill happily try to deduct from the data in a logical sense. 

And your logic fails pretty much from the word go, because a person who doesnt give a ****e about RPGs or storydriven games like ME3 will have a highly differentiated oppinion than a Bioware fanboi.

What we can give is our subjective opinions and back them with empirical facts and thusly try to argue why we believe this or that is good or this or that is bad. Thats all we can do. Calling for "objectivity" here seems to be a bit... far fetched. Especially considering the medium.