451 réponses à ce sujet

[Joker1117]

Getorex wrote...

Joker1117 wrote...

Not everyone buys games for the endings. Shocking, but it's true. The rest of ME3 greatly makes up for the ending, and that's what those critic reviews reflect. The story means a lot to me too, sure, but there's no way the last <1% is going to have a big influence on my overall opinion on the game when the rest kicks ass.

I addressed this earlier.  Some people come into a game as dillitantes who don't give a crap for story, don't care for character, don't invest anything but a few minutes of time to run-and-gun, FPS style.  Cool.  Go for it.  But ME was NEVER mainly designed nor advertised nor sold as a run-and-gun mindless game.  It was intended and sold to be something far more.  Something far different. 

I give a crap for the story and characters. Quite a lot, actually. It's one of the reasons why I love this series so much. I just simply don't care about endings and there are other people like that too. Not everyone thinks it was a gamebreaker.

[LinksOcarina]

Getorex wrote...

Joker1117 wrote...

Not everyone buys games for the endings. Shocking, but it's true. The rest of ME3 greatly makes up for the ending, and that's what those critic reviews reflect. The story means a lot to me too, sure, but there's no way the last <1% is going to have a big influence on my overall opinion on the game when the rest kicks ass.

I addressed this earlier.  Some people come into a game as dillitantes who don't give a crap for story, don't care for character, don't invest anything but a few minutes of time to run-and-gun, FPS style.  Cool.  Go for it.  But ME was NEVER mainly designed nor advertised nor sold as a run-and-gun mindless game.  It was intended and sold to be something far more.  Something far different. 

My 100% HONEST reviews of ME3, unlike paid hacks ("professionals") has always stated that if you don't know or care about the series story and universe and just want to run-and-gun, then ME3 fits the bill fine, like Modern Warfare or Call of Duty or Crysis2, etc.  If you actually CARE about the story, got involved in the story both emotionally and imaginatively, then you will NOT like the game as it renders EVERYTHING (literally) you did in 1, 2, AND 3 up to the very end, moot.  No matter what choices you made, no matter whether you were paragon or renegade or mix of the two, no matter who you saved, who you killed, who you allied to, no matter resources you collect, no matter what mods you make to weapons, no matter what abilities you setup for yourself and squadmates, it all comes to nothing.  It ALL comes to the same end with just a choice as to color of explosions.  That's it.  The entire series wiped in an instant.  No need to import a Shepard at all so the face issue is of no account.  Start from scratch or import a beloved Shepard from previous games it all comes to the same steaming pile of crap in the end. 

THAT is an honest review.

So is this one, wether you like it or not. 

[dkear1]

LinksOcarina wrote...
So is this one, wether you like it or not.

While I wouldn't have been as generous with the score this is EXACTLY the honesty that is missing from the big game sites.  The ending is truly a WTF moment and should have been mentioned.  If the reviewer thinks the game overcomes it....so be it, it is their opinion.  Not mentioning it at all shows undo bias.

[Getorex]

What is most infuriating (and inaccurate) is the attempt by the codemonkeys who did ME3 to call the ending "artistic" as if they are "artistes". No. They are geeky computer codemonkeys, they are NOT typing out Mona Lisas here. They are NOT "artistes". They are coders. End of story. If you want to get something and call it art, then you bring in someone with the skillz. You actually go out and get yourself an artist. Better yet, get a real author who can write and keep him/her on the friggin story from start to finish. You NEVER change authors in the middle or near the end of a story. You only get a weird mishmash conglomeration of buttfudge when you try that (hence, ME3 vs, say, ME1).

Artistes. What a joke. Codemonkeys.

[BuffPhantoms]

Either:

1. all 70+ reviewers are payed off (unlikely)

2. Reviewers don't give a game a 0/10 because of the 10 minute ending, but because how good the actual gampelay was for 99% of the game.


GEE I WONDER WHICH ONE IS MORE LOGICAL LOL.

[tjmax]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

Naa thousands of fans are not angry. they are expressing their displeasure in many different fashions. Some more violently then others but its not a cry of look at me look at me on one hand and it is on the other.  people want it to be known they are unhappy. some take it to the boards as insain flame fests of hurtfull words and harsh intents. Others post on blogs and websites, some turn that around and do something good while still showing support for their fellow gamers.

Others troll the upset trying to get a rise because this is afterall the internet and the internet is full of *** *****. 


People LOVE this game and have for years.  They have had expectations of whatthey have done will make a story end, even if it was a scrolling end story like dragon age I had that detailed some of the things that happened after would be a welcome start .

People knew "bad" was coming for their sheppard before they ever opened the box. they just wanted the bad to be done right.

[Akka le Vil]

BuffPhantoms wrote...

Either:

1. all 70+ reviewers are payed off (unlikely)

2. Reviewers don't give a game a 0/10 because of the 10 minute ending, but because how good the actual gampelay was for 99% of the game.


GEE I WONDER WHICH ONE IS MORE LOGICAL LOL.

Either :

1 - All 70+ reviewers coincidentally fall into the tiny minority that actually like the endings (unlikely)

2 - Reviewers (who often are under a lot of pressure from big companies, depends on them for adds money, have often already revealed shady practice like firing people who gave low scores or being blackmailed with "give my game a good score or we won't give you a copy to review in advance) and have already shown a recurrent deep disconnect between the real quality of a game and their top-notch ratings (DA2 rings a bell ?), have inflated said rating and glossed over the flaws.

GEE I WONDER WHICH ONE IS MORE LOGICAL TROLOLOL

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 16 mars 2012 - 07:13 .

[LinksOcarina]

Akka le Vil wrote...

BuffPhantoms wrote...

Either:

1. all 70+ reviewers are payed off (unlikely)

2. Reviewers don't give a game a 0/10 because of the 10 minute ending, but because how good the actual gampelay was for 99% of the game.


GEE I WONDER WHICH ONE IS MORE LOGICAL LOL.

Either :

1 - All 70+ reviewers coincidentally fall into the tiny minority that actually like the endings (unlikely)

2 - Reviewers (who often are under a lot of pressure from big companies, depends on them for adds money, have often already revealed shady practice like firing people who gave low scores or being blackmailed with "give my game a good score or we won't give you a copy to review in advance) and have already shown a recurrent deep disconnect between the real quality of a game and their top-notch ratings (DA2 rings a bell ?), have inflated said rating and glossed over the flaws.

GEE I WONDER WHICH ONE IS MORE LOGICAL TROLOLOL

I'm going with 1, becasue 2 never happened for me. 

And for the record, Dragon Age II was an ok game as well.

[Getorex]

BuffPhantoms wrote...

Either:

1. all 70+ reviewers are payed off (unlikely)

2. Reviewers don't give a game a 0/10 because of the 10 minute ending, but because how good the actual gampelay was for 99% of the game.


GEE I WONDER WHICH ONE IS MORE LOGICAL LOL.

This is simple but you try to make it complicated.  MOST are 1.  NO reviewer at a magazine, whether online or print, is going to blast a game when they get advertising dollars from the company that made the game.  They WONT DO IT.  They will write it up all nice and pretty for cash.

They also don't have any personal investment in any game they review.  Their job is to play game after game after game after game, all genres, all levels.  They do not have any long-term investment or time spent with ANY game.  They slap them in, run them, decide if they were fun, write it up.  A fun game can still be a sucky game (ME3) but a reviewer wont write that because he/she doesn't KNOW because they have no clue nor, more importantly, personal experience over time, with the entire series, the characters, the mythos, etc.  No personal investment beyond the minimum necessary to get a feel for the game.  ANY game that provides exciting run-and-gun play will get a good review regardless of whether or not it totally butchers/ignores/rewrites its entire earlier history.  It was fun to run-and-gun and that's what matters.  That and there was pretty rendered ****** and ass.  Another plus.  That's it.  Good review.

The VAST majority of reviewers who are end-use gamers who have personal investment in the series give it a low rating.  Amazon has it at 2 stars for a reason.  The huge majority rate it poorly.  Same with Metacritic.  Forbes magazine has taken note and revamped their review to reflect the reality rather than the politics of Bioware/EA paying for a good review via advetising.  Plus Forbes gets enough money elsewhere that they don't have to kiss up to a mere game company.  A  RARE case of professional reviewers actually taking a close look rather than merely using the shiny surface gloss as a marker.

[Overule]

Can I be patently blunt for a sec Bioware? No amount of *words* will make us any less disappointed. Modern consumers stopped trusting the opinions of Gaming Journalists apart from the angry deliberately blunt fast talking Australian kind about half a decade ago, and we stopped trusting anything *you* guys say around the 5-6th time you promised us that the A, B, C scenario we got WASN'T WHAT WE'D GET!

Modifié par Overule, 16 mars 2012 - 07:47 .

[Stompi]

The frustrating thing for me is that I really don't understand the decision making process behind these endings.You worked so hard for many years on a series that at least tried to focus on the personal choices of the player. You had everthing in place for a perfect ending. You even told us that that there would be no loose ends. You made us unite a galaxy. And then you decide that the hundereds of choices you made in about 120 hours really don't matter because you always get the same three choices at the end. And that the united galaxy also doesn't matter because the mass relays are gone now.

And no, "we wanted to be remembered" is not a satisfying explanation. There are many great movies and books that didn't need WTF endings to be remembered as masterpieces.

I'm not really angry at you, because Mass Effect is your series and you can do whatever you want with it. But I really don't understand what you hoped to gain by dividing the whole community on purpose and perhaps even losing money in the process because of lower DLC sales. I don't presume to speak for everybody, but I can tell you that I would be much more likely to buy DLC for a game with choices that really matter in the end. Because I really don't want to pay $10 for one hour of gameplay, when it doesn't motivate me to do another playthrough.

Modifié par Stompi, 16 mars 2012 - 07:27 .

[Sphynx118]

EAs money at work.

"Like our game or you wont get early copies to review of the next big title TROLOLOL!!!"

This is old news. Seriously

[LinksOcarina]

Getorex wrote...

BuffPhantoms wrote...

Either:

1. all 70+ reviewers are payed off (unlikely)

2. Reviewers don't give a game a 0/10 because of the 10 minute ending, but because how good the actual gampelay was for 99% of the game.


GEE I WONDER WHICH ONE IS MORE LOGICAL LOL.

This is simple but you try to make it complicated.  MOST are 1.  NO reviewer at a magazine, whether online or print, is going to blast a game when they get advertising dollars from the company that made the game.  They WONT DO IT.  They will write it up all nice and pretty for cash.

They also don't have any personal investment in any game they review.  Their job is to play game after game after game after game, all genres, all levels.  They do not have any long-term investment or time spent with ANY game.  They slap them in, run them, decide if they were fun, write it up.  A fun game can still be a sucky game (ME3) but a reviewer wont write that because he/she doesn't KNOW because they have no clue nor, more importantly, personal experience over time, with the entire series, the characters, the mythos, etc.  No personal investment beyond the minimum necessary to get a feel for the game.  ANY game that provides exciting run-and-gun play will get a good review regardless of whether or not it totally butchers/ignores/rewrites its entire earlier history.  It was fun to run-and-gun and that's what matters.  That and there was pretty rendered ****** and ass.  Another plus.  That's it.  Good review.

The VAST majority of reviewers who are end-use gamers who have personal investment in the series give it a low rating.  Amazon has it at 2 stars for a reason.  The huge majority rate it poorly.  Same with Metacritic.  Forbes magazine has taken note and revamped their review to reflect the reality rather than the politics of Bioware/EA paying for a good review via advetising.  Plus Forbes gets enough money elsewhere that they don't have to kiss up to a mere game company.  A  RARE case of professional reviewers actually taking a close look rather than merely using the shiny surface gloss as a marker.

your ignorance knows no bounds, my friend.

You do realize that most websites get the game early so they can put the reivew out on time. Most websites also give the game to someone knowledgable of the specific genre, for example I know next to nothing about sport games so I won't comment on them, but we have a guy on our site who can tell you the differences between MLB 2k12 and MLB the Show. 

A good gaming website should know its staff, their preferences, and if they have a personal investment into the game. You are right, they have to jump from game to game sometimes, but usually thats the fun part of the job.

I say usually because its also work. For Mass Effect 3 alone I took a number of notes while playing the game, to make sure I didn't miss anything when I talked about it in the review. Of course it can be different for other writers, but its my own personal choice when I play the games.  And as I said before, for a game of this magnitude, the story needs to be talked about in depth because the story is just as important as the gameplay, so good reviewers who do so deserve recognition for it. 

[StowyMcStowstow]

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.

While I agree, I also don't think that ME3 would deserve more than an 8/10, even without the terrible endings. There are simply too many problems that bog down the overall feel of the game (god-awful quest system, anyone?), and so while you have a point, it is not applicable to ME3.

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

Reviewers aren't paid off or given incentives. That's silly.

http://tbreak.com/me...f-a-poor-score/

[Oldbones2]

What Sessler and the others mean is that this game is overall the best of the trilogy, with refined shooter mechanics and upgraded RPG elements. It also strongly engages the player.

The reason they don't talk about the ending is cause it is controversial and will negatively impact sales if they say "games great, really the best Mass Effect yet. Oh and the endings suck like a black hole and they ruin the entire franchise."

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

Except they stripped down a lot of the RPG elements. Dialog options were the most notable change. It became a third person cover-based action shooter pretty darn fast.

[Narelda]

Somehow I doubt most of the reviewers bothered spending 30+ hours on the game to get the "best" ending. My understanding of the state of game "reviews" is that majority of them are based on at best a rushed play-through, some not even that.

[Obrusnine]

Getorex wrote...

What is most infuriating (and inaccurate) is the attempt by the codemonkeys who did ME3 to call the ending "artistic" as if they are "artistes". No. They are geeky computer codemonkeys, they are NOT typing out Mona Lisas here. They are NOT "artistes". They are coders. End of story. If you want to get something and call it art, then you bring in someone with the skillz. You actually go out and get yourself an artist. Better yet, get a real author who can write and keep him/her on the friggin story from start to finish. You NEVER change authors in the middle or near the end of a story. You only get a weird mishmash conglomeration of buttfudge when you try that (hence, ME3 vs, say, ME1).

Artistes. What a joke. Codemonkeys.

You, my good sir, are an idiot. You do know that coders aren't the only people working on the game right? Because of this, I am forced to quote myself (I know that makes me sound self-absorbed, but just read).

"Sorry, but you're wrong.

If art is priceless what are movies or cinematography in general? They aren't art because people have to pay for them?

What about music? You have to pay for that to.

What about literature and books? You also have to pay for that.

What
about drawing and painting art? Yup, except for a few historic pieces,
most of them have a price and you can buy them. Or order one be drawn up
for you.

Then we come to video games, which the debate on
whether or not they are art has been going for a long time, but it's
nonsense. Video games are the ultimate form of media. They combine a
bunch of different pieces of art into a single whole.

Music,
cinematography, writing, drawing and painting art... how do you combine
all of these different pieces of art into one whole and say they aren't
art? That's non-sensical.

Not only is Mass Effect art, but so are a lot of  other great video games.

But
just like a lot of art, Mass Effect is flawed art. Flawed art is fixed
by the artist. So if they want our respect as artists again, they need
to fix their flawed art."

Writers, graphic ARTISTS, level designers, producers... coders are a relativly small part of a games creation. There are plenty of other teams working on the game as well.

Also, professional coders are kind of hard to find there. Game designers are the jacks of all trades there, they can do pretty much anything, including coding.

[Legendaryred]

Because gaming websites get their revenue from EA and other publishers?

[grumpyboobyhead]

Well I'd like to point out that it's a good game on it's own, sure there are some flaws but...
The ending however surely is confusing, and makes it seem like a use your imagination/bedtime story.
I still hope they put a DLC epilogue of the aftermath though, since this is really a cop-out in order to ensure they have all their ducks in a row in case they do want to make another sequel with Shepard.
But if there's something that I think would make the game's score a bit more lower IMO is just how much fanservice there is, they tried really hard to break the 4th wall.
And I can't go into detail but it's tiresome seeing some choices made in previous games which were so time consuming not getting any special treatment whatsoever.

[Russalka]

"Bribed" they might be, but to expect their judgement to be the same as yours is kind of rude.

Modifié par Russalka, 16 mars 2012 - 08:14 .

[Akka le Vil]

LinksOcarina wrote...

I'm going with 1, becasue 2 never happened for me.

You're lucky to live in fantasyland then. I suppose if you bury your head in the sand you can pretend that DOCUMENTED FACTS never happened.

And for the record, Dragon Age II was an ok game as well.

Funny, all the "big" reviewers sites gave it glowing reviews. For an "okay" game ?
I thought you lived in your fabricated world when the disconnect between reviewers and reality didn't happen ?

Aaah, blind fanboys !

[Isaidlunch]

Video game journalism is corrupt, etc etc blah blah blah

[LinksOcarina]

Akka le Vil wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

I'm going with 1, becasue 2 never happened for me.

You're lucky to live in fantasyland then. I suppose if you bury your head in the sand you can pretend that DOCUMENTED FACTS never happened.

And for the record, Dragon Age II was an ok game as well.

Funny, all the "big" reviewers sites gave it glowing reviews. For an "okay" game ?
I thought you lived in your fabricated world when the disconnect between reviewers and reality didn't happen ?

Aaah, blind fanboys !

*sigh*

Considering you have a gross overstatement for your second troll point, at least point one makes more sense to me. But then again both options are crap and grossly exaggerated. 

And an ok game can mean anything. A 5/10 is an ok game just as much as a 7/10 is. The difference is the reasons why.