142 réponses à ce sujet

[Rockworm503]

Gigamantis wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

vader da slayer wrote...

Jesusland wrote...

Fans were dissapointed, but the professional critics LOVED it...

I wonder why?  Are the professional critics smarter than we are?  Or are they just paid shills for the gaming industry.  Discuss. 

Im a fan and not disappointed.

Naqey wrote...

fans were / are more emotionally invested, so the ending pissed them off (some of them).
from an "objective" (game journalists and objective ... AM I RIGHT GUYS...) standpoint, it really is a very very very good game

and this is a big point. when a review site reviews the game they do so from the stand point of someone akin to a judge. that is someone who isn't emotinally invested and see's it from a 3rd person perspective if you will and not from the perspective of someone who has played ME1 20 times and ME2 25 times or something.

That is why I put Angry Joe's opionion over them all because he is emotional invested he gets angry at a bad game and he gets excited when its good.
Why would i want an empty husk review my game?  Why is his opinion worth anything?

I take my peers over reviews because of that emotional investement.  If they don't even notice the bad ending what else are they gleaming over to get a nice 10/10?

Emotional people give bad reviews.  Like when people die a lot in a difficult game and post a review when they're angry.  The reviews end up being nonsense with 0 scores. 

I take you've never watched Angry Joe.
He went into the ending in a great deal but still gave the game a solid 7.
He was perfectly honest.  The ending was terrible but he decided the game still was very good.
That sounds like an honest review to me.  He doesn't let his emotions dictate his review.
Stupid number scores always skew things anyway.  A solid 7 with a Bad ass seal of approval that sounds better than anyone giving it a 10 and glossing completely over the ending.

[NM_Che56]

If they tighten up the ending I would say a 10 makes sense

[Epic777]

iVitriol wrote...

These so-called "critics" will say whatever they are paid to say. EA paid them off. Simple as that.
Never trust these people; always look for customer reviews. They tell the real story.

Sigh, never fully trust customer/fan reviews.  PC games tend to have too many 1/10 reviews because the game did not run well of that person's PC. Another tendency I noticed is for 'cult classic games' to get very high user reviews despite having notable flaws, think Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines or Arcanum. Both good games but have so many bugs glitches and oddites it would put the PS3 version of Skyrim to shame (No lies).

My whole point is eventually you will have to trust your gut instinct not user or professional reviews. 

[Nepp]

Professional reviewers are nothing more than trolls for game publishers.

Never trust professional reviewers or critics. Their bottom line is game publishers money.

[RazzyBoyRo]

I read that on the blog...if that's the case then lets see who buys their game the most?...the "professional" critics or the actual fans?

[PaddlePop]

Seriously guys, "game journalism" is a part of marketing now. It used to be about a group of independents or fellow gaming enthusiasts informing prospective buyers about a new game, or warning them that it might be tripe. With advertising costs in the millions, "game journalism" is merely another marketing arm.

If you still trust reviews in this day and age, you need some medicine for that bad case of naivety.

[Harorrd]

[Nepp]

PaddlePop wrote...

Seriously guys, "game journalism" is a part of marketing now. It used to be about a group of independents or fellow gaming enthusiasts informing prospective buyers about a new game, or warning them that it might be tripe. With advertising costs in the millions, "game journalism" is merely another marketing arm.

If you still trust reviews in this day and age, you need some medicine for that bad case of naivety.

hah, that's why I call those so-called professional game reviews trolls for the game publishers.

[d.nichols]

Damn... I must be stupid then.

[slimgrin]

I've no doubt there are mutual interests in mind. But I think there are two bigger problems:

-Many critics haven't played all three games and don't have the same expectations.

-Game journalism isn't as professional as we'd like it to be. Yes, I'm going there. Given their response to this debacle, I think it's clear how biased and uneducated they are. You don't become a professional movie reviewer with the kind of behavior you see on display here.

Modifié par slimgrin, 25 mars 2012 - 11:09 .

[AlanC9]

iVitriol wrote...

These so-called "critics" will say whatever they are paid to say. EA paid them off. Simple as that.
Never trust these people; always look for customer reviews. They tell the real story.

All of them? Even the ones from the non-gaming press?

[Aesieru]

AlanC9 wrote...

iVitriol wrote...

These so-called "critics" will say whatever they are paid to say. EA paid them off. Simple as that.
Never trust these people; always look for customer reviews. They tell the real story.

All of them? Even the ones from the non-gaming press?

Forbes has been assaulting BioWare.

[element eater]

they aren't proper gamers and they aren't consumers there appreciation for what is/isnt a good game isnt the same as an actual gamer who has to spend money on the game.

They also tend to lack any real objectivity when it comes to a big release look at DA2 for example anyone could see that game had some major issues regardless of personnel taste yet it gets really high scores from alot of groups who completely ignore or fail to notice them.

Ontop of that i get the impression that quite alot of them simply dont realy know what theyre talking about

Modifié par element eater, 25 mars 2012 - 11:12 .

[AlanC9]

slimgrin wrote...

I've no doubt there are some mutual interests in mind. But I think there are two bigger problems:

-Many critics haven't played all three games and don't have the same expectations.

-Game journalism isn't as professional as we'd like it to be. Yes I'm going there. Given their response to this debacle, I think it's clear how biased and uneducated they are. You don't become a professional movie reviewer with the kind of behavior you see on display here.

One more problem: Critics tend to value genre-breaking stuff more than audiences, because they burn out on the genres. The unhappy ending won't bother a critic as much as an average fan because the critic is probably bored with happy ones. Sure, he'll mark ME3 down for incoherence, but on that score it isn't especially bad or even particularly different from other games.

[Emberwake]

YohkoOhno wrote...

You guys really need to stop this.

People have different opinions! Let people have their opinions. Disagreeing with opinions does not equal them being corrupt.

That line of thinking is why political discussion is breaking down in our country--don't like what people have to say, blame the media.

You need to stop. Not all positions are equal. Opinions supported by well-reasoned argument are more valuable than, "I really really liked it."

[Fawx9]

If I was going to brtually honest I'd give the game a 7.5 or an 8 out of 10.

-1 for the endings right away. When I need to spend a day+ on forums to try and figure out what happened(not in a thoughtful way but a WTF way), and still not get everything answered, *NORMANDY*, then you failed at closing up the trilogy like you said you would.

-1 for the journal and side quests. When I'm resorting to alt tabbing out to wikis to figure out what I'm supposed to do with these retarded fetch quests it kills all immersion. Do I have the object? I don't know. Is there person still there? Maybe. Where the hell is system x? Why are you giving me quests I can't do yet? It's ridiculous how bad this was. They had a perfectly fine journal that worked in the first two games then went and broke it.

-0.5 for general bugs, sure you can say that there will always be some on this scale of a game but the whole EMS SP fiasco and face import should have been caught well into development instead of letting slide into release.

[AlanC9]

Aesieru wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

iVitriol wrote...

These so-called "critics" will say whatever they are paid to say. EA paid them off. Simple as that.
Never trust these people; always look for customer reviews. They tell the real story.

All of them? Even the ones from the non-gaming press?

Forbes has been assaulting BioWare.

Yep. Other non-gaming-press reviewers have loved ME3. I won't bother to give you links since you know this already.

[slimgrin]

AlanC9 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

I've no doubt there are some mutual interests in mind. But I think there are two bigger problems:

-Many critics haven't played all three games and don't have the same expectations.

-Game journalism isn't as professional as we'd like it to be. Yes I'm going there. Given their response to this debacle, I think it's clear how biased and uneducated they are. You don't become a professional movie reviewer with the kind of behavior you see on display here.

One more problem: Critics tend to value genre-breaking stuff more than audiences, because they burn out on the genres. The unhappy ending won't bother a critic as much as an average fan because the critic is probably bored with happy ones. Sure, he'll mark ME3 down for incoherence, but on that score it isn't especially bad or even particularly different from other games.

That's a valid point, and I admit I haven't thought of it. But aren't they supposed to be objective about this stuff, or at least try?

[Aesieru]

AlanC9 wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

iVitriol wrote...

These so-called "critics" will say whatever they are paid to say. EA paid them off. Simple as that.
Never trust these people; always look for customer reviews. They tell the real story.

All of them? Even the ones from the non-gaming press?

Forbes has been assaulting BioWare.

Yep. Other non-gaming-press reviewers have loved ME3. I won't bother to give you links since you know this already.

Take a look at those, and then their own reports on games, and then see how they almost always say the same exact things that the others did... generalyl meaning they more or less copy and pasted without effort due to getting hits on their websites or magazines purchased.

Game Journalism by non-journalists isn't given much thought USUALLY.

---

Also, Forbes has proven itself recently in regards to their ability to analyze and properly report on Games... CNN, MSNBC, and other non game-journalism sites, as well as other game-journalism sites, have not provided any reason for us to trust them. Hell most don't even trust their non-game news.

Modifié par Aesieru, 25 mars 2012 - 11:15 .

[Achire]

freestylez wrote...

Everyone knows the gaming journalism isn't real journalism, at least not yet. There are just no true professional standards and way too many conflicts of interests (most game reviw sites are draped with ads from the very game they're reviewing)..

Gaming review sites are also obsessed with 0-day reviews. This may work in the movie industry because one can watch a movie 3 times within 6 hours. For a game like ME3? You won't even be off Palaven in 6 hours. Games aren't given the attention they should before reviews are made.

I found this opinion piece to be on point for several issues:

http://massively.joy...journalism-yet/

Great article. The thing about 0-day reviews is that fanb...enthusiast gaming journalists are sent review copies early. But suppose you give a major AAA title a bad review. AAA referring to monetary investment in the project, not necessarily quality. Do you think your outlet will ever receive review copies from the publisher again if you do that? Or be invited to press events to preview games? So where does that leave your outlet in terms of news content. All the income of these online gaming sites comes from advertisers. Who do you think the major advertisers are at an online gaming site? Maybe reviewers don't get bribed in the literal sense that they get a gray letter full of money. However the systemic corruption and incestous relationships are there for all to see.

Let's be real here. Most of the reviewers did not finish Mass Effect 3. The only one that did and noted the ending that I can think of is GameTrailers, and they didn't like it either. They wrote "Well the ending makes you feel something" which is a very backhanded compliment.

Modifié par Achire, 25 mars 2012 - 11:20 .

[spacehamsterZH]

Master Che wrote...

If they tighten up the ending I would say a 10 makes sense

Taking the ending out of the equation, I'd rate the game a 9 or a 9.5. A 10/10 game doesn't have as many bugs as ME3 does, and there are plotholes before the ending already. I think part of the problem is that ME2 already got extremely high scores, and ME3 has virtually everything that was good about ME2, improved on it and adds a lot of things that are missing.

And of course then there's the fact that all the big gaming sites are corrupt anyway, so who cares. I just watch video reviews to get an idea of what the game looks like and try to filter out the relevant information about gameplay mechanics in what the reviewer says. Which is especially difficult on IGN because some of these guys seriously don't explain anything. The ME3 video review was a fine example of this. There's literally no information.