60 réponses à ce sujet

[tetrisblock4x1]

Tarrax Nightwind wrote...

Sure, but they didn't invalidate the rest of the game mechanics. They're what made DE:HR fun, not the AI or the Boss fights. Also, your attempt to discredit anyone who's opinion differs from yours is noted.

Well my opinion seems to be pretty much unanimous. I know more people who liked the ME3 endings than the HR bosses and who thought the AI wasn't dumb.

[Tarrax Nightwind]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Tarrax Nightwind wrote...

Sure, but they didn't invalidate the rest of the game mechanics. They're what made DE:HR fun, not the AI or the Boss fights. Also, your attempt to discredit anyone who's opinion differs from yours is noted.

Well my opinion seems to be pretty much unanimous. I know more people who liked the ME3 endings than the HR bosses and who thought the AI wasn't dumb.

So, you didn't enjoy any of ME3, including the endings? Did you enjoy any of DEHR? Remember, a review should be about the whole game, not just part of it. That's been my point all along.

Modifié par Tarrax Nightwind, 01 avril 2012 - 12:43 .

[Cicero.me]

Tarrax Nightwind wrote...

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Tarrax Nightwind wrote...

Sure, but they didn't invalidate the rest of the game mechanics. They're what made DE:HR fun, not the AI or the Boss fights. Also, your attempt to discredit anyone who's opinion differs from yours is noted.

Well my opinion seems to be pretty much unanimous. I know more people who liked the ME3 endings than the HR bosses and who thought the AI wasn't dumb.

So, you didn't enjoy any of ME3, including the endings? Did you enjoy any of DEHR? Remember, a review should be about the whole game, not just part of it. That's been my point all along.

Indeed. If you have ever played any other games or ead any other books; it should be par for the course for yuo to enjoy them yet hate the ending. An ending should not be even remotely close to having a large impact on score.

Modifié par Cicero.me, 01 avril 2012 - 12:53 .

[ODST 5723]

Reviewers should base their reviews on the whole. But there's ore than 2% that's dissatisfying and it's not just the end that was a problem for people.

Journal issues. Graphics issues. Freezing issues. Bugs during major dialogue sections. Hollow fetch quests which require planet scanning rather than missions. BInary decisions where 3 options would usually have occurred. A single hub which was superficially large just as the galaxy map presented explorations options that were superficially large.

There's stuff like that which comes in before the ending. Which isn't just an issue because of its lack of closure and explanation but because you went out of your way to get the Terminus Mercs under Aria's banner but see no tangible impact. It's entirely superficial as those mercs and their ships don't appear and have no impact beyond counting as a shallow point total for the final calculation that determines which flavor of shallow ending you can choose from. The same goes for the geth. I didn't see their ships or ground troops anywhere. No Spectres. No STG.

As a result, there was little tangible variety. The epic space battle to retake Earth wasn't epic. The epic conclusion to an epic trilogy wasn't epic, either.

That's a major caveat because even if the gameplay is good, if it ends flat you may not want to play through that game, especially if that flat feeling leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth that will turn you off on future installments.

Up until the ending, even with its warts ME3 was a great game. But aside from some of the moments w/ the crew via face-to-face and comm tech the majority of what happened after the Cerberus base was crap from a narrative perspective even though the gameplay was solid. As a result, it lacks substance and that can detract from the fun the gameplay permits.

This isn't just about the ending.  There are problems with the climax and falling action.  All of the build up fails to pay off and in end and that's the biggest problem.  If those two portions were as solid as the rest, then other items can be forgiven.  When they're not, they're magnified as missed opportunities and they show how hollow all that busy work was to get to a shallow ending.

Modifié par ODST 5723, 01 avril 2012 - 12:59 .

[TheGreenAlloy]

jerrinehart wrote...

This is why anytime I want a REAL review and not just media driven hype I go to Angry Joe. That guy is a shining example to the gaming community and video game sites and what they should be. Entertaining and HONEST.

That guy has been saying the truth for YEARS, not just with ME3.

Only things I don't agree with Joe on has to be on ODST and Reach. Otherwise, he's a godsend.

OT: I read through most of the OP, and I must say that I agree. IGN's opinion video is the reason I don't go to their site anymore.

[MrTijger]

Tarrax Nightwind wrote...

So, you didn't enjoy any of ME3, including the endings? Did you enjoy any of DEHR? Remember, a review should be about the whole game, not just part of it. That's been my point all along.

Well, he doesnt seem to own ME3 so how would he know what the game is like anyway?

Anyway, just because one part of a game doesnt live up to your expectations does not make the entire game bad nor does it invalidate a high rating but most of the smart people here already knew that.

Also, every DX:HR review mentioned the bosses and AI.

[jerrinehart]

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

jerrinehart wrote...

This is why anytime I want a REAL review and not just media driven hype I go to Angry Joe. That guy is a shining example to the gaming community and video game sites and what they should be. Entertaining and HONEST.

That guy has been saying the truth for YEARS, not just with ME3.

Only things I don't agree with Joe on has to be on ODST and Reach. Otherwise, he's a godsend.

OT: I read through most of the OP, and I must say that I agree. IGN's opinion video is the reason I don't go to their site anymore.

Obviously you can't agree with everything someone says, we are all different with different views, but I always feel that Joe is telling me honestly how he feels and he's actually saying what he thinks. He also plays an entire game before reviewing it as well, how crazy is that?

[Kub666]

WALL OF TEXT!!!

No idea what's in the OP, but I agree that 99% of reviewers either is on the payroll of big publishers or is just incompetent. Looks like they live in a world detached from actual consumers.

[TheGreenAlloy]

jerrinehart wrote...

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

jerrinehart wrote...

This is why anytime I want a REAL review and not just media driven hype I go to Angry Joe. That guy is a shining example to the gaming community and video game sites and what they should be. Entertaining and HONEST.

That guy has been saying the truth for YEARS, not just with ME3.

Only things I don't agree with Joe on has to be on ODST and Reach. Otherwise, he's a godsend.

OT: I read through most of the OP, and I must say that I agree. IGN's opinion video is the reason I don't go to their site anymore.

Obviously you can't agree with everything someone says, we are all different with different views, but I always feel that Joe is telling me honestly how he feels and he's actually saying what he thinks. He also plays an entire game before reviewing it as well, how crazy is that?

Yeah, I really liked how he handles his reviews. 

[Tarrax Nightwind]

Cicero.me wrote...

Tarrax Nightwind wrote...

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Tarrax Nightwind wrote...

Sure, but they didn't invalidate the rest of the game mechanics. They're what made DE:HR fun, not the AI or the Boss fights. Also, your attempt to discredit anyone who's opinion differs from yours is noted.

Well my opinion seems to be pretty much unanimous. I know more people who liked the ME3 endings than the HR bosses and who thought the AI wasn't dumb.

So, you didn't enjoy any of ME3, including the endings? Did you enjoy any of DEHR? Remember, a review should be about the whole game, not just part of it. That's been my point all along.

Indeed. If you have ever played any other games or ead any other books; it should be par for the course for yuo to enjoy them yet hate the ending. An ending should not be even remotely close to having a large impact on score.

That's hardly the same thing since games involve this little thing called gameplay. You've never played a fun game that didn't even have a story?

[Cicero.me]

Tarrax Nightwind wrote...

Cicero.me wrote...

Tarrax Nightwind wrote...

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Tarrax Nightwind wrote...

Sure, but they didn't invalidate the rest of the game mechanics. They're what made DE:HR fun, not the AI or the Boss fights. Also, your attempt to discredit anyone who's opinion differs from yours is noted.

Well my opinion seems to be pretty much unanimous. I know more people who liked the ME3 endings than the HR bosses and who thought the AI wasn't dumb.

So, you didn't enjoy any of ME3, including the endings? Did you enjoy any of DEHR? Remember, a review should be about the whole game, not just part of it. That's been my point all along.

Indeed. If you have ever played any other games or ead any other books; it should be par for the course for yuo to enjoy them yet hate the ending. An ending should not be even remotely close to having a large impact on score.

That's hardly the same thing since games involve this little thing called gameplay. You've never played a fun game that didn't even have a story?

Some ,but I am referring to games like these. Sorry for the lack of clarification. I am just jaded by in my opinion, bad endings in most of my story driven games including novels and I hold overall story, journey and feeling of a medium over one ending.

[TheGreenAlloy]

Kub666 wrote...

WALL OF TEXT!!!

No idea what's in the OP, but I agree that 99% of reviewers either is on the payroll of big publishers or is just incompetent. Looks like they live in a world detached from actual consumers.

Do yourself a favour and read the OP.

[nycmode75]

If you begin with the premise that journalism is objective, then your theory is flawed.

As a journalist myself at a major organization, even we know that ultimately all journalism is subjective regardless of the facts presented to back up one's argument. Everything you see is framed in the viewpoint of the person who wrote, produced or presented the piece of work.

On a lighter note, I personally enjoy reading reviews because usually it contains useful information about the product that I am intersted in. But usually I prefer the consensus view before I draw any conclusions ...

[kalle90]

redplague wrote...

jerrinehart wrote...

This is why anytime I want a REAL review and not just media driven hype I go to Angry Joe. That guy is a shining example to the gaming community and video game sites and what they should be. Entertaining and HONEST.

That guy has been saying the truth for YEARS, not just with ME3.

But he doesn't review all the games though.

All the ones that matter. The awful scams no one should buy and the amazing revolutionaries everyone must play. Mass Effect 3 is quite a bit of both.

[BiancoAngelo7]

Excellent post OP, well thought out, articulate and most importantly, absolutely correct.

[StabGuy]

redplague wrote...

That's a lot of words.

human talk to much!

[Metalunatic]

Tarrax Nightwind wrote...

TL;DR

95% of ME3 was awesome, but as the last 5% was not then reviewers should have panned it? Come on now. You're not Goldfish and neither are they.

What I've seen most reviews praise the ending as well.

[thedosbox]

FFS, stop reading sites that award a "score" to a game. People like/dislike games for different reasons, and pretending that you can rank a game objectively is asinine.

[Dude_in_the_Room]

Can I get the original post on audio tape?

[Cainne Chapel]

I was an amateur journalist for a while in my younger days...

That said EVERY article i ever wrote had MY views in it. So it was objective from the start. and didn't signify the whole (unless the editor wanted it changed..).

That said you can only take someone elses words on something at face value. You're not always going to agree with them and being on the internet means MORE people have a say in things that they may not even be qualified to write about .

That said, I dont pay attention to game sites or news outlets for reviews, I'll skim gameplay sections and general information about a game which is generally enough for me to know if i'll enjoy something or not, but reviews as a whole do not effect me as i dont read them for the most part.

Luckily I tend to know what type/style of games I enjoy and am pretty good at not getting burned at this point. Heck i've enjoyed the hell out of games that have gotten horrible reviews (some of which I STILL play to this day).

[patpatrik]

There is no "games journalism". there are only a handful of people with the psychology of teenagers, who are ready to put 10/10 to any pieces of trash, clones of clones, whose budget exceeds $ 10 million.

Modifié par patpatrik, 01 avril 2012 - 04:22 .

[nycmode75]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

I was an amateur journalist for a while in my younger days...

That said EVERY article i ever wrote had MY views in it. So it was objective from the start. and didn't signify the whole (unless the editor wanted it changed..).

That said you can only take someone elses words on something at face value. You're not always going to agree with them and being on the internet means MORE people have a say in things that they may not even be qualified to write about .

That said, I dont pay attention to game sites or news outlets for reviews, I'll skim gameplay sections and general information about a game which is generally enough for me to know if i'll enjoy something or not, but reviews as a whole do not effect me as i dont read them for the most part.

Luckily I tend to know what type/style of games I enjoy and am pretty good at not getting burned at this point. Heck i've enjoyed the hell out of games that have gotten horrible reviews (some of which I STILL play to this day).

I think you meant to say "subjective"?

[HanabPacal]

Dridengx wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

TL;DR.

But I agree you cant take any reviewers seriously.

but what about forbes, angry joe, and gamefront, and everyone else who was on Retake's side? they trusted them lol

Both sides are being played for hits.

I also like Angry Joe, and respect the approach that he takes to his reviews.  Jeremy Jahns is another reviewer on my short list of those I can take seriously. 
 
While I realize that Trigon definitely exaggerated things by stating that you can’t take any reviewers seriously (and missing the points of my original post in the process), it is unfortunate that we find ourselves in a situation where we can’t take way too many of them seriously. 

[HanabPacal]

Achkas wrote...

I stopped reading when you said the ending was 'objectively bad'. I'm glad journalists don't buy into such a thing being possible, because when the aesthetic is concerned, it's not possible.

I meant objectively bad in relation to writing convention (which it most definitely was) and not in relation to aesthetic appeal.  This was simply a case of me not fully explaining something that I should have and so I apologize for not providing clarification.
 
Your reply where you state that you stopped reading because of this lack of clarification on my part seemed like another of those dismissive “the author lost all credibility because he/she made a mistake or didn’t clarify something to my satisfaction” posts.  If this is truly how you feel then I have to ask, why?  Do you dismiss everyone who misstates something, who makes an error and who simply doesn’t clarify something properly?  Do you truly believe that a single error in the body of a text nullifies all credibility of the ideas and thoughts contained therein regardless of how well formulated and supported they are?  If so then you must not think that anybody has any credibility, including yourself – because I’m willing to bet the farm that you’ve been wrong and not properly clarified thoughts at times throughout your life.

[HanabPacal]

To all the tl:dr people, you do realize (if not you should) that there are complex, multi-faceted issues that can’t be summed up in a Twitter length message.  Well, this is one of them.  I barely even scratched the surface in the OP, let alone covered the topic in any depth. 
 
When dealing with a topic such as this it is absolutely necessary to clarify your thoughts up front and to make sure that you are providing ‘how’ and ‘why’ you are getting to the points that you are presenting.  Because when you don’t clarify, and when you don’t provide the how and the why, you all too often end up creating confusion and giving the wrong impression.  Case in point – Achkas called me out because of my statement that the Mass Effect 3 ending was “objectively bad”.  I didn’t make the context of that statement clear in the original post and thus had to clarify it after the fact.  Had I taken a bare bones approach to the issues that I covered in the OP, an approach that would have been palatable to the tl;dr crowd, I would have spent more time, effort and words clarifying every little thing after the fact than I spent creating the original post.  And subsequently as a result, those who didn’t wish to read ‘so many words’ would have ended up reading more.