186 réponses à ce sujet

[IntoTheDarkness]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Intothe Darkness... sorry to say

There's NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECT STORY

If you expect ME3 (or anything really) to be PERFECT...well... you have a lonely life ahead of you.

For what it is, I enjoyed ME3 immensely, granted i dont think ANY game is perfect but it was fun and as enjoyable as the other 2 in the series.

as for skyrim, never played it, I dont like the elder scrolls series so *shrug*. As for awards, ME3 got tons of perfect scores too... doesn't help peoples arguments in the least if they didn't enjoy it.

soo seems a bit silly comparing industry awards when both games have gotten top marks from the industry doesn't it?

3.3 on metacritic.  

[Cainne Chapel]

I'm very well aware of the negative user scores on Metacritic... but thats not what I was pointing out. You mentioned skyrim won a bunch of "Industry" awards and I was just pointing out that BOTH games have gotten high ratings from "Industry" people.

USer scores on metacritic have no bearing on "industry" awards and scores and what not. At least not from what i've seen.

I mean look no further then this thread for "user reviews".  Some love it, a lot dont.  its going to go that way for ANY game.

Hell I know people who HATE CoD (see BSN regularly) and yet thats one of the highest selling franchises of all time. On the flip side I know a lot of people who HATE nintendo and their games.

Its all a matter of perception

Modifié par Cainne Chapel, 03 avril 2012 - 05:08 .

[Dude_in_the_Room]

kalle90 wrote...

Dude_in_the_Room wrote...

abaris wrote...

kalle90 wrote...

Skyrim is better simply when standing on some mountain or anywhere and looking at how day turns into night turns into day.

That is art, joy to look at. Not any of the clunky small areas or disconnecting conversations of ME3. No Skyrim isn't perfect either, especially as a pure RPG, but it's close.

Completely different game, completely different game experience.

You can't really compare those two, since Skyrim does offer very little in ways of story. You're choices have next to none consequences. It is a sandbox and - like every Elder Scroll game - lives and thrives by it's modding community. I would certainly wish that kind of possibility on the Mass Effect series, but that's not gonna happen.

Skyrim had and has it's own issues. At the release date it was a bug fest complete with rebooting computers and other game breaking features, made worse by the first patches. The general consensus was, it was a rush job to meet the sexy release date of 11.11.11. Just as with ME3.

Both are games.  Both are RPG games. 

It's completely reasonable to compare them.  This whole illusion that things of the same genre are "apples and oranges" and can't be compared b/c they are simply diffferent is getting stupidly ridiculous.

It's like saying you can't compare colors b/c one is bright and the other is just a different shade of bright which is dark....................

Also, I prefer oranges. It's my opinion, but so is everyone elses. There is no universal truth whether ME3 is better or worse than Skyrim.

I didn't say that there was a truth to one being better than the other. 

I said it's assinine to say you can't compare the 2 games.  Just that the "apple and oranges" thing is wearing thin.

[ramnozack]

I don't know why people say ME 3 "ruined" the entire franchise. Aside from a few things (ending obviously, some side quests needed some work) it was the most fun game in the series and the story was very engaging up until the end. I for one love ME 3 and I think if it was given 1 more year of development it would have been a perfect 10.

[abaris]

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

3.3 on metacritic.  

3.8 - don't you sell it for less.

[ramnozack]

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Intothe Darkness... sorry to say

There's NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECT STORY

If you expect ME3 (or anything really) to be PERFECT...well... you have a lonely life ahead of you.

For what it is, I enjoyed ME3 immensely, granted i dont think ANY game is perfect but it was fun and as enjoyable as the other 2 in the series.

as for skyrim, never played it, I dont like the elder scrolls series so *shrug*. As for awards, ME3 got tons of perfect scores too... doesn't help peoples arguments in the least if they didn't enjoy it.

soo seems a bit silly comparing industry awards when both games have gotten top marks from the industry doesn't it?

3.3 on metacritic.  

Also you cant trust metacritic for review scores on this game. Their not sincere reviews just butthurt fans doing childish things. While I agree the ending is bad it doesn't need to change. It needs continuation. Yeah Im a Indoc theorist blah blah I think it makes sense and would make for a great story. On another note maybe DLC will make up for the lack of unique side quests in comparison to ME2

[Mylia Stenetch]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

I'm very well aware of the negative user scores on Metacritic... but thats not what I was pointing out. You mentioned skyrim won a bunch of "Industry" awards and I was just pointing out that BOTH games have gotten high ratings from "Industry" people.

USer scores on metacritic have no bearing on "industry" awards and scores and what not. At least not from what i've seen.

I mean look no further then this thread for "user reviews".  Some love it, a lot dont.  its going to go that way for ANY game.

Hell I know people who HATE CoD (see BSN regularly) and yet thats one of the highest selling franchises of all time. On the flip side I know a lot of people who HATE nintendo and their games.

Its all a matter of perception

You have hit the nail on the head Cainne. People are going to have varied perceptions on home games go and how "good" they are. Honestly from industry and user reviews on it via 
Metacritic I would not take any seriously since people were rate bombing the game. Also the industry can and will have a bias if needed.

[Cainne Chapel]

Well yeah the critics ratings are in line with what i mentioned (90's+ like 1 and 2)

THe user scores are 38 on PS3 PC and like 49 on 360. But there's still a lot of 0's attached to people ranting about bugs and autodialogue and no plot and waste of character and poor gameplay etc etc.

It does seem like a bunch of random angry people shouting their dissapointment rather than actual reviews.

Which is why i always take user reviews with a grain of salt. Their helpful to have mind you, but working with the public as much as I do, you always just reserve a bit of judgement for yourself on things

[Cainne Chapel]

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

Cainne Chapel wrote...

I'm very well aware of the negative user scores on Metacritic... but thats not what I was pointing out. You mentioned skyrim won a bunch of "Industry" awards and I was just pointing out that BOTH games have gotten high ratings from "Industry" people.

USer scores on metacritic have no bearing on "industry" awards and scores and what not. At least not from what i've seen.

I mean look no further then this thread for "user reviews".  Some love it, a lot dont.  its going to go that way for ANY game.

Hell I know people who HATE CoD (see BSN regularly) and yet thats one of the highest selling franchises of all time. On the flip side I know a lot of people who HATE nintendo and their games.

Its all a matter of perception

You have hit the nail on the head Cainne. People are going to have varied perceptions on home games go and how "good" they are. Honestly from industry and user reviews on it via 
Metacritic I would not take any seriously since people were rate bombing the game. Also the industry can and will have a bias if needed.

.....still love that Avatar....

anyway, yeah, it is hard to take people seriously when their rate bombing something, I get they feel passionate about it...but come on  the game is definately not a 0, nor for many is it a 10 (i'd give it a 10...but then I'd give 1 and 2 a 10 as well as they've all 3 brought me hours upon hours of joy, perfect? nah none of them are but I would give them a 10 regardless) but realistically speaking none of them are perfect games, but damn great ones regardless of how you feel about the ending, bugs, gameplay or otherwise

[Euno17]

LOL people please.

Let me get this straight . . . in Skyrim (known as the game that never ends) you can spend upwards of 100+ hours on ONE GAME PLAY and people are saying ME-3 is better? what? Yeah i know, I'm saying Skyrim is better based off of a subjective thing as time-played but it just shows you how much more there is to DO in Skyrim. People complain about the bugs/glitches etc etc etc but at the end of the day there is just so much in Skyrim it makes ME-3 look pale in comparison.

So are you kidding me? Yeah the Skyrim story sucks so ME-3 is better in that area but come on now. If you play a game on one play through for a hundred hours - I'd say you got your money's worth and then some. Granted on the other hand - it does make it difficult to want to start another play through knowing just how freaking long of a game it is.... but seriously how long was ME-3? 25-30 hours? Maybe? Half the time spent trying to follow that horrible journal system? or 'Planet-scanning' for war-assets? How many 'side-quests' were there? And yes you have to include the 'ending' part of ME-3 to why Skyrim is just simply better.

Skyrim is a far and away better game. Period. And THIS time I'm actually going to say it's fact for all and not just for me SIMPLY due to this one fact - Skyrim had 5 years of development. 5 YEARS people. Skyrim had BETTER be the bettter game because it had 3 more years in development time and it shows in the sheer amount of content in the game. I still don't understand why they never put much effort into the main-story line . . . but w/e.

Imagine what ME-3 would have been with five years to develop the game. I still think GIVEN the time - Bioware could produce a far and away better game. I just don't think EA would ever give Bioware five years anymore without some sort of cut-backs on the team or something. The people behind Skyrim are okay with spending five years on a game - EA is not. That's just what it comes down to.

Just look at the number of copies sold for each game.

I GUARANTEE you, if ME-3 had 5 years of development time - people would have been buying the game in droves simply due to a good-word-of-mouth. Just an example of what a god-word-of-mouth system could do:

What was Skyrim's number of games sold? around 11 million copies. a 11 MILLION copies.

something tells me ME-3 won't reach 5 or maybe even 4 for that matter (overall).

Hell right now ME-3 hasn't even gone beyond the original ME numbers for 360 yet.

[killnoob]

in terms of side quests, I actually think Oblivion did a better job than Skyrim. One example I can think of is the mage guild quest-line, you basically work yourself up from a random guy who want to learn about magic (collecting recommendations from mage guild in each city), to the apprentice of arcane university, and finally becoming the Arcmage.

[IntoTheDarkness]

Euno17 wrote...

LOL people please.

Let me get this straight . . . in Skyrim (known as the game that never ends) you can spend upwards of 100+ hours on ONE GAME PLAY and people are saying ME-3 is better? what? Yeah i know, I'm saying Skyrim is better based off of a subjective thing as time-played but it just shows you how much more there is to DO in Skyrim. People complain about the bugs/glitches etc etc etc but at the end of the day there is just so much in Skyrim it makes ME-3 look pale in comparison.

So are you kidding me? Yeah the Skyrim story sucks so ME-3 is better in that area but come on now. If you play a game on one play through for a hundred hours - I'd say you got your money's worth and then some. Granted on the other hand - it does make it difficult to want to start another play through knowing just how freaking long of a game it is.... but seriously how long was ME-3? 25-30 hours? Maybe? Half the time spent trying to follow that horrible journal system? or 'Planet-scanning' for war-assets? How many 'side-quests' were there? And yes you have to include the 'ending' part of ME-3 to why Skyrim is just simply better.

Skyrim is a far and away better game. Period. And THIS time I'm actually going to say it's fact for all and not just for me SIMPLY due to this one fact - Skyrim had 5 years of development. 5 YEARS people. Skyrim had BETTER be the bettter game because it had 3 more years in development time and it shows in the sheer amount of content in the game. I still don't understand why they never put much effort into the main-story line . . . but w/e.

Imagine what ME-3 would have been with five years to develop the game. I still think GIVEN the time - Bioware could produce a far and away better game. I just don't think EA would ever give Bioware five years anymore without some sort of cut-backs on the team or something. The people behind Skyrim are okay with spending five years on a game - EA is not. That's just what it comes down to.

Just look at the number of copies sold for each game.

I GUARANTEE you, if ME-3 had 5 years of development time - people would have been buying the game in droves simply due to a good-word-of-mouth. Just an example of what a god-word-of-mouth system could do:

What was Skyrim's number of games sold? around 11 million copies. a 11 MILLION copies.

something tells me ME-3 won't reach 5 or maybe even 4 for that matter (overall).

Hell right now ME-3 hasn't even gone beyond the original ME numbers for 360 yet.

this. I can't believe BW fans think ME3 is a better game than Skyrim. So Skyrim's story sucks; that doens't make it a worse game. Bethesda and Bioware are two top RPG makers and the former spent 5 years while the latter spent 2 years. Skyrim is much better game than ME3 that does not even have an updating journal let alone all the bugs. Skyrim is full of bugs because it's at least 5 times larger(regadring playtime) than ME3.

Skyrim > ME3. period.

Modifié par IntoTheDarkness, 03 avril 2012 - 06:12 .

[LOLandStuff]

Skyrim had 5 years and it was for nothing.
Same dumb repeatable quests. Same voices everywhere. At least in Morrowind and Oblivion I could figure out which one was an elf and a human just by hearing their voice. Now I need to look for around to know who's what since they all sound the same.
The only thing you can do in Skyrim is run around and hit stuff.
Even the Guilds plot were weak. Before, you had titles and you worked your way to become master of the guild. Now it's just a few lousy quests, guy dies and voila. All hail me.
And it's a sandbox, of course you'll be playing it for hours. But there's nothing more than to just rampage the countryside. I didn't even get the feeling the world was ending.
In Morrowind it felt great knowing you were the Nerevarine. In Oblivion how you saved random cities from big bad monsters. In Skyrim...Yeah, so I can shout really loud.

[Cainne Chapel]

Length of a game means nothing in terms of how good it is. Thats a real silly argument to make.

I play ME because i like the story, plain and simple, I like the characters, etc. I dont like Skyrim, I dont like morrowind, I dont like oblivion so the argument is moot to me

ME3 is better than all 3 combined in my gaming terms. deal with it.

But again, completion time means nothing, Hell i know people who have 60hours for 1 ME3 playthrough. I'll take a 10hr action packed great story filled game over a 100hr bore fest anyday.

[Cainne Chapel]

Also if you're going to go witht he copies sold argument...

Does that mean CoD wipes the floor with Skyrim?

Come on now i know you guys like Skyrim but jeez, give it up, the games go after two completely different RPG/action sectors.

Its like comparing Madden to NBA live. Sure they're both sports games but thats it.

One doesn't mean you cant enjoy the other and see merits in both, nor does it mean you need to compare the two because they're on two different sports spectrums.

[Mylia Stenetch]

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

this. I can't believe BW fans think ME3 is a better game than Skyrim. So Skyrim's story sucks; that doens't make it a worse game. Bethesda and Bioware are two top RPG makers and the former spent 5 years while the latter spent 2 years. Skyrim is much better game than ME3 that does not even have an updating journal let alone all the bugs. Skyrim is full of bugs because it's at least 5 times larger(regadring playtime) than ME3.

Skyrim > ME3. period.

It does not matter how long a game is in terms of what is better. If that was true MMO are god's gift to the world since they want you playing till they shutdown.

I could care less about Skyrim, tried it, looks pretty..but I get bored of it and just stop playing. If I wanted an open-ending game I play D&D. Also playtime does not equate to bugs. Bethesda is horrid with bugs.

[Artemis_Entrari]

Skyrim beats ME3 in these areas:

1-Ending.  Not because Skyrim had a good ending, but because it didn't have a "OMG I want to smash everything I see in a fit of disappointment and rage" ending.

2-Sidequests.  The sidequests in Skyrim are both longer, and more indepth than the majority of what we got in ME3.  In ME3, the only sidequests of note were the ones that inevitably tied to the main story, with characters from our past.  The N7 missions were passable but short, and the "eavesdropping" fetch quests were just terrible.

Everything else, I'd rank ME3 ahead of Skyrim.

[Blooddrunk1004]

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

Skyrim beats ME3 in these areas:

1-Ending.  Not because Skyrim had a good ending, but because it didn't have a "OMG I want to smash everything I see in a fit of disappointment and rage" ending.

2-Sidequests.  The sidequests in Skyrim are both longer, and more indepth than the majority of what we got in ME3.  In ME3, the only sidequests of note were the ones that inevitably tied to the main story, with characters from our past.  The N7 missions were passable but short, and the "eavesdropping" fetch quests were just terrible.

Everything else, I'd rank ME3 ahead of Skyrim.

Sidequests have more indepth, you serious?
I rather have a sidequest that is connected with the storyline and also meet few of my previous squadmate rather then just fetch some random item or clear another dungeon or cave.  Sorry but that's 90% of sidequests in every Elder Scroll game. Hell, i was on the edge of my chair when i saw Grunt charging in Rachni swarm or when i entered Geth consenus, nothing like that ever happened in any Skyrim or Elder Scrolls sidequest

Modifié par Blooddrunk1004, 03 avril 2012 - 06:43 .

[_symphony]

Even though I agree you can't compare Skyrim with Mass Effect, is obviously true that Bethesda invests the time needed for produce Bethesda games, while BioWare doesn't get enough time for make BioWare games.

Mass Effect 3 was obviously rushed, Skyrim was not.

Modifié par _symphony, 03 avril 2012 - 06:46 .

[Cainne Chapel]

ME3 had the same dev time as ME2 and there was less of a gameplay change... so i think they had plenty of time.

Were there missteps? yes of course (same is true of any game really) but I dont feel that it was rushed.

[IntoTheDarkness]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

ME3 had the same dev time as ME2 and there was less of a gameplay change... so i think they had plenty of time.

Were there missteps? yes of course (same is true of any game really) but I dont feel that it was rushed.

have you ever heard of a journal system in RPG?

Modifié par IntoTheDarkness, 03 avril 2012 - 06:49 .

[Vaktathi]

Another thing to note, aside from the fact that ME3 had just as much dev time as the other two games, is that if ME3 was delayed 2 years, comparisons wouldn't be to Skyrim, Skyrim would have been out for closing on 3 years by that point, an eternity in gaming terms.

The issues with ME3 really don't feel time constrained. They feel like internal review & control mechanisms failed or were ignored, and that the team just wanted to be done with it. My personal opinion obviously, but given that the other 2 ME games had just as much dev time and the Final Hours app information, those latter issues seem more likely to me.

[Artemis_Entrari]

Blooddrunk1004 wrote...

Sidequests have more indepth, you serious?
I rather have a sidequest that is connected with the storyline and also meet few of my previous squadmate rather then just fetch some random item or clear another dungeon or cave.  Sorry but that's 90% of sidequests in every Elder Scroll game. Hell, i was on the edge of my chair when i saw Grunt charging in Rachni swarm or when i entered Geth consenus, nothing like that ever happened in any Skyrim or Elder Scrolls sidequest

More indepth, in that they require more time than just "eavesdrop to get quest, go to system to scan planet, return to dude you eavesdropped".  More indepth, in that some of them were "multiple" layers.  You'd be given a quest, but then after completing the objective of that quest, you find out there's another part of the quest still to go.

Then there's the faction quests that, while not exactly masterpiece storytelling, at least were all relatively lengthy in that they required more than one "quest" to complete.

The one example you mentioned is one of the rare exceptions, along with perhaps 2 or 3 others along the way.  But the vast majority of ME3's sidequests were incredibly thin compared to that.

Modifié par Artemis_Entrari, 03 avril 2012 - 06:53 .

[_symphony]

BioWare didn't know what to do with the ending until the very last months of development, there was a thread about it. We aren't talking about software bugs, we're talking about the game's plot, it was rushed.

[Tetra Matera]

I always find it funny when people talk about games having repetitive and A -> B sidequests then use Skyrim as an example of sidequests done right, i must have been playing a different game because that is exactly what Skyrim was.