1087 réponses à ce sujet

[RukiaKuchki]

SalsaDMA wrote...

RukiaKuchki wrote...

Definately...I don't think anything else so far this year can compete with Bioware's accomplishment. It would be a pretty controversial choice with fans for obvious reasons, but I still maintain that even when Bioware makes a mis-step, they are still infinately better than 99% of other studios out there right now. People need to rein-in this fixation with EA buying off the gaming media - how could they discretely buy off everyone who gave ME3 a near-perfect score (from the internet giants like IGN to the more low key websites)? There's obvioulsy a discrepancy between what those most vocal of fans think and what those who have reviewed the game think - there are a million reasons for this, none of which may be associted with anything nefarious. You just have to accept that reviews are not 'facts', they are a person's opinion. Unless ofcourse you have been paid by Activision to come to these forums to start trouble...

I think you are misunderstanding part of how the business works in that area.

It's not a matter of actively buying out everyone.

It's a passive unspoken threat of NOT buying ad space with the ones that don't play ball with them.

They only have to make use of it every now and then, to make a point, and the reviewers will fall in line all by themselves.

Do you honestly think any system of implied threats works by active actions all the time? Go read up on some history if you fail to understand how this kind of supression works.

This could explain the reaction of certain media sites, but not others - those more vocal, independent ones that aren't dependent on advertising revenue from companies like EA. Paranoia and the fabrication of an 'us vs them' mentality is not only immature and naive, but it clouds the real issue here, which is the fact that some game reviewers appear to have lost touch with their audience. But that is a topic for another thread.

Your argument is a classic one that you will use when it suits you - if you agree with a review, well, it's obviously fair and balanced, and should be applauded. If you disagree with the review, well...someone has obviously been paid off - or had their right to independant expression 'supressed'. You aren't the only person to think this way, but you should be aware of just how silly it is.

[SalsaDMA]

RukiaKuchki wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

RukiaKuchki wrote...

Definately...I don't think anything else so far this year can compete with Bioware's accomplishment. It would be a pretty controversial choice with fans for obvious reasons, but I still maintain that even when Bioware makes a mis-step, they are still infinately better than 99% of other studios out there right now. People need to rein-in this fixation with EA buying off the gaming media - how could they discretely buy off everyone who gave ME3 a near-perfect score (from the internet giants like IGN to the more low key websites)? There's obvioulsy a discrepancy between what those most vocal of fans think and what those who have reviewed the game think - there are a million reasons for this, none of which may be associted with anything nefarious. You just have to accept that reviews are not 'facts', they are a person's opinion. Unless ofcourse you have been paid by Activision to come to these forums to start trouble...

I think you are misunderstanding part of how the business works in that area.

It's not a matter of actively buying out everyone.

It's a passive unspoken threat of NOT buying ad space with the ones that don't play ball with them.

They only have to make use of it every now and then, to make a point, and the reviewers will fall in line all by themselves.

Do you honestly think any system of implied threats works by active actions all the time? Go read up on some history if you fail to understand how this kind of supression works.

This could explain the reaction of certain media sites, but not others - those more vocal, independent ones that aren't dependent on advertising revenue from companies like EA. Paranoia and the fabrication of an 'us vs them' mentality is not only immature and naive, but it clouds the real issue here, which is the fact that some game reviewers appear to have lost touch with their audience. But that is a topic for another thread.

Your argument is a classic one that you will use when it suits you - if you agree with a review, well, it's obviously fair and balanced, and should be applauded. If you disagree with the review, well...someone has obviously been paid off - or had their right to independant expression 'supressed'. You aren't the only person to think this way, but you should be aware of just how silly it is.

You are assigning opinions and statements to me that I have not made.

Please refrain from doing so if you want a sober discussion.

[Knubbsal]

I paid very little for ME 1 and ME2 digital deluxe, so I'm not that disappointed for buying ME3 digital deluxe version. But I only played through 3 once since I expected more of it. Not playing 1 and 2 any more either, there's no point if the endings are like they are... On the other side, I'm having a good time on multiplayer.

[eldingo12]

GOTY? Nope, not even close. I can hear it now "but they got 75 perfect scores" and my response to that is "well, that just proves there are 75 reviewers who didn't beat the game."

[Exeider]

eldingo12 wrote...

GOTY? Nope, not even close. I can hear it now "but they got 75 perfect scores" and my response to that is "well, that just proves there are 75 reviewers who didn't beat the game."

or understand story writing, because that kind of logic could be applied to movies, books, tv.

-Æ

[MerchantGOL]

eldingo12 wrote...

GOTY? Nope, not even close. I can hear it now "but they got 75 perfect scores" and my response to that is "well, that just proves there are 75 reviewers who didn't beat the game."

Yes because an entire game is bad Because the endign is bad herp derp

Thats stupid, If its a great game [Story, Game play, charactes ect] Then its a great game, Period.

Professionals Get this.

It got 75 Perfect scores cause it was that good a game.

Modifié par MerchantGOL, 06 juin 2012 - 04:35 .

[Jackgord]

Idk who pick GOTY but I bet they would agree with 75 perfect scores. I support the endings, by the way.

[Hevilath]

Plain and simple. No.

[eldingo12]

MerchantGOL wrote...

eldingo12 wrote...

GOTY? Nope, not even close. I can hear it now "but they got 75 perfect scores" and my response to that is "well, that just proves there are 75 reviewers who didn't beat the game."

Yes because an entire game is bad Because the endign is bad herp derp

Thats stupid, If its a great game [Story, Game play, charactes ect] Then its a great game, Period.

Professionals Get this.

It got 75 Perfect scores cause it was that good a game.

I'm missing the part where I said it was bad.  I see me saying it is not perfect...  I see me saying it doesn't deserve GOTY....   Still can't see where I said it was bad though.  Mind pointing it out?    "Not perfect" and 'bad" are not the same thing.  Professionals Get This....lol

[Matt251287]

No f*****g way,

I don't know how you even entertain the idea?

Games like 'Half-Life' and 'Homeworld' are GOTY material,


that said, i just looked at some lists and some really garbage games have got GOTY from certain publications, i can only fathom that the whole industry is in intellectual decline.


PS, it was sloppy before the ending.

[woxi]

Yes.

[mauro2222]

MerchantGOL wrote...

eldingo12 wrote...

GOTY? Nope, not even close. I can hear it now "but they got 75 perfect scores" and my response to that is "well, that just proves there are 75 reviewers who didn't beat the game."

Yes because an entire game is bad Because the endign is bad herp derp

Thats stupid, If its a great game [Story, Game play, charactes ect] Then its a great game, Period.

Professionals Get this.

It got 75 Perfect scores cause it was that good a game.

Oh yes! Because the ending is just the only problem.

[Nicksta92]

Unfortunately, no. There was no exploration at all, the entire game was very streamlined, and nearly everything it attempted other than the story itself was rather mediocre. DLC can improve all of this, but because it didnt live up to either ME1 or ME2, i would say it sadly doesnt get GOTY in my book.

[Bogsnot]

Just so that there are no misunderstandings.

[Phategod1]

With all the postponements the only competition for ME3 (regardless about how YOU personally feel about it) is Assassins Creed III (AC3) and a revolutionary as that game might be at the end of the day that game will more likely suffer the same problem as ME3 to even a greater degree because of weakness of the current day story.

Modifié par Phategod1, 07 juin 2012 - 10:33 .

[royceclemens]

No matter what wins GOTY, 2011 will be the year of Mass Effect 3.

Look at the conversations it sparked: Developer hubris. Consumer's rights. Objectivity in reviews. The disparity between review scores and public reception. What does a gamer have the right to demand? What does a developer have the right to deny?

These were all conversations that NEEDED to be had, and Mass Effect 3 brought them all kicking and screaming into the forefront where evryone could see them; on gaming sites. Not message boards where only the hardest of the hardcore can see them. Everyone who cares about games at all talked about Mass Effect 3, no matter where they stood on these issues or if they even played the games at all.

So quality-wise? No. Hell no. I can name a few games this year off the top of my head that are better than ME3 and it's only June. But when the dust settles, Mass Effect 3 will be the most relevant game of the year, if not the best. It's quite possibly the most relevant game of the past five years. Just not for the reasons BioWare intended.

Or wanted, for that matter.

[Han Shot First]

GOTY?

No. While I think Mass Effect 3 was *mostly* a great game, it all sort of unravelled at the end. In order to be truly worthy of being mentioned as a game of the year candidate, a game has to be great from start to finish. ME1 and ME2 were legitimate GOTY candidates but ME3 is not.

I say that with some sadness as well, as I had thought ME3 was the best chapter in the series right up until the end.

[Dunsky5]

Maybe. Not counting the ending it sure has a chance but it just doesn't seem to have the luster that 1 & 2 had.

[dmonorato]

eldingo12 wrote...

GOTY? Nope, not even close. I can hear it now "but they got 75 perfect scores" and my response to that is "well, that just proves there are 75 reviewers who didn't beat the game."

You mean they bought 75 perfect scores...and hell no to game of the year not even close

[SwitchN7]

Still holding the line.YES! ME3 is GOTY worthy and then some(Just IMO EC will make it better if only slightly).In BIOWARE we trust was my MOTTO.Waiting to refuel it.

Modifié par SwitchN7, 08 juin 2012 - 11:23 .

[spyro396]

No, game of the year willl go to Far Cry 3 or Halo 4 most likely

[NOD-INFORMER37]

Forced one way ending aside? Absof-inglutely.

Otherwise I'm not so sure....