1087 réponses à ce sujet

[Fireblader70]

If we're talking about the game on its own standing, I think it definitely has a chance. All of the problems the fans have arise from their experience with previous games, whereas someone who has not played ME1 or ME2 will not even notice such changes (obviously).

But let's be honest - it will be judged for being the conclusion to a beloved trilogy. Will auto-dialogue, lack of 'neutral' options (never saw what was so 'neutral' about them), consequences of decisions being based more on context and fetch quests be considered as lowering the quality of the title? Who knows.

And, yeah, I assume the ending fiasco will play a part - large or small.

[Simocrates]

jreezy wrote...

All negatives:
- Deus ex machina being the only solution to the Reaper threat.
- Auto-dialogue taking choice away from the player.
- Trivialization of the decision to kill Wrex or keep him alive. Tuchanka plays out basically the same.
- Trivialization of the Suicide Mission with simple replacements for secondary characters.
- Rachni decision from Mass Effect doesn't matter. We still run into some "clone".
- Lack of squad member customization appearance wise. That was a problem in Mass Effect 2 as well though.
- Atrocious cover mechanic consistency. Button mapping is a nightmare for game usability.
- Collector base decision? Oh look, it doesn't matter. What else is new though?
- Horrible animations.

I could list more but I don't feel like it.

- It is near impossible to have a truly unique and original thought let alone story. If stories, movies and games didn't take a little from each other we would never gain new content.
-If by auto dialogue taking choice away from the player you mean the last dialogue then I have to disagree with you. What choice would you want at the end there? The ability to interrupt the catalyst and then what? Stand around never making a decision.
-The Wrex decision wasn't trivialised, there was consequences to this choice even if it only resulted in 50 assest points. The fact that he could die in the previous games and not return is a consequence in itself.
-Again they did not trivialise the consequences, those characters who died were gone. This means you don't get the assest points from them, your game will be different no matter how small you think the difference is.
-BioWare explained that they changed their mind on the Rachni, they didn't want new players or people who made a regretful decision to miss out on a whole chunk of story/gameplay. Funny thing about the game being their IP means they can make that decision. Don't pretend you've never changed your mind about something.
-You got to choose different outfits which provided different bonuses to your squadmates. That is a lot more customisation than you get in other games. This isn't the Sims, youdon't get to spend an hour in the dressing room trying to get Garrus' curls to shine.
-The cover system was fine. The keybindings were adequate considering you can pause the game at any time.
-Maybe the Human Reaper survived the explosion, I don't see this as an issue. Cerberus could easily use the Omega Relay now that they knew the Reaper IFF worked. Salvage crews are entirely possible.
-Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, you didn't like the animations that is your opinion but to flat out say it was a sign of laziness on the people who worked on them is plain disrespectful. Remember that picture you drew mummy and daddy and they put it on the fridge? Yeah that wasn't art that was crap.

In my opinion you haven't listed anything really negative about the game, just your opinion which unfortunately for you is not fact.

[Detsaot]

Fireblader70 wrote...

If we're talking about the game on its own standing, I think it definitely has a chance. All of the problems the fans have arise from their experience with previous games, whereas someone who has not played ME1 or ME2 will not even notice such changes (obviously).

But let's be honest - it will be judged for being the conclusion to a beloved trilogy. Will auto-dialogue, lack of 'neutral' options (never saw what was so 'neutral' about them), consequences of decisions being based more on context and fetch quests be considered as lowering the quality of the title? Who knows.

And, yeah, I assume the ending fiasco will play a part - large or small.

ME3 up until the end was mediocre (the end was just bad).  As a Third Person Shooter it was mediocre and as an RPG it was mediocre.  If ME3 is even in the running for Game of the Year, the gaming industry is in severe trouble.

[deuce985]

It's my GOTY and I don't see anything beating it. The year is weak for upcoming gaming and even if it wasn't, I still doubt anything would beat ME3 as my GOTY.

[RobotMilk]

Yes.

The very end may have let some of us down, but the rest was (almost) pure gold.

[OMTING52601]

Detsaot wrote...

ME3 up until the end was mediocre (the end was just bad).  As a Third Person Shooter it was mediocre and as an RPG it was mediocre.  If ME3 is even in the running for Game of the Year, the gaming industry is in severe trouble.

LOL, the gaming industry is in severe trouble. Part due to this gen of consoles having pretty close to hit their life span and part due to crappy earnings across a lot of sectors as the whole globe battles bad economies. The industry is down more than 25% from last year and that doesn't look to get any better, really, this year. 

IF ME 3 is in the running for GOTY it'll only be so that the video game 'press' can further prove their direct affiliation, and brown nosing, of the industry proper. For the same reason that the loudest groups frothing angrily over ME 3 are generally tuned out, so too must all the frothing at the mouth OMG this game is AWESOME vg journalists must also be ignored. I figure GOTY will go to something more evenly rated and less controversial, FWIW.

[Pinkflamingo22]

Why do people claim the rest of the game besides the ending was so good? It wasn't. Throughout the game no choices matter, dead characters are simply replaced and many events (like Kal Reeger's death in ME3) are simplified to emails.

No ME3 is not GOTY worthy. Not a chance. The only thing improved about ME3 was the combat, and weapon system, everything else fell apart.

Modifié par Pinkflamingo22, 12 juin 2012 - 09:42 .

[PaulSX]

Detsaot wrote...

Fireblader70 wrote...

If we're talking about the game on its own standing, I think it definitely has a chance. All of the problems the fans have arise from their experience with previous games, whereas someone who has not played ME1 or ME2 will not even notice such changes (obviously).

But let's be honest - it will be judged for being the conclusion to a beloved trilogy. Will auto-dialogue, lack of 'neutral' options (never saw what was so 'neutral' about them), consequences of decisions being based more on context and fetch quests be considered as lowering the quality of the title? Who knows.

And, yeah, I assume the ending fiasco will play a part - large or small.

ME3 up until the end was mediocre (the end was just bad).  As a Third Person Shooter it was mediocre and as an RPG it was mediocre.  If ME3 is even in the running for Game of the Year, the gaming industry is in severe trouble.

but ME3 is a great adventure game and fabulous interactive cinema (as it should have been).

edit: just a note: ME1 was a mediocre RPG and bad TPS
                              ME2 was a medicore TPS and bad RPG
                              so ME3 is still better these two games.

Modifié par suntzuxi, 12 juin 2012 - 10:01 .

[Fireblader70]

Detsaot wrote...

Fireblader70 wrote...

If we're talking about the game on its own standing, I think it definitely has a chance. All of the problems the fans have arise from their experience with previous games, whereas someone who has not played ME1 or ME2 will not even notice such changes (obviously).

But let's be honest - it will be judged for being the conclusion to a beloved trilogy. Will auto-dialogue, lack of 'neutral' options (never saw what was so 'neutral' about them), consequences of decisions being based more on context and fetch quests be considered as lowering the quality of the title? Who knows.

And, yeah, I assume the ending fiasco will play a part - large or small.

ME3 up until the end was mediocre (the end was just bad).  As a Third Person Shooter it was mediocre and as an RPG it was mediocre.  If ME3 is even in the running for Game of the Year, the gaming industry is in severe trouble.

I didn't realise you spoke for millions of people. Sorry

Many people outside of the BSN, from what I can see, only have a massive problem with the ending and love the rest of the game. If you judge that as the gaming industry being in severe trouble, then so be it. That is your opinion, after all...

[Darthlawsuit]

No.... "My little pony and the quest for lulz" would have a better chance than this pile of ****.

[luk3us]

Its not worthy of the title of GOTY for one simple reason.

The extended cut.

If the game was so good it wouldn't need it, the fact Bioware admit the ending was so bad that they have to clarify their intentions. Yip that takes it out of the contender list, though that isn't to say it isn't a good game, just not GOTY level.

[Landline]

Not even close.

It set up the pins and threw a gutter ball.

[MerchantGOL]

slyguy200 wrote...

Look, it is just not GOTY worthy. You can pretend that it is all you want, but that doesn't change anything. The game was mediocre, and the ending did not help that. The writing was bad, the gameplay was not sufficient for extended play, it was rushed, lazy, kinda boring at times, had only a few good parts, and made a lot of your previous actions/choices seem completely irrelevant. All in all, it was not worth the money spent, nor any claims at GOTY... except from maybe IGN, who had an employee in the game.

This is bull ****? bad writingm hardly, if you find one game this year tha thits all the emotional ntoes as perfectly as me3 ill be surpised. Sayign your choices were ireelvant is all so bull****, as pretty much eveyr choice somes back in some way,  from charcter cameo, to just throw away lines. TO say it wasn't worthy of the money spent, is bull ****,  as it is a great game, great game play, great scense, quote ect.

[indyracing]

Any critic/website/magazine that calls this a Game of the Year contender - much less winner - does not deserve to be a game critic/website/magazine, just on the basis that the story is so bad.

The story, if it were to make sense with the rest of the game, needs a couple hours of gameplay added for the end to approach making sense, but as part of the trilogy of Mass Effect (and it's gameplay up to the point the beam shows up), the ending simply does not fit this game (or this trilogy).

It would be like playing a Call of Duty game where the last mission is an RTS mission based in the 1700's.

[Flubberlub]

GOTY
Every time a game gets this, the developers will, try as they might, add to the game itself. As long as they add something substantial to the story, and give the game an overall overhaul, then yes.

[MerchantGOL]

slyguy200 wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

slyguy200 wrote...

Look, it is just not GOTY worthy. You can pretend that it is all you want, but that doesn't change anything. The game was mediocre, and the ending did not help that. The writing was bad, the gameplay was not sufficient for extended play, it was rushed, lazy, kinda boring at times, had only a few good parts, and made a lot of your previous actions/choices seem completely irrelevant. All in all, it was not worth the money spent, nor any claims at GOTY... except from maybe IGN, who had an employee in the game.

This is bull ****? bad writingm hardly, if you find one game this year tha thits all the emotional ntoes as perfectly as me3 ill be surpised. Sayign your choices were ireelvant is all so bull****, as pretty much eveyr choice somes back in some way,  from charcter cameo, to just throw away lines. TO say it wasn't worthy of the money spent, is bull ****,  as it is a great game, great game play, great scense, quote ect.

Like i said there were a few good parts in ME3 that hit emotional gold, but that doesn't make up for the rest of the games faults. The game seems to play out exactly the same way, no matter what you have done in the previous games.

.

you mean  like every other game?

also their is abig difrence to tone, how the mission gets done, and why you would choose a certain outcoum if for example wwrex is alive or dead.

tis gmae has very little "faults"

[LuckySe7enty]

personally i dont want to see me3 win, it doesnt deserve it. looking through various websites i think assassins creed 3 will win it easy.