239 réponses à ce sujet

[liggy002]

Firesaber82 wrote...

that's the thing tho. NO game deserves a 'perfect score'. But they hand them out like candy. I remember when a 9/10 in PCGamer (the actual magazine) was something really rare and made you take notice.

Metal Gear Solid 4 wasn't perfect but it definitely deserved a 9/10 or better.  Mass Effect 3 did not.

[SmokePants]

All of those "legitimate" 9+ games you mentioned have their share of detractors that don't see how THEY could get such high scores. Mass Effect 3 is certainly in that upper-echelon.

The tinfoil hat nonsense about EA buying reviews is just that. If they were doing that, it would not be a secret. All it takes is one person that can't be bribed to break that story wide open, and then suddenly the sites that were on the take have a serious credibility problem.

Not saying that EVERYTHING is on the up-and-up. Some shady stuff does happen. Some companies do threaten to pull ads for reviews they feel are unfair or inaccurate. And publishers usually grant exclusives to reviewers they feel are going to be more favorable to them. But there is no direct greasing of palms happening. Otherwise, everyone would be doing it and everything would be getting 10/10, and everyone would catch on to what was going on and stop reading.

Also "prefect scores" is just the wrong way to look at it. If you get an A, does that mean you wrote a perfect paper? Not necessarily.

Nothing is perfect, should they just not use the maximum score because some inexperienced folks might get the wrong idea?

Modifié par SmokePants, 21 avril 2012 - 10:43 .

[hopeisreal]

Huskeonkel wrote...

Really, if the ending had been even remotely close to what we had hoped and expected, we would have given it a "perfect score" too. There are some other very minute errors, but apart from the ending, its a very solid game.

No. Disagree. Too many other errors and mishaps that don't make it worth a NINE out of ten.

[sth88]

It's pretty clear to me that some reviewers didn't finish the game, and many of those who did weren't really invested in the game's lore in the first place, so they didn't pick up on all the problems (they just got swept up in it's artsy feel).

[robertm2]

i would say an 8.5 tops if you compare it to the other games. and i liked the ending. the relationships were bad for me2 characters the new characters took away attention from the characters we know and love. The side quests were really stupid and the game was much shorter as a result. Also there was a large dip in interactive dialogue even though the game had the most lines of recorded dialogue(most of it was just random people that you listen to while they talk). The only thing that was better is the combat and controls.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

They weren't critical or academic reviews.

[hopeisreal]

SmokePants wrote...

All of those "legitimate" 9+ games you mentioned have their share of detractors that don't see how THEY could get such high scores. Mass Effect 3 is certainly in that upper-echelon.

The tinfoil hat nonsense about EA buying reviews is just that. If they were doing that, it would not be a secret. All it takes is one person that can't be bribed to break that story wide open, and then suddenly the sites that were on the take have a serious credibility problem.

Not saying that EVERYTHING is on the up-and-up. Some shady stuff does happen. Some companies do threaten to pull ads for reviews they feel are unfair or inaccurate. And publishers usually grant exclusives to reviewers they feel are going to be more favorable to them. But there is no direct greasing of palms happening. Otherwise, everyone would be doing it and everything would be getting 10/10, and everyone would catch on to what was going on and stop reading.

Also "prefect scores" is just the wrong way to look at it. If you get an A, does that mean you wrote a perfect paper? Not necessarily.

Nothing is perfect, should they just not use the maximum score because some inexperienced folks might get the wrong idea?

I would like to hear from those who think Uncharted 2, Halo 1, GTA 3 and so forth are UNWORTHY of their praise?

Mass Effect 3 does not belong anywhere near those games that were PERFECTED by their developers.

[Turtlicious]

hopeisreal wrote...

 

How is this possible?

How?

How is it even possible for the game to get a 9? Meaning it only had MINIMAL problems.

It's things like this that lead one to believe.....(okay, don't want to get banned...yet)

But gimme a break. There are so many issues with this game and when you compare it to the likes of GTA 4, Uncharted 2, Halo, Gears of War....it falls VERY short of those games. And those games are in the 9 and PERFECT category. 

So really....were the reviewers either on crack cocaine skonta riga? Or.....again....don't want to go down that road....

Red Dead Redemption didn't even get that many perfect scores.

hopeisreal wrote...

SmokePants wrote...

All
of those "legitimate" 9+ games you mentioned have their share of
detractors that don't see how THEY could get such high scores. Mass
Effect 3 is certainly in that upper-echelon.

The tinfoil hat
nonsense about EA buying reviews is just that. If they were doing that,
it would not be a secret. All it takes is one person that can't be
bribed to break that story wide open, and then suddenly the sites that
were on the take have a serious credibility problem.

Not saying
that EVERYTHING is on the up-and-up. Some shady stuff does happen. Some
companies do threaten to pull ads for reviews they feel are unfair or
inaccurate. And publishers usually grant exclusives to reviewers they
feel are going to be more favorable to them. But there is no direct
greasing of palms happening. Otherwise, everyone would be doing it and
everything would be getting 10/10, and everyone would catch on to what
was going on and stop reading.

Also "prefect scores" is just the
wrong way to look at it. If you get an A, does that mean you wrote a
perfect paper? Not necessarily.

Nothing is perfect, should they just not use the maximum score because some inexperienced folks might get the wrong idea?

I would like to hear from those who think Uncharted 2, Halo 1, GTA 3 and so forth are UNWORTHY of their praise?

Mass Effect 3 does not belong anywhere near those games that were PERFECTED by their developers.

Especially on their respective forums.

Modifié par Turtlicious, 21 avril 2012 - 10:48 .

[Zulmoka531]

Eterna5 wrote...

xxskyshadowxx wrote...

Cuz EA buys advertising from all of those reviewers, and even included one in the game.

You have proof of this I assume. 

Back when Dragon Age 2 came out, Ea and Bioware employees were caught red handed putting up perfect review scores for the games on various sites. It's not hard to imagine one step, leading to another.

I've no issue if people loved every ounce of the game, but sometimes a biased review, is just an outright biased fixed review.

[hopeisreal]

liggy002 wrote...

Firesaber82 wrote...

that's the thing tho. NO game deserves a 'perfect score'. But they hand them out like candy. I remember when a 9/10 in PCGamer (the actual magazine) was something really rare and made you take notice.

Metal Gear Solid 4 wasn't perfect but it definitely deserved a 9/10 or better.  Mass Effect 3 did not.

Aaaah....the days when like two or three games EVER got 10/10 and like VERY VERY few games got a 9/10


Aaaaah... da good old dayz (arnie voice from predator)

[Turtlicious]

Zulmoka531 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

xxskyshadowxx wrote...

Cuz EA buys advertising from all of those reviewers, and even included one in the game.

You have proof of this I assume. 

Back when Dragon Age 2 came out, Ea and Bioware employees were caught red handed putting up perfect review scores for the games on various sites. It's not hard to imagine one step, leading to another.

I've no issue if people loved every ounce of the game, but sometimes a biased review, is just an outright biased fixed review.

http://www.escapistm...Scandal-UPDATED

Proof provided.

[NUM13ER]

The way I see it the sheer amount of perfect scores underline a clear difference between how major games critics judged Mass Effect 3 and what actual gamers made of it. I do find it odd indeed that I only read of a handful of reviews after it's release that even mentioned the ending could be somewhat polarising. Never mind spark controversy. Many others even spoke of satisfying conclusions and questions answered. Whatever you think of the finale it is undeniably open-ended.

Now the logical question most people ask is why was there this clear disconnect between reviewers and players? Is it the unlikely scenario that the people that review games are not in synch with the people that play them anymore? I highly doubt it. Most reviewers are in fact avid gamers. So it's only a matter of time before people think that high profile games are getting preferential treatment. And only one thing earns you that in the business world. Money.

Modifié par NUM13ER, 21 avril 2012 - 10:52 .

[hopeisreal]

And you can put Red Dead Redemption in that echelon that ME3 does not belong to.

A game where you can tell...TIME, EFFORT AND CARE went into making it

[Zulmoka531]

Turtlicious wrote...

Zulmoka531 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

xxskyshadowxx wrote...

Cuz EA buys advertising from all of those reviewers, and even included one in the game.

You have proof of this I assume. 

Back when Dragon Age 2 came out, Ea and Bioware employees were caught red handed putting up perfect review scores for the games on various sites. It's not hard to imagine one step, leading to another.

I've no issue if people loved every ounce of the game, but sometimes a biased review, is just an outright biased fixed review.

http://www.escapistm...Scandal-UPDATED

Proof provided.

Thank you for posting that. Makes it sound as though I wasn't just talking out of my ass.

[hopeisreal]

NUM13ER wrote...

The way I see it the sheer amount of perfect scores underline a clear difference between how major games critics judged Mass Effect 3 and what actual gamers made of it. I do find it odd indeed that I only read of a handful of reviews after it's release that even mentioned the ending could be somewhat polarising. Never mind spark controversy. Many others even spoke of satisfying conclusions and questions answered. Whatever you think of the finale it is undeniably open-ended.

Now the logical question most people ask is why was there this clear disconnect between reviewers and players? Is it the unlikely scenario that the people that review games are not in synch with the people that play them anymore? I highly doubt it. Most reviewers are in fact avid gamers. So it's only a matter of time before people think that high profile games are getting preferential treatment. And only one thing earns you that in the business world. Money.

There is a gap now. 

When IGN started, they were my basis for if I knew a game was legit or not. That was when not many people knew about them and gamers ran the site.

Fast forward to now and ms. Chobot has brought her legion of fans, they have expanded to an entertainment site and they are now known and famous. So they are no longer those gamers who review games, they are now just a bunch of guys who are now "cool" because they get freebies and invited to the parties and so forth.....


In short....I really have not read reviews from most sites in a long time

[Firesaber82]

hopeisreal wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

Firesaber82 wrote...

that's the thing tho. NO game deserves a 'perfect score'. But they hand them out like candy. I remember when a 9/10 in PCGamer (the actual magazine) was something really rare and made you take notice.

Metal Gear Solid 4 wasn't perfect but it definitely deserved a 9/10 or better.  Mass Effect 3 did not.

Aaaah....the days when like two or three games EVER got 10/10 and like VERY VERY few games got a 9/10


Aaaaah... da good old dayz (arnie voice from predator)

Ususally those games really were well done tho. You could trust that a high score was a quality product. even if you tried it, and didn't like it, it was either due to gameply (maybe you don't like RTS that much and it was an RTS) or you didn't like the story (like how not everyone likes fantasy or scifi)...but you could see the game was deserving of scores.

I blame the current day score blot on teh consoles. I feel it was about the time of the Xbox we started seeing all of these 10/10 reviews.  Some of the first games I remember getting 10/10 were Halo and GTA3...but they were Genre defining.  They were something refreshing, new, and well built.

[Inutaisho7996]

No game is ever perfect. If the best a game can ever get is 9/10, why make your scale go up to ten?

Perfect scores aren't given to perfect games. They're given to games when their flaws are insignificant when they're compared to what's good about them. 75 people were willing to ignore the Mass Effect 3's flaws when they looked back at how much fun the rest of the game was.

[viperabyss]

Kaelef wrote...

I don't disagree with the problems you pointed out, but I also don't think there's any game in existence that's completely free of issues.  Certainly none of the games that have been given perfect scores in the past have been literally perfect.  I always read a "10" as "nearly flawless" or "a fantastic experience that everyone should try".

I agree that no game in history has been flawless. But "nearly perfect" implies the developers have done their best to improve the game.

Mass Effect 3, with it's good points, are far from nearly perfect. Being the successor of ME2, ME3 should've been better than it. Instead, in a lot of aspects, ME3 is markedly worse than ME2. It is very obvious they haven't put in a lot of time in other aspects of the game.

[bloodstalker1973]

Reviews are completely messed up anyway. There always seems to be a bandwagoin mentality on the games that score really high.

Then, in a few months to a year, those same sites that give a game a perfect review start talking about how important it is for the next game in the series to fix the sudden multitude of problems they now have with the last game that they had pretty much declared "perfect" with their review in the first place.

[txgoldrush]

waaah waah waaah

Face facts....people liked the game and the MINOR issues don't detract the experience. None of you whining can change this.....people like Kevin V at Gamepsot LIKED THE ENDING!!!!

And you people are hypocrites....Bioware games have never been truly polished and the side quest content was lacking the ENTIRE series.

[Sublyminal]

It's possible because the reviewers only played the game to taking down TIM's base.

[txgoldrush]

hopeisreal wrote...

And you can put Red Dead Redemption in that echelon that ME3 does not belong to.

A game where you can tell...TIME, EFFORT AND CARE went into making it

Too bad that many bugs made it in....

Nevermind that the story had horrific pacing problems and that most of the characters were one dimensional comical characters where Marston had to do pointless tasks for just to add content.

Or that Marston can start a massacre and still be a good character in cutscenes....plot and gemeplay segregation.

[EagleScoutDJB]

viperabyss wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

If you grade the ending with the same weight as every other part of the game (i.e. it's no more/less important than the rest), then the game is nearly perfect. Unfortunately, the ending should weigh much more than the rest of the game.

Sorry, but I disagree.

Without the ending, other problems include:

1. Bugs (especially on the Normandy)
2. Horrible side-quest system
3. Horrible journal system
4. Lack of character dialogue
5. Lack of dialogue wheels
6. Lack of explorable area
7. Lack of vehicular action

There are definitely some good points in the game, such as the Tuchanka arc, the Rannoch arc, and some other missions such as the Ardat-Yakshi Temple. But if I were to rate this game, not putting any bias into the ending, I would've given this game an 8.

This game is a far cry from a quality product, let alone a perfect 10.

This

Every game has some flaws but ME3 felt like the flaws overwhelm the good parts.  Not saying it's not worth playing but it's far from perfect.

[txgoldrush]

Sublyminal wrote...

It's possible because the reviewers only played the game to taking down TIM's base.

or that many reviewers LIKED the ending or admitted that it is polarizing.

[FreshRevenge]

do we have proof of  all 75 perfect scores? I think they need to back up that claim with some evidence!

Modifié par FreshRevenge, 21 avril 2012 - 11:12 .