239 réponses à ce sujet

[viperabyss]

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

First of all, we all know people like Kevin V, who reviews games for a living, wouldn't have conflict of interest when he's reviewing a game made by a company that buys massive advertising space on his website .

And secondly, sure, Bioware probably isn't very good at sidequests, but ME3's sidequests and journal system is significantly worse than the ME2, which they also made.

Lastly, I'm sure being condescending is a good way to get your point across....

[Cadence of the Planes]

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....

It's called marketing and alliances

[LucasShark]

Oh who honestly cares anymore: they gave Halo 3, Gears of war 3, CoD 10,000, and Battlefield 9,000 perfect scores too, reviewers are significantly over-valued.

[Xellith]

Polarizing the audience is what they wanted and what happened. There are some who say "I dont understand what happened - therefore the ending is awesome!". And there are others who say "I dont understand that happened - therefore the ending is trash!".

ME3 is just terrible imo. I tend to stand it side by side with ME2 - by doing that I can draw a direct comparison between the two. This makes ME3 look like crap to be honest. ME2 is a far superior game in almost every department.

[hopeisreal]

Sidequests in ME3? really?

I remember them in part 1 and 2 tho...

[Computron2000]

Gamespot canned someone for not giving a game a high enough score when the maker of that game paid very good money to buy advertising spots on the site. Old news i know, but some of the newer people might not know. Link below

http://en.wikipedia..../Jeff_Gerstmann

[txgoldrush]

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.

1. Bugs (especially on the Normandy)

And other Bioware games didn't have bugs...or other well reviewed games like Skyrim.

2. Horrible side-quest system

Not worse than the other two games...nevermind the cut and paste side quest system of ME1, also causing a huge plothole in the story.

3. Horrible journal system

Easily worked around by 100%-ing every cluster and turning them all in.

4. Lack of character dialogue

WRONG...there is MORE character dialogue and BETTER quality dialogue. More than ME1 and ME2.

5. Lack of dialogue wheels

Not a problem was the wheel was what caused Shepard to be not so well written for the most part in the first two games, having him resort to many poorly written one liners because the player input caused the conversations to be less natural. Less wheel but SMARTER wheel.

6.  Lack of explorable area

I don't know....maybe because you know...the Reapers are invading, which makes sense.

7. Lack of vehicular action

Nevermind the vehicles were not liked by many fans of th efirst two games.

[daguest]

I don't think journalists are bought or something. At least most of the time. But imagine a second a journalist, from IGN or something important, give a bad review of a game like ME3, waited by millions fans. If most of the fans love the game, everyone will then claim your article was really bad, and you should be fired. Also, if you are the only one taking this risk (and you will probably be), your website/whatever will loose in credibility. People will just say "oh they use to say **** about bioware games, don't read them".
It's a very dangerous step to take. Either you hope people will follow you, or loose your job.

You will not see a lot of bad review on "big" game like ME3, COD, any blizzard game... That's just too risky. Some of them will take the risk once the game is out, when a lot (read the vast majority) is complaining, but not before. And I'm talking about millions of people, and you can also include the thousands of them downloading the game illegally, those people also read game review, and have an opinion on what you say.

[NubXL]

Mass Effect 3 has proven there's systematic corruption and incompetence in gaming "journalism".

[NUM13ER]

hopeisreal wrote...

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

You know I remember IGN in the old days when I was younger too. Hell I remember their magazine used to be awesome. It was a genuine alternative to company run stuff like Nintendo Power. I remember the thing was filled with in-jokes, crass humour and just felt like the guys writing it were genuine gamers like their readers. Not long after a new issue came out with a new look and editors. It had none of the humour or passion and added a cartoon dog mascot so lame you'd have thought it was the childrens version of the real one. That was the moment I remembered them going mainstream.

[cuzsal]

they were paid to make those scores

Bioware is just EA now using the Bioware name, and they have the money to get the scores they want

[Pulletlamer]

[The Protheans]

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.

And here was me expecting to get all this in ME3.
Boy was I disappointed when I realised just how little got into the game, side missions? where's my side missions?

[hopeisreal]

Yeah man....I guess it's indie sites for reliable reviews?

Or even better...word-of-mouth?

[txgoldrush]

viperabyss wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

First of all, we all know people like Kevin V, who reviews games for a living, wouldn't have conflict of interest when he's reviewing a game made by a company that buys massive advertising space on his website .

And secondly, sure, Bioware probably isn't very good at sidequests, but ME3's sidequests and journal system is significantly worse than the ME2, which they also made.

Lastly, I'm sure being condescending is a good way to get your point across....

and the journal problem and most of the side quests are wiped out after 30 minutes of play time...a problem that is a problem but EXAGGERATED by whiny forum posters.

Nevermind, Kevin V comes and defends his reviews....nevermind that Gamespot had Witcher advertisments and he is critical of TW2's ending (and the third act), even defending ME3's ending when a forumer over there brought it up. Face it, he likes the ending. In fact, I butted heads with him a couple times as well.

And forumers are ignorant of the fact that people actually really liked the game, despite its flaws that didn't detract from their experience.

[SmokePants]

Computron2000 wrote...

Gamespot canned someone for not giving a game a high enough score when the maker of that game paid very good money to buy advertising spots on the site. Old news i know, but some of the newer people might not know. Link below

http://en.wikipedia..../Jeff_Gerstmann

That was a huge story and GameSpot suffered a severe backlash and is now under new management. Nobody can get away with it and if they could, it's not worth the risk. It is way too easy for people to do the math and put 2 and 2 together when heavily advertaised games ALWAYS get sky-high scores.

Let's just face the truth that a portion of the ME community is about as objective right now as a jilted lover. You people voted EA as the worst company in America. Total lack of perspective.

Modifié par SmokePants, 21 avril 2012 - 11:25 .

[txgoldrush]

cuzsal wrote...

they were paid to make those scores

Bioware is just EA now using the Bioware name, and they have the money to get the scores they want

And Lucas Arts and Microsoft paid game reviewers to score KOTOR, Jade Empire, and ME1 well....going by your logic.

[Herr Igor]

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. 

YES.

My proof has 5 letters: L-O-G-I-C.

[MentalKase]

Let's keep in mind that a perfect score doesn't mean a perfect game. Oviously those critics were grading on a curve.

Modifié par MentalKase, 21 avril 2012 - 11:26 .

[The Protheans]

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

1. Bugs (especially on the Normandy)

And other Bioware games didn't have bugs...or other well reviewed games like Skyrim.

2. Horrible side-quest system

Not worse than the other two games...nevermind the cut and paste side quest system of ME1, also causing a huge plothole in the story.

3. Horrible journal system

Easily worked around by 100%-ing every cluster and turning them all in.

4. Lack of character dialogue

WRONG...there is MORE character dialogue and BETTER quality dialogue. More than ME1 and ME2.

5. Lack of dialogue wheels

Not a problem was the wheel was what caused Shepard to be not so well written for the most part in the first two games, having him resort to many poorly written one liners because the player input caused the conversations to be less natural. Less wheel but SMARTER wheel.

6.  Lack of explorable area

I don't know....maybe because you know...the Reapers are invading, which makes sense.

7. Lack of vehicular action

Nevermind the vehicles were not liked by many fans of th efirst two games.

There's only 6 characters with dialogue, actually less than Mass effect 2.
And really Mass effect 2 had quality dialogue involving Miranda, Legion, Garrus and Mordin, Grunt had awesome things to say Thane recalled his past, Samara had some interesting points to make.
I think I found Tali lacking but I probably didn't speak to her enough.

What does Mass effect 3 have?

[hopeisreal]

Facts are facts. Those that spent ALL THOSE HOURS from part 1 playing the game, have made their voices heard. The game is not up to scratch.

Reading the reviews....it's like these reviewers were playing a different game

[Computron2000]

SmokePants wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...

Gamespot canned someone for not giving a game a high enough score when the maker of that game paid very good money to buy advertising spots on the site. Old news i know, but some of the newer people might not know. Link below

http://en.wikipedia..../Jeff_Gerstmann

That was a huge story and GameSpot suffered a severe backlash and is now under new management. Nobody can get away with it and if they could, it's not worth the risk. It is way too easy for people to do the math and put 2 and 2 together when heavily advertaised games ALWAYS get sky-high scores.

Let's just face the truth that a portion of the ME community is about as objective right now as a jilted lover. You people voted EA as the worst company in America. Total lack of perspective.

Saying "they got better" doesn't work because when something that has been proven to happen before, it will happen again, just that this time whether or not the hand is caught in the cookie jar depends in whether "they got better at hiding it".

[txgoldrush]

The Protheans wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

1. Bugs (especially on the Normandy)

And other Bioware games didn't have bugs...or other well reviewed games like Skyrim.

2. Horrible side-quest system

Not worse than the other two games...nevermind the cut and paste side quest system of ME1, also causing a huge plothole in the story.

3. Horrible journal system

Easily worked around by 100%-ing every cluster and turning them all in.

4. Lack of character dialogue

WRONG...there is MORE character dialogue and BETTER quality dialogue. More than ME1 and ME2.

5. Lack of dialogue wheels

Not a problem was the wheel was what caused Shepard to be not so well written for the most part in the first two games, having him resort to many poorly written one liners because the player input caused the conversations to be less natural. Less wheel but SMARTER wheel.

6.  Lack of explorable area

I don't know....maybe because you know...the Reapers are invading, which makes sense.

7. Lack of vehicular action

Nevermind the vehicles were not liked by many fans of th efirst two games.

There's only 6 characters with dialogue, actually less than Mass effect 2.
And really Mass effect 2 had quality dialogue involving Miranda, Legion, Garrus and Mordin, Grunt had awesome things to say Thane recalled his past, Samara had some interesting points to make.
I think I found Tali lacking but I probably didn't speak to her enough.

What does Mass effect 3 have?

Wow....LOL

Lets see Joker, EDI, James, Traynor, Javik, Cortez, Liara, Ashley/Kaiden, Tali, Garrus, Allers, Miranda, Jack, Thane, Kelly....all had multiple conversation points...in fact Ashley has 6 conversation moments. Far more than the 6 you claim.

Nevermind that unlike ME2 (other than Mordin, Miranda, Jacob, and maybe Tali), ME3 characters actively particpate in the plot and have strong character development that ME1 lacks.

[txgoldrush]

hopeisreal wrote...

Facts are facts. Those that spent ALL THOSE HOURS from part 1 playing the game, have made their voices heard. The game is not up to scratch.

Reading the reviews....it's like these reviewers were playing a different game

or maybe that you are just part of the vocal minority.....deal with it.

[JPN17]

MentalKase wrote...

Let's keep in mind that a perfect score doesn't mean a perfect game. Oviously those critics were grading on a curve.

No, but game reviewers do tend to hand out perfect scores like they're pez. How can anyone say they have a good review scoring system when so many 10s are handed out? It would be nice to see a subjective review scoring system from someone out there, unfortunately that's something that doesn't exist and it's very apparent that ME3 has few if any critical reviews from non-fans. Ending aside, ME3 should not have been getting perfect score after perfect score. It was a good game and fun to play, but it was not worthy of a 10/10.