239 réponses à ce sujet

[Whapa]

I'd like to see a listing of these 75 perfect scores. We know IGN gave it one because of the reporter fan thing, (which was a huge waste of resources, could have easily lived with a 90/100 from them)

[hopeisreal]

PhotonMaze wrote...

10/10 Doesn't mean perfect (No flaws), it usually means masterpeice and arguably ME3 is a masterpiece. Why are you angry that some peopl have different opinions to you? What a pointless thread.

A reviewer for a major site should be objective AND professional. There are FACTUAL glitches and flaws to the game that have been documented. These flaws taken into account is proof that it CAN'T be a masterpiece.

Try and look up masterpiece. It's something that is VERY rare. And I can probably name the amount of games in history that are true masterpieces on one hand. 

[Guglio08]

Everything gameplay related - the actual third person shooting, the weight system, the power upgrade system, etc - is pitch perfect in ME3. It's not the best third person shooting ever (that goes to Vanquish), but it's very clearly Mass Effect, and its level of polish is very high.

Everything story related - the characters, the actual plot, the side quests, etc - are better in ME2. Also the ME2 ending is a perfect sci-fi ending. ME3's ending is not anti-sci-fi, but it is bizarre and not very good.

90% (made up but probably accurate statistic) of reviews are based on the gameplay, not the story, writing, and related elements.

[yukon fire]

Firesaber82 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.

 QFT. The Journal not updating alone warrants less than 10/10.

Indeed whoever signed off on that should be drummed out of the entire industry. (the journal part)

Modifié par yukon fire, 22 avril 2012 - 01:00 .

[Reptilian Rob]

More lies, gotta love EA/Bioware.

[Hussain747715]

I REALLY hated the journal system I would atleast take off .5 from the game because well one of the most important parts of an RPG is questing.

[Hussain747715]

Guglio08 wrote...

Everything gameplay related - the actual third person shooting, the weight system, the power upgrade system, etc - is pitch perfect in ME3. It's not the best third person shooting ever (that goes to Vanquish), but it's very clearly Mass Effect, and its level of polish is very high.

Everything story related - the characters, the actual plot, the side quests, etc - are better in ME2. Also the ME2 ending is a perfect sci-fi ending. ME3's ending is not anti-sci-fi, but it is bizarre and not very good.

90% (made up but probably accurate statistic) of reviews are based on the gameplay, not the story, writing, and related elements.

journal disagrees.

[sfam]

xxskyshadowxx wrote...

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

This is the answer you're looking for...

[sfam]

hopeisreal wrote...

PhotonMaze wrote...

10/10 Doesn't mean perfect (No flaws), it usually means masterpeice and arguably ME3 is a masterpiece. Why are you angry that some peopl have different opinions to you? What a pointless thread.

A reviewer for a major site should be objective AND professional. There are FACTUAL glitches and flaws to the game that have been documented. These flaws taken into account is proof that it CAN'T be a masterpiece.

Try and look up masterpiece. It's something that is VERY rare. And I can probably name the amount of games in history that are true masterpieces on one hand. 

Unless of course they want to get paid.  If that be the case, a reviewer for a major site should do what the major site asks of them, including giving positive reviews to games.  Otherwise their advertising budget and access will suffer.

[Cirreus]

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....

[The Spamming Troll]

Eain wrote...

Let Bioware cite 75 perfect scores in their defenses. And let us find out if Bioware can live off reviewing praise.

this.

time will tell.

[txgoldrush]

"Yes, except the fact that Skyrim is a sandbox game. Sandbox game is more prone to bugs due to the fact that they have to tolerate users doing stupid stuff.

Mass Effect 3 is not a sandbox game. Heck, it shouldn't even be called a RPG given the amount of railroading we've been put through. The fact is, there are enormous amount of bugs in ME3, which are practically non-existent in ME and ME2. Have you seen a cruiser firing backwards in ME2? No you haven't. Have you seen missing panels on Normandy in ME2 / ME? No you haven't. Have you seen people getting stuck on Normandy in ME2 / ME? No you haven't.

And Tali's father bug is also present in ME3. If you didn't talk to Barla Von before the Cerberus attack, he will not be there after the attack. However, the map will still show him as an interactive character."

Might and Magic VI was a sandbox game, and it was almost bug free. You are being a hypocrite here....Oh and nevermind that most Bioware games are buggy as well, why the special hate for ME3? Nevermind that save corruption glitch for DAO.

"Same old barren planets with different colors...have you even played ME? Have you even dropped Mako onto a planet? Each planet is actually remarkedly different from each other. Some will have very tall moutains with very little flat areas, and some others will have large flat areas with little mountains. The fact that you think all of them are the same tells me you really haven't been paying attention.

And sure, the sidequest isn't a major part of the game...except that it dictates the outcome of the game. If you don't do sidequests, you don't unlock all the endings. The fact that you have to eavesdrop all over the Citadel to get sidequests is a markedly worse than ME2's sidequests. In ME2, you're given a location, the objective to be completed, and some background story. In ME3, you get an objective, and that's it. Furthermore, how does "I can complete the sidequests in 30 minutes" translate to good sidequests? If anything, don't you just admit yourself that there's a lack of sidequests in the game?"

So where are all the trees in ME1? Why are all the planets barren, even the ones with life? Why are all the buildings the same? Face it, cut and paste job with different colors and skylines. Something that was heavily criticized in ME1...deal with it.

And why are you willfully ignoring quests like the Grission Acedmy mission, which is better than any side quest in the first two games? Oh wiat it doesn't fit your point of view. Nevermind the weak ones only last 30 minutes.

"Adams did tell me to find on the Citadel, but didn't tell me which store. Should I look on the Presidium Common? Should I look in the Holding Area? Or should I look in the Spectre Acquisition Office?

And no, most eavesdrop conversation doens't tell you where to find the object. When did the asari on the Embassy Suite tell me where to find her Reaper codes? When did the Salarian on Presidium Common tells me where to find the heating stabilizers? When did the woman outside of Purgatory Bar tells me where to find the power schematics? When did the Preacher in the Holding Area tell me where to find the lost Batarian artifacts? When did the Turian in the Purgatory Bar tell me where to find the Flag of the First Regiment?

In fact, I think you're covering up flaws because things just worked out so well for you, or that you're wearing colored lenses."

So Adams doesn't know which store, but he DOES know its on the Citadel.

There is a mix here, some quest givers know where the artifact is, some don't. Many are worded in a way that if "you come across it, let me know" type of deal, which is a more organic way of handling it. Even if the side quests are flawed, they are only a small part of the game, even taking consideration of war assets.

"LOL, you're really clueless, you know that?

People are definitely not treated as talking codex entries, but they do serve as the primary source for that character's background. In ME2, you can talk to Jacob about his service history, which is something missing in ME3. You can also talk to Mordin about his view on the genophage, and see how it actually changes as the game progresses, which is again, something missing in ME3. You can talk to Jack about her childhood, and why she hated Cerberus, which is missing in ME3. If you are romancing a non-human character, Mordin will have a long conversation about the precautions you must do, which is again, missing from ME3.

And there aren't more talking points in ME3 than ME2. In ME2, all characters will have 4~5 different long conversations about their background, including 1~2 more conversation about their loyalty mission, and 1 more after the destruction of Collector Base. Furthermore, Joker has one comment about all the teammembers, additional comments about the status of the Normandy, as well as occasional quib about the mission progress. Also, Donelly and Daniels will make a comment about the characters you just acquired, which is something they don't do in ME3. Sure, team members don't interact with each other, but they have significantly more dialogue options, as well as content, isn't it?

And aside from Kasumi, Zaeed also comment on the mission progress as well, as do some other selected team members (like Miranda). "

And Mordin has a lot of dialogue because he is a major character...the other characters do not have as many. In fact, its really 3 or 4 per character plus their missions, with an added scene for ormance and a short post game convo.

Really while some crew mates do recognize other members in ME2, its no where near the level of ME3, where they talk and even support one another. The other two games easily pale in comparision to the comradrie that ME3 has.

Ashley has tons of interaction points....the mission on Mars, two hospital visits, the Citadel attack and her recruitment, two convos in the Citadel, two in the ship, her romance scene, and a goodbye.

"ME, being the first one in the series, aims to establishes the universe, which is something apparently you did not catch. Are sidequests unrelated to the main story arc itself? Sure, but it does have long term ramification in the trilogy, isn't it? You don't have to do the sidequest for Admiral Kahoku, but you'd miss out the origin of Cerberus, as well as the reason people hate them, which is very useful in ME2. Sure, you don't have to talk to Jenna, but it would have a ramification in ME3 when he is shot dead by Cerberus.

Planet design? LOL. ME is the only game in the trilogy that features fully explorable planets (each system has at least one), and like I said, each planet is unique to each own. Just because you have to climb the mountain in all of them, doesn't make them the same.

But again, I guess "dropping a probe to assist with the evacuation of the population" is more inline with your expectation from a RPG?"

So, just because its the first game of the series, it excuses plot holes and poor character development? Please. There are many ways of expanding the universe without doing what ME1 did in its FLAWED method of building teh universe. Why not have main plot relevance or have it in side missions relevant to the plot? Why is Tali a talking codex entry for a major plot point for ME1, instead of exploring the quarian creation of the geth in the main story? Many firsts in series or trilogies explored their lore and universe far better than ME1 did, or developed their characters far better than ME1 did.

By your logic, than all the Normandy ME3 sidequests aren't the same because I am picking up different objects and that they are in different star systsems.....

[The Spamming Troll]

sfam wrote...

hopeisreal wrote...

PhotonMaze wrote...

10/10 Doesn't mean perfect (No flaws), it usually means masterpeice and arguably ME3 is a masterpiece. Why are you angry that some peopl have different opinions to you? What a pointless thread.

A reviewer for a major site should be objective AND professional. There are FACTUAL glitches and flaws to the game that have been documented. These flaws taken into account is proof that it CAN'T be a masterpiece.

Try and look up masterpiece. It's something that is VERY rare. And I can probably name the amount of games in history that are true masterpieces on one hand. 

Unless of course they want to get paid.  If that be the case, a reviewer for a major site should do what the major site asks of them, including giving positive reviews to games.  Otherwise their advertising budget and access will suffer.

then whats hte point of the review?

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 22 avril 2012 - 01:07 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

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.

I'm sorry, but 8 is grade inflation. Look at what you cited. This is a RPG. This game is a 7.0 at best, excluding item 7. The journal system, side-quest system, and lack of dialog wheels and explorable area is enough to knock it down that far alone. The journal system is horrible. And I'll add one more -- requiring multi-player or iOS to get best results in the single player campaign.

[txgoldrush]

Guglio08 wrote...

Everything gameplay related - the actual third person shooting, the weight system, the power upgrade system, etc - is pitch perfect in ME3. It's not the best third person shooting ever (that goes to Vanquish), but it's very clearly Mass Effect, and its level of polish is very high.

Everything story related - the characters, the actual plot, the side quests, etc - are better in ME2. Also the ME2 ending is a perfect sci-fi ending. ME3's ending is not anti-sci-fi, but it is bizarre and not very good.

90% (made up but probably accurate statistic) of reviews are based on the gameplay, not the story, writing, and related elements.

The plot  and characters are better in ME3, except the ending. The plot of ME2 was minimal.

ME3 is the only game that intergrates the characters with the plot well....ME1 was all plot with very little character  particpation (really recruitment and Virmire is really the only times where squaddies had impact on the plot), and ME2 was all character development, the plot was weak and minimal.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 22 avril 2012 - 01:13 .

[Alamar2078]

Because a "perfect" score just means that the portion of the game the reviewer played didn't totally blow chunks.

If a "perfect" score was reserved only for all time classics then it would have meaning but in today's reality there isn't anything to that.

[txgoldrush]

Alamar2078 wrote...

Because a "perfect" score just means that the portion of the game the reviewer played didn't totally blow chunks.

If a "perfect" score was reserved only for all time classics then it would have meaning but in today's reality there isn't anything to that.

All time classics can have major flaws as well.

FFVI for example, had very poor combat balance at the end.

Ultima VII, a defining cRPG, had an atrocious inventory system, clunky and confusing.

Planescape Torment had weak combat.

But they are all still 9.5 or even 10 games.

10/10 i snever perfect an dmany game sites tell you this. IGN calls 10's "Masterful" not "perfect".

[Aceor]

Read the thread from start to end and reading txgoldrush postings just makes me sad.

People like him that cant see the flaws and have so much ignorance is just like talking to a wall.

Either paid or indoctrinated

And i wont reply to u cause its no use u wont listen,just argue

Modifié par Aceor, 22 avril 2012 - 01:33 .

[benj919]

The actual question is not how on earth ME3 collected 75 perfect reviews... It is: When was the last time a AAA/Blockbuster/Super-title whatever game received really bad/critical scores on all those "professional sites"? That's been a while as far as I know...

[txgoldrush]

Aceor wrote...

Read the thread from start to end and reading txgoldrush postings just makes me sad.

People like him that cant see the flaws and have so much ignorance is just like talking to a wall.

Either paid or indoctrinated

And i wont reply to u cause its no use u wont listen,just argue

ME3 HAS flaws......but everyone is acting like Bioware's past games didn't, even ME1 and ME2.

I see the flaws, they are just not that big, except for the endings lack of clarity.

[txgoldrush]

benj919 wrote...

The actual question is not how on earth ME3 collected 75 perfect reviews... It is: When was the last time a AAA/Blockbuster/Super-title whatever game received really bad/critical scores on all those "professional sites"? That's been a while as far as I know...

Fable III.....that series sells millions but critics did tear into it.

Also, the very first Assassin's Creed and also Revelations.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 22 avril 2012 - 01:39 .

[VibrantYacht]

txgoldrush wrote...

Aceor wrote...

Read the thread from start to end and reading txgoldrush postings just makes me sad.

People like him that cant see the flaws and have so much ignorance is just like talking to a wall.

Either paid or indoctrinated

And i wont reply to u cause its no use u wont listen,just argue

ME3 HAS flaws......but everyone is acting like Bioware's past games didn't, even ME1 and ME2.

I see the flaws, they are just not that big, except for the endings lack of clarity.

I don't think anyone would deny that past BioWare games have problems. They aren't the topic of this discussion though. Why would we discuss them now?

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Creepter wrote...

"75 perfect reviews from all 75 of our favourite Bioware co-workers."

Make that 74 and you've got a deal........................after all Chobot is with IGN.

[txgoldrush]

ohupthis wrote...

Creepter wrote...

"75 perfect reviews from all 75 of our favourite Bioware co-workers."

Make that 74 and you've got a deal........................after all Chobot is with IGN.

and IGN gave a 9.5 not a 10.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

I always thought the budget got blown by certain aspects of the game, not by buying votes.