321 réponses à ce sujet

[Armass81]

Every review I see that is below 6/10 is a troll or a hater review or a REALLY butthurt fanboy. Ending is pretty terrible but there is no way it justifies a drop from 9/10 to 1/10 or something, that is just ridiculous. Game was still pretty decent, it could have been much better sure, there was a lot of lost potential, but my god people: 2/10? 0/10!!!??? Over last 10 minutes of the game? Overreacting a bit?

Modifié par Armass81, 08 mai 2012 - 03:40 .

[FatalX7.0]

Deathstroke123 wrote...

Larryboy_Dragon wrote...

One of the worst things about the ending outcry is that it glosses over Me3’s other issues:
Fewer missions, more lame fetch missions, less dialogue options, no real new RPG options, limited enemy selection compared to ME1 (where did the wall climbing geth and giant-tank geth go), only one hub to explore, much less companion dialogue and so forth.

There were more unique missions in ME3 then in ME1 or 2. By unique, I mean the mission actually had voice acting, a point, and weren't set in the same box room a thousand times.

The fetch quests were meant as a time sink, which each game had. Gotta love selective memory. I recall wasting way more time in the first and second game either driving around a flat, dull landscape, scanning planets for hours for minerals, or playing pointless unlocking games.

Limited enemies compared to ME1... you mean the game where you fight Geth troopers and maybe once or twice a collosus for 95% of the game? Yeah, whole lotta variety in that game. Give me a ****ing break.

There was only one hub in ME1, and it was largely empty and dull. But oops, we're not supposed to say anything bad about ME1, sorry.

Less companion dialogue... THAT is rich. Honestly it is. I'm starting to question whether or not you actually bought the real game and not a Russian bootleg.

[FatalX7.0]

People need to stop assuming that all low score reviews are based solely on the ending.

Modifié par FatalX7.0, 08 mai 2012 - 03:36 .

[FatalX7.0]

Oh, and does anyone have the wiki lists of all of the enemies throughout the Mass Effect games? I cannot seem to find it.

It was a screenshot of all three lists together. If you've seen it, you might remember that the amount of enemies in Mass Effect was substantially less than the previous two games.

[eddieoctane]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

People need to stop assuming that all low score reviews are based solely on the ending.

Likewise, a low score that mentions the ending isn't automatically invalidated.

[lillitheris]

Armass81 wrote...

Every review I see that is below 6/10 is a troll review or a REALLY butthurt fanboy. Ending is pretty terrible but there is no way it justifies a drop from 9/10 to 1/10 or something, that is just ridiculous.

But, you know, it does. If someone feels it was a 4/10…it was. For them.

Of course, if you start limiting the range…we should do the other end too. Let‘s agree that 0-2 are ‘troll scores’, and that scores 9-10 are inflated by apologists. So only scores between 3 and 8 are valid.

How’s that sound?

[Armass81]

Enemy types are about the same in all 3 games, let me clarify:

ME1:
Pirates, mercenaries, Saren's cronies etc. your basic humanoid fighter
Rachni
Geth

ME2:

Random Mercenary Scum
Geth
Collectors

ME3:

Cerberus
Geth
Reaper Troops

Its about the same. Note that im only counting the basic game enemies, not dlc, since ME3 hasnt got any dlc yet either except Javik.

Modifié par Armass81, 08 mai 2012 - 04:03 .

[Father Alvito]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Please.  You could easily classify the Prothean data drives, Turian insignias, Asari writings and Signs of Battle in ME1 as 43 distinct fetch quests.  To say nothing of the minerals problem.

Yes, ME3 has fewer sidequests than the preceding games.  It is shorter.  This is likely because EA rushed the title out the door.

[humes spork]

I learned a very long time ago to not take "review scores" of any kind seriously. Not film, not music, certainly not video games.

For one thing, reviewing is a qualitative analysis. To do that a reviewer has to construct an argument: thesis, premise, support, conclusion. That means the reviewer must analyse the game in depth; a depth which cannot be achieved with an integer, a real number, or a whole set of them. Sure, a reviewer can summate with numbers, but giving numbers alone conveys no real information of quality and if they're going to take the time to support their conclusions why cheapen the argument?

Second, reviewing is inherently subjective. Everyone has biases, and the onus is on the reviewer to reveal their biases up front and be as nonjudgmental as possible. This is especially true for a reviewer's biases can weight a review, even unconsciously. This is also especially true for the consumer's biases and preferences may be different as well, and something that detracted or added to the quality of the product under review for the reviewer may not have the same impact for the consumer. If a reviewer want their review to be accessible and useful for as many people as possible, making sure those biases are known and have a minimal effect on the consumer is paramount.

Third, a review is a declaratory statement [of opinion]. That means a review is not a persuasive argument. A reviewer can (and if they feel strongly enough about a product) provide a recommendation, but that should be an addendum to a review opposed to the centerpiece. A review should provide information and analysis about the quality of a product, sufficient to allow a consumer to make an informed decision about the product in question for themselves. If a reviewer is speaking to persuade a consumer to buy (or not buy) a product, they're not reviewing -- they're advertising and flatly cannot be trusted to have reviewed a product fairly by merit of urging the consumer to take action alone.

And, to bring it back to the first point, a review that relies upon or consists alone of a number does not provide sufficient information for the consumer to make an informed, independent decision. As such, it is not a quality review and should be disregarded by any responsible consumer capable of critical thought.

[Armass81]

lillitheris wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

Every review I see that is below 6/10 is a troll review or a REALLY butthurt fanboy. Ending is pretty terrible but there is no way it justifies a drop from 9/10 to 1/10 or something, that is just ridiculous.

But, you know, it does. If someone feels it was a 4/10…it was. For them.

Of course, if you start limiting the range…we should do the other end too. Let‘s agree that 0-2 are ‘troll scores’, and that scores 9-10 are inflated by apologists. So only scores between 3 and 8 are valid.

How’s that sound?

If i see a listing of reasons why someone think its a 4/10 game. Then maybe i can see their point. Just saying it cant be the ending alone. Some people here have said "9/10 game before i got to the end now its a 2/10". Overreaction.

Modifié par Armass81, 08 mai 2012 - 03:54 .

[FatalX7.0]

Armass81 wrote...

Enemy types are about the same in all 3 games, let me clarify:

ME1:
Pirates, mercenaries, Saren's cronies etc. your basic humanoid fighter
Rachni
Geth

ME2:

Random Mercenary Scum
Geth
Collectors

ME3:

Cerberus
Geth
Reaper Troops

Its about the same.

Here, I made my own. You'll have to view in another tab.

Modifié par FatalX7.0, 08 mai 2012 - 03:51 .

[FatalX7.0]

Father Alvito wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Please.  You could easily classify the Prothean data drives, Turian insignias, Asari writings and Signs of Battle in ME1 as 43 distinct fetch quests.  To say nothing of the minerals problem.

Yes, ME3 has fewer sidequests than the preceding games.  It is shorter.  This is likely because EA rushed the title out the door.

Replace real exploration with a glorified menu/arcade game?

Awesome.

[FatalX7.0]

Armass81 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

Every review I see that is below 6/10 is a troll review or a REALLY butthurt fanboy. Ending is pretty terrible but there is no way it justifies a drop from 9/10 to 1/10 or something, that is just ridiculous.

But, you know, it does. If someone feels it was a 4/10…it was. For them.

Of course, if you start limiting the range…we should do the other end too. Let‘s agree that 0-2 are ‘troll scores’, and that scores 9-10 are inflated by apologists. So only scores between 3 and 8 are valid.

How’s that sound?

If i see a listing of reasons why someone think its a 4/10 game. Then maybe i can see their point. Just saying it cant be the ending alone. Some people here have said "9/10 game before i got to the end now its a 2/10". Overreaction.

Auto-dialogue, 31 fetch quests, small, linear, lack of paragon/renegade options and interrupts, removal of exploration, lame romances, cheap character reunions, more scanning, Earth is forced, child is forced, disconnected from Shepard, focus on combat and multiplayer.

[FatalX7.0]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

Every review I see that is below 6/10 is a troll review or a REALLY butthurt fanboy. Ending is pretty terrible but there is no way it justifies a drop from 9/10 to 1/10 or something, that is just ridiculous.

But, you know, it does. If someone feels it was a 4/10…it was. For them.

Of course, if you start limiting the range…we should do the other end too. Let‘s agree that 0-2 are ‘troll scores’, and that scores 9-10 are inflated by apologists. So only scores between 3 and 8 are valid.

How’s that sound?

If i see a listing of reasons why someone think its a 4/10 game. Then maybe i can see their point. Just saying it cant be the ending alone. Some people here have said "9/10 game before i got to the end now its a 2/10". Overreaction.

Auto-dialogue, 31 fetch quests, small, linear, lack of paragon/renegade options and interrupts, removal of exploration, lame romances, cheap character reunions, more scanning, Earth is forced, child is forced, disconnected from Shepard, focus on combat and multiplayer.

Out of my whole experience, I can only note two enjoyable experiences.

Tuchanka and Rannoch.

[humes spork]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Here, I made my own. You'll have to view in another tab.

Oh yes, that is an accurate representation of the games' number of different enemy types because geth snipers, batarian snipers, cerberus snipers, mercenary snipers, pirate snipers, and assassins in ME1 are totally distinct and unique. Just as one example.

[FatalX7.0]

humes spork wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Here, I made my own. You'll have to view in another tab.

Oh yes, that is an accurate representation of the games' number of different enemy types because geth snipers, batarian snipers, cerberus snipers, mercenary snipers, pirate snipers, and assassins in ME1 are totally distinct and unique. Just as one example.

Of course.

In fact, I don't think I said anything regarding "distinct and unique".

Modifié par FatalX7.0, 08 mai 2012 - 04:02 .

[Father Alvito]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Father Alvito wrote...

Please.  You could easily classify the Prothean data drives, Turian insignias, Asari writings and Signs of Battle in ME1 as 43 distinct fetch quests.  To say nothing of the minerals problem.

Yes, ME3 has fewer sidequests than the preceding games.  It is shorter.  This is likely because EA rushed the title out the door.

Replace real exploration with a glorified menu/arcade game?

Awesome.

Why should I bother conversing with you if you're going to respond with non sequiturs?  I criticize your methodology, you talk about your gaming preferences.

I'll spell this out for you.  I made three claims:

- You have an 'interesting' definition of fetch quest
- You are correct to claim that ME3 is shorter than the other two games
- This result probably obtained because EA pushed the game out the door before it was ready in order to keep their financial statements looking happy

Your statement addresses none of the above claims in any way.

[FatalX7.0]

Father Alvito wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Father Alvito wrote...

Please.  You could easily classify the Prothean data drives, Turian insignias, Asari writings and Signs of Battle in ME1 as 43 distinct fetch quests.  To say nothing of the minerals problem.

Yes, ME3 has fewer sidequests than the preceding games.  It is shorter.  This is likely because EA rushed the title out the door.

Replace real exploration with a glorified menu/arcade game?

Awesome.

Why should I bother conversing with you if you're going to respond with non sequiturs?  I criticize your methodology, you talk about your gaming preferences.

I'll spell this out for you.  I made three claims:

- You have an 'interesting' definition of fetch quest
- You are correct to claim that ME3 is shorter than the other two games
- This result probably obtained because EA pushed the game out the door before it was ready in order to keep their financial statements looking happy

Your statement addresses none of the above claims in any way.

You're quite the condescending one, aren't you?

What other definition of "fetch quest" is there? There are 31 quests in the game where you eavesdrop on an NPC, go to a location, scan, get an item and give it to the NPC. (But you don't even participate in a conversation like you would in another game)

That is a fetch quest, always has been.

I never talked about it being rushed or not since I posted here.

http://social.biowar...ndex/11499397/1

I talked about it being rushed here, however.

Those are not "gaming preferences", those are things that have changed or been taken away over the course of the series.

http://gaming.wikia....iki/Fetch_quest

Modifié par FatalX7.0, 08 mai 2012 - 04:08 .

[FatalX7.0]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Father Alvito wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Father Alvito wrote...

Please.  You could easily classify the Prothean data drives, Turian insignias, Asari writings and Signs of Battle in ME1 as 43 distinct fetch quests.  To say nothing of the minerals problem.

Yes, ME3 has fewer sidequests than the preceding games.  It is shorter.  This is likely because EA rushed the title out the door.

Replace real exploration with a glorified menu/arcade game?

Awesome.

Why should I bother conversing with you if you're going to respond with non sequiturs?  I criticize your methodology, you talk about your gaming preferences.

I'll spell this out for you.  I made three claims:

- You have an 'interesting' definition of fetch quest
- You are correct to claim that ME3 is shorter than the other two games
- This result probably obtained because EA pushed the game out the door before it was ready in order to keep their financial statements looking happy

Your statement addresses none of the above claims in any way.

You're quite the condescending one, aren't you?

What other definition of "fetch quest" is there? There are 31 quests in the game where you eavesdrop on an NPC, go to a location, scan, get an item and give it to the NPC. (But you don't even participate in a conversation like you would in another game)

That is a fetch quest, always has been.

I never talked about it being rushed or not since I posted here.

http://social.biowar...ndex/11499397/1

I talked about it being rushed here, however.

Those are not "gaming preferences", those are things that have changed or been taken away over the course of the series.

http://gaming.wikia....iki/Fetch_quest

And I'm not sure what you mean when you say that bolded sentence.

You say that I'm correct that the game is shorter. I have to address that somehow?

Then you say that the result of the game being smaller is probably due to it being rushed out. I'm not sure how, or even why, I need to address that.

[humes spork]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

In fact, I don't think I said anything regarding "distinct and unique".

Then would you concede that, hypothetically speaking, if BW had given each and every cerberus assault trooper that spawned in the course of ME3's campaign their own unique name, ME3 had the most enemies of every ME game?

Modifié par humes spork, 08 mai 2012 - 04:11 .

[FatalX7.0]

humes spork wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

In fact, I don't think I said anything regarding "distinct and unique".

Then would you concede that, hypothetically speaking, if BW had given each and every cerberus assault trooper that spawned in the course of ME3's campaign their own unique name, ME3 had the most enemies of every ME game?

No, because each differently named enemy had differences, even if just a small amount.

Abilities, shields, health, etc. And appearance and location of course.

Mass Effect 2 brought in quite a bit more variety, though, with more enemies.

Modifié par FatalX7.0, 08 mai 2012 - 04:19 .

[Shermos]

I don't take anyone who gives ME3 less than a 7/10 seriously.

[humes spork]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

No, because each differently named enemy had differences, even if just a small amount.

Abilities, shields, health, etc. And appearance and location of course.

Yet, they all fought the same way. There was no difference in how one sniper behaved, for example, in comparison to any other. The same goes for anti-tank troopers, infantry, hell even geth juggernauts and krogan (two enemies you'd expect to be worlds apart in terms of combat behavior) had virtually identical behavior; spam heavy attacks, then charge, the only real difference being to dampen krogan, and sabotage (or overload) juggernauts.

The only fight I can name offhand in ME1 that's substantially different from any other is the climax of BDTS, and that's thanks to batarian tech-spamming. Even the boss fight with Benezia isn't substantially different from the Thorian boss fight: dampen commandoes, kill mooks, munch on boss, repeat.

Modifié par humes spork, 08 mai 2012 - 04:26 .

[QuantumSheep13]

Shermos wrote...

I don't take anyone who gives ME3 less than a 7/10 seriously.

How very close-minded of you.

[Chris James]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

People need to stop assuming that all low score reviews are based solely on the ending.

True - it's when the Metascore and User Score are totally off by a large amount (say > +/- 20) is when it becomes questionable. 

The real problem is that those user scores that are there to make a political statement are diluting those who are giving honest scores - regardless of how relative they are to the metascore.