549 réponses à ce sujet

[napushenko]

Mass Effect 3 has 3.8 rating on metacritic. 3.8 ! 
Does anyone agree with that and why ? I personally cant stand it. Its a superb game, better then any in the series imo till that last couple of minutes. 3 point fckng 8.  And some things i read in reviews were so unthrutfull it hurts. 

What rating would you give it ? Its a strong nine in my opinion, but i just gave it 10 to try & counter these 1 rating trolls 

Modifié par napushenko, 12 mai 2012 - 01:20 .

[mango smoothie]

No it doesn't deserve that rating, but Mass Effect 3 was my lowest rated in the series and not because of the ending. I gave Mass Effect 1 a 8.8, Mass Effect 2 a 9.0, and Mass Effect 3 a 8.5.

Modifié par mango smoothie, 12 mai 2012 - 01:18 .

[FlamingBoy]

probably would have given it a 7

as for the metacritic, not sure what to think, i guess its better than misleading people with constant perfect 10's, also metacritic has sort of become a form of protest

[wolfsite]

Many people are really upset feeling the ending wrecked Mass Effect as a whole.

Othere merely down rate any game made by EA.

Pretty common on Metacritic honestly.

[poerksen]

I would give it a 5-6. It is definately worse than ME1 and ME2, don't understand how you could think otherwise. Looking past the ending, then I would give it a 7.

3,8 is a little harsh, but it just indicates how disappointed people were with the game.

The only thing that is better compared to ME2, is that Shepard is a little bit more agile in combat. All other aspects of the game are pretty much worse compared to ME2. ME1 is just a classic, eventhough it had its problems (combat related mostly).

[Sanunes]

I don't like Metacritic for the same reason why I don't like reviews in general. People seem to go for extremes when reviewing and will give something either a 0 or 10 and with Metacritic they will just say "the ending sucked, so the game gets a 0", its not a balanced review and its just there to try and tank the score.

[napushenko]

Dont want this to turn into ending debate. For me it didnt wrecked it as a whole cause i enjoyed so much playing it till that last couple of minutes. i hate the ending, i was "oh.. ok" in my first playthrough but in second it really felt cheap somehow. Nevermind that, i cant not forget those hours of playing prior to the ending and there wasnt a single thing about it i did not like. everything was great. your decisions from previous games were more visible then in me2, war asset collectin beats driving that mako & resource pingling every day and followers have i think 3 times more dialogue then in last games. i remember talking to them after every mission just for them to say something new and all i got was repeating lines. now they cant stop talking !
combat was more fun then 1 & 2 combined. enemies too are more varied and more intelligent.

now im supposed to forget all that just because of last of couple of minutes ?

strong nine. i hate metacritic. i hate trolls

[Eain]

ME3 gets a 6 to 7 a from me, not counting the ending. So that's what I would rate it on metacritic.

In comparison, ME1 gets an 8.5 and ME2 a 9.

Modifié par Eain, 12 mai 2012 - 01:27 .

[Naughty Bear]

No, it does not deserve at 3.8.

I'd give it a 7.5, not including the ending. The ending just hides the other problems with this game.

Modifié par Naughty Bear, 12 mai 2012 - 01:28 .

[iamthedave3]

ME 3 got user bombed during the early days of the ending debacle and that's kept it's score artificially low.

On the other hand, that at least balances out the ridiculous exaggeration from the press, because it doesn't deserve any perfect scores at all let alone... thirty was it? Seventy five? Far more than it warrants for sure.

In all rational reviewing it deserves 8-9, completely ignoring the ending and pretending it doesn't exist. The journal sucks ass, the side quest system is abysmal and disjointed, and the reapers all o'er the galaxy system is more of an annoyance than anything else.

Not huge problems, but enough to make it not perfect for sure. And I don't think anyone has ever defended it on these particular points.

Modifié par iamthedave3, 12 mai 2012 - 01:32 .

[bjdbwea]

If for some people the ending of the game ruins the replayability of the game or even the entire series, I can understand why they would give the game such a low score. Also it is often the case that people give very high or very low scores depending on their general opinion on the product, because they think that otherwise their vote doesn't matter. Many people also seem to be annoyed with the enforced Origin requirement and the day 1 DLC, which in my opinion is very understandable.

Up until the ending of the game, I would give ME 3 as a game a score of 9/10 as well, possibly even a bit more. But if the above annoyances were to be included in the score, it would have to be significantly lower.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 12 mai 2012 - 01:31 .

[napushenko]

poerksen wrote...

I would give it a 5-6. It is definately worse than ME1 and ME2, don't understand how you could think otherwise. Looking past the ending, then I would give it a 7.

3,8 is a little harsh, but it just indicates how disappointed people were with the game.

The only thing that is better compared to ME2, is that Shepard is a little bit more agile in combat. All other aspects of the game are pretty much worse compared to ME2. ME1 is just a classic, eventhough it had its problems (combat related mostly).

i just stated why i think its 9. can you say why you think its 5 instead of definitely ? 

[Peregrin25]

I honestly think that it should have a rating of 5/10. It wasn't good enough to go above 5 and not bad enough to go below it. That is just me personally. I just wish other game reviewers and websites and stuff would give ME3 lower than 8's and 9's. It really doesn't deserve it.

[napushenko]

why it doesnt deserve it for you, personaly ?

Modifié par napushenko, 12 mai 2012 - 01:37 .

[Peregrin25]

napushenko wrote...

why it doesnt deserve it for you, personaly ?

For one, there are alot of things that were overlooked. Especially compared to ME1 and 2. first off the journal system. side quests and main quests were very unorganised and the whole journal system was a bit of a cluster f**k. I can let  that slide to some extent as it isn't wholey important, but does degrade it a bot. Quests. eaves dropping side quests. Why can't you get side quests like ME1 and ME2 and they took more than just shooting a probe into a planet to get the item required. That = not much fun.

All but Priority: Tuchanka and Priority Rannoch were of I felt were rushed. Tuchanka and Rannoch were well done and very intense parts of the game but even the opening sequence I felt was rushed. There could have been more including maybe more hints at the court martial or just somthing. It felt like it was missing somthing to me. Some of the N7 quests were just way too quick. I didn't get enough time to actually enjoy the missions. The other Priority Missions were way too quick. The ended as soon as you started them Priority: Thessia and Earth are the 2 that really stick out.

Lastly The cameos of your ME2 suadmates I mean the galaxy is so vast why is it every place you went you always ran into a past member of your crew? I understand Mordin 'cause he plays an integral role of the Genophage cure. But Jacob, Jack I can be okay with. Miranda on the other hand could have been a crew memeber in ME3. But those aren't too bad enough to really heed my attention. Some of the character development could have gone further than it had aswell. Just doesn't seem BioWare had the time they needed to polish the game.

Overall those things are what kind of made me feel it was kind of a let down. it lowers my rating but to keep my personal score of 5/10 from going lower than that was the stroy. EVen though it had it's contradictions to ME1 and ME2 in the plot. The story was still intense and very well done. In my opinion ME3 is a stand alone game. Not an ending to a fantastic trilogy. But then the end just completely ruined the entires story for me. It was a cheap cop out and lacking creativity. Dues Ex style endings have been done. before why not do somthing original? Then you have all the plot holes and things that just do not fit in the ME universe, no matter how artistic they think it is. It just doesn't belong. And lastly The SR2 Normandy miraculously speeding through an exploding relay leaving Shepard and her crew behind, but wait 2 crew memebers mysteriously made it to the normandy before it speeded away. (rolls eyes).

Then there is the fact BioWare blatently lied to us fans after it was finished and before ME3 was released. Promises were made and not kept. And of all people it was Casey Hudson and Ray Muzyka. That just stings. and that has an effect on my final rating of the game. Press release hurt it just as much as the ending did to me.

I been a fan of BioWare for long time and it a way I just feel hurt that they could lie to the fans. I am by no means hardcore fan but I still feel hurt by how this whole thing panned out. Those are just a few of the issues I have with all this. I am though reguardless of my feelings toward  BioWare right now hoping they can retcon the situation with the Extended cut before I state any other personal feelings toward them. They still have a chance and I hope they use the time wisely.


P.S. Look what you made me do. WALL O TEXT lol:P

Modifié par Peregrin25, 12 mai 2012 - 01:56 .

[napushenko]

i agree with journal but as you say, i didnt think it had that much of an impact, but it is a pain in the ass.
as for eaves droping, cant you see that its the same thing as resource collecting, only much better done ? you still have same side missions with dialogue and story. bioware only screwed by not putting those eavesdroping mission as assignments or something so that people like you would not be confused.
priority mission were the same length as any major mission in me2. i know cause i played them one after another with no delay and nothing sticked out for me. i think facts could confirme that there isnt much time difference. also, didnt you noticed the surroundings ? in me2 you had almost every mission with same design, in me 3 they really put more work into it and missions feel more varied. enemies too. in me 2 you had mercenarys a-b-c. in me 3, well, you know, 5 x more varied opponents. that doesnt deserve a bonus from you ? at least a mention ?

and about cameos. its because you hang out with important crowd you know. and you go to places that you expect to find them. you go to genophage research facility, doesnt it make sense youl meet mordin there ? same with tali and quarians. others send you an email specificaly that they want to meet you.

about development, its something thats been done throughout the trilogy, look at tali or virmire survivor. look at yourself. some sacrifice for you, others became teachers. some betray you, some get better jobs. theres character development everywhere you look. can you name the person that stays the same throughout the trilogy ? and its the end of all things now, reapers are destroying everything. not much time for chitchatter.

and thank you for your replies, i respect your views but just think it doesnt deserve 5 even by your calculations
7 maybe

[xPandaHunterx]

I don't necessarily agree with it, but that is the fan reaction that Bioware is going to get if they end such an amazing series like this.

Did they think the fans were just going to lay down and take it? No, they are going to bite back. And they did bite back - at the review score.

[Peregrin25]

napushenko wrote...

i agree with journal but as you say, i didnt think it had that much of an impact, but it is a pain in the ass.
as for eaves droping, cant you see that its the same thing as resource collecting, only much better done ? you still have same side missions with dialogue and story. bioware only screwed by not putting those eavesdroping mission as assignments or something so that people like you would not be confused.
priority mission were the same length as any major mission in me2. i know cause i played them one after another with no delay and nothing sticked out for me. i think facts could confirme that there isnt much time difference. also, didnt you noticed the surroundings ? in me2 you had almost every mission with same design, in me 3 they really put more work into it and missions feel more varied. enemies too. in me 2 you had mercenarys a-b-c. in me 3, well, you know, 5 x more varied opponents. that doesnt deserve a bonus from you ? at least a mention ?

and about cameos. its because you hang out with important crowd you know. and you go to places that you expect to find them. you go to genophage research facility, doesnt it make sense youl meet mordin there ? same with tali and quarians. others send you an email specificaly that they want to meet you.

about development, its something thats been done throughout the trilogy, look at tali or virmire survivor. look at yourself. some sacrifice for you, others became teachers. some betray you, some get better jobs. theres character development everywhere you look. can you name the person that stays the same throughout the trilogy ? and its the end of all things now, reapers are destroying everything. not much time for chitchatter.

and thank you for your replies, i respect your views but just think it doesnt deserve 5 even by your calculations
7 maybe

lol you make some good points too, but yeah maybe a 5 is a little low, I don't know if I would go as high as 7 maybea 6.5 lol. as for things you mentioned that made the game a little more interesting that I didn't mention. Just because I am still kind emotional trainwrek over the ending debachle lol. I am sure I left things out I liked

[napushenko]

you mean end it with ending like that or end it with game like that, cause game was frckn good, just the ending of the game and the series wasnt.

[poerksen]

napushenko wrote...

poerksen wrote...

I would give it a 5-6. It is definately worse than ME1 and ME2, don't understand how you could think otherwise. Looking past the ending, then I would give it a 7.

3,8 is a little harsh, but it just indicates how disappointed people were with the game.

The only thing that is better compared to ME2, is that Shepard is a little bit more agile in combat. All other aspects of the game are pretty much worse compared to ME2. ME1 is just a classic, eventhough it had its problems (combat related mostly).

i just stated why i think its 9. can you say why you think its 5 instead of definitely ? 

5 = average. It is not bad, although I have never been as disappointed in a game before. Been playing games for approx 20 years.

I've had this discussion countless times in other threads and it involves many different points of criticism. It is easier for me to simply say ME2>ME1----------------------ME3. The things that bums me out the most however are the crucible (incredibly lame plotdevice), Earth Mission (worst mission in the series), War Assets being pointless and we spend the whole game collecting them, journalsystem, how sidemissions are collected (listening in on conversations), fewer and more uninteresting squadmates (Vega, Ashley and EDI), Javik being a DLC squadmate (eventhough he is relevant to the story), autodialogue, less exploring, boring locations and missions..............

 

[Navasha]

Well, it is a user review site and as such carries very little value to me anyway. A review is only as good as the reputation the reviewer holds with the reader. Over time you either grow to trust a reviewers viewpoint on games or you don't. Its that trust in the reviewer that adds credibility to the review.

User reviews by very definition are never able to establish that trust because the reviews are never done by the same people with the same tastes and are subject to emotional review bombings like what is being done with ME3.

[Amyra]

If you think the only thing with ME3 is the ending you're deluded...

It has amazing "stories" it itself, but it has A LOT of little issues. The more you start paying attention the more you notice.

- the intro is awful
- the gameplay is faulty (though I'm kinda stupid, so, this might be just me prefering the old system)
- the quest journal doesn't work
- awful, awful quest system
- not the same team of writers "ups we forgot x was a romance... never mind, go on, we're awesome"
- auto dialogue.... the hell with replay value!

...and well, the endings. I don't want to rant to much, that's just what I can think of on top of my head.

3.8 is extreme? yes, a little... but ME3 is a meh game. It just saves itself because of the previuosly developed games. On itself, it's.... a 5 maybe.

[napushenko]

crucible is lame though, something like ultimate nullifier from marvel comics, but i dont know, protheans were impressive and if they build something like that, who are we to question it when big robotic bugs are knocking on our door.

what do you mean war assets being pointless ? they are much better done then collecting infinite amount of resources youl use only 5 % of. i felt good knowing i have all those assets on my side. and they have info pages for every single one of them. i love war assets.

and once again. those eavesroping missions were not side missions. they are the same thing as resources collecting in me2, only done better. bw screwed up with not puting them as assignments or something. you have proper sidemissions in me3, those you can land on and shoot things and run around the citadel and you know.

vega was 10 x better then jacob in my book. ashley has gone a long way from me1 and it was good seeing her as shes the first follower you get in the trilogy. like seeing a old friend and go in fight for old times sake. javik was more nuanced and better then that mercenary guy in me2, forgot his name, never used him.

ofcourse just my opinion, hope i clarified a litlle how i can think otherwise

[poerksen]

Navasha wrote...

Well, it is a user review site and as such carries very little value to me anyway. A review is only as good as the reputation the reviewer holds with the reader. Over time you either grow to trust a reviewers viewpoint on games or you don't. Its that trust in the reviewer that adds credibility to the review.

User reviews by very definition are never able to establish that trust because the reviews are never done by the same people with the same tastes and are subject to emotional review bombings like what is being done with ME3.

True, but I will never be able to trust official reviewers such as gamespot or IGN again after having read their reviews and played ME3.
I would rather read through a couple of user reviews to get a general idea of how good a game is.