549 réponses à ce sujet

[Redstar6]

napushenko wrote...

there is, and some opinions about the game are quantifiable. like, me3 has better graphics then me1. you may like me1 graphics more but that doesnt make it true just because of that.
i liked a lot of stuff here. how teammates move through the ship is way better then them just standing in one spot through whole game. how there is much more npc and follower dialogue.
and a lot of other stuff. if you dont take them into account youre not objective at all if youre not looking at both flaws & cons at the same time.
and this game by that account, dont deserve rating 5.

and it makes you whiny if you give it a 5 rating just because you didnt like some virtual photo at the end which may or may not be in your playthrough and overlook major things like graphics, surroundings, combat etc or take them for granted.

you may not like it, but its true.
hypothetically speaking, ofcourse.

It makes me whiny because something I dont like when its clearly stuff that you like. What your bassically saying is only pros and downtrotting any cons that arent your own. Yes I can hate a stock picture because its my opinion, as you like that graphics because they are yours.   I will list the cons and pros for you since you cant see past your own opinion.

1. Face import broken at launch. (you may not see this as a flaw but rather you like it or not, its true)
2. Plot holes. No matter how much you pretty up a setting, a plot hole is a plot hole.

Other things I wanted to ass are subjective like the ending and and force lack of character rise and falls. (This for a stand alone title not just because its the end of a trilogy.

And yes I would assume I am more invested just as anyone else can be invested in a medium they enjoy. Yes I will take MY SCORE to a 5/10 because its MY SCORE and there is no difinitive rule for someone opinion. As for Casey yes I can lower my score because of what he said. Look up his pre-release talks about the game and you may see why people are annoyed. I used Peter Molynuex as a joke because he is known for overhyping his games and even through they are (in respect) good games, they are tarnished with lies which ruin the game. 

[KBomb]

napushenko wrote...

why is no one saying something good about this game ? they actually improved on LOT of stuff here and i dont think i saw any post giving them props for combat or surroundings or much more character dialogue. those are major things, not holstering weapons or jessica chobots ass in my ship

 
Why do you care so much about what other people think about the game? If you love it so much, it shouldn't matter. I also don't understand why you need someone to justify your thoughts on the game. Seems like you don't have a lot of confidence in your own opinion and need someone to bolster it for you.

[napushenko]

jreezy wrote...

napushenko wrote...

and wont answer any of your points above because i dont wanna repeat myself. 
game - great. 
ending - sucks.
war assets > resource mining/collecting. same s h i t 

strong nine. for me. 
anyone who has it below 7 at least is a troll because he cant objectively look at the game. worst games ever have ratings of 4-5.  you telling me this have rating as deer hunting or barbie dances with you or something like that. 

Judging by what you just said, you're the last person that needs to be talking about "objectively looking at the game".

why so ? only two things we can disagree here i guess are war assets and ending. 
and if yo prefer to mine same resources non stop over collecting war assets with background and info, then you are retarded. 

[napushenko]

KBomb wrote...

napushenko wrote...

why is no one saying something good about this game ? they actually improved on LOT of stuff here and i dont think i saw any post giving them props for combat or surroundings or much more character dialogue. those are major things, not holstering weapons or jessica chobots ass in my ship

 
Why do you care so much about what other people think about the game? If you love it so much, it shouldn't matter. I also don't understand why you need someone to justify your thoughts on the game. Seems like you don't have a lot of confidence in your own opinion and need someone to bolster it for you.

you dont know what youre talking about, really. 
im amazed how people are holding by straws just to s h i t on this game for small things like the dude above you quoted. photograph in the game ruined his game. i mean faceimporting. same s h i t  and hes not whiny. yeah, ofcourse. 
and so many of you. invasion really. 
hateforums, logoff. 

bye bye 

Modifié par napushenko, 13 mai 2012 - 07:59 .

[abaris]

napushenko wrote...

you dont know what youre talking about, really. 
im amazed how people are holding by straws just to s h i t on this game for small things like the dude above you quoted. photograph in the game ruined his game. i mean faceimporting. same s h i t  and hes not whiny. yeah, ofcourse. 
and so many of you. invasion really. 
hateforums, logoff. 

bye bye 

Yeah, it's sh*t, but it adds up and you get a whole pile in the end. And that stinks.

Reduced animations, lacking face import, photoshopped rushjob, automated dialogue, lacking UI especially when it comes to journal entries, planet scanning fetch quests by the numbers and a less than satisfying ending. And mandatory multiplayer or app madness to top it off.

I would think that's enough to take down quite a few notches when rating the whole enterprise.

Modifié par abaris, 13 mai 2012 - 08:06 .

[Swordfishtrombone]

napushenko wrote...

- well, i heard that fake rachni queen betrays you and kills some engineers on crucible minimizing your assets by a couple of hundred points if you take her with you. also there is much dialogue with legion about collector base and it counts in geth - quarian plot, so, dont know whats the problem except they are not of magnitude you imagined.

The rachni differences barely count as differences at all, in the face of the absurdity of having the rachni there in the first place, if you killed off the last queen - the "fake queen" explanation is really forced, and only underlines the fact that you are being shoe-horned into the same basic routes whether or not you saved the queen.

Changes in the assets I don't count as changes at all, since the assets don't actually show up in any way - not even in cut scenes that would change depending on what assets you had; and that would be the bare minimum to make it count. The assets are just an abstract number, and don't feel real at all - in the end, their connection to the possible outcomes in the ending don't seem to make much sense, and there's no gameplay difference based on what assets you have gathered for the final showdown.

That really does undermine much chance for meaningful changes based on earlier decisions - since those changes can only affect the end of the game through an abstract number, and can cause no SPECIFIC changes based on specific properties of the choises made (an example of such a change would be, say, recruiting the Elcor resulting in seeing Elcor fighters in the field, fighting alongside you, perhaps with you directing the action; this could be similar to how such "assets" were done in DA:O)

The changes that I've seen are - mostly, not every change, but mostly - very minor, and have no long-term effects beyond maybe a slight boost in the war asset number.

Going back to the Jack example I mentioned earlier - even the replacement character's moves don't differ in any noticeable way from what Jack does in the same cut scenes. Which underlines the fact that this throwaway character is just a place-holder for Jack. Seeing this didn't exactly leave a favorable impression over the extent of differences.

My whole point is that the scale of the differences, even for the most major, hyped up plot elements from earlier games, is very small, and this is what contributes to the feeling of ME3 being rail-roaded and linear, and thus lacking replay value for me.

[Raizo]

I don't know how to put it into words but ME3 is missing something.

The auto dialogue really hurts ME3. It doesn't really feel like 'our' ( or 'your' if you prefer ) story, instead it feel like someone else's.

Bioware placed a lot of emphasis on ME3 main story but the side effect to that is that it's sidequests really suffered. The lack of hubworlds and the fact that you don't really interact with the NPC's makes ME3's world seem very hollow and empty. I no longer feel as if I'm playing an rpg or a ME game, ME3 feels like Gears of War with ME characters and while that maybe okay for some people that is not why I got involved with the ME Universe in the first place.

There is also the way ME3 handles the decisions you made in the previous games. Very few of those mattered in the end. Who did you pick for Counciler in ME1, oh wait it does not matter. What did you do to the Rachni Queen, did not matter either. Collector Base, sorry that did not matter either. ME3's story is very narrow minded and very linear to a fault and it hurts the overall game and hurts replay value since apparently there are very few variables to play with in future playthroughs. And while I'm on the subject of ME3 very linear story, I understand why it is the way it is but I hate it the way it flows, it just does not feel right for an rpg.

And then there those stupid ****ing eavesdrop/planet scanning/reaper evasion mini games. A sidequest should be a someting you do on the side. However Bioware had to tie these in to 'War Assets' that effect which of the "16" ( big ****ing joke there ) you get so you kind of have to do them otherwise you're doomed to fail, they also had the temerity to add time limits to a lot of these quests so you can't exactly do them at your own leisure, you have to do them as soon as they come up which doesn't really make them feel like sidequests.

Make no mistake there is something in ME3's DNA which just doesn't work, it's not a ME game at it's core.

[SalsaDMA]

napushenko wrote...

tomb raider is third person shooter. mass effect 3 is a role playing game.
learn your games.

- well, i heard that fake rachni queen betrays you and kills some engineers on crucible minimizing your assets by a couple of hundred points if you take her with you. also there is much dialogue with legion about collector base and it counts in geth - quarian plot, so, dont know whats the problem except they are not of magnitude you imagined.

how come mass effect dont get there if lets say mordin can stay alive only if you killed wrex in first game and destroy the cure project in second one ? il say thats a major consequence.
quarians-geth have share of them too.

ME1 was a roleplaying game.

ME3 was a shooter built for shooterfans.

Cause that's where EA thinks the money are. To hell with "niche" genres then...

Sad thing is, every purchased mp spectre pack just gives them confirmation that there are money in mindless shooters.

[Chrillze]

ME3 is a RPG now?!? LOL, its a 3rd person shooter with a small touch of rpg but it's not a rpg and it was never meant to be one either.

[SalsaDMA]

napushenko wrote...

jreezy wrote...

napushenko wrote...

and wont answer any of your points above because i dont wanna repeat myself. 
game - great. 
ending - sucks.
war assets > resource mining/collecting. same s h i t 

strong nine. for me. 
anyone who has it below 7 at least is a troll because he cant objectively look at the game. worst games ever have ratings of 4-5.  you telling me this have rating as deer hunting or barbie dances with you or something like that. 

Judging by what you just said, you're the last person that needs to be talking about "objectively looking at the game".

why so ? only two things we can disagree here i guess are war assets and ending. 
and if yo prefer to mine same resources non stop over collecting war assets with background and info, then you are retarded. 

Between your insults, you are just throwing your own opinions about the game.

I already said it once, but you need to learn to accept that people have different opinions.

People not liking the game and stating an opinion about it is no less valid than you liking it and stating an opinion about it.

Opinions. recognize the meaning.

[Chrillze]

I personally think that a 3.8 is a bit low but I understand why people are rating the game so low, the ending ruined everything and alot of people(including me) are pissed off about that.

[timj2011]

Why do games have to be RPG's to have quality? I see ME3 as uncharted with dialogue, custom equipment and various outcomes to events based on descisions.....WHY IS THIS BAD!? IT DOESNT HAVE TO BE AN AREPEEGEE OR A LINEAR SHOOTER, its a bit of both

[Chrillze]

timj2011 wrote...

Why do games have to be RPG's to have quality? I see ME3 as uncharted with dialogue, custom equipment and various outcomes to events based on descisions.....WHY IS THIS BAD!? IT DOESNT HAVE TO BE AN AREPEEGEE OR A LINEAR SHOOTER, its a bit of both

It doesn't have to be a rpg to be a good game, Mass Effect 3 is a 3rd person shooter and its actually a really good 3rd person shooter

[DaJe]

timj2011 wrote...

Why do games have to be RPG's to have quality? I see ME3 as uncharted with dialogue, custom equipment and various outcomes to events based on descisions.....WHY IS THIS BAD!? IT DOESNT HAVE TO BE AN AREPEEGEE OR A LINEAR SHOOTER, its a bit of both

In a trillogy that is supposed to tell one big story the last game should atleast still be in the same genre as the first one.

Looking back at their vision for ME1 before it was released and their vision now makes you really think it is completely different people who made these games. But wait, that actually is the case!

Sure a franchise can evolve and ADD new elements but removing key features such as dialog trees and exploration is just going way out of line.

[Mole267]

jreezy wrote...

crazyrabbits wrote...
- New characters are largely useless and have no bearing on the plot (Kai Leng, Vega, Traynor, Cortez)

Why is Traynor in there?

The real question is, why didn't they bring Kelly back to the Normandy?

[bawb44]

What does it matter if some ****** site didn't like the game. The real question is did you. If you did then great, keep enjoying it. If you didn't like it go and complain like everyone else who has no idea what a good game is. The rest of us will continue to be the rest of us. Critics are too influenced by money passed their way, don't trust them and never will.

[DuallFinger]

Well, we could always just work out the score with simple maths, give a score for the main game and the take away the score for the ending to work out the games true score. So out of 10 I'd say the main part of the game has a 10. And the ending obviously sucked so we'll give it a 0.

So our final score is 10-0....10. Well...that's interesting. Bit higher then 3.8

[Il Divo]

jreezy wrote...

bawb44 wrote...

What does it matter if some ****** site didn't like the game. The real question is did you. If you did then great, keep enjoying it. If you didn't like it go and complain like everyone else who has no idea what a good game is.

Your bias is showing a little too much.

Looks like it. Indecent exposure, I say.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 mai 2012 - 10:45 .

[Mole267]

jreezy wrote...

Mole267 wrote...

jreezy wrote...

crazyrabbits wrote...
- New characters are largely useless and have no bearing on the plot (Kai Leng, Vega, Traynor, Cortez)

Why is Traynor in there?

The real question is, why didn't they bring Kelly back to the Normandy?

Probably because she actually was mostly irrelevant. 

but she appeared in ME3... she wasn't in the most fortunate of circumstances. I would think after serving on the crew that defeated the Collector's, she would've been hired on by the Human Alliance. Traynor was just as irrelevant of a character in ME3, btw.