549 réponses à ce sujet

[Metalrocks]

i never bothered with their ratings. at times they are over the top or really low. with this game, no, this low is not right. even when the ending sucks like hell.

personally, due bad ending, i just cant play it again. i really cant. i started a second time with my renegade shepard, but every time i see this stupid kid, i get so angry that i want to shoot this little s***. so i dint bother to continue. because of the kid talking his utter BS and because of the really terrible ending in history of gaming, that stoped me from playing it again.

[Arcadian Legend]

wolfsite wrote...

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.

Yep. pretty sure that happened  even before all the ending shenanigans. Though I stopped caring about Metacritic a long time ago anyway.

Modifié par Arcadian Legend, 14 mai 2012 - 03:56 .

[TMA LIVE]

napushenko wrote...

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 

This is an example of why critics think players are whiners. Instead of making a good argument and leaving it at that, they're trying to damage the sales of the game, all because Shepard didn't live happily ever after.

[Rxdiaz]

Metalrocks wrote...

i never bothered with their ratings. at times they are over the top or really low. with this game, no, this low is not right. even when the ending sucks like hell.

personally, due bad ending, i just cant play it again. i really cant. i started a second time with my renegade shepard, but every time i see this stupid kid, i get so angry that i want to shoot this little s***. so i dint bother to continue. because of the kid talking his utter BS and because of the really terrible ending in history of gaming, that stoped me from playing it again.

That's the problem with rating this game though. I actually like it, except for the horrible ending. Yes there are many other things wrong with it to bring the score down, but not to 3.8 though. But then when you try to play it again you just get sick of that kid (I actually hated him my first play through) and the ending. So how do you rate it? Good for 1 play then trade it in? What score is that?

I know one thing, that certainly isn't a 10 in my book...

[neilthecellist]

napushenko wrote...

Mettyx wrote...

DaJe wrote...

Most professional reviewers ignoring the large collection of partly jarring problems is showing the sad stat of the whole system.

Exactly, I was astonished at the unprofessionalism and incompetency of most "professional" reviews for ME3. It really opened my eyes.

You know, there is a reason why they are "proffesional" and you are not  

This.

[abaris]

Arcadian Legend wrote...

wolfsite wrote...

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.

Yep. pretty sure that happened  even before all the ending shenanigans. Though I stopped caring about Metacritic a long time ago anyway.

Then why is it that only DAII and ME3 received abysmal user ratings?

ME1 and 2 as well as DA:O are high in their 8s when it comes to users.

[crazyrabbits]

napushenko wrote...

You know, there is a reason why they are "proffesional" and you are not

As I've said before, the video game magazine industry has a long way to go before it's considered anywhere close to having integrity and professionalism. Putting aside the fact that many of the video game magazines out there right now are just shills for whatever corporate entity they work for (GameInformer for Gamestop, PXM, XBox Magazine), the vast majority of reviews come from people who have no experience outside the publication they work for.

I've read and seen examples of interns reviewing supposed top-tier releases time and time again - one notable example I remember is a female intern at XBox Magazine who reviewed Duke Nukem Forever and gave it a 2/10, while displaying a shocking lack of understanding of the series' history and the issue that it's supposed to be a foul-humored game. I've seen supposed "video game journalists" get into p***ing contests with players and other writers online over what they perceive to be insults to their ego. You've got the continuing issue of game publishers repeatedly blackballing any publication (or blog) that doesn't tow the party line, and you've got the ongoing controversy over paid game reviews.

There is little, if anything, professional about video game journalism in today's culture.

[napushenko]

[quote]abaris wrote...


Yep. pretty sure that happened  even before all the ending shenanigans. Though I stopped caring about Metacritic a long time ago anyway.
[/quote]

Then why is it that only DAII and ME3 received abysmal user ratings?

ME1 and 2 as well as DA:O are high in their 8s when it comes to users.

[/quote]

Thats really funny because ME 3 is no way different then ME 2. Same basics. Same rpg elements. No major difference in storytelling & user input.  I dont know. I think there is like 70 % chance that user ratings will be same for DA 3.  And ME 4 or something.  When that happens i dont think it will be only because of bioware. I mean, i know games. I play them for 20 years. Since super nintendo and amiga for chrysakes. I care about the story and simple details as a picture of tali on the desk and non holstering your gun or bad polygon count on protagonists head didnt matter back then. 

And i only see it with Bioware. Skyrim got perfect reviews and i was bored with the game to the death.  
Dont know, dont think its with them, and dont think is with me. Do people have that much hate toward EA or something ?  

Some say its they downplayed RPG elements. They did, inventory customizing is not big part of last two games, even more in ME 2 then ME 3 but the story and consequences, also major part of rpg-s are never done before this good. 

Hope its just a vocal minority. Or some herd mental state of mind.  Something. 

They make the best game(s) i ever played and people hate it. hate them.  Prff.  It doesnt need to be RPG or shooter or have any label to be something you consider. Saw a lot of people hating it for that too. 

INevermind. Forget it. 

[napushenko]

crazyrabbits wrote...


There is little, if anything, professional about video game journalism in today's culture.

There allways was and will be proffesional video game journalism, but it will still be opinion of one man. As with movie reviews. There are big names who know their stuff and there are interns. So, please dont mind me taking one interns opinion as a fact. Did other reviewers gave duke nukem forever a solid score ? I didnt played it and i remember it was like 15 years in the making but i read one proffesional review where its given favourable score with all accounts taken into consideration. That it was meant to be chew bubblegum and kick ass game and that delayances almost killed it. 

Thats allready 1-1 and i bet there were more good ones then bad ones out there. 

General consensus of critique is that Mass Effect 3 was a great game.  And i bet they didnt put their interns to cover it. 

[crazyrabbits]

napushenko wrote...

I mean, i know games. I play them for 20 years. Since super nintendo and amiga for chrysakes. I care about the story and simple details as a picture of tali on the desk and non holstering your gun or bad polygon count on protagonists head didnt matter back then.

As have I. I've been playing games since '94. I know what constitutes good and bad, from a critical perspective.

It's not that one problem on its own makes the game mediocre. It's that there are so many small problems, glitches, bugs and wonky storytelling moments that the whole thing collapses in on itself.

napushenko wrote...

And i only see it with Bioware. Skyrim got perfect reviews and i was bored with the game to the death.  
Dont know, dont think its with them, and dont think is with me. Do people have that much hate toward EA or something ? 

This has been discussed to death many times over. They're two separate sub-genres - all of Bethesda's games focus on the open-world concept, and are made for mods and future replayability. BW's claim to fame is some of the best RPG writing in the business.

napushenko wrote...

Some say its they downplayed RPG elements. They did, inventory customizing is not big part of last two games, even more in ME 2 then ME 3 but the story and consequences, also major part of rpg-s are never done before this good.

It's not even that they "downplayed" those elements. It's that they broke elements that were already working well. The quest system, the scanning minigame, the removal of permanent heavy weapons (because they trivialized the story), the N7 missions, etc.

napushenko wrote...

General consensus of critique is that Mass Effect 3 was a great game.  And i bet they didnt put their interns to cover it.

As far as DNF goes, most reviewers lowballed it because they either didn't understand that it played like a jury-rigged game from 15 years ago and/or didn't get the humor. That's beside the point, though. I merely use it as an example.

If you look around and research just a bit, you'll find many (if not most) "professional" reviewers never bother completing a game before writing a review. Most are under deadline and have to either rush through or give an impression of the first few hours so it will be ready to post/print by release day. That's not even getting into the fact that there are review scores that appear to be artificially inflated, even when the review(s) in question call out problems or drawbacks in the game itself.

Most of the "critiques" I read for ME3 neglected to mention the litany of problems I reference in my prior post a few pages back. Very few of them actually talked about the ending, nor did they mention the frequent bugs, glitches and general wonkiness of the crippled gameplay elements.

Modifié par crazyrabbits, 14 mai 2012 - 04:54 .

[CaolIla]

All I see is that more people using metacritc felt like "Oh man this game sucks!" and not like "Oh man this game is awesome!".

So there is just one fact people should face: There are really people out there who don't like the game and think it's bad.

If you care about the opinion of random people using metacritic, I guess that could make you a sad kitty. The question is: Isn't your own opinion the only one you should care for?

[abaris]

napushenko wrote...


Thats really funny because ME 3 is no way different then ME 2. Same basics. Same rpg elements. No major difference in storytelling & user input.  I dont know. I think there is like 70 % chance that user ratings will be same for DA 3.  And ME 4 or something.  When that happens i dont think it will be only because of bioware. I mean, i know games. I play them for 20 years. Since super nintendo and amiga for chrysakes. I care about the story and simple details as a picture of tali on the desk and non holstering your gun or bad polygon count on protagonists head didnt matter back then. 

And i only see it with Bioware. Skyrim got perfect reviews and i was bored with the game to the death.  
Dont know, dont think its with them, and dont think is with me. Do people have that much hate toward EA or something ?  

Some say its they downplayed RPG elements. They did, inventory customizing is not big part of last two games, even more in ME 2 then ME 3 but the story and consequences, also major part of rpg-s are never done before this good. 

Hope its just a vocal minority. Or some herd mental state of mind.  Something. 

They make the best game(s) i ever played and people hate it. hate them.  Prff.  It doesnt need to be RPG or shooter or have any label to be something you consider. Saw a lot of people hating it for that too. 

INevermind. Forget it. 

Let me put it this way: I never rated a game on any site. But if I would, I would rate DAII and ME3 worse than the previous titles. Not that low, mind you, but significantly lower. There has been a change going on starting out with DAII and that obviously doesn't sit well with their original fanbase.

They openly admit to be on the prawl for more casual gamers. Well, mission accomplished - but at the cost of alienating a large and vocal part of the original fanbase.

Also, you can't compare Skyrim's ratings with ME3. With Skyrim people expected to get a sandbox and they got a sandbox. Wether you like it or not is irrelevant. The fanbase of Elder Scroll games got what they bargained for.

Modifié par abaris, 14 mai 2012 - 05:22 .

[Chapity]

Or maybe it's the journalism degree perhaps? Or the time spent playing games that by comparison are garbage? Or the fact that most of these dudes actually work with people in the industry? I think all of those things qualify the professionals to do there job. Metacric is always going to be a mixed bag. Some people take it upon themselves to give 1 scores for a variety of reasons. You read two pages of that thing and you see what it's about. I personally don't like reviews of any kind unless there is a qualification, and even then I take with a grain of salt. 3.8 is the hallmark of the rpg gamer mindset to me. Most of these dudes wear red shirts and bomb blizzard for the most minor of lore inconsistencies. You change anything and it's retcon this and broken that. I liken it to jam band fans. Snobbery abounds!!!!!

[Gatt9]

TMA LIVE wrote...

napushenko wrote...

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 

This is an example of why critics think players are whiners. Instead of making a good argument and leaving it at that, they're trying to damage the sales of the game, all because Shepard didn't live happily ever after.

No.

"Critics" think people are whiners because they're just external PR for companies.  People have already done statistical analysis of "Critics" and discovered Publishers games only use a 7-10 range,  while Indie games use a full 1-10 range. 

This is due to the fact that sites generate money only from selling ads,  Gamers do not pay them anything at all.  Then there's preview access,  review copies,  review embargoes,  Publishers control every aspect of "Reviews".

The simple fact is,  10-15 years ago,  this game would've gotten a midrange score.  Just the fetch quests alone are a major ding,  never mind the rest of the large number of problems that exist,  before you even get to the nonsensical ending.

It's astounding how people will claim "Oh,  you're all an evil group of people hellbent on damaging the sales of the game!!!",  but never seem to mention the group claiming 10/10 as people trying to boost sales by misrepresenting the game.

Or maybe it's the journalism degree perhaps? Or the time spent playing games that by comparison are garbage? Or the fact that most of these dudes actually work with people in the industry? I think all of those things qualify the professionals to do there job. Metacric is always going to be a mixed bag. Some people take it upon themselves to give 1 scores for a variety of reasons. You read two pages of that thing and you see what it's about. I personally don't like reviews of any kind unless there is a qualification, and even then I take with a grain of salt. 3.8 is the hallmark of the rpg gamer mindset to me. Most of these dudes wear red shirts and bomb blizzard for the most minor of lore inconsistencies. You change anything and it's retcon this and broken that. I liken it to jam band fans. Snobbery abounds!!!!!

You *really* should do some research on Gaming Journalism,  it's pretty much nothing like what you think it is.  It definitely doesn't require a journalism degree.

You also act as if they actually spend much time,  if any,  playing games.  It's blindingly obvious they don't,  they just check to see who published the game and how much advertisement money they spend,  and slap a number on the box.

Once again,  Skyrim PS3 version,  gamekilling bug.  Doesn't get any more obvious that they didn't actually play the game.

Of course,  you then turn around and throw out the "You're all elitists!" defense.  Which is pretty much the hallmark of a person who blindly defends a company and is running out of arguements.

[Shepard108278]

I don't agree with that rating at all but it is metacritic so..... IMO ending included game is a 9.0.

[TheClonesLegacy]

Honestly it's Whining Poop Babbies only trained in being non-descriptive Dillweeds (And I don't care if any y'all wrote a metacritic Review doesn't change my Standpoint.)
I rate the game 7/10 Btw

[Chapity]

Really, so it isn't elitest to give the game a 1? When did I defend bioware? I called out metacritic for what it is. I am saying that it's just as ridiculous to say the game is a ten (which it isn't) as it is to say it's a 1(which it very clearly isn't). I have my problems with me3 (fetch quests, journal, planet lost, wierd graphics stuff), but how does a game that gets it right for the vast majority of the time deserve to be pummeled by the herd who clearly are in it to burn down ea (which, I too have a problem with...as my friends and I refer to them, the "walmart" of publishers..evil empire and all).

Also, since you have no idea who I give credence to as a reviewer, and you are so vastly more informed about the concept of "conflict of interest", I would ask what journalism you give credence to at all. Wife is a creative director for free mag here where I live. She gets shwag all the time. However, it is hers and her publishers responsibility to there readership to be honest, especially when it comes to op eds. Is it really in anyone's best interest to give a high grade to something that clearly isn't in that mold? How long you think that would last?

When I start running out of ideas, I will let you know though. Bioware wears this thing squarely on there shoulders, and I get it with regards to the retakers. The worst of them however have made the whole thing a target, and it's a shame that a critical argument can't be had because of the loudest of minorities.

[Andromidius]

napushenko wrote...

Mettyx wrote...

DaJe wrote...

Most professional reviewers ignoring the large collection of partly jarring problems is showing the sad stat of the whole system.

Exactly, I was astonished at the unprofessionalism and incompetency of most "professional" reviews for ME3. It really opened my eyes.

You know, there is a reason why they are "proffesional" and you are not  

Yeah, they get paid.  That's the definition of being a professional.

And when the money they get is from the products they are reviewing (ad revenue), there's a serious conflict of interests.  Hense, they can't really be trusted to be unbiased.

[Andromidius]

crazyrabbits wrote...

I've read and seen examples of interns reviewing supposed top-tier releases time and time again - one notable example I remember is a female intern at XBox Magazine who reviewed Duke Nukem Forever and gave it a 2/10, while displaying a shocking lack of understanding of the series' history and the issue that it's supposed to be a foul-humored game.

To be fair, I'd not rate the game much higher then a 2/10 either.  But that's due to the game being really clunky and old fashioned in the places it matters (i.e, the controls), and copying modern concepts where it shouldn't (i.e, 2 weapon limit, regenerating health - BLERGH!).  The humour wasn't even that good, felt very forced and lacked some of the badass taunts in previous games.  Duke Nukem is a real good example of a 'bad game' - and in that regard, Mass Effect 3 destroys it utterly. 

Bar the ending, Forever's ending was better then ME3's - even though it sucked as well!

[Andromidius]

napushenko wrote...

Thats really funny because ME 3 is no way different then ME 2. Same basics. Same rpg elements. No major difference in storytelling & user input.

Same basics, minor improvements and major downgrades.

Different RPG elements, with the ultimate 'nothing actually matters' truth rendering them completely moot.

Incorrect with storytelling and user input differences - they flat out cut it down to nothing.  Removing neutral options, autodialogue and lack of investigate options, not to mention really bad interupts (honestly a feature I thought was done incorrectly anyway...) isn't being the same as ME2.  At all.

And edit, since I realised I triple posted already (oppsies):

Honestly I have no problem with people giving deflated 1/10 scores.  Why?  Because of all the inflated 10/10 scores.  It balances things out, and also sends a message that people are upset over it.

Would I do it?  Nope.  I gave it a 6.5/10 or so.  But I'm still annoyed, the game was setting itself up for a 9.5/10.

Oh, and nothing should ever get 10/10.  EVER.  Nintendo magazine did something right in that regard (at least during the 90's when I read it), even the best game reviews never gave more then 98% (and even that was super rare), and lots of games were rated very lowly.

Modifié par Andromidius, 15 mai 2012 - 12:50 .

[Metalrocks]

Rxdiaz wrote...

That's the problem with rating this game though. I actually like it, except for the horrible ending. Yes there are many other things wrong with it to bring the score down, but not to 3.8 though. But then when you try to play it again you just get sick of that kid (I actually hated him my first play through) and the ending. So how do you rate it? Good for 1 play then trade it in? What score is that?

I know one thing, that certainly isn't a 10 in my book...

also not a 10 for me. i had actually mroe fun with ME2 then ME3. yeah, i dint like the kid either when i played it the first time.
and as you said, there were other faults with this game as well. lack of speech and choices. so as graphical downgrades and the broken journal. still wish i can holster my weapon.
so yes, its clear that it was rushed and not properly optimized for the pc.  but still a good game. just wish they would fix all these problems.

[crazyrabbits]

Andromidius wrote...

crazyrabbits wrote...

I've read and seen examples of interns reviewing supposed top-tier releases time and time again - one notable example I remember is a female intern at XBox Magazine who reviewed Duke Nukem Forever and gave it a 2/10, while displaying a shocking lack of understanding of the series' history and the issue that it's supposed to be a foul-humored game.

To be fair, I'd not rate the game much higher then a 2/10 either.  But that's due to the game being really clunky and old fashioned in the places it matters (i.e, the controls), and copying modern concepts where it shouldn't (i.e, 2 weapon limit, regenerating health - BLERGH!).  The humour wasn't even that good, felt very forced and lacked some of the badass taunts in previous games.  Duke Nukem is a real good example of a 'bad game' - and in that regard, Mass Effect 3 destroys it utterly. 

Bar the ending, Forever's ending was better then ME3's - even though it sucked as well!

Yeah, don't get me wrong. DNF was crap - it was a hodgepodge of different design elements from a decade-plus development cycle, coupled with horrifically-bad writing ("The Hive" level stands out - making fun of women impregnated with aliens - what the hell?) , long stretches where nothing happens and antiquated gameplay mechanics. To its credit, though, Gearbox did do much better with The Doctor Who Cloned Me. That's beside the point, though.

My thing is that this is just symptomatic of video game "journalism" as a whole. Supposed top-tier magazines get low-level employees to review games they have no understanding of, reviewers either rush through games or don't finish it before writing reviews, the constant loom of "paid reviews" and the fact that we live in a time when developers get bonus or cutbacks based on said reviews. It's a terrible situation all around - the reviewers often get it wrong just as many times as they get it right.