549 réponses à ce sujet

[Ygolnac]

i gave ME3 a 6 on metacritic.
i gave ME2 a 9 and a 8 to ME1.
For me the endings are not the only issue with the game. Too short, too linear, maps too small with multiplayer in mind, choices you made in previous titles absolutely useless, boring fetch quest grinding. And way too many bugs. Also day 1 dlc VERY IMPORTANT for the plot at 10$ didn't help in my judgment.
3.8 is not harsh, it reflects people feeling about the game and the way bioware alienated their fanbase.

[napushenko]

youre wrong in some of your opinions ygolnac. its not too short, unless you consider 40 hours minimal short. i played it 60. with single dlc. i played me 2 80 hours with all dlc-s. not that much difference.
i havent noticed many difference in levels of me 2 and me 3. me 3 vere way more varied in my opinion.
fetch quests replaced minerals mining. you have proper side quests with dialogue and party banter and party chat after youre done with them. they are mostly n7 missions.
never noticed a single bug. name one ?  and again not mentioning things bw did right like combat and level design and more party and npc banter & dialoge.. 
id respect things you said if they are true, but some of them are not.
dont care about bioware alienation of their fanbase. thats not a fact in judging the game. and im playing me 1 and enjoying it right now, but i love me 2 & me 3 equaly. why fans choose to project their hatred of ending on whole game, your problem. but some of things you said are not true and not a matter of opinions.

Modifié par napushenko, 16 mai 2012 - 05:45 .

[napushenko]

Mefistos989 wrote...

respect your opinions, and i agree  with it. you gaved it 80 % i gaved it 90 % because i judged the game on its own, without  those shady things bioware did which i didnt like too. but can i ask, how could you finish it in so little time ? i played it twice this far and both times it took me around 60 hours to get it done with all exploration and completionism. 
i mean, 40 hours is big difference. 

Modifié par napushenko, 16 mai 2012 - 05:50 .

[SalsaDMA]

Napu, you really don't know how opinions work, do you?

[napushenko]

salsa, is opinion when someone says that the game is too short when it took me 60 hours to complete it. how is that an "opinion"
i can "beat" skyrim in 6 hours and say that its too short, but thats not an opinion, thats a distorment of facts.
is opinion that me 3 levels were more varied than me 2 levels ? by varied i mean not using same set of boxes over and over again. tuchanka, palaven, geth ai levels, etc.
is opinion that me 3 npcs had 3x more banter & dialogue then me 2 npcs ?

[SalsaDMA]

napushenko wrote...

salsa, is opinion when someone says that the game is too short when it took me 60 hours to complete it. how is that an "opinion"
i can "beat" skyrim in 6 hours and say that its too short, but thats not an opinion, thats a distorment of facts.
is opinion that me 3 levels were more varied than me 2 levels ? by varied i mean not using same set of boxes over and over again. tuchanka, palaven, geth ai levels, etc.
is opinion that me 3 npcs had 3x more banter & dialogue then me 2 npcs ?

There are different ways to play the games.

Different people, different playstyles(including on how long to spend reading stuff or what they do WHILE playing), different opinions.

Heck, I often leave the computer while playing to do random stuff which artificially bumps up my playing time of any game, but I don't pretend my timeframes are the only way to play games.

I'll imagine not doing the "mining quests" (which are touted as being >optional< by bioware) severely cuts down on time needed to be spent in the game before it is completed.

[sw04ca]

Haters gonna hate.

[napushenko]

they dont take long actually. even less than mining in me 2 because theres no multi probing. playing cat & mouse with reaper ships can take a couple of minutes but still majority of gameplay happened on missions.
i also run around ship after every real side mission to hear crews opinion on things and do citadel run after almost every priority mission. never left game on and go somewhere else for long so count that out.
thing is, nevermind the playstyles, you cant complain game is too short if you havent done everything it has to offer.

[SalsaDMA]

napushenko wrote...

they dont take long actually. even less than mining in me 2 because theres no multi probing. playing cat & mouse with reaper ships can take a couple of minutes but still majority of gameplay happened on missions.
i also run around ship after every real side mission to hear crews opinion on things and do citadel run after almost every priority mission. never left game on and go somewhere else for long so count that out.
thing is, nevermind the playstyles, you cant complain game is too short if you havent done everything it has to offer.

Let's just disagree on that one.

For example, I consider myself as having completed GTAIV, despite not having done all the stunts, achievements and what nots you can find of random stuff to do in that game. I've completed the main campaign, and that is what I consider when I think about 'completing' that game. Same routine should be applied to any game.

Also, on somewhat related note, I don't consider timepadding as being content. To me, 'probing' and 'overhear questing' in me3 is timepadding.

[ToaOrka]

I'd say it's just bias against EA combined with people butt-hurt about it not being as fantastic as 1 and 2 were. In my opinion, 1 = 9.8, 2 = 9.4, and 3 = 8.5, but that's just me. It's possible I'm just being generous.

[KotorEffect3]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Napu, you really don't know how opinions work, do you?

Shortsighted idiotic opinions that don't have any decent thought put into them are going to get criticized.  Having an opinion doesn't excuse a moronic statement from being moronic just because it is an opinion.  That idiot that said  "hur dur I giv da game a 2 becoz i dunt like it"  is definitely not immune from criticism.

[napushenko]

why should we disagree on that. after you completed gta iv did you post on forums that the game was short ? cause thats the same thing.
so by your opinion, skyrim is a short game because it has maybe 6-7 hours long main campaign ?
and i was not gunning for achievements, just mission completionism and wanted to hear every banter and dialogue. you can take that out and it still leaves the game at minimal 30-35 hours of pure missions gameplay. thats not short at any means imo

[xsdob]

If they bomb either bioshock infinite and assassin's creed 3 than I will know that they are just angry gamers who want to 1up the gaming industry and not legitimate reviews.

Modifié par xsdob, 16 mai 2012 - 06:41 .

[SalsaDMA]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Shortsighted idiotic opinions

That's the suits at big corporations you should be talking about with those words.

Short term bonuses guide them as a holy grail into killing industries and companies.

[KotorEffect3]

SalsaDMA wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Shortsighted idiotic opinions

That's the suits at big corporations you should be talking about with those words.

Short term bonuses guide them as a holy grail into killing industries and companies.

This thread is about review bombing not corporate conspiracies.

[Mefistos989]

To napushenko:
The difference in our playtimes is not suprising. It all boils down to Difficulty. ME3 is heavily action-oriented, I suspect 70% of playtime is shooting, 20% watching cutscenes and 10% actual talking. People who enjoy challenge naturally choose higher difficulties and thus they have longer playtimes (stronger enemies take longer to defeat and even 3 extra minutes every fight give you hours in total).

I don't like such design. Buffed enemies don't provide challenge for me, they simply take longer to kill (they have shields, barriers, more HP). It's a war of attrition.

I actually laughed when I saw "choose Story, Action or RPG". Story and Action looked like "options for dummies". Thank god I imported.

I don't tend to complete everything in any game. Not because it's hard, but because it's tedious (to this day I tend to modify my resources in ME2 via save editor) or it's not worth the effort (scanning planets in ME3 with non-functioning journal. It had to be completed in one run. Next day I forgot which star systems I already visited and journal failed me, so I wasted a lot of fuel.).

I am time-efficient while playing. Others may enjoy fights or play only to experience the story. No approach is any more valid than the other.

[napushenko]

mefisto, i agree completely. respect your playstyle, and i think you wouldnt complain that the game is too short if you know that theres much other stuff left for you to do. doesnt matter if that stuff is something you like or not.

[abaris]

napushenko wrote...

mefisto, i agree completely. respect your playstyle, and i think you wouldnt complain that the game is too short if you know that theres much other stuff left for you to do. doesnt matter if that stuff is something you like or not.

That makes all the difference. It is important if you like the stuff or not.

If you're expecting to find a roleplaying game and all you get is fights you get disappointed. I for one tend to tone down difficulty to enjoy the non fighting solutions. But with dialogues running on auto and fetch quests by the number there's not much left besides fighting.

And that's probably one of the reasons why ME1 and 2 got high 8 ratings and ME3 only the measly 3,5. The original fanbase wanted something besides shoot 'em up and watch our nice cutscenes without having any significant input.

[napushenko]

im not talking about enjoying the missions, im talking about game length which was complain of the person i quoted.
but about what youre talking, i liked this system and to me it wasnt much different then me2 one.
in me 3 we get more dialogue but in kasumi style and in me 2 we get more cinematic dialogue but less dialogue in general.
but i understand where youre coming from, you didnt like that me 3 was more shooter then rpg and i respect that, but i like all three games equally and every single one of them has some pros-s and con-s but they were all done perfectly in their styles in my opinion.

my beef is with people who say things like game is short, theres no narrative and dialogue, levels are bland, combat is bad which are obvious lies.

Modifié par napushenko, 16 mai 2012 - 07:36 .

[Mefistos989]

Actually, the game FELT short, but not because it WAS. The reason is simple. Developers wanted to give us resolutions and answers to everything (Genophage, Geth, Quarians, Illusive man, every single squadmate,Reapers...).

But the game could hold only limited amount of awesome. There were limits, namely money, manpower and time. So, recycling and shortcuts were made. As a result, many fans are disappointed (Jacob's romance is a joke for example) and several story parts feel rushed or underdeveloped.

Maybe we would be better off if they split the game into two parts (ala Harry Potter movie). That way many characters would have more screen time (Harbinger or Zhu's hope for example) and squad could be different the second time around.

When I give it a final thought... The game doesn't make much sense unless you are paragon and you are romancing Liara (Shepard's dreams feels weird for renegade "kill-on-sight" soldier and Liara offers far more content than any other LI - that's because her presence is a constant. She can't be killed.)

[Dwest43]

Id rate me3 as average. The previous two games had elements in them that definately felt missed such as exploration, hub worlds, mako or hammerhead gameplay. I really dislike how linear me3 felt. I think the combat saved this game and the mp is fun too even though it is buggy. For me there isn't much sp replayabiltiy and that's not because of the ending. Oh and planet scanning for war assets, just as lame as scanning for minerals. Give me a mako and let me mount armatures!

[napushenko]

Mefistos989 wrote...

Actually, the game FELT short, but not because it WAS. The reason is simple. Developers wanted to give us resolutions and answers to everything (Genophage, Geth, Quarians, Illusive man, every single squadmate,Reapers...).

But the game could hold only limited amount of awesome. There were limits, namely money, manpower and time. So, recycling and shortcuts were made. As a result, many fans are disappointed (Jacob's romance is a joke for example) and several story parts feel rushed or underdeveloped.

Maybe we would be better off if they split the game into two parts (ala Harry Potter movie). That way many characters would have more screen time (Harbinger or Zhu's hope for example) and squad could be different the second time around.

When I give it a final thought... The game doesn't make much sense unless you are paragon and you are romancing Liara (Shepard's dreams feels weird for renegade "kill-on-sight" soldier and Liara offers far more content than any other LI - that's because her presence is a constant. She can't be killed.)

We surely would be better of with Me3 part 1, more awesomness could never hurt, and as you said, there were too many things left open from both games, now when i think of it, they actually didnt resolve any question fans had from me1, they just added new ones. and new characters which fans grew to love. 
Someone was going to get hurt at the end, too many things needed resolving, and too many characters needed screen time, but still i feel that they did best they could. 
Maybe it would be better if they used all their resources on singleplayer, but maybe those resources would be smaller if there was no multiplayer involved. 
I hope for an expansion of sorts after the ending dlc.  

Modifié par napushenko, 16 mai 2012 - 08:09 .

[napushenko]

Dwest43 wrote...

Id rate me3 as average. The previous two games had elements in them that definately felt missed such as exploration, hub worlds, mako or hammerhead gameplay. I really dislike how linear me3 felt. I think the combat saved this game and the mp is fun too even though it is buggy. For me there isn't much sp replayabiltiy and that's not because of the ending. Oh and planet scanning for war assets, just as lame as scanning for minerals. Give me a mako and let me mount armatures!

I think that hammerhead  in ME 2 was added in dlc-s ? or im wrong. 
At least one more hubworld couldnt hurt, but i heard omega was in plan for dlc or expansion. 

Modifié par napushenko, 16 mai 2012 - 08:11 .

[SalsaDMA]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Shortsighted idiotic opinions

That's the suits at big corporations you should be talking about with those words.

Short term bonuses guide them as a holy grail into killing industries and companies.

This thread is about review bombing not corporate conspiracies.

Saying peoples opinion doesn't matter just because you disagree is of the same relevancy

And conspiracies? Puleezeh...