549 réponses à ce sujet

[Lyrebon]

napushenko wrote...

Lyrebon wrote...

napushenko wrote...

thats because he isnt, and to give a game of this calibre a 3,3 is irrational not to call it stupid. sweetin it how much you want, you either dont understand games or are just troll in general.

I should learn English grammar before you start denigrating others.

when you learn to write bosnian as well as i write english, we can talk about finer points of grammar. 
otherwise i hope i come as coherent and understandable because its not my primary language nor is it used in any official or nonofficial capacity in my country. 

Ah, fair enough. That was my fault and I'm wrong. I apologise.

[SalsaDMA]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Lyrebon wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Lyrebon wrote...

No different to what you've been basing your entire arguements off.

And actually, this is the first time I've even graced an ad hominem (which that wasn't) against you. What I said was merely established fact - you're incapable of holding a debate because you always insist everyone but you is wrong.

Well I am right on this matter.  This game is not a 3 no matter how you slice it.  Anyone that rates it a 3 or less is a whiny troll that can't judge a game fairly.  Flame away you know I am right and you can stop stalking me around the forums I am not going to change who I am to please you.

I'm not arguing with your on the snide scores. Some are low-brow and lack careful thought. I'm just making a reference to your other behaviour in light of jreezy's comment.

And that has relevance to the thread topic again?  Trying to slander me in a discussion that isn't about me is pretty immature.  If you have a beef with me than you can always PM me.

Discussion?

I thought you were doing a monologue without acknowledging input?

The "my opinion is the right one, and everyone that disagrees are idiots" isn't exactly discussing much, nor is it adding anything to the debate.

I find it rich you call other people for trolls while you are flinging out such comments at the same time.

It's cool that you appearantly find something to like about the game, but don't insult people that have another opinion purely for having another opinion. That just shows you as less than what you ought to be.

[Apfelweinbrauer]

LOL plz...

How to rate this game?

Let's start from a perfect 10 and just subtract points for every major flaw there is:

10

-1 for: The terrible ending, so ridiculously bad it's actually worth way more than a simple -1, but I will be merciful... How bad was it? Well, the biggest group ouright hated it and the second biggest group considered it to be some kind of prank by BioWare...

-1 for: Loads and loads of autodialogue in a game the claims to be about players choice. Well, pretty much the only choice you have is "do I have the patience to sit through all of this boring dialogue I can't influence, or should I just skip it?"

-1 for: Bad art design! Really, a sexbot with a cameltoe, Ashley's skimpy space escort outfit? Characters from Jersey Shore? Diana Allers ******? Terrible...

-1 for: Day 1 DLC that was already on the DVD? And don't forget about the price, 10 bucks for a 40 minute mission and some lines of dialogue? Plus, don't forget the incredible decent "Buy moar DLC"-message after you finished the game...

-1 for: Complete and utter disregard for almost all the decisions the players made in ME and ME2. Save or kill the Rachni queen? Keep or destroy the collector base? Completely meaningless, short for a few EMS-points you get for the "right" decision. Thanks for reducing the replay value of the previous titles...

-1 for: Terrible sidequests! Lousy fetchquests that would be considered substandard even in WoW, utterly ridiculous...

-1 for: General lazyness. Out of 16 announced endings, BioWare delivers 3 and those are for the most part just lazy palette swaps. Tali's face? Lazily photoshopped image from the internet. Picture with the stargeezer? "Winter on mars", again from the net...

-1 for: Glitches, bugs and bad game design galore, not in a huge open world game, but in an extremely linear corridor shooter, that's just awful. Seriously, face import bug? People having trouble starting the game in the first place? Glitched ladders that won't let you climb down correctly? Characters teleporting around in cutscenes? Have some mercy and fix obvious bugs before releasing a game...

So, all in all this leaves us with a solid 2/10, a fair rating I guess...

Modifié par Apfelweinbrauer, 16 mai 2012 - 10:47 .

[napushenko]

SalsaDMA wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Lyrebon wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Lyrebon wrote...

No different to what you've been basing your entire arguements off.

And actually, this is the first time I've even graced an ad hominem (which that wasn't) against you. What I said was merely established fact - you're incapable of holding a debate because you always insist everyone but you is wrong.

Well I am right on this matter.  This game is not a 3 no matter how you slice it.  Anyone that rates it a 3 or less is a whiny troll that can't judge a game fairly.  Flame away you know I am right and you can stop stalking me around the forums I am not going to change who I am to please you.

I'm not arguing with your on the snide scores. Some are low-brow and lack careful thought. I'm just making a reference to your other behaviour in light of jreezy's comment.

And that has relevance to the thread topic again?  Trying to slander me in a discussion that isn't about me is pretty immature.  If you have a beef with me than you can always PM me.

Discussion?

I thought you were doing a monologue without acknowledging input?

The "my opinion is the right one, and everyone that disagrees are idiots" isn't exactly discussing much, nor is it adding anything to the debate.

I find it rich you call other people for trolls while you are flinging out such comments at the same time.

It's cool that you appearantly find something to like about the game, but don't insult people that have another opinion purely for having another opinion. That just shows you as less than what you ought to be.

when your* opinion is based on exagaration, oversimplification and total non objectivity, its hard to call you* anything else. 
by giving me 3 a rating of 3. something,  you effectively call it one of the worst game ever produced and even played and that is simply not true. 

id expect same word be thrown at me if i go into skyrim forums and blast it because i cant jump anymore and put my hard earned skill points into strength & agility, tell the game is short because main mission lasts only 7 hours and that there is no clearly defined narrative whatsoever.  

Modifié par napushenko, 16 mai 2012 - 10:33 .

[Trebor1969]

My 'cast' will be: 5-/10 (because they were some great game moments)

1- Here are some points (my opinion, and order does not matter see bullet not number):

• Some critical bugs (game freezing, face import, download content check preventing from playing, ...)
• Poor graphical/texture compared even to ME2 & ME1
• Too much cut-scenes (I felt I played less, and spent much of my time watching ...)
• To much auto-dialogues (see above)
• Less total play time compared to ME1 & ME2
• Less RPG features (example: less number of dialogue choices, can run for ever (run Forest run ...), lack of good dialogue/interaction with most of the characters from ME1 & ME2)
• It's opposite: Too much like some BAD COD game some times
• Felt too much linear (in fact it was ...)
• No Planet exploration: example would have been nice to have planet exploration/small mission to get war assets (ME1 like: object gathering, defend and save Turian platoon, and so on ...)
• Small maps for each N7 & Priority missions
• Too much Eavesdropping side quests totally un-interesting (as opposed to boring in ME2 with scanning). Since they were most of them made to gather war asset which is poorly handled at the end and meant nothing since u have to play MP or use DataPad or Infiltrator TPS on 'imachines' to have ... (here I'm stopping since it's going to be a spoiler ...)
• For the existing choices seemed some of them did not even matter
• For previous games imported characters some medium & critical choices did not matter
• Lot's of short cuts in CGI cut scenes (wrong weapons, invisible objects and peoples, ...)
• Overdeveloped breasts : Might be a CGI Bug perhaps !
• Missing War Asset? in SP
• Be required to do MP, or use DataPad or Infiltrator TPS on 'imachines' (sorry some duplicate here, but the keyword is 'required' I'm paying for an action/RPG SP Story Driven called 'Mass Effect' not the premice of 'World Of Mass Effect' or 'Mass Of Duty' or 'Mass Of Honor'
• And of course the 'Cherry on the cake' the Your choice does not matter pick your ending color. The problem was that nobody told us that the cherry still had it's kernel and it was damn hard to pass through ...
• Plot holes
• I almost forget the 'April Fool' by BW/EA with the 1st Day DLC ...
• Patches that fixed some issues but caused new ones ...
• And it can continue ...

2- Some Conclusion Notes:

• I'm also surprised that the ending cast a big shadow over other important issues. These should have been a package and some kind of thread : 'Please gave us what you promised ..." see point below.
• I'm pretty sure that if it was not for the 'Over The Rainbow' ending, the forced MP, the freezing game and past or current actions don't matter most of us would have given at least a 8 or 9 (not 10 'cause nothing is perfect ...) even with all the other 'defects'. Just check ME1, ME2 and other games. They are not perfect ...

3- Conclusion

• We are all entitled to have our own opinions
• It's impossible to have Objective opinions there is always something (from the heart or the wallet) that prevent it (don't worry, I won't list them, it's impossible)
• I wished that some of us were more civil, less agressive, well not agressive at all in fact, and some of them were more forthcoming, less condescending, but here that might not be from their own accords (lot's of string attached to any people in corporations in our 'Deus Ex $' world. And at some point anyone break under the pressure. (like timelines, competitivity,  PR, ...)
• As for us the customers, there's also a breaking point, and we react in different ways. In any case stay civil and forthcoming explain why you agree or not! (see origin of the word Forum : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_%28Roman%29 of course without the assassination and/or corruption part ... )
• And finally since I'm a utopic customer, I'll say to any corporation, If u want to keep me as a customer, 'provide quality not quantity' and 'Take you time' ! That would be nice ... (I'm a dreamer)

Modifié par Trebor1969, 16 mai 2012 - 11:14 .

[napushenko]

Tremor, thats a fine post you wrote, some of things i agree with, some i dont, but im too tired to go point by point debate (maybe someone else will take the offer though)

Still.. just one question, if its not the trouble to rate ME 2 based on all points you wrote cause ME 3 did a whole lot of things better then ME 2.

Modifié par napushenko, 16 mai 2012 - 11:49 .

[napushenko]

jreezy wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...
This game is not a 3 no matter how you slice it.

If someone says Mass Effect 3 deserved a 3/10 you can't say anything to prove them wrong. So your statement is incorrect.

Sure you can. Unless that someone just says "Mass effect 3 deserved a 3/10 "  

[Gatt9]

Chapity wrote...

Oh, so gatt, what your saying is that fifteen years ago, there was nO advertising to consider, no bias or conflict of interest involved, only consoderation being the responsibility to the readership and games were never ever given false status due to outside influence. I'm calling bs right there.

You are operating under the assumption that things have changed so drastically in that amount of time. I encourage you to look up one man, Randolph Hurst. This has been going on forever. Media bias is not new. It would also appear that we now have a new term as well, user bias. Metacritic is loaded with. I have said before and I say again, take all critique witha grain of salt. The term buyer beware is not new as well.

Now, since you have come here to vent your biases, let me share with you mine. I know what a bad game is brother. ET. That's a bad game. Koolaid man. Bad game. I remember playing Oregon trail dude. All roads lead to dysentery. This game is so far and away from that it's absurd. However, metacritc begs to differ, and that's why it can't be taken seriously.

Computer Gaming World.  Go find old issues,  look in the letter from the editor,  and read how they consistently refused to be manipulated by advertisers,  and had several advertisers refuse to run ads with them because they wouldn't play ball.

Why?  Because they were paid by Gamers, not advertisers.

Then there's the fact that CGW wouldn't review a game unless it was the copy that the reader would find in the box when they bought it.  They wouldn't even review patches.

Things have changed quite drastically in the last 15 years.

Yup,  all of those games were bad.  But to argue that ME3 isn't,  that's definitely bias.  Strip away the graphics and what do you have?  A game more linear than Final Fantasy 13,  literally one giant invisible corridor,  even it's one "Open" area is just a corridor each.  Fetch quests.  Gameplay intentionally designed to make you fail quests so you are forced to play Multiplayer and buy an Online Pass,  look at Barla Von,  once you go to Tchunka,  if you don't go straight back to the Citadel,  if you don't ignore everything in the system the moment you do the fetch quest,  you can't complete it.  Never mind the "Mod system" which is basically "Put this damage mod on,  or that one". 

There's very little here that hasn't been widely panned by reviewers up until the very recent past.

[Trebor1969]

napushenko wrote...

Tremor, thats a fine post you wrote, some of things i agree with, some i dont, but im too tired to go point by point debate (maybe someone else will take the offer though)

Still.. just one question, if its not the trouble to rate ME 2 based on all points you wrote cause ME 3 did a whole lot of things better then ME 2.

Tremor or Trebor? :happy:

if Trebor and related to the lot's of bullet posts  here is my free add-on!

Me too, little bit tired as for ME2 and ME1,
for my part I would have to replay them since it has been long time I
played them, before trying to make some bad/wrong bullet spread sheet like
document for comparison with  ME3.

I guess as time passed, people mind have a way to make things greater than they really were. So I
would not be surprised if I remove some bullets and add some others to my previous post after replaying ME1 & ME2.

So yes, I'll replay them (waiting for the EC, just to see what will be inside, mainly curiosity now), then update/cut/increase my previous post. Might take some time though unless my boss allow me to play at work [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]  and after finish replaying Heavy Rain and finish writing the last scenario for my 2 years long Tabletop RPG campain as a Game Master ...

[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/sleeping.png[/smilie]

Modifié par Trebor1969, 17 mai 2012 - 12:15 .

[napushenko]

Gatt9 wrote...



Yup,  all of those games were bad.  But to argue that ME3 isn't,  that's definitely bias.  Strip away the graphics and what do you have?  A game more linear than Final Fantasy 13,  literally one giant invisible corridor,  even it's one "Open" area is just a corridor each.  Fetch quests.  Gameplay intentionally designed to make you fail quests so you are forced to play Multiplayer and buy an Online Pass,  look at Barla Von,  once you go to Tchunka,  if you don't go straight back to the Citadel,  if you don't ignore everything in the system the moment you do the fetch quest,  you can't complete it.  Never mind the "Mod system" which is basically "Put this damage mod on,  or that one". 

There's very little here that hasn't been widely panned by reviewers up until the very recent past.

Strip away graphics of every shooter and what do you have ?  
Strip away graphics of ME 2 and what do you have ? 

Name me some differences linearity between ME 2 and ME 3.  You couldnt even go up in ME 2. No verticality whatsoever. Same level design everywhere.  
Gameplay intentionally designed, Barla Von, what are you talking about ? The thing is that advancing the main plot advances time. When you advance time, there may or may not be some quests you accepted before. You had the option to do them till you clicked on world with main plot. Sacrilege ? And btw, fetch mine quests replaced resource mine quests. They were optional. Dont tell me you hadnt figured that out ? Scan the planets there, scan the planets here. Big difference. 
Mod system in ME 3 was same as in ME 1. Only you could see graphical effect on weapon which is a nice touch. 

[napushenko]

Trebor1969 wrote...

napushenko wrote...

Tremor, thats a fine post you wrote, some of things i agree with, some i dont, but im too tired to go point by point debate (maybe someone else will take the offer though)

Still.. just one question, if its not the trouble to rate ME 2 based on all points you wrote cause ME 3 did a whole lot of things better then ME 2.

Tremor or Trebor? :happy:

if Trebor and related to the lot's of bullet posts  here is my free add-on!

Me too, little bit tired as for ME2 and ME1,
for my part I would have to replay them since it has been long time I
played them, before trying to make some bad/wrong bullet spread sheet like
document for comparison with  ME3.

I guess as time passed, people mind have a way to make things greater than they really were. So I
would not be surprised if I remove some bullets and add some others to my previous post after replaying ME1 & ME2.

So yes, I'll replay them (waiting for the EC, just to see what will be inside, mainly curiosity now), then update/cut/increase my previous post. Might take some time though unless my boss allow me to play at work [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]  and after finish replaying Heavy Rain and finish writing the last scenario for my 2 years long Tabletop RPG campain as a Game Master ...

[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/sleeping.png[/smilie]

Sorry, i told you i was sleepy  

Would be nice if you do, at least from this ME 3 perspective and see what things you do actually like more. Admit it or not, we all have our nostalgy glasses on for some things.  I replayed ME 2 and finished it couple of hours before i started playing ME 3 so i was a bit surprised to see this much of disparitu between ratings when they both felt almost same to me, that is, almost equally great.

Except the ending and some plotholes,  but i cant blame that solely on ME 3 cause BW didnt resolve any plotpoint or fan wish in ME 2, they only added new question marks and new characters which we grew to love and it was too much for only one game to handle and give proper closure on all points. 

[napushenko]

jreezy wrote...

napushenko wrote...

jreezy wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...
This game is not a 3 no matter how you slice it.

If someone says Mass Effect 3 deserved a 3/10 you can't say anything to prove them wrong. So your statement is incorrect.

Sure you can.

Ok I'll bite. How?

you trollin me on purpose ? when someone list the things they think are wrong, you can actually disprove them on some quantifiable things. like when they say game is too short, you can say vanilla ME 3 had almost identical gamelength as vanila ME 2. or when they say that the game had less dialogue you can point that the game actually had twice as much dialogue, both in the normandy and with the npc/s. noncinematic dialogue but dialogue nontheless. things like that. ive been talking about them on almost every page of this thread. 

[Pandaman102]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

It means you are too narrowminded to accept the fact that the game is not what you thought it should be in your head.  You not liking something or a game not suited to your specific tastes does not make it a bad game but it does make you dishonest if you really think about it. 

I think it's rather disengenous of you to try to call people who expected ME3 to be different as "dishonest" when the expectation was created by Bioware's marketing campaign over the past five years. It's not the gamers who are being dishonest here.

Does ME3, based completely on its own merits, removed completely from the context of the trilogy and promises made, deserve a good score? Yes. Not an excellent one, mind you, because of the Starchild alone, but a good score nonetheless. However it is not its own game, it's the conclusion of a trilogy and culmination of all the decisions made over all three games, it's the reason why ME2 was so linear (to reduce the number of potential starting states in ME3, if you recall that justification), and where all the promises were supposed to manifest. For that, ME3 deserves a low score.

So the question is, if you were to rate the game for a friend who expects multiple endings based on his every decision in the previous two games, and couldn't give any feedback beyond a single, monolithic number, would you feel honest in giving handing him a high score, mediocre score, or low score? Because that's what metacritic is - just a number completely stripped of all opinion and context (which, honeslty, makes it completely useless as a way to rate games).

Not unlike EMS. Heh.

[napushenko]

Panda, would you feel different if the ending realy delivered everything and war assets had a much larger impact on it. Im thinking something in the style of ME 2 ending where war assets & party interaction/quests from both me1 & me 2 were deciding factor in who lives and who dies.
Because till that part, ME 3 was everything i hoped it would be. And more.

[napushenko]

jreezy wrote...


And they could still give the game a 3/10. Like I said, KotorEffect3's statement is incorrect.

If someone says that the game is 3/10 just because. Hes trolling. 
If someone gives you a list of the reasons and you prove that more of half of them are not true or not different from ME 2 which a lot of people here absolutely loved, then he would be wrong in giving ME 3 rating 3/10 if he gave ME 2 rating of 8,9/10. Which is like 90 % of people here who complain. 

He would be wrong in any case if we are talking about objectivity and take in mind things such as graffics, storytelling, combat, voiceacting, soundtrack, animations, leveldesign, etc. but il leave those things to the pro reviewers. 

Modifié par napushenko, 17 mai 2012 - 12:53 .

[Pandaman102]

napushenko wrote...

Panda, would you feel different if the ending realy delivered everything and war assets had a much larger impact on it. Im thinking something in the style of ME 2 ending where war assets & party interaction/quests from both me1 & me 2 were deciding factor in who lives and who dies.
Because till that part, ME 3 was everything i hoped it would be. And more.

Oh god, yes. If Bioware actually delivered on the multple endings promise? I would have given it a 20/10 and Krogan head-butted anyone who suggested otherwise (well, unless it was negative opinions about Kai-Leng's plot armor, Saren did plot armor well, Kai-Leng didn't).

Would have preferred no war assets at all though, converting all decisions into a single number destroys context and effectively throws those decisions out the window.

[napushenko]

I dont have any problem with those number because they were on purely theoretical standpoint, and there was a repeating theme and dialogue in series about sacrificing people for numbers in war so it was cool for me. now i dont want to let my imagination run wild, but actually sorting those numbers and units on galaxy map and playing general in some sort of min turn based strategy would be great way to show us that our resources mattered. and ofcourse the ending itself. but they will deliver. i expect at least an expansion. patience is a virtue >(

[xsdob]

So nobody's going to try and argue why mass effect 3 deserves the same score as mindjack?

You can't just be like this game that's okay deserves to be put in the same spot as one of the worst games of this decade.

That's like saying pirates of the carrabian 3 didn't really do it for me and I hated the ending, the rest of it was pretty decent though, so I'm going to give it the same score as birdemic, just because I feel like it.

It violates your duty as a reviewer and corrupts the legitimacy of the entire site, and speaks volumes about how very bias fans can be when talking about their personal feelings over actually unversally acceptable observations.

Modifié par xsdob, 17 mai 2012 - 01:11 .

[napushenko]

jreezy wrote...

napushenko wrote...

He would be wrong in any case if we are talking about objectivity and take in mind things such as graffics, storytelling, combat, voiceacting, soundtrack, animations, leveldesign, etc. but il leave those things to the pro reviewers. 

Stopping using that word "objectivity". You've already proven you don't know what it means.

and you proved that youre a troll. is that seriously your retort ? that i dont know what the word means. 
lets say, maybe im wrong, but i think its looking and judging something from all points of view with relative expertize and no bias whatsoever. 
I think ive done exactly the same considering this game.  if i have some bias, i explicitly state : in my opinion which may or may not be wrong.  

so, still think that someones rating of 3 cant be disproven ? 

Modifié par napushenko, 17 mai 2012 - 01:15 .

[Pandaman102]

napushenko wrote...

I dont have any problem with those number because they were on purely theoretical standpoint, and there was a repeating theme and dialogue in series about sacrificing people for numbers in war so it was cool for me. now i dont want to let my imagination run wild, but actually sorting those numbers and units on galaxy map and playing general in some sort of min turn based strategy would be great way to show us that our resources mattered. and ofcourse the ending itself. but they will deliver. i expect at least an expansion. patience is a virtue >(

In which case the war assets whould have been a completely separate thing, with your decisions dictating which fleets are available for your command and their loyalty (much like how compansions were at the end of ME2), and war assets as an "extra" that you can use to bolster specific fleets (and, as a result, not bolster other fleets) to improve their chances on whatever task you assign them to. That would have been a lot more true to the theme of "war by numbers", as those numbers would have an actual strategic value.

For example, you send the Turians to shield an Asari fleet on a mission to strike some Reaper target. Add more assets to the Turian fleet and they manage to pull through with minimum losses, but the Asari could only achieve partial success, add those assets to the Asari fleet instead and they achieve full success, but the Turian fleet suffers heavy losses. Something like that.

And it's true that patience is a virtue, but personally I wouldn't wait for something that hasn't been promised. Not that I trust any of Bioware's promises anymore.