549 réponses à ce sujet

[napushenko]

Amyra wrote...

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.

- the intro was bad ? why ? i ****ed myself when i looked into the sky when reapers attacked. it would be better if there was some trial on earth for your actions in past parts but not much of grieavance there. 
-think thats that second part you mention. the old system was lesser version of new system. its not like they changed something majorly, they only improved on shooting mechanics.  
- agree. theyve done a ****ty job there. deserve a -0.5 in my book. 
- same thing as above. and quest system was great. war assets > resource collecting. just that they didnt sort it right. goes to journal, not quest system. 
- say what ? it breaked my heart to see miranda crying when i told her our relationship cant work. i even changed my mind and loaded a savegame prior to that and stayed with her. (loading unless im killed - major no go in my book) 
- they had 3-4 times more dialogue then in me2. you had almost same amount of cinematic dialogue like in me2. 
i dont know what youre talking about. its not like that cinematic dialogue sayed something differently every time we replayed the game. i know cause i replayed me2 a LOT. 

- and well.. i agree 100 %  

[napushenko]

cant fight the trolls. too many. run away. come back next time. bring flamethrower.

clarification : anyone who gives me3 less then 7 rating is troll, blind or has the brain size of a peanut. 

sorry but its true. 

Modifié par napushenko, 12 mai 2012 - 02:36 .

[poerksen]

napushenko wrote...

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

The Protheans did not invent the crucible. btw.
I equate ME3's war assets to ME2's Normandy upgrades and those were not pointless. Resource collecting was irritating though, but I got past it. You could also get resources in missions. After having completed the game once, you would start the next game with a pretty significant amount of resources.

ME3 took btw. 20-30 hours, ME2 60? don't really remember, but I spent way more time going through that game. More content. Better content. Loyalty missions were more interesting than anything in ME3.
 
Yeah, Jacob was and still is the worst character in ME. Ashley is a joke. ME2's characters/squaddies were just better. Thane, Samara, Legion, Kasumi..... More to chose from and they all had dialog. EDI the lovebot, just feels out of place in a story as serious as ME3. I understand why some people complained about the "jersey shorey-fication" of ME3. I mean, just look a male Shep = man boobs. Vega, EDI, Ashley, how are we supposed to take these characters seriously? Diane Allers?

Modifié par poerksen, 12 mai 2012 - 02:39 .

[Legion_IV]

I think a 3.8 is abit harsh, but like many have said I would not give it over a 6/10 (And that is only because of returning characters and stories, which basically shows how good ME1 and ME2 were not ME3). If I have never played the previous 2 games, I wouldn't give a rat's ass about this one. I do not understand how anyone could give this game a perfect score (£$£$£<_<)... that means there is absolutely nothing that could be improved upon .

I do not think the 3.8 is actually about how the game was, but about how big the disappointment with it was which is completely understandable in my eyes because this game was and still is a massive dissapointment to me, even before I witnessed space magic!

[napushenko]

im talking about general preconception of our characters. hey, giant bugs are killing us and those guys who lived here left us something that can kill them off.

i spent like 80 hours in me2 with all dlcs and 60 hours in me 3 in my first playthrough with a single dlc. so, i think me3 beats me2 on unmodified account and it will improve when dlc-s start pouring out.

better content ?
i dont think so. all you do in me 2 is go and form a team. meet a teammate do a loyalty mission, next please. in me 3 youre saving the fckng galaxy and its much more personal.
but those things are our preferences so they cant be debatable.

[Amyra]

napushenko wrote...

Amyra wrote...

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.

- the intro was bad ? why ? i ****ed myself when i looked into the sky when reapers attacked. it would be better if there was some trial on earth for your actions in past parts but not much of grieavance there. 
-think thats that second part you mention. the old system was lesser version of new system. its not like they changed something majorly, they only improved on shooting mechanics.  
- agree. theyve done a ****ty job there. deserve a -0.5 in my book. 
- same thing as above. and quest system was great. war assets > resource collecting. just that they didnt sort it right. goes to journal, not quest system. 
- say what ? it breaked my heart to see miranda crying when i told her our relationship cant work. i even changed my mind and loaded a savegame prior to that and stayed with her. (loading unless im killed - major no go in my book) 
- they had 3-4 times more dialogue then in me2. you had almost same amount of cinematic dialogue like in me2. 
i dont know what youre talking about. its not like that cinematic dialogue sayed something differently every time we replayed the game. i know cause i replayed me2 a LOT. 

- and well.. i agree 100 %  

The intro was bad because it explain nothing to anyone (Imo)
 -why am i on earth?
- when?
-who's this guy? is he my friend?
- am i on trial, yes no? they took my ship? when? my crew? no goodbyes? ok....
- oh hai kaidan/ashley
-boom reapers!

It was.... meh.... it could have been better, with much more intro for new players, imagine them taking the Normandy, and you having to say goodbye to everyone including yor LI... that also could have help new players become invested in those characters.
But no.... it could have been so so much better was my point. It was just written to get it out of the way.

The dialogue wheel.... every game you play, is the same because of autodialogue. fact. Even if it's just illusion of choice, the fact that you can respond a certain way helps a lot to develop a character.
ME3 doesn't do that, it's a generic shep, saying the same things, doing the same things.... exact games... no replay value.

Everything is my opinion, though.

[napushenko]

this avatar is from bg2, do not make fun of him or youl get a magic missile in your ass.

[poerksen]

napushenko wrote...

Amyra wrote...

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.

- the intro was bad ? why ? i ****ed myself when i looked into the sky when reapers attacked. it would be better if there was some trial on earth for your actions in past parts but not much of grieavance there. 
-think thats that second part you mention. the old system was lesser version of new system. its not like they changed something majorly, they only improved on shooting mechanics.  
- agree. theyve done a ****ty job there. deserve a -0.5 in my book. 
- same thing as above. and quest system was great. war assets > resource collecting. just that they didnt sort it right. goes to journal, not quest system. 
- say what ? it breaked my heart to see miranda crying when i told her our relationship cant work. i even changed my mind and loaded a savegame prior to that and stayed with her. (loading unless im killed - major no go in my book) 
- they had 3-4 times more dialogue then in me2. you had almost same amount of cinematic dialogue like in me2. 
i dont know what youre talking about. its not like that cinematic dialogue sayed something differently every time we replayed the game. i know cause i replayed me2 a LOT. 

- and well.. i agree 100 %  

Wrt to the opening sequence on Earth, I also think that was poorly done. If you had not played the Arrival DLC, you would not understand what is going on? As a player, I also found myself focusing more on learning how to shoot, the different mechanics etc. rather than getting immersed in the story. ME2 did this perfectly.

[Yezdigerd]

Well part of it I think is that the butchery of the Mass Effect Universe in Mass effect 3, is not a self contained problem, they make Mass Effect 1 and 2 a less enjoyable experience as well.

"I'm a vision of the future of organic life Shepard, a union of flesh and steel" We cannot defeat the reapers we must join with them". It's kinda hard playing the game knowing your antagonist is right and your struggle only prolongs the inevitable just as they say and how the awesome Sovereign really is nothing but Starbrats toilet brush.

I find those consequences a fair reason to deduct points from the Mass Effect 3, in an overall score if you care for the whole story arch.

[Khayness]

napushenko wrote...

60 hours in me 3 in my first playthrough with a single dlc

Wonder how you did that. I talked with everyone after each mission, ran around on the Citadel for checking up on them aswell, even listened to the Blasto trailer, did all the side quests, got 100% galactic exploration, played on Insanity.

Total playtime 36 hours.

[napushenko]

Khayness wrote...

napushenko wrote...

60 hours in me 3 in my first playthrough with a single dlc

Wonder how you did that. I talked with everyone after each mission, ran around on the Citadel for checking up on them aswell, even listened to the Blasto trailer, did all the side quests, got 100% galactic exploration, played on Insanity.

Total playtime 36 hours.

i listed to blasto trailer twice  

also i love taking my time with this game, (cause its great, think i didnt sayd that )
like run around citadel after every mission, run around ship, talk to every team-mate, read every codex entry, dance, drink, use shooting in spectre missions. read infos on war assets, read plants infos, forget something then come back. 
i dont know, i know im pleasantly surprised too cause i thought it would be a fair amount shorter then me2 based on some user infos i read and fact that i only have one dlc installed. 

[Robhuzz]

napushenko wrote...

cant fight the trolls. too many. run away. come back next time. bring flamethrower.

clarification : anyone who gives me3 less then 7 rating is troll, blind or has the brain size of a peanut. 

sorry but its true. 

To me, Mass Effect 3 is worth a 6,5/7 out of 10 at max. It wasn't a bad game at all but there are simply too many flaws that I cannot ignore. The quest journal, the lack of proper side quests, the fetch quests that make up the majority of quests in the game for example. The animations were a step down from ME2 and the way the team handles guns in cutscenes (Shepard putting a pistol on his back which then dissapears) is just something they SHOULD have fixed. The overall rushed feeling of the game the closer you get to the ending is another one. 

And the ending renders the entire trilogy pointless because nothing you do will have an effect in the end. Not only that but it failed to live up to the promises that were made prior to the launch and didn't fulfil the high expectations.

So yeah, call people a troll or dumb for (rightfully) punishing the game for its flaws all you want if it makes you feel better but simply posting your opinion as fact does not make it so.

Modifié par Robhuzz, 12 mai 2012 - 03:00 .

[poerksen]

napushenko wrote...

im talking about general preconception of our characters. hey, giant bugs are killing us and those guys who lived here left us something that can kill them off.

i spent like 80 hours in me2 with all dlcs and 60 hours in me 3 in my first playthrough with a single dlc. so, i think me3 beats me2 on unmodified account and it will improve when dlc-s start pouring out.

better content ?
i dont think so. all you do in me 2 is go and form a team. meet a teammate do a loyalty mission, next please. in me 3 youre saving the fckng galaxy and its much more personal.
but those things are our preferences so they cant be debatable.

More personal mmhh. Thought helping Samara kill her Daughter or helping Jack destroy the place she grew up was plenty personal The loyalty missions were great, but perhaps not story relevant. Still ME2 was about building a team. We learned about the universe and some of the people living in it. In ME3 you were sent to Tuchanka and there were four missions: Mission 1: Destroy big gun, Mission 2: disarm bomb, Mission 3: Help some Turians, Mission 4: Was great, but the previous ones were completely uninteresting. Kind of the same story with Rannoch.

How in the world did you spend 60 hours in ME3? I did everything and it took me less than 30.

[napushenko]

for the last time, the fetch quests are quests if you consider resource mining quests.

and games like this dont deserve ratings like 1. or 2.
its like someone sayd i dont like how quest system works in baldurs gate 2. i think il rate it with 1.
so, sorry, but anyone who rates this below 7 is a troll because hes not objective at all. fact.
bye bye

[Aidan Rhane]

Meh, I'd give it a 5 (average) for the overall package. Even if the ending was fantastic, ME3 would still struggle to hit above a 7.

[Raizo]

People who give ME3 a 3/10 rating are trolls. realistically ME3 is a 7/10 or 8/10 game ( my personal score would be a 7.5/10 ). Reviews by trolls aren't helpful or informative, I would prefer honest reviews that discuss what they liked and disliked about ME3 and how they felt about the overall experience.

[Legion_IV]

napushenko wrote...

for the last time, the fetch quests are quests if you consider resource mining quests.

and games like this dont deserve ratings like 1. or 2.
its like someone sayd i dont like how quest system works in baldurs gate 2. i think il rate it with 1.
so, sorry, but anyone who rates this below 7 is a troll because hes not objective at all. fact.
bye bye

Or how about anyone who rates it below a 7 has a different opinion to you?

[poerksen]

Do not consider myself a troll, simply comparing to previous installments of ME. I think a score btw. 5-7 is valid on a 10 point-scale.

[abaris]

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 

I would rate it 6, maybe 7.

But you gave the answer to the original question yourself. By voting. There are some giving it an extreme voting, either in favor or disfavor. Both extremes aren't justified. It's certainly not total crap and it's certainly not perfect.

I guess the low ratings are a reaction to the professional ratings not seeing any flaw with the game.

[Raizo]

poerksen wrote...

Do not consider myself a troll, simply comparing to previous installments of ME. I think a score btw. 5-7 is valid on a 10 point-scale.

Well if you legitimate complaints about ME3 and you are honest about what the game did right and what it did wrong and you still feel like giving ME3 a score of 5 or less than I have no problem with that as long as you explain why ME3 3ends up getting the score you gave it, my main beef is with guys who have reviewed ME3 on Metacritic and Amazon and say stuff like perfect game until the end 2/10 or day 1 dlc, EA/Bioware suck 3/10.

[xkg]

napushenko wrote...
so, sorry, but anyone who rates this below 7 is a troll because hes not objective at all. fact.
bye bye

napushenko wrote...
cant fight the trolls. too many. run away. come back next time. bring flamethrower.
clarification : anyone who gives me3 less then 7 rating is troll, blind or has the brain size of a peanut. 
sorry but its true.

Oh lol, napushenko finally revealed his true face.

I remember him from DA2 forum - looks like he heasn't changed much.
Discussing with him is a waste of time.

Have fun guys.  I am going to grab some popcorn 

[Legion_IV]

xkg wrote...

napushenko wrote...
so, sorry, but anyone who rates this below 7 is a troll because hes not objective at all. fact.
bye bye

napushenko wrote...
cant fight the trolls. too many. run away. come back next time. bring flamethrower.
clarification : anyone who gives me3 less then 7 rating is troll, blind or has the brain size of a peanut. 
sorry but its true.

Oh lol, napushenko finally revealed his true face.

I remember him from DA2 forum - looks like he heasn't changed much.
Discussing with him is a waste of time.

Have fun guys.  I am going to grab some popcorn 

Can I have some?

Modifié par Legion_IV, 12 mai 2012 - 03:28 .

[Alibenbaba]

WRT graphics and mechanics I think they did a great job, it's good enough that people play that in MP.
My problem is that I don't like shooters, and in that regard ME3 is the worst of the 3 installments, although it plays the most fluent of the thre all that jumping around feels ridiculous to me.
Also RPG wise I consider 1 and 2 far superior - 1 for obvious reasons, and 2 since at least the character loyalty stuff had some decisionmaking involved and overall it was about accepting or fighting the affiliation with cerberus. Weaker, but really well done in my opinion.

Overall I think 3 is a shooter based in a ME3 universe, and an end to the trilogy only in story, not in gameplay or even genre. Maybe its a 10/10 compared with COD and Battlefield, I don't know these games and honestly don't care. Compared to KOTOR, ME1 & 2, etc pp I feel ME3 is much too linear and must be rated lower than these titles. Although I would recommend ME3 to fans of the series for Tuchanka alone.

I can totally see how people with more strict expectations would be even more disappointed and would rate accordingly.