286 réponses à ce sujet

[Ageless Face]

I never read reviews. You know why? Cause the people who write them have different opinion than mine. I don't know if their taste is exactly as mine is, and I don't care enough to find that out. If I want a game, I either find one on my own, or asking people who like the same games as I do.

Anyway, in my personal opinion, Mass Effect 3 deserves 8.5/10.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 12 juillet 2012 - 03:23 .

[aj2070]

It means "artistic integrity".

[satunnainen]

I am not sure why would PC Gamer give a rpg game for revieving to a person who doesnt like/play rpg games. Sounds like a silly mistake which just eats the credibility of the magazine.

Other than that, it is kind of marketing to get 10/10 or whatever top score these days. Some magazines are doing it clearly, some are not. Just pick the ones that seem honest (at this point professional game journalists probably dropped from the chair laughing). I am sure there must be few left

[PSYCHOxMONSTER]

I don't understand why you are writing this, you said it your self its your opinion so there is no need to write any of this. your just going to get people shouting at you and sending you death threats.

[Ridwan]

HagarIshay wrote...

I never read reviews. You know why? Cause the people who do them have different opinion than mine. I don't know if their taste is exactly as mine is, and I don't care enough to find that out. If I want a game, I either find one on my own, or asking people who like the same games as I do.

Anyway, in my personal opinion, Mass Effect 3 deserves 8.5/10.

I stopped reading and paying attentions to reviews after the Tiberian Sun review. Every single game I've bought has been based on one thing only. Gameplay videos.

[Mathias]

The game certaintely does not deserve a perfect score. Anybody who gives it a 10/10 must have low expectations or is lying to themeselves. And lemme guess here, somebody is gonna tell me

"Or maybe they truly liked it and have a different opinion than yours?"

Yea you're right. And it's my opinion that those people are very easy to please. Now i'm not saying this is a bad game, far from it in fact. Mass Effect 3 is a good game, but was not worth the hype it's been building up for 5 years. This game have plenty of flaws to it:

1. Bad Journal System.
2. Dumb Squad AI.
3. Lack of good side missions compared to ME1&2. Most of them are scanning fetch quests.
4. Autodialogue.
5. Most major decisions throughout the series are reduced to war assets, nothing more.
6. Your choices never really mattered.
7. Lack of boss battles.
8. Harbinger is reduced to a glorified hammer.
9. Shady and stupid business practices i.e. Chobot, Day 1 DLC, Blatent lies devs told us.
10. Vent kid.
11. Wretched Ending.
12. Final 3 hours were obviously rushed.
13. No exploration.

[Ridwan]

PSYCHOxMONSTER wrote...

I don't understand why you are writing this, you said it your self its your opinion so there is no need to write any of this. your just going to get people shouting at you and sending you death threats.

"If you value your opinion, you should shut up." That's basically what you're saying.

[Mathias]

Oh and i'm not gonna give the game a score, but even though i still thought it was a good game, I would put Mass Effect 3 in the buy it used or on sale category.

[SNascimento]

Fandango9641 wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

The game is not the shortest, ME1 is.
.
That said, ME3 deserves its 93 on Metacritic and is a GOTY contender, because it's a fantastic game with a lot of great in it, granted, some bad too.

Nope, whilst there are no absolute truths when it comes to this sort of thing, I think it fair to say that the unprecedented fan reaction to the ending (and Biowares response to it) suggets otherwise.

.
No, it doesn't. People don't like the ending, I get that. But this speaks very little about the quality of the game itself. Failing to see that is what lead many people to thing ME3 is not a superb game. 

[Revthejedi]

A perfect review score doesn't mean that everyone is going to love or even like the game. I hate the endings as much as the next guy but ME3 9-10/10.

[GiarcYekrub]

Depends what you are rating it against, if I had one 10/10 to give to any game in the last year it would go to Mass Effect 3 without a doubt.

Tiberium Sun rocked, I can understand fully why it got 10/10.

I can't believe people are calling ME3 short, I've racked up over 100 campaign hours. Its an inheirent problem with a branching narative that games get shorter the further you get into the narative as development effort is divided amongst the parallel threads.

[Ridwan]

SNascimento wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

The game is not the shortest, ME1 is.
.
That said, ME3 deserves its 93 on Metacritic and is a GOTY contender, because it's a fantastic game with a lot of great in it, granted, some bad too.

Nope, whilst there are no absolute truths when it comes to this sort of thing, I think it fair to say that the unprecedented fan reaction to the ending (and Biowares response to it) suggets otherwise.

.
No, it doesn't. People don't like the ending, I get that. But this speaks very little about the quality of the game itself. Failing to see that is what lead many people to thing ME3 is not a superb game. 

There's a difference between a superb game and a good game.

For some reason reason giving a game anything less than 9/10 means that the game sucks. 7/10 is a good score. I stated in my original post, that I thought Mass Effect 3 was a GOOD game. But the idea of it being perfect when it has the flaw it has is downright silly.

[Mazebook]

Eain wrote...

The same story is true for a magazine called Power Unlimited in the Netherlands, OP. This seems to have happened all over the world. At some point game journalism became bribe journalism and reviewers just became part of the hype machine.

Taking this profession seriously is like taking psychics seriously. Both are laughable trades that exist only because there's an audience gullible enough to attach any worth to what they say at all.

My biggest gripe with reviews these days is that they're so empty on content. They never tell you anything that you also couldn't have gathered from the game's marketing machine. Hence, they are part of the game's marketing machine.

never had a problem with my squad...love the
multiplayer...journal is annoying but not gamebraking...game has the
same lenght as the others...around 28 hours...

Bull. Average length for this game is 15 to 16 hours. If you take longer at this game then that's because you're bad at it, but then that would seem to fit with why this game seems to "exceed your expectations."

your are quite full of your self...i think I could kick your ass at the game...i just take my time and do not rush it...
the final time for me for all games are around  28 hours...they are the same lenght to me...with ME 2 a little bit the longest with 30 hours.

On my 3rd playtrhough I am just about finishing tuchanka and i am about 9 hours in...Died maybe around 6 times...so you see it is all about perspective...

and don´t be such a condescending .............................................. .

[o Ventus]

SNascimento wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

The game is not the shortest, ME1 is.
.
That said, ME3 deserves its 93 on Metacritic and is a GOTY contender, because it's a fantastic game with a lot of great in it, granted, some bad too.

Nope, whilst there are no absolute truths when it comes to this sort of thing, I think it fair to say that the unprecedented fan reaction to the ending (and Biowares response to it) suggets otherwise.

.
No, it doesn't. People don't like the ending, I get that. But this speaks very little about the quality of the game itself. Failing to see that is what lead many people to thing ME3 is not a superb game. 

This is wrong. Very wrong.

In a story-based game, the ending is one of the most important aspects, if not THE most important (especially when it's the closing of the trilogy, like ME3 did). If the ending is bad, it can hurt replayability and word-of-mouth advertising will dwindle. You will lose preestablished fans and could potentially start LOSING money, just because of the ending. If you want proof, just look at ME3. a bad enough ending could potentially kill the franchise, much like how the original endings did. Even the current endings make direct sequels almost impossible due to their branching nature.

As a Mass Effect game, ME3 is bad. Lore breaks all throughout, making formerly intelligent characters into idiots, bad storytelling, and bad writing are only some of the problems, the ending is just the biggest and most damaging.

If it were standalone and not connected to the series, it would be fine.

Modifié par o Ventus, 12 juillet 2012 - 03:35 .

[Mathias]

maaaze wrote...

Eain wrote...

The same story is true for a magazine called Power Unlimited in the Netherlands, OP. This seems to have happened all over the world. At some point game journalism became bribe journalism and reviewers just became part of the hype machine.

Taking this profession seriously is like taking psychics seriously. Both are laughable trades that exist only because there's an audience gullible enough to attach any worth to what they say at all.

My biggest gripe with reviews these days is that they're so empty on content. They never tell you anything that you also couldn't have gathered from the game's marketing machine. Hence, they are part of the game's marketing machine.

never had a problem with my squad...love the
multiplayer...journal is annoying but not gamebraking...game has the
same lenght as the others...around 28 hours...

Bull. Average length for this game is 15 to 16 hours. If you take longer at this game then that's because you're bad at it, but then that would seem to fit with why this game seems to "exceed your expectations."

your are quite full of your self

and don´t be such a condescending .............................................. .

Speak for yourself. I've seen the posts you've made.

[o Ventus]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

I can't believe people are calling ME3 short, I've racked up over 100 campaign hours.

Unless you're playing on Insanity and only meleeing enemies, no you haven't.

[Isichar]

o Ventus wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

The game is not the shortest, ME1 is.
.
That said, ME3 deserves its 93 on Metacritic and is a GOTY contender, because it's a fantastic game with a lot of great in it, granted, some bad too.

Nope, whilst there are no absolute truths when it comes to this sort of thing, I think it fair to say that the unprecedented fan reaction to the ending (and Biowares response to it) suggets otherwise.

.
No, it doesn't. People don't like the ending, I get that. But this speaks very little about the quality of the game itself. Failing to see that is what lead many people to thing ME3 is not a superb game. 

This is wrong. Very wrong.

In a story-based game, the ending is one of the most important aspects, if not THE most important (especially when it's the closing of the trilogy, like ME3 did). If the ending is bad, it can hurt replayability and word-of-mouth advertising will dwindle. You will lose preestablished fans and could potentially start LOSING money, just because of the ending. If you want proof, just look at ME3.

As a Mass Effect game, ME3 is bad. Lore breaks all throughout, making formerly intelligent characters into idiots, bad storytelling, and bad writing are only some of the problems, the ending is just the biggest and most damaging.

If it were standalone and not connected to the series, it would be fine.

O ventus is correct in it can greatly hurt replayability which is important in a series like this.

[ElementL09]

SNascimento wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

The game is not the shortest, ME1 is.
.
That said, ME3 deserves its 93 on Metacritic and is a GOTY contender, because it's a fantastic game with a lot of great in it, granted, some bad too.

Nope, whilst there are no absolute truths when it comes to this sort of thing, I think it fair to say that the unprecedented fan reaction to the ending (and Biowares response to it) suggets otherwise.

.
No, it doesn't. People don't like the ending, I get that. But this speaks very little about the quality of the game itself. Failing to see that is what lead many people to thing ME3 is not a superb game. 

There are alot of reasons besides the ending which leads to Mass Effect 3 towards not being a "superb game" or the best entry in the trilogy.  Granted its a good game, looks great graphically and combat/gameplay was definently improved from ME2, but with all the good comes the bad like pandering towards newer players, lack of significant decesions relating towards decesions you made in previous games (like the Rachni Queen for instance), the journal.....

I can say alot of good things about Mass Effect 3 and say alot bad things about it as well.  For me, just having do that just makes me believe this isn't that great of game.  Even though there are some things I like about it, there are some things I hate about it.

[Taboo]

Actually, review scores really mean nothing.

When you have to rely on them to sell something you're in deep ****.

The critics said it was good so it must be good!

No. Just no.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 12 juillet 2012 - 03:36 .

[Isichar]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Actually, review scores really mean nothing.

When you have to rely on them to sell something you're in deep ****.

The critics said it was good so it must be good!

No. Just no.

I will only follow reviewers that amuse me (Yahtzee or angry joe)

Or ones that I feel enjoy games for the same reason I do and will make reviews typically close to my own opinions (Archengeia)

A good reviewer can be worth listening to but it does ultimately become hard to listen to major reviewers who act like they are not biased when they clearly are.

[SNascimento]

o Ventus wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

The game is not the shortest, ME1 is.
.
That said, ME3 deserves its 93 on Metacritic and is a GOTY contender, because it's a fantastic game with a lot of great in it, granted, some bad too.

Nope, whilst there are no absolute truths when it comes to this sort of thing, I think it fair to say that the unprecedented fan reaction to the ending (and Biowares response to it) suggets otherwise.

.
No, it doesn't. People don't like the ending, I get that. But this speaks very little about the quality of the game itself. Failing to see that is what lead many people to thing ME3 is not a superb game. 

This is wrong. Very wrong.

In a story-based game, the ending is one of the most important aspects, if not THE most important (especially when it's the closing of the trilogy, like ME3 did). If the ending is bad, it can hurt replayability and word-of-mouth advertising will dwindle. You will lose preestablished fans and could potentially start LOSING money, just because of the ending. If you want proof, just look at ME3. a bad enough ending could potentially kill the franchise, much like how the original endings did. Even the current endings make direct sequels almost impossible due to their branching nature.

As a Mass Effect game, ME3 is bad. Lore breaks all throughout, making formerly intelligent characters into idiots, bad storytelling, and bad writing are only some of the problems, the ending is just the biggest and most damaging.

If it were standalone and not connected to the series, it would be fine.

.
That is one way to see it. I don't think the ending destroy all qualities ME3 have.

[Mr.Spo]

The issue for me is less about the number attached at the bottom of the review, and more about the critical feedback the game receives upon its immediate release. In that aspect, games reviews are sorely lacking. The urge to attribute a number and have that as the be all, end all indication of a game's value is a poor way of judging the quality of games, and it leads to the obsessive metacritic average chasing that has sadly come about. I always value the text of the review, the actual assessment of the game's functions, mechanics, graphics, sound, length, replay value, how it compares to its prequels/contemporary games etc, over whatever number is attached to the end of the review. In short, I'd never say Mass Effect 3 is a 7/10 game, because I don't think that metric works or does justice when discussing how good a game actually is.

That being said, I do not believe Mass Effect 3 is anywhere near good enough to warrant so much praise and hype. Too many glaring issues have been completely over-looked.

Where was the criticism of the bug that wouldn't allow importation of character's faces?

Where were the criticisms of the bugs throughout the game, from conversation camera to texture pop in issues? Or bugs that rendered side quests unplayable?

Where were the criticisms of issues such as the journal system? Mass Effect 3 only had to borrow the journal of the first two games, and it would work excellently. As it was, they changed the journal system and it could perhaps, at best, be described as adequate.

Where were the criticisms of the lack of substantial side-quests and the essentially linear experience of the game? Personally, this is one of the biggest gripes I have with ME3. Yes, there are dozens of side quests on the surface, but they boil down into repetitive, insubstantial fetch quests. Not only had they completely neglected to include any form of vehicular exploration, Bioware have now stripped Mass Effect (mostly) of the linear but varied quests of Mass Effect 2. Such hit and run or search for survivor N7 missions would have made sense mechanically and in the context of the narrative, in a game that is about war. Instead, we have side quests that are based on the multiplayer maps and have the thinnest film of story. Incredibly lazy. I did of course enjoy missions that revolved around my ME2 squadmates; they were closer in design to the loyalty missions of ME2, but that does not make up for the severe lack of substantial secondary quests that could have been played in any order, and would have undone the linear feeling of the game, as well as giving players more value for money.

As for linearity, again given the war context, it is more understandable that the main quest is rigidly linear. But is it forgiveable? Should this structure be exempt from criticism? Should Bioware not be faulted for not attempting a more ambitious main story structure, which, like the first and second game, opens up a variety of main story missions to you at any one time? If they'd done so, they would have allowed players more control of the main story's narrative; why don't the Asari, Salarian and Turian ambassadors demand that you visit their worlds first? Why can't you make a choice here that will then effect the rest of the game? E.g. Go to Palaven after Sur'Kesh and Thessia, and most of the Turian fleet is decimated.

Which of course boils into another criticism that can be made of the game; choices made throughout the trilogy aren't reflected in ME3. Romanced Jacob? Tough, he leaves you no matter what. Saved the Destiny Ascension? Here, we'll adjust the War Assets numbers slightly, and have it feature very briefly in a cut scene, but it won't actually affect the game in any meaningful way. Save the Rachni Queen? Kill the Rachni Queen? Doesn't matter; you get the same mission and the same choice anyway. The first game's two biggest choices--saving or condemning the council and the Rachni Queen--have negligible impact on Mass Effect 3, and this flies in the face of what Bioware apparently set out to do. They should have been heavily criticised from some quarters for doing that.

And, of course, what of the endings? What of the plot-holes, the inconsistencies? What of the Catalyst? Reviewers apparently all over-looked an ending that had players and bloggers issuing an en masse WTF?!? Surely this is the biggest failing of Mass Effect 3 reviews. The fact that the scores and assessments of the game are so uniform in their range is disturbing, given the vast range of responses the game has received from even the most dedicated Mass Effect fans. It's an indictment that games criticism is less about legitimate criticism of games, and more about pleasing the publishers that rule the games industry. And that's a sad state for games criticism in general, and bad for the Mass Effect series--because it means faults in Mass Effect 3 aren't openly discussed at the point of the games release, by the people whose jobs it is to find and discuss those faults.

[tomdrama]

I wonder how much all of the perfect reviews cost, money wise.

I stopped buying gaming magazines because I'd see games getting 9 or 10 out of 10, with NO MENTION anywhere in the review of game breaking bugs that would later be found out on release day.