Mr.Spo wrote...
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.
About the score, the point of my thread, how would Mass Effect 3 been scored if it was back in the old days.
And as you can see some posters seem to think that anything below 9/10 is a horrible score.
I like to repeat what I said to anoother poster, I have stopped reading reviews ever since the Tiberian Sun review. Every single game I've bought has been due to the fact it looked cool in the gameplay videos or recommendations by friends (a co worker recommended Mass Effect 1 to me).
Cool post though and I agree overall that numbers can be stupid, but it's easier to just put a score on something.
I think Ars got it right with their way of reviewing which consists of "Buy", "Rent", "Skip".
Retour en haut
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
