286 réponses à ce sujet

[Clayless]

M25105 wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

But it's also a trend that doesn't affect you, and those it does only have themselves to blame.

Threads like these create victim mentalities, which I don't see as being any better than the subject matter of the OP.

But voicing my opinion (or warning) on matters like this, at least clears my conscience. I know I won't reach that many gamers, hell considering how many gamers there are in the world, I won't even reach 0.01% But at least I let my thoughts get known on a public forum.

People that trust reviewers for their own reasons, deserves to at least buy their games based on honest reviews. "It's their own fault for not doing the research" is too cheap of an argument. They could have a hundred different reasons why they didn't do the research and bought it purely based on some bigsite/magazine review cause they think these people must know what they're talking about since they're getting paid.

Well it's not too cheap of an argument, as brutal as it sounds it is their own fault. If you buy something based on someones elses review don't blame them, blame yourself for letting yourself be fooled and learn from your mistakes.

This game got 75 perfect scores, if you disagree with that fine, but that doesn't mean those scores are any less significant just because you don't agree with them. It holds even less water because you revealed you stopped caring about reviews 13 years ago.

[Ridwan]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

But it's also a trend that doesn't affect you, and those it does only have themselves to blame.

Threads like these create victim mentalities, which I don't see as being any better than the subject matter of the OP.

But voicing my opinion (or warning) on matters like this, at least clears my conscience. I know I won't reach that many gamers, hell considering how many gamers there are in the world, I won't even reach 0.01% But at least I let my thoughts get known on a public forum.

People that trust reviewers for their own reasons, deserves to at least buy their games based on honest reviews. "It's their own fault for not doing the research" is too cheap of an argument. They could have a hundred different reasons why they didn't do the research and bought it purely based on some bigsite/magazine review cause they think these people must know what they're talking about since they're getting paid.

Well it's not too cheap of an argument, as brutal as it sounds it is their own fault. If you buy something based on someones elses review don't blame them, blame yourself for letting yourself be fooled and learn from your mistakes.

This game got 75 perfect scores, if you disagree with that fine, but that doesn't mean those scores are any less significant just because you don't agree with them. It holds even less water because you revealed you stopped caring about reviews 13 years ago.

I stopped caring about reviews 13 years ago, for the exact same reason why games today get 10/10 scores. It's dishonest. You have games with several flaws, yet they're never touched upon ( if they are mentioned, how can a game get 10/10 or 9.5/10?). And since the game is advertising itself on those perfect 75 reviews, when in reality it's at best 8/10, then I do see it as significant. The socalled real reviewers are blatently ignoring problems of certain big budget games and I, like many others are sick of it.

[Kamfrenchie]

A game with a lot of bad writing, Deus x machina ass pull ,goddam spacebar for every action, less dialogue options, much less squadmates, day 1 dlc, small mp with random drrops...

yeah it's around 6 trying to be objective, lower if you takein account how they ****ed up an interesting universe and lore + the broken promises.
But yeah, different marks for different people. The sad thing is a lot of people don't have high standards in writing or anyting else, so you could easily add 1-2 points for thse people; But for anyone that cares about a coherent writing, 6.5 would be max

Then again, you can like a gamme that is objectively not very good. I can't really dispute that. here ae plenty of games I like despite their flaws. Bu ther are objective flaws you gotta admit.

Modifié par Kamfrenchie, 13 juillet 2012 - 03:31 .

[corporal doody]

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.

i agree..

pre-EC i would say ME3 was a 8-8.5/10. The ending was bad but the technical flaws were forgivable.

post-EC i would say 9-9.5/10

One of the best video game experiences i have ever had.  The story was FAR FAR FAR superior to most videogame stories...if you wanna call them that...cuz most games see the story as secondary to the gameplay.

and i love the dis about bad writing......cuz everyone who buys a videogame wants Hemmingway or Jules Verne or sumthin....i guess

Modifié par corporal doody, 13 juillet 2012 - 03:38 .

[Rulid]

points, nonpoints, two thumbs up whatever.

you appeal to reason in a world where the individual gets more and more diminished. i'm disappointed in the game, too. but this is old news.

basically, you can't expect a Paid reviewer to be objective.
i weep for your loss of innocence.

[LaughingDragon]

corporal doody 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.

i agree..

pre-EC i would say ME3 was a 8-8.5/10. The ending was bad but the technical flaws were forgivable.

post-EC i would say 9-9.5/10

One of the best video game experiences i have ever had.  The story was FAR FAR FAR superior to most videogame stories...if you wanna call them that...cuz most games see the story as secondary to the gameplay.

and i love the dis about bad writing......cuz everyone who buys a videogame wants Hemmingway or Jules Verne or sumthin....i guess

You really feel ME3 is one of the best video game experiences you've ever had...after playing Mass Effect 2?

For me there's no comparison whatsoever, I don't even put ME3 in the same league as ME2. ME2 was infinitely better in every way except combat mechanics (which were improved in each subsequent game)

[LaughingDragon]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

A game with a lot of bad writing, Deus x machina ass pull ,goddam spacebar for every action, less dialogue options, much less squadmates, day 1 dlc, small mp with random drrops...

yeah it's around 6 trying to be objective, lower if you takein account how they ****ed up an interesting universe and lore + the broken promises.
But yeah, different marks for different people. The sad thing is a lot of people don't have high standards in writing or anyting else, so you could easily add 1-2 points for thse people; But for anyone that cares about a coherent writing, 6.5 would be max

Then again, you can like a gamme that is objectively not very good. I can't really dispute that. here ae plenty of games I like despite their flaws. Bu ther are objective flaws you gotta admit.

This guy said it all. Quoted for truth 100%.

[Dendio1]

Isichar wrote...

maaaze wrote...

opinions...everybody has those...who knew..

ME 3 is a 10 out of 10 for me...

sorry to hear you have a different opinion.

For a major reviewer to give a perfect score to a game that has had one of the most negative reactions I have ever seen from a videogame says quite a bit about the reviewer for me.

A 10/10 is basically saying the game is as perfect as can be.

A 10 doesn't mean the game is perfect. Nothing is perfect. A 10 just means the good outshone the bad to an incredible margin. Everyones got different opinions, but my first run through mass effect 3 was possibly the greatest gaming experiance I've had yet. The key was how Me3 related to the previous games. I had nostalgia running raw while I was playing this game, and it was awesome.

[Geomon19]

The cold truth of the matter is, reviews were never honest, ever. Review articles are nothing more than opinion articles colored by the perceptions of whoever was playing it. It's up to you, the reader, to decide whether or not what you're hearing about the game from the review is something you'd like to play. On the flip side, it's up to the reviewer to point out any glaring flaws in the game, which in this case, the vast majority of review sites failed miserably to do.

[LaughingDragon]

Dendio1 wrote...

Isichar wrote...

maaaze wrote...

opinions...everybody has those...who knew..

ME 3 is a 10 out of 10 for me...

sorry to hear you have a different opinion.

For a major reviewer to give a perfect score to a game that has had one of the most negative reactions I have ever seen from a videogame says quite a bit about the reviewer for me.

A 10/10 is basically saying the game is as perfect as can be.

A 10 doesn't mean the game is perfect. Nothing is perfect. A 10 just means the good outshone the bad to an incredible margin. Everyones got different opinions, but my first run through mass effect 3 was possibly the greatest gaming experiance I've had yet. The key was how Me3 related to the previous games. I had nostalgia running raw while I was playing this game, and it was awesome.

10 means pretty close to perfect....that's why it's a 10/10...if it weren't perfect it would be a 9/10

Modifié par LaughingDragon, 13 juillet 2012 - 05:32 .

[SNascimento]

I was replaying ME3 and damn, the game is amazing... walking in Menae and seeing Palaven burning in the background, with reapers capital ships walking around, ships crashing... and the music!
.
I'll say it again. ME3 is a superb game. And the funny thing is, I know ME3 could have been much more, it's not the definitive masterpiece I holped for (it is sometimes), but it's a fitting ending to the trilogy.

[Maias227]

Well its opinions as you state yourselve so I don't really have an issue with how reviewers rate the game that's their business. Its up to you if you want to listen to them or not. I myself look at a select few reviews to see if its universally considered a poor game, if so then its likely a waste of my time. Its not an exact science.
To just give an example of that the OP said he was bothered by "pandering to IGN" as a notable flaw in ME3. See when I played the game I had no idea who Jessica Chosomething was and merely saw it as a journalist. That character's presence didn't make my game worse because well it was always optional if you wanted her along and for me she was fine enough. It was only after I finished the game I noticed a lot of people were raging about it and well I protest that the character presence universally must make the game a worse experience. I mean its a point you build upon your own values and who are you to say everybody share your values?

[RenegonSQ]

9/10 because of your linear comment, and your journal comment.

[EnvyTB075]

5-6/10. I wouldn't recommend the game to anyone.

ME2 on the other hand...

[Oransel]

My score would be 6/10. Game is bad.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

SNascimento wrote...

I was replaying ME3 and damn, the game is amazing... walking in Menae and seeing Palaven burning in the background, with reapers capital ships walking around, ships crashing... and the music!
 

Exactly. I was pissed about the original endings, and in the days after completing the game, all I could think off was the stuff I didn't like. It was only when I played it a second time, I realized how damn incredible the game is. 

[flanny]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Not a fan of scored reviews generally but will always dismiss out of hand the views of anyone who gives a game 1010.

this, 9/10 is a great score, no matter how good a game it will have flaws, 9/10, for me says the game is amazing and 
compensates for the flaws.

the only games i think i could ever give 10/10 are half life 1 & 2 and portal 1 & 2.

to answer the OP i'd give ME3 a 5/10, agree with the positives but they don't compensate for the lazy story telling, 1-dimensional antaganists, the shortness of the game, removing content to sell as day 1 dlc, the rushed feeling to the game, the ending, the lack of variety in the enemies compared to previous games, autodialogue, the lack of connection to previous games and the lies and false promises of bioware beforehand

[flanny]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

I was replaying ME3 and damn, the game is amazing... walking in Menae and seeing Palaven burning in the background, with reapers capital ships walking around, ships crashing... and the music!
 

Exactly. I was pissed about the original endings, and in the days after completing the game, all I could think off was the stuff I didn't like. It was only when I played it a second time, I realized how damn incredible the game is. 

On my second playthrough on games i am usually more analytical, for bioware games this is usually a good thing as you can appreciate the hard work that was put into the game. sadly in ME3 the second playthrough meant i could see all of it's many flaws, when i first played it i thought it was a great game with a bad ending, now i see it an average good with a terrible ending

[corporal doody]

LaughingDragon wrote...

corporal doody 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.

i agree..

pre-EC i would say ME3 was a 8-8.5/10. The ending was bad but the technical flaws were forgivable.

post-EC i would say 9-9.5/10

One of the best video game experiences i have ever had.  The story was FAR FAR FAR superior to most videogame stories...if you wanna call them that...cuz most games see the story as secondary to the gameplay.

and i love the dis about bad writing......cuz everyone who buys a videogame wants Hemmingway or Jules Verne or sumthin....i guess

You really feel ME3 is one of the best video game experiences you've ever had...after playing Mass Effect 2?

For me there's no comparison whatsoever, I don't even put ME3 in the same league as ME2. ME2 was infinitely better in every way except combat mechanics (which were improved in each subsequent game)

im gonna say yeah. ME2 was well put together...no if ands or buts about...better than ME3....but it was the interactions and little things that made ME3 for me.  add in the excitement i had for the game...and i having Liara in the crew yet again

lemme put it this way..imho ME2 is the best of the 3..but not by much. ME3 follows. 

one of the things i find real funny now....is back when....people were pissing and moaning about how bad ME2 was cuz it wasnt like ME1 and not a true rpg and yadda yadda. People gonna gripe to gripe.

[Ridwan]

SNascimento wrote...

I was replaying ME3 and damn, the game is amazing... walking in Menae and seeing Palaven burning in the background, with reapers capital ships walking around, ships crashing... and the music!
.
I'll say it again. ME3 is a superb game. And the funny thing is, I know ME3 could have been much more, it's not the definitive masterpiece I holped for (it is sometimes), but it's a fitting ending to the trilogy.

You are far too easily impressed.  What does seeing Reapers walking about having to do with the actual game? It's a video game not a film.

Modifié par M25105, 13 juillet 2012 - 11:23 .

[Aloren]

LaughingDragon wrote...

You really feel ME3 is one of the best video game experiences you've ever had...after playing Mass Effect 2?

For me there's no comparison whatsoever, I don't even put ME3 in the same league as ME2. ME2 was infinitely better in every way except combat mechanics (which were improved in each subsequent game)

I put them in the same league, though I'd put ME3 slightly above ME2. I actually love all three games, I dunno if I'd rank them 1-3-2 or 3-1-2... ,not that it matters, still stellar games. The suicide mission probably remains the best mission in the trilogy, but as a whole, I preferred ME1 and 3 over 2.

[Ridwan]

Some of the comments here makes me think people have confused Mass Effect for a dating sim.

Modifié par M25105, 13 juillet 2012 - 11:50 .

[robertthebard]

M25105 wrote...

Some of the comments here makes me think people have confused Mass Effect for a dating sim.

I'm coming away with a far different impression; that people don't know when to let go.  There's a point where criticism becomes more like whining, and I believe we're well past that point now.

"But if we don't keep complaining, BioWare won't know we're unhappy!!!1111!!1eleven".  I'm sure that's what my grandson felt when he threw his temper tantrum in WalMart because he couldn't get the toy he wanted too.  Of course, he was 9 or 10 at the time.  The most amusing part is, people telling other people they couldn't possibly enjoy one game over another, or come away feeling good about it, and all because that somebody didn't.

On a more inquisitive note, does anyone that feels the necessity to come into any thread about the game and berate it really feel like they are going to make BioWare completely redo the game, or are they just trying to up their post counts?

[Marauder Shieldz]

I agree with the OP. Its nowhere near perfect. ME1 and ME2 were near perfect. Mass Effect 3 is not, for simple reasons people can't seem to see.

[Grimwick]

LaughingDragon wrote...

corporal doody 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.

i agree..

pre-EC i would say ME3 was a 8-8.5/10. The ending was bad but the technical flaws were forgivable.

post-EC i would say 9-9.5/10

One of the best video game experiences i have ever had.  The story was FAR FAR FAR superior to most videogame stories...if you wanna call them that...cuz most games see the story as secondary to the gameplay.

and i love the dis about bad writing......cuz everyone who buys a videogame wants Hemmingway or Jules Verne or sumthin....i guess

You really feel ME3 is one of the best video game experiences you've ever had...after playing Mass Effect 2?

For me there's no comparison whatsoever, I don't even put ME3 in the same league as ME2. ME2 was infinitely better in every way except combat mechanics (which were improved in each subsequent game)

This. The only improvements were sound, music and combat.

I mean it wasn't hard to beat ME2's story but ME3 still failed to do it imo.

ME2 is just so far ahead of ME3.