421 réponses à ce sujet

[F4H bandicoot]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

@clarkusdarkus: Welcome to my world.

But seriously, twelve hours of "I will destroy you!" or "Enemies everywhere!" in the same room gets pretty annoying.

Also, it's funny how people are saying Bioware paid off reviewers that gave them a good score. "I DIDN'T LIKE THE GAME SO IT'S TEH SUXXORZ!!!! lol"

This actually happens alot, Ubisoft (I think it was them anyway) threatened one review site that they would not pre release games to them unless their scores for ubi games picked up.
Ea are probably all over the same type of thing.

Yeah, maybe. Sorry for the immaturity, I just woke up. It's possible, but I don't think they had the time or money to pay off 75 individual reviewers.

It might be on a much larger scope over a much longer time period, Bioware are pretty new to EA, EA will probably call all the shots on that level, who gets the game to review etc..

[-Skorpious-]

ME1 had a fantastic and immersive storyline - most of your "negatives" are directed gameplay elements, something many fans (including myself) can ignore for the sake of an engrossing narrative.

That is why I believe ME3, despite it's shiny swords and cinematic explosions, cannot hold a candle to the original ME.

[-Skorpious-]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Perhaps, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that those reviewers legitimately thought ME3 was a superb game.

Remeber that we're a niche audience, and therefore are harder to please. We like our games to be made in a very paticular way and if something is missing, we go ape****. Reviewers don't do that, they focus on the bigger picture more. Mass Effect 3 is a great game on the surface. It's only when you dig that you find it's flaws.

Reviewers didn't have to dig very far to realize that they couldn't import their Shepard. 

[BaladasDemnevanni]

ME2 will always remain my favorite in the series, through a combination of style, setting, characters, loyalty missions, and gameplay. Issues with the ending and autodialogue force ME3 into second place. The only reason I endure Mass Effect 1 is to say that I completed the trilogy. Funnily enough, that's also the only reason I play Baldur's Gate 1.

[F4H bandicoot]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Perhaps, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that those reviewers legitimately thought ME3 was a superb game.

Remeber that we're a niche audience, and therefore are harder to please. We like our games to be made in a very paticular way and if something is missing, we go ape****. Reviewers don't do that, they focus on the bigger picture more. Mass Effect 3 is a great game on the surface. It's only when you dig that you find it's flaws.

Reviewers didn't have to dig very far to realize that they couldn't import their Shepard. 

>.>

<.<

It didn't take that long to be fixed and it wasn't that hard to re create your Shepard, at least not for me.

The key idea behind the game wasn't working at launch...
And I'm pretty sure it took around a month for it to be fixed...

Modifié par F4H bandicoot, 30 juillet 2012 - 02:12 .

[legion999]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

Reviewers didn't have to dig very far to realize that they couldn't import their Shepard. 

>.>

<.<

It didn't take that long to be fixed and it wasn't that hard to re create your Shepard, at least not for me.

It took a while and threads on the subject were closed before admitting there was a problem. And for many people re-creating their Shepard wasn't possible even after patch.

[F4H bandicoot]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Perhaps, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that those reviewers legitimately thought ME3 was a superb game.

Remeber that we're a niche audience, and therefore are harder to please. We like our games to be made in a very paticular way and if something is missing, we go ape****. Reviewers don't do that, they focus on the bigger picture more. Mass Effect 3 is a great game on the surface. It's only when you dig that you find it's flaws.

Reviewers didn't have to dig very far to realize that they couldn't import their Shepard. 

>.>

<.<

It didn't take that long to be fixed and it wasn't that hard to re create your Shepard, at least not for me.

The key idea behind the game wasn't working at launch...
And I'm pretty sure it took around a month for it to be fixed...

It still wasn't a game breaking feature....


Okay it pissed me off. The more I think about it, the more I realize ME3 was incomplete. The journal system, the import bug, it's like they didn't have a testing team AT ALL. Still, it's damn good for a game that's 80% complete.

No, but one of the key ideas behind the ME trilogy is playing with the same shep. that was not possible.
Yes, it is, a good game, however, being sold as an ME game, it has to live up to the reputation of 1 and 2. Which it didn't

[DravenShep]

 I have to say that without Mass Effect, there would be no 2 or 3, so when I say I loved ME1, I meant I loved all of it. just wished they FIXED the inventory a little better instead of getting rid of it completely. Seems EA wanted to take the RPG out of it.

[Headcount]

For all of ME problems, its still a classic RPG and I rather replay it ten times than go through ME3 only once.

[NedPepper]

frostajulie wrote...

ME1 is one of the most entertaining emotionally satisfying epic gameplay experiences of our time. I have played this game longer than DAO and almost as much. This game set the standard by which other gmes get judged and therefore consistently fall short so

I disagree with you OP. ME1 is ****ing Epic if gaming were orgasmic it would be a multiple.

Off topic, but I disagree. Dragon Age: Origins is one of the best games I've ever played.  I think of it as the perfect (even though it really isn't...you can nitpick Origins too...combat...The Fade part of the Mage Tower) Bioware game.  All of the Mass Effects have flaws.  Dragon Age 2 has flaws.  Does it mean I have to NERD RAGE over it.? No.  Bioware games sill blow most other games out of the water, despite their flaws.

[Cheviot]

ME1 was a fun game, sure, but it was hobbled by a poor equipment-management system and needlessly elaborate options for level-up.  Plus it's got plotholes.

[Klijpope]

clarkusdarkus wrote...
ME3 is far from best game of the year, one of the worst in my opinion, i had way more fun with dragon's dogma than ME3....but unfortunately network propaganda will make sure ME3 wins awards....10/10 my a***.........each to there own tho

Gamecentral (formerly Digitizer) gave it 9/10, and they are certainly not paid off. They're part of the Metro newspaper in the UK, which is handed out free on public transport, the most read publication in the UK. No one can dictate the terms of advertising to them. They also mentioned how the endings might disappoint some in their first review. 

So I don't really care what other reviewers do or say, as the ones I know I can trust do objective reviews, and they agree with the wider consensus of professional reviews.

You had more fun with Dragon's Doma than ME3, fine. Still doesn't stop ME3 being the best game of the year so far, on all objective measures (sales and review scores). That is not saying it is GOTY material. I don't think it is, and obviously lots of folk here hate it. Still a good game though, just not as good as it could have been.

[CronoDragoon]

-Skorpious- wrote...

ME1 had a fantastic and immersive storyline - most of your "negatives" are directed gameplay elements, something many fans (including myself) can ignore for the sake of an engrossing narrative.

That is why I believe ME3, despite it's shiny swords and cinematic explosions, cannot hold a candle to the original ME.

Which is a perfectly fine personal opinion, but "an engrossing narrative" is pretty subjective, whereas gameplay elements are much less so. Objectively, ME3 is the better all-around game. You liked ME1'sstory, so you don't mind all the problems with the game; I can respect that. But I also hope you aren't one of those people posting ridiculous threads about why Harbinger didn't shoot down the Normandy or other nitpick stuff like that.

I personally think ME3 had a much more engrossing narrative than ME1. ME1 had a story that featured large segments of ridiculous space magic like telepathic plants and a choir of bugs, but people didn't mind it back then. ME3 featured the conclusion of arcs built up since ME1 that I found much more satisfying (except for the pre-EC endings). So for me, because ME3 had an engrossing story and excellent gameplay, I am willing to overlook its flaws just like you are with ME1.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 30 juillet 2012 - 03:26 .

[clarkusdarkus]

Klijpope wrote...

clarkusdarkus wrote...
ME3 is far from best game of the year, one of the worst in my opinion, i had way more fun with dragon's dogma than ME3....but unfortunately network propaganda will make sure ME3 wins awards....10/10 my a***.........each to there own tho

Gamecentral (formerly Digitizer) gave it 9/10, and they are certainly not paid off. They're part of the Metro newspaper in the UK, which is handed out free on public transport, the most read publication in the UK. No one can dictate the terms of advertising to them. They also mentioned how the endings might disappoint some in their first review. 

So I don't really care what other reviewers do or say, as the ones I know I can trust do objective reviews, and they agree with the wider consensus of professional reviews.

You had more fun with Dragon's Doma than ME3, fine. Still doesn't stop ME3 being the best game of the year so far, on all objective measures (sales and review scores). That is not saying it is GOTY material. I don't think it is, and obviously lots of folk here hate it. Still a good game though, just not as good as it could have been.

if a GOTY award went to sales and review scores then wouldnt call of duty win every year? Let's not forget there pre-release quotes duping some players in...and with the amount of bugs/problems ME3 had i find it hard to believe anything over average should have been handed out...I take it the reviewers didnt have problems with importing/journal/endings which needed EC/1 hub/auto dialogue....etc... Each to there own opinion though but i for one dont go on websites/paper reviews as i want spoiler free experainces....

[dirty console peasant]

CronoDragoon wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

ME1 had a fantastic and immersive storyline - most of your "negatives" are directed gameplay elements, something many fans (including myself) can ignore for the sake of an engrossing narrative.

That is why I believe ME3, despite it's shiny swords and cinematic explosions, cannot hold a candle to the original ME.

Which is a perfectly fine personal opinion, but "an engrossing narrative" is pretty subjective, whereas gameplay elements are much less so. Objectively, ME3 is the better all-around game. You liked the story, so you don't mind all the problems with the game; I can respect that. But I also hope you aren't one of those people posting ridiculous threads about why Harbinger didn't shoot down the Normandy or other nitpick stuff like that.

I personally think ME3 had a much more engrossing narrative than ME1. ME1 had a story that featured large segments of ridiculous space magic like telepathic plants and a choir of bugs, but people didn't mind it back then. ME3 featured the conclusion of arcs built up since ME1 that I found much more satisfying (except for the pre-EC endings). So for me, because ME3 had an engrossing story and excellent gameplay, I am willing to overlook its flaws just like you are with ME1.

There is a difference between "pick a color" space magic and Sentient Plants/ Singing Bugs space magic.  IMO one ruins a story and the other deepens the narritive and lore.

Edit:
Also technically the whole premise of the game the "mass effect" is space magic.  What the fanbase is pissed at is not actually the space:wizard:, but the complete change of narritive focus and seeming loss of shepards personality and ability to win in impossible situations.

Modifié par Shepard Cmdr, 30 juillet 2012 - 03:32 .

[F4H bandicoot]

CronoDragoon wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

ME1 had a fantastic and immersive storyline - most of your "negatives" are directed gameplay elements, something many fans (including myself) can ignore for the sake of an engrossing narrative.

That is why I believe ME3, despite it's shiny swords and cinematic explosions, cannot hold a candle to the original ME.

Which is a perfectly fine personal opinion, but "an engrossing narrative" is pretty subjective, whereas gameplay elements are much less so. Objectively, ME3 is the better all-around game. You liked ME1'sstory, so you don't mind all the problems with the game; I can respect that. But I also hope you aren't one of those people posting ridiculous threads about why Harbinger didn't shoot down the Normandy or other nitpick stuff like that.

I personally think ME3 had a much more engrossing narrative than ME1. ME1 had a story that featured large segments of ridiculous space magic like telepathic plants and a choir of bugs, but people didn't mind it back then. ME3 featured the conclusion of arcs built up since ME1 that I found much more satisfying (except for the pre-EC endings). So for me, because ME3 had an engrossing story and excellent gameplay, I am willing to overlook its flaws just like you are with ME1.

Hardly Space Magic. the thorian basically indoctrinated people and therefore had control of them (Much like the reapers, is that SM??) And the Rachni are just a hive mind, and work together in the same way that ants would or whatever. Not Sm at all.

[obZen DF]

I just completed Vigil again, and man, so fantastic.

Modifié par obZen DF, 30 juillet 2012 - 03:30 .

[CronoDragoon]

F4H bandicoot wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

ME1 had a fantastic and immersive storyline - most of your "negatives" are directed gameplay elements, something many fans (including myself) can ignore for the sake of an engrossing narrative.

That is why I believe ME3, despite it's shiny swords and cinematic explosions, cannot hold a candle to the original ME.

Which is a perfectly fine personal opinion, but "an engrossing narrative" is pretty subjective, whereas gameplay elements are much less so. Objectively, ME3 is the better all-around game. You liked ME1'sstory, so you don't mind all the problems with the game; I can respect that. But I also hope you aren't one of those people posting ridiculous threads about why Harbinger didn't shoot down the Normandy or other nitpick stuff like that.

I personally think ME3 had a much more engrossing narrative than ME1. ME1 had a story that featured large segments of ridiculous space magic like telepathic plants and a choir of bugs, but people didn't mind it back then. ME3 featured the conclusion of arcs built up since ME1 that I found much more satisfying (except for the pre-EC endings). So for me, because ME3 had an engrossing story and excellent gameplay, I am willing to overlook its flaws just like you are with ME1.

Hardly Space Magic. the thorian basically indoctrinated people and therefore had control of them (Much like the reapers, is that SM??) And the Rachni are just a hive mind, and work together in the same way that ants would or whatever. Not Sm at all.

Uh, yes. That is all space magic. How does the Rachni being a hive mind explain their ability to take over people's minds/bodies? How can a hive mind physically control a dead body and make it speak when it has no physical connection whatsoever?

[F4H bandicoot]

CronoDragoon wrote...



Uh, yes. That is all space magic. How does the Rachni being a hive mind explain their ability to take over people's minds/bodies? How can a hive mind physically control a dead body and make it speak when it has no physical connection whatsoever?

A. The first part was about the Thorian.

B "Our kind sing through touchings of thoughts. We pluck the strings and the other understands. She is weak to urging."

[CronoDragoon]

F4H bandicoot wrote...

A. The first part was about the Thorian.

B "Our kind sing through touchings of thoughts. We pluck the strings and the other understands. She is weak to urging."

A. Did they give a plausible scientific explanation for it? If not, it's space magic.

B. Which rules out their ability to control dead bodies, now doesn't it? But they do. The Rachni work the way the story needs them to work and always have. If you try and break it down it doesn't make sense. Space magic.