1470 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

You're standards are stupid. ME 2 deserves to be taken from a 9.75 to a 7 because of planet scanning? That is just laughable. Why don't we just go ahead and give every game a zero, because I can guarentee you I can find bigger flaws in pretty much any game you'd care to name.

You are speaking in jest, but I honestly thinks this needs to happen.  I think a lot of big-name games need to be hit with....not zeros....but 3-5s like they really deserve and perhaps then the publishers and dev studios will start to pay attention.

-Polaris

[Morlath]

IanPolaris wrote...

We are talkimng about one game ME2 (which I thought was a pretty good game).  As for it being enough to take it from a 9+ to a 7, yes I can see it.  9+ is supposed to be for excellent to near perfect games, i.e. an "A".  If a game is good but still has annoying or distracting (and correctable) flaws, then it isn't exellent but merely "good" or maybe even "better than average" (letter grades B and C respectively) which would be 7 or 8s.

-Polaris

With all due respect, you're insane.

You don't drop ANYTHING down two entire grade points for one small error/flaw. That isn't how marking works in the slighest.

[David7204]

Boy, you sure love mentioning your 'English lit' class, don't you? Do you think that makes you uniquely qualified? You're not the only one who's been to school.

If you want to think all video games suck and are stupid, by means, go ahead. I'm going to say right now that you seem to be thinking that video games are mediocre because developers are stupid and lazy and don't 'pay attention,' you're not thinking much at all. But that's your right.

However, what isn't okay is blatent hypocrisy. What isn't okay is whining about a problem in Mass Effect but completely ignoring it in another game because the ME 3 ending left you upset and another game didn't. And I'm betting there's a few games out there in which you're doing exactly that. Tell me, what games do you feel deserve a 9 or 10?

Modifié par David7204, 11 mai 2013 - 07:04 .

[IanPolaris]

Morlath wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

We are talkimng about one game ME2 (which I thought was a pretty good game).  As for it being enough to take it from a 9+ to a 7, yes I can see it.  9+ is supposed to be for excellent to near perfect games, i.e. an "A".  If a game is good but still has annoying or distracting (and correctable) flaws, then it isn't exellent but merely "good" or maybe even "better than average" (letter grades B and C respectively) which would be 7 or 8s.

-Polaris

With all due respect, you're insane.

You don't drop ANYTHING down two entire grade points for one small error/flaw. That isn't how marking works in the slighest.

When I was in officer's (USAF) training, your performance could be and frequently WAS dropped at least a letter grade for minior mistakes.  Minor mistakes (like not securing a loose screw near an turbine jet) can (and do) kill.

-Polaris 

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

Boy, you sure love mentioning your 'English lit' class, don't you? Do you think that makes you uniquely qualified? You're not the only one who's been to school.

If you want to think all video games suck and are stupid, by means, go ahead. I'm going to say right now that you seem to be thinking that video games are mediocre because developers are stupid and lazy and don't 'pay attention,' you're not thinking much at all. But that's your right.

However, what isn't okay is blatent hypocrisy. What isn't okay is whining about a problem in Mass Effect but completely ignoring it in another game because the ME 3 ending left you upset and another game didn't. And I'm betting there's a few games out there in which you're doing exactly that. Tell me, what games do you feel deserve a 9 or 10?

Who said I was ignoring it for other games.  I am refering to an ongoing problem that crosses many different games and many different publishers.

-Polaris

[Megaton_Hope]

Morlath wrote...
So let me get this straight...

A review that is a 9.75 and talks about how brilliant the game is is a far better review than the IGN score of 9.5 because one mentions the minigames and one doesn't?

They both rate it highly and talk about it positively. The Game Informer review just doesn't manage to claim that it craps rainbows in the process, which I consider a meaningful distinction.

IGN's scores should average out to a 9.3, though personally I consider anything over a 9 to be ass-kissing. With the exception of games that legitimately do crap rainbows. Which, although ME2 was fairly solid, it did not. My overall impression when I started my first game was that the combats were unpleasant, with "boss" battles like the YMIR mech on Freedom's Progress being among the worst. Especially that one, on anything but Casual, for a first game; got two guns, a limited supply of bullets, and heavy weapons are very limited. May not have a particularly formidable offensive power. Thing's got armor, shields, and a machine gun that will just keep whittling away at you or a squadmate.

My review would probably have focused largely on Bypass, Hack, and Scanning, which I can't imagine wouldn't get annoying to everybody sooner or later. You play the game enough to review it, I'm sure that'd occur to you eventually. Certainly it occurred to the Game Informer reviewer, in January 2010, a year before it was ported to the system the IGN reviewer played it on.

Either that reviewer really just never thought about that possibility, never played it that long, or they're really only putting positive stuff in there.

[AlanC9]

IanPolaris wrote...
Unfortunately that's about where the good points stop.  There is the ending which alone would be enough to drop it if it were a literary work for an English Lit class at least a full letter grade.  Then there is the autodialog and linear structure of the game.  Then there is the negation of meaningful choice that happens throughout (like the Rachni Queen).  The side-quest journal system is buggy and difficult to use.  i could go one but why bother.  I am sure everyone here has heard it before.

I would mark ME3 up for the linear structure, myself. And since the autodialogue is largely ME2's fault, since ME2 caused ME3 to burn so much of the word budget on contingencies, it's more sensible to dock ME2's score for that problem rather than ME3.

[IanPolaris]

AlanC9 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Unfortunately that's about where the good points stop.  There is the ending which alone would be enough to drop it if it were a literary work for an English Lit class at least a full letter grade.  Then there is the autodialog and linear structure of the game.  Then there is the negation of meaningful choice that happens throughout (like the Rachni Queen).  The side-quest journal system is buggy and difficult to use.  i could go one but why bother.  I am sure everyone here has heard it before.

I would mark ME3 up for the linear structure, myself. And since the autodialogue is largely ME2's fault, since ME2 caused ME3 to burn so much of the word budget on contingencies, it's more sensible to dock ME2's score for that problem rather than ME3.

Hence we have a genuine and legitamate difference of opinion.  As long as we both are clear as to why you are giving an upcheck for this and I am giving a downcheck, another reader could read both our reviews and learn something useful about the game.

-Polaris

[David7204]

So I have to ask. Are there any fairly well-known games that would consider worthy of a 9 or a 10?

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

So I have to ask. Are there any fairly well-known games that would consider worthy of a 9 or a 10?

The last game I would consider worthy of a 9 (and a 9.0 not higher) would be Dragon Age Origins.  For it's time I would rate Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn into the 9s....maybe 9.5 but Throne of Bhaal probably would just make 9.0 as would Baldur's Gate 1.

-Polaris

[Morlath]

IanPolaris wrote...

When I was in officer's (USAF) training, your performance could be and frequently WAS dropped at least a letter grade for minior mistakes. Minor mistakes (like not securing a loose screw near an turbine jet) can (and do) kill.

-Polaris

Totally separate situation. Military, like the scientific field, have their own high standards and rightly so. But lives aren't at risk and things don't blow up if someone rates something 0.2 higher or lower or forget to include one small aspect in their reports.

And it's nothing about not having pride but more than the standards set by the military, science and other areas are encased in their own unique environment.

[David7204]

Huh. Well, I admire your consistency. I expected you to name off a bunch a games as 10s and basically claim them as flawless.

[IanPolaris]

Morlath wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

When I was in officer's (USAF) training, your performance could be and frequently WAS dropped at least a letter grade for minior mistakes. Minor mistakes (like not securing a loose screw near an turbine jet) can (and do) kill.

-Polaris

Totally separate situation. Military, like the scientific field, have their own high standards and rightly so. But lives aren't at risk and things don't blow up if someone rates something 0.2 higher or lower or forget to include one small aspect in their reports.

And it's nothing about not having pride but more than the standards set by the military, science and other areas are encased in their own unique environment.

It's not totally seperate.  Either you have high standards all the time, or you don't.  If you don't, you can get people killed.  This was inculcated into me from day one.

-Polaris

[Morlath]

Megaton_Hope wrote...
They both rate it highly and talk about it positively. The Game Informer review just doesn't manage to claim that it craps rainbows in the process, which I consider a meaningful distinction.

Considering Game Informer uses as much enthusiasm as IGN, your personal taste in reviewers is showing.

IGN's scores should average out to a 9.3, though personally I consider anything over a 9 to be ass-kissing. With the exception of games that legitimately do crap rainbows.

And yet you're fine with linking to Game Informer giving a 9+ rating because it mentions the hacking.

My review would probably have focused largely on Bypass, Hack, and Scanning, which I can't imagine wouldn't get annoying to everybody sooner or later. You play the game enough to review it, I'm sure that'd occur to you eventually. Certainly it occurred to the Game Informer reviewer, in January 2010, a year before it was ported to the system the IGN reviewer played it on.

And your review would have been focusing on all the bad without any of the good. Bypass and Hack are small areas of the game and Scanning is still less of a bother than the Mako drive arounds in ME1.

Either that reviewer really just never thought about that possibility, never played it that long, or they're really only putting positive stuff in there.

Or perhaps they're human and aren't tainted by issues you have with the series.

IanPolaris wrote...

The last game I would consider worthy
of a 9 (and a 9.0 not higher) would be Dragon Age Origins.  For it's
time I would rate Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn into the 9s....maybe
9.5 but Throne of Bhaal probably would just make 9.0 as would Baldur's
Gate 1.

-Polaris

I couldn't give Dragons Age: Origins a 9. An 8, maybe an 8.5, but not a 9. Even with the glitches I've had in ME2 it's still a better total experience than DA:O and I've played DA:O as much as I have the ME games.

[Morlath]

IanPolaris wrote...

It's not totally seperate.  Either you have high standards all the time, or you don't.  If you don't, you can get people killed.  This was inculcated into me from day one.

-Polaris

You're missing my point.

In the military and science areas point grades have more meaning than bad games, poor paperwork or whatever. There is a given social leeway in regards to performance that cannot (and should not) be accounted for in those two areas.

[tevix]

Polaris has a good point, but I think his definition of a "minor mistake" could use some fine-tuning.

Failing to secure a loose bolt near a turbine is a critical mistake. The planet scanning of ME2 did not break the game into pieces, so it was more an oops than anything else.

What I consider critical errors with ME2 are the general removal of the reaper threat from the storyline. You encounter the collectors so rarely, and they're so contrived that you don't really feel like you're accomplishing anything. The entire game felt, and still feels like extended fluff.

It was polished, it felt finished, but not...complete. I would give ME2 a 7. Definately above the norm, and it definately had its moments, but it DEFINATELY missed the point.

[Obadiah]

Oh for cryin' out loud, they learned the absolute wrong lesson.

Just take their own story seriously.

[SpamBot2000]

chemiclord wrote...

yukon fire wrote...

Sure, wonder if the people at Big Huge Games were concerned with KOA becoming too successful.

I'm sure some of them were.  Not everyone wants to do one thing for their entire career, and the idea that they might be pressured to do so is not a comforting thought.

Funny, you repeatedly called me insane for suggesting this much. 

[David7204]

And how are the collectors 'contrived'?

Modifié par David7204, 11 mai 2013 - 07:33 .

[Megaton_Hope]

Morlath wrote...

Considering Game Informer uses as much enthusiasm as IGN, your personal taste in reviewers is showing.

Pft, I don't habitually read anybody's game reviews, you might have noticed, if you've been reading, that my point is they are garbage. In this case the Game Informers piece is the marginally better of the two, because it encompasses a more nuanced presentation.

And your review would have been focusing on all the bad without any of the good. Bypass and Hack are small areas of the game and Scanning is still less of a bother than the Mako drive arounds in ME1.

I'd have mentioned the good as well, but it certainly wouldn't have topped a 7 or 8 from me. Call it a 7.5 and split the difference.

The "Lair of the Shadow Broker" DLC might have gotten a 9, I suppose, if I were to review all the game's different materials. That's a good 8.5 or 9, given the additions it makes to the main game. (A way to buy skill resets, for example.) And atmosphere was great. Story still kind of chintzy.

That's the thing, though, every game review I've ever read from a "game journalism" site (or especially from a magazine, especially XBox magazine, unsurprisingly) comes across as a come-hither to the consumer to make a purchase. To provide that come-hither, it's necessary to keep some of the less desirable features de-emphasized.

Or perhaps they're human and aren't tainted by issues you have with the series.

What is it that causes you to call my opinion a "taint," and how does my "taint" make me less human?

[tevix]

@David

Well...let's see..

--They come out of nowhere.
--They're conveniently said to be the protheans, then conveniently handwaived by "oh the reapers couldn't reapify them..so collectors."
--They pose absolutely no legitamate threat.
--Defeating them accomplished no legitamate purpose

They're there just to be a "mysterious" enemy for ME2 because the team didn't know what they wanted to do with the reapers.

[Eterna]

ITT:

Modifié par Eterna5, 11 mai 2013 - 07:56 .

[David7204]

- Any new enemy is going to 'come out nowhere.' That's not contrived.

- How is the fact that collectors are Protheans 'convenient' at all? And I've played ME 2 plenty of times but never heard anything about the Reapers being 'unable to reapify them.' So I dunno where that's coming from.

- The last two complaints are really just one complaint, and you're trying to pretend that it's two. Yes, the collectors should have been made a bigger threat, but that would give Shepard a purpose in defeating them.

I would have done more-or-less the same thing. Shepard is not going to be fighting the Reapers until ME 3, so whatever s/he's dealing with is going to have to be servant or ally of them, and obviously far less dangerous.

Modifié par David7204, 11 mai 2013 - 07:57 .

[TheProtheans]

Eterna5 wrote...

ITT:

Yeah I'm not getting that at all, that image is about 1 year late.
There is a relaxed bitter atmosphere in this thread.

Nothing that silly and extreme.

Modifié par TheProtheans, 11 mai 2013 - 07:59 .

[David7204]

Megaton_Hope wrote...
That's the thing, though, every game review I've ever read from a "game journalism" site (or especially from a magazine, especially XBox magazine, unsurprisingly) comes across as a come-hither to the consumer to make a purchase. To provide that come-hither, it's necessary to keep some of the less desirable features de-emphasized.

What is it that causes you to call my opinion a "taint," and how does my "taint" make me less human?

Are you being serious, or are you really that deluded? Or stupid?

Every game review you've ever read has encouraged the 'consumer' to make a purchase?

Are you kidding me?

Modifié par David7204, 11 mai 2013 - 07:59 .