28 réponses à ce sujet

[Archie591]

phimseto wrote...

Hey, Erik Brudvig of IGN...**** you.

Mass Effect is designed to be a single story where the decisions and actions of each game shape the overall playing experience.  It is not a drawback or a negative, it is the game's single greatest strength.  To everyone at Bioware, if there's one complaint you should feel utterly and completely free to ignore, it is that.  You guys have an immensely successful and influential franchise here.  Act like it, and don't be afraid to let people know that this trilogy comes with an expectation that the player invest the time to play all the games.  It was your original pitch and your greatest challenge.  Don't try to balance it out.  Go for it, and push yourself as far as you can to realize that vision.

Also, "pointless exploration"...screw you on that, too, Erik.  Exploration is a cornerstone of RPGs.  I would take greater offense, but I know that some of Bioware's DLC plans include more off-main quest exploration, so I'll let that one go for now.  The more galaxy I can explore and more stories I can find, the happier I am!  The galaxy is too big for every bit of content to be forcibly tied to the main quest.

 Overly Referential is a negative quality. No matter how you twist it. Yes, it's bloody awesome for anyone who has played ME1, but it's absolutely horrible for new players who do not want to play the first part.

 The thing is that there is nothing to do about this. It's simply the result of creating the type of game that ME is. You can't get around it. And there are bound to be people out there who are pissed off about it.

 The score was 9.6 and it was as positive as a review can be. If he had to resort to pointing out something like that to find any negativity in the game, then you know it's good.

 And in ME1, most of the exploration was pointless. The galaxy map was great. But most planets themselves had little going for them. The Mako was pointless in my opinion. What's the point of driving around looking for minerals you could only find randomly... or driving from one anomaly to the next. Pointless exploration as he put it.
 Not to mention that almost every single planet was like the bloody Alps with countless mountains and crooks and you were stuck with a jetski on land.


 Erik Brudvig of the IGN. Good review. All points valid and understandable.

Modifié par Archie591, 23 janvier 2010 - 05:20 .

[Volourn]

"People... he gave the game a 9.6. Having not played it you're not even qualified to criticize someone giving the game a score of 9.6. Yes, 9.6. Do you have any idea how good that is?"

Scores are irrelevant. Heck, I rate NWN OC 75%, and people go away from that score belieiving i find the game perfect. *shrug* The meat of the review matters.

"Overly Referential is a negative quality. No matter how you twist it. Yes, it's bloody awesome for anyone who has played ME1, but it's absolutely horrible for new players who do not want to play the first part."

Silly talk. That's like saying Godfather 2 being 'overly referential' to Godfather 1 is a negative or Aliens with Alien or T2 with T1, etc., etc.

It's not a negative. It's a positive because it shows what came before actually matters even if it's minor. The best tv shows are the ones that are 'overly reverential'. It's sloppy, poor, and alzy writing when something lacks it.


Still, anyways, it's silly to get butthurt over someone elses' review of a game. L0L

Modifié par Volourn, 23 janvier 2010 - 08:41 .

[Bryy_Miller]

The OP needs to chill out. It's a review.

[AtreiyaN7]

9.6 is close to perfect. Could we do something more productive than complain about a reviewer who more or less said the game was close to perfect and report those #$@!ing idiots who have been spamming that spoiler in multiple threads instead?