10273 réponses à ce sujet

[PigTaint]

If Mass Effect goes multiplayer, we could run into this problem. LOL

http://mmomfg.com/20...ng-effect-0604/

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Orchomene wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...



Good for you. Then tell me something. Why should anyone, I for example, looking for games trust more the articles you sent than a metacritcs score? Why should anyone trust more ONE guy, supposedly a formal or not-critic from a whatever blog/website sending 10 reasons why a considered mediocre game be better than considered AAA game, and not a 100 telling the contrary? What does that article have that it puts more credibility than IGN reviews (a good source IMO),for example?



Assuming that the product is "market-tailored" is not an answer to this question. And if it pleases you is not some kind of "point" why is a critic better than any other, or a product better than any other. It's just what mostly every critic and person has: an opinion. Now, put that on a large number, than you have something different. It becomes an statistic.

I've never asked anybody to trust critics, just to read and see by itself if points highlighted in the critic seem accurate or not. I strongly believe that anybody should be able to forge its own opinion. Yet it's interesting to have a look at the opinion of other people.

On the other hand, a "score" gives not many information, just an evaluation of appreciation without much detail. The information given by metacritic score is "ME2 is a game much appreciated by critics". That's almost all.

Statistics are just, you know, statistics... I don't mind that 90% of the world think that Harry Potter books are wonderful whereas only a very small percentage have read books from Victor Hugo or Marcel Proust. The quantity of people appreciating an artistic creation is not at all correlated to the artistic value of such creation. Take music as an example if you like. How many people here has even heard about Dvorjak ? Compare his artistic creativity and the one of Michael Jackson.

In every metacritic there's a piece of the conclusion of the proper review, and if it's a website, there's a link to the review. The person is always free to read every review if they want. And there's also the user's metascore and reviews. My point is: The links you provided are one opinion, one point of view, it's not really different from any other "critic". Metacritics and Gamerankings provide a direct, unbiased and objective information based on much more than one point of view. This isn't ridiculous, and IMO, a much more reliable information for games on quality than the based on only one point of view. The information you provided on your links are not more reliable than a metascore or any review, they are just different.

Now, if you don't believe it, and is looking for another nieche source of information, than that's your case.

[Ecael]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Ecael wrote...

BioWare published Mass Effect 1 on their own too?

And the PC version was delayed not because some company wanted temporary exclusivity for their console, but because BioWare decided to save it to release later?

And that company still doesn't have a contract with BioWare making that game still exclusive to one console?

Bioware had more control over ME1 compared to ME2. That doesn't excuse them selling out, but still.

Nobody knows how a new franchise will fare with critics or its targeted audience. ME1 didn't go the length of marketing to shooter fans, if at all, as they did with ME2. Even though ME1 was popular, as I said before, shooter fans saw the trailer and said "Guns? IT'S A SHOOTER GIMMIE!" only for them to complain it wasn't anywhere near "shootery" enough. The amount of those who complained about the combat was on par with those who were upset that Tali wasn't a romance option. So with all the shooter fans who purchased ME1 and were disappointed, EA said "we need to mainstream this, make it more accessible to other fans. RPG fans are acceptable causalities because let's face it, which has a bigger following, shooters or RPGs?", as Casey Hudson even admitted. EA had no idea the shooter fans would want to take over the Mass Effect, but when they saw the profit potential, they took control of the reins and gave shooter fans what they asked for.

I think people are misinterpreting EA's actual actions. Consider this:

• EA bought BioWare in October 2007, right before Mass Effect 1 would be released for only the X-Box 360 (because Microsoft said so).
• EA commissioned an auxiliary company, Demiurge Studios, to produce Mass Effect 1 for the PC, a platform where most RPGs reside
• EA heavily expanded BioWare, merging them with other studios (or renaming other ones) to push BioWare to bring Dragon Age: Origins out of vaporware, back from the dead and into actual completion, even at the expense of releasing it 3 months before Mass Effect 2 would be released
• EA's heavy expansion allows BioWare to start work on their largest project ever, Star Wars: The Old Republic, which - even as a fully voiced MMO - will be five times larger than Dragon Age: Origins
• EA renamed Mythic Entertainment into BioWare Fairfax (or BioWare Mythic) to allow collaboration between the studios as they maintain the Dark Age of Camelot and Warhammer Online: servers

Thus, because EA bought BioWare, they prevented Mass Effect 1 (an action RPG) from being just another X-Box 360 game using Unreal Engine 3 - like, say... Gears of War 2. They then gave BioWare resources that would make Cerberus jealous to develop Mass Effect 2 (an action RPG), Dragon Age: Origins (a fantasy RPG) and Star Wars: The Old Republic (an MMORPG) simultaneously while giving Mythic Entertainment to Ray Muzyka, a company that has Dark Age of Camelot (an MMORPG) and Warhammer: Online (an MMORPG). They are now starting development on Dragon Age 2 (a fantasy RPG) and Mass Effect 3 (an action RPG).

This is Muzyka's BioWare before EA, in 2007:
-Mass Effect 1 on the X-Box 360 (a console action RPG)

This is Muzyka's BioWare after EA, 2007 and up:
-Mass Effect 1 on the PC (an action RPG)
-Dragon Age: Origins (a fantasy RPG)
-Mass Effect 2 (an action RPG)
-Dark Age of Camelot (an MMORPG)
-Warhammer: Online (an MMORPG)
-Star Wars: The Old Republic (an MMORPG)
-Dragon Age 2 (a fantasy RPG)
-Mass Effect 3 (an action RPG)

All of them can be played on the PC now, and some them can be played on the console.

So... how is EA-BioWare targeting shooter fans again with 8 RPGs?

Modifié par Ecael, 04 juin 2010 - 09:16 .

[Mister Mida]

Ecael wrote...

EA's heavy expansion allows BioWare to start work on their largest project ever, Star Wars: The Old Republic, which - even as a fully voiced MMO - will be five times larger than Dragon Age: Origins

The Old Republic was already in development years before EA got to Bioware. It's Star Wars after all, and nothing with Star Wars labeled on it goes not without LucasArts involved. EA may or may not pump money in it, but LucasArts is ultimately pulling the strings (Master! Master!!).

Modifié par Mister Mida, 04 juin 2010 - 09:24 .

[Ecael]

Mister Mida wrote...

Ecael wrote...

EA's heavy expansion allows BioWare to start work on their largest project ever, Star Wars: The Old Republic, which - even as a fully voiced MMO - will be five times larger than Dragon Age: Origins

The Old Republic was already in development years before EA got to Bioware. It's Star Wars after all, and nothing with Star Wars labeled on it goes not without LucasArts involved. EA may or may not pump money in it, but LucasArts is ultimately pulling the strings (Master! Master!!).

EA does pump money in it. They wanted a competitor to Activision-Blizzard's World of Warcraft, and now they'll get one.

Dragon Age was in development since 2003, but there was no way it would be completed without the resources from EA.

[Darth Drago]

I see we need to post this topics rules since some of you either didn’t read them, dont care about them or forgot.

Simple rules to follow:
1. Be respectful of the views and opinions posted in here, for or against the headline topic. If you don’t like what was said that’s fine but don’t reply with a negative attack on that person.
2. All opinions and views are welcome, for or against the headline topic. If you love Mass Effect 2 but think we are wrong that’s fine, give us your perspective on why you love Mass Effect 2 over Mass Effect 1.
3. Be mindful that this is in the “No Spoilers” section. However some minor spoilers may show up from time to time.
4. Please, no pictures in your posting unless it pertains to the topic.
5. Do not feed any trolls that may appear. Just ignore them.

Modifié par Darth Drago, 04 juin 2010 - 09:34 .

[Orchomene]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
In every metacritic there's a piece of the conclusion of the proper review, and if it's a website, there's a link to the review. The person is always free to read every review if they want. And there's also the user's metascore and reviews. My point is: The links you provided are one opinion, one point of view, it's not really different from any other "critic". Metacritics and Gamerankings provide a direct, unbiased and objective information based on much more than one point of view. This isn't ridiculous, and IMO, a much more reliable information for games on quality than the based on only one point of view. The information you provided on your links are not more reliable than a metascore or any review, they are just different.
Now, if you don't believe it, and is looking for another nieche source of information, than that's your case.

That's just wrong : an accumulation of hundred subjective opinions will never be objective. It has the color of objectivity, yet it's not objectivity at all. I don't trust critics nor groups of critics, even more based on my own experience that many games that have a good overall critic are not my taste and some that are litteraly bashed enjoy me a lot.

[Ecael]

Darth Drago wrote...

4. Please, no pictures in your posting unless it pertains to the topic.

It does pertain to the topic.

BioWare is Cerberus. They allied with EA for the defense and preservation of RPGs.

[Mister Mida]

Ecael wrote...

Darth Drago wrote...

4. Please, no pictures in your posting unless it pertains to the topic.

It does pertain to the topic.

BioWare is Cerberus. They allied with EA for the defense and preservation of RPGs.

Since when do RPG's need to be defended and preserved? Did I miss the big news flash or something? I got the impression EA needed Bioware to drag itself out of so-called debt, not the other way around.

[IoCaster]

Ecael wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

Whether or not you decide to 'mull' over the differences isn't nor should it be of consequence to anyone else. It's a simple matter of perception and opinion. Why would you take it upon yourself to try to convince anyone otherwise?

What most people choose to do isn't relevant to me. I can and do judge whatever I want, whenever I want and for whatever reason I choose. Obviously, that doesn't mean that I have the power or authority to change things that are beyond my control to suit my preferences. As far as, the story progression ME->ME2 I thought it was mediocre at best. That's my opinion. I'm not interested in trying to convince anyone that my opinion is the only valid one.

It's readily become apparent to me that you are trying to convince people that their perception or opinion of the differences between ME and ME2 are wrong. You have gone out of your way to count lines of dialogue, post the aggregate critical score of each game and number crunched a bunch of meaningless data. As if to say that your tabulated results trump my subjective criteria in judging whether or not I'm satisfied with the various component parts of ME2. Here's a serious and not rhetorical question. Why are you attempting to do this and what's the point?

Tabulated results do trump subjective criteria, especially when they are relevant.

Are 25 and twenty-five different from each other just because you perceive them differently?

Is the earth flat because the ground in front of you has a lot of "flat" elements to it?

Is Nintendo targeting the "dumb platformer crowd" by making Super Mario Galaxy 2 but not from making Super Mario Galaxy 1?

If Tali and Samara each have 50 lines of dialogue and I'm only interested in what Samara has to say how is Tali's dialogue relevant to my interest? 

If ME and ME2 have the same overall number of missions, but I prefer the quality and type of the missions in ME, then why should I care? 

The rest of that meaningless drivel about flat earth and Mario isn't relevant to anything.

Ecael wrote...
There sure are a lot of whiners on the GameFAQ forums for Super Mario Galaxy 2, comparing it to Super Mario Galaxy 1:
http://www.gamefaqs....galaxy-2?page=1

"Oh boy, I just LOVE doing the exact same thing I just did over AGAIN!!"
"Is anyone else disappointed the hardest end world boss is in World 1?"
"The death theme SUCKS"
"This game is a step backward in the direction mario should go..."
"SMG2 is way too overhyped right now and overrated.... (LONG POST)"
"If garbage like Red Dead Redemption is what passes for 8-9/10 material these days, then something at least competently developed that's actually somewhat enjoyable to play is practically a masterpiece in comparison."
"The final boss in this game is awful (spoilers)"
"Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario 64 are superior."
"why'd the levels suddenly get bad"

Just a few of the many complaints from people comparing Super Mario Galaxy 1 to Super Mario Galaxy 2.

Apparently Super Mario Galaxy 1 had tons and tons of exploration, a really good final boss, extremely good level design, no repetitiveness, and an open-ended world. But when Nintendo tries to keep the same core gameplay, same level structure (and same core story, of course) people start whining incessantly about how "different" Super Mario Galaxy 2 has become without realizing those complaints could be applied to both games.

Again with the meaningless drivel. What does Mario have to do with an ME2 fans dissatisfaction with ME2? Here, I'll answer that for you. Absolutely nothing.

Ecael wrote...
I don't need to convince you or anyone who frequently posts in this thread that your opinion is wrong. However, I can prove to everyone else reading (but not posting here) that those opinions really are wrong - and that there's no point in complaining unless you can figure out a solution on how to change it.

And before anyone mentions that it's "BioWare's job to come up with a solution", then what follows is that it's also only a game critic's job to criticize the game. BioWare seems to listen to them more often than the forum, anyway.

You stacked an erroneous and arrogant conclusion, (that my opinion of what I dislike about ME2 is wrong) on top of a baseless assumption (that I have any interest in telling BioWare how to make a game). You've gone way over the top with this Mass Effect Defense Force hysteria. I really don't know what to say at this point.

[ShepardWrex]

IoCaster wrote...

If Tali and Samara each have 50 lines of dialogue and I'm only interested in what Samara has to say how is Tali's dialogue relevant to my interest? 

If ME and ME2 have the same overall number of missions, but I prefer the quality and type of the missions in ME, then why should I care? 

The rest of that meaningless drivel about flat earth and Mario isn't relevant to anything.

Again with the meaningless drivel. What does Mario have to do with an ME2 fans dissatisfaction with ME2? Here, I'll answer that for you. Absolutely nothing.

You stacked an erroneous and arrogant conclusion, (that my opinion of what I dislike about ME2 is wrong) on top of a baseless assumption (that I have any interest in telling BioWare how to make a game). You've gone way over the top with this Mass Effect Defense Force hysteria. I really don't know what to say at this point.

I have to agree here. Escael is trying way too hard to defend BioWare when both games suck.

BioWare needs to return to the days of Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights -- none of this shooting gallery drivel with words.

It's good that Ecael brought up Super Mario Galaxy, though. As much as people whine about the sequel, at least both Mario games are better than Mass Effect.

[Ecael]

ShepardWrex wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

If Tali and Samara each have 50 lines of dialogue and I'm only interested in what Samara has to say how is Tali's dialogue relevant to my interest? 

If ME and ME2 have the same overall number of missions, but I prefer the quality and type of the missions in ME, then why should I care? 

The rest of that meaningless drivel about flat earth and Mario isn't relevant to anything.

Again with the meaningless drivel. What does Mario have to do with an ME2 fans dissatisfaction with ME2? Here, I'll answer that for you. Absolutely nothing.

You stacked an erroneous and arrogant conclusion, (that my opinion of what I dislike about ME2 is wrong) on top of a baseless assumption (that I have any interest in telling BioWare how to make a game). You've gone way over the top with this Mass Effect Defense Force hysteria. I really don't know what to say at this point.

I have to agree here. Escael is trying way too hard to defend BioWare when both games suck.

BioWare needs to return to the days of Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights -- none of this shooting gallery drivel with words.

It's good that Ecael brought up Super Mario Galaxy, though. As much as people whine about the sequel, at least both Mario games are better than Mass Effect.

Thanks for pointing out the flaws in Mass Effect 1 and 2.

Oh wait, you didn't.

[ShepardWrex]

Ecael wrote...

ShepardWrex wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

If Tali and Samara each have 50 lines of dialogue and I'm only interested in what Samara has to say how is Tali's dialogue relevant to my interest? 

If ME and ME2 have the same overall number of missions, but I prefer the quality and type of the missions in ME, then why should I care? 

The rest of that meaningless drivel about flat earth and Mario isn't relevant to anything.

Again with the meaningless drivel. What does Mario have to do with an ME2 fans dissatisfaction with ME2? Here, I'll answer that for you. Absolutely nothing.

You stacked an erroneous and arrogant conclusion, (that my opinion of what I dislike about ME2 is wrong) on top of a baseless assumption (that I have any interest in telling BioWare how to make a game). You've gone way over the top with this Mass Effect Defense Force hysteria. I really don't know what to say at this point.

I have to agree here. Escael is trying way too hard to defend BioWare when both games suck.

BioWare needs to return to the days of Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights -- none of this shooting gallery drivel with words.

It's good that Ecael brought up Super Mario Galaxy, though. As much as people whine about the sequel, at least both Mario games are better than Mass Effect.

Thanks for pointing out the flaws in Mass Effect 1 and 2.

Oh wait, you didn't.

Did you not read any of the 170 pages of this thread?

-Dialogue only matters when you actually CARE about the characters. I found myself uncaring to practically all the characters except Wrex, who didn't feel like telling Shepard his life story at first. Therefore, ONLY the number after Wrex is what matters.

-Quality beats quantity any day of the week. Final Fantasy's missions are extremely high quality -- although linear -- compared to BioWare's disjointed way of presenting missions in Mass Effect 1 and 2.

-What does Mario have to do with anything? So people are yapping about how the sequel is bad, what's that supposed to mean?

[Christianson]

People its just about different people enjoying different things because we are all different. They are games if you like them good if you dont then Im sorry you spent money on it.Im not saying you shouldnt vent your frustrations out or not state your opinion. Im saying that there isnt any reason to try to get people that dont agree with you on an opiniated topic to agree with you. I dont get it. I liked ME2

[Ecael]

ShepardWrex wrote...

Did you not read any of the 170 pages of this thread?

-Dialogue only matters when you actually CARE about the characters. I found myself uncaring to practically all the characters except Wrex, who didn't feel like telling Shepard his life story at first. Therefore, ONLY the number after Wrex is what matters.

-Quality beats quantity any day of the week. Final Fantasy's missions are extremely high quality -- although linear -- compared to BioWare's disjointed way of presenting missions in Mass Effect 1 and 2.

-What does Mario have to do with anything? So people are yapping about how the sequel is bad, what's that supposed to mean?

Wrex may be awesome, but he's not the only important character. Dialogue is dialogue, whether you choose to listen to it or not. I, on the other hand, want to get to know every character BioWare has written.

I brought up Mario and then you bring up Final Fantasy? They're not even in the same exact genre. Mario is an excellent example of both games getting high scores (97%+) , yet there's backlash to only one of them just because it's a sequel.

[ShepardWrex]

Ecael wrote...

ShepardWrex wrote...

Did you not read any of the 170 pages of this thread?

-Dialogue only matters when you actually CARE about the characters. I found myself uncaring to practically all the characters except Wrex, who didn't feel like telling Shepard his life story at first. Therefore, ONLY the number after Wrex is what matters.

-Quality beats quantity any day of the week. Final Fantasy's missions are extremely high quality -- although linear -- compared to BioWare's disjointed way of presenting missions in Mass Effect 1 and 2.

-What does Mario have to do with anything? So people are yapping about how the sequel is bad, what's that supposed to mean?

Wrex may be awesome, but he's not the only important character. Dialogue is dialogue, whether you choose to listen to it or not. I, on the other hand, want to get to know every character BioWare has written.

I brought up Mario and then you bring up Final Fantasy? They're not even in the same exact genre. Mario is an excellent example of both games getting high scores (97%+) , yet there's backlash to only one of them just because it's a sequel.

Not in the same exact genre because Mass Effect 1 and 2 have more guns or what? Are you going to tell me that they have better voice acting too? Because that's purely subjective when compared to FF.

And reviews are completely irrelevant. ME1/ME2 should be about 4 points lower -- around where Dragon Age on the X-Box is -- because neither can actually match up to the RPG that Dragon Age is.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Orchomene wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

In every metacritic there's a piece of the conclusion of the proper review, and if it's a website, there's a link to the review. The person is always free to read every review if they want. And there's also the user's metascore and reviews. My point is: The links you provided are one opinion, one point of view, it's not really different from any other "critic". Metacritics and Gamerankings provide a direct, unbiased and objective information based on much more than one point of view. This isn't ridiculous, and IMO, a much more reliable information for games on quality than the based on only one point of view. The information you provided on your links are not more reliable than a metascore or any review, they are just different.

Now, if you don't believe it, and is looking for another nieche source of information, than that's your case.

That's just wrong : an accumulation of hundred subjective opinions will never be objective. It has the color of objectivity, yet it's not objectivity at all. I don't trust critics nor groups of critics, even more based on my own experience that many games that have a good overall critic are not my taste and some that are litteraly bashed enjoy me a lot.

Wrong? How is it "wrong" to collect the different scores and make an average of it? If there's the objectivity of numeric score, why not use it this way? You can argue that numeric scores are wrong in the first place. I think it's a good way to measure things and put it in a scale, but sure there's the possibility that the score may or may not translate the text properly. It's up to opinion, but it's also a common convention. Now, even if you take the "metascore" out, there are still the "mini reviews", and there are and the links to it. It would still be a nice resource to find critic and user general opinions. ME2 would still be considered AAA and Alpha Protocol mediocre.

As I pointed it's different than read a proper review, but it's still an information about the quality of the game. Maybe is not THAT objective as you said, but as I pointed it's direct, unbiased, and based on a lot of opinions. If you don't trust it, well that's just you.

[Lumikki]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Its funny that the people complaining about this thread and taking their supposed arrogant moral high ground are the same deluded fanboys who cant accept that people who buy the game have a right to criticise it.

If anyone is disapointed I think they should give as much as possible constructive feedback, why they did not like the game. There is many ways to give good feedback even when complaining, but whining and blaming other players is not constructive feedback. So, it's as much as saying what you did not like, is also how you say it. Also many times the "feedback" is about useless emotional whining, based players expectition what game should have been, not what it is.

I'm gonna use example here to make point.

---- The whiner starts ---
ME1 did combat alot better, because there is no stinking termal clips, what all the shooter fun boys seem to love.  Hole combat is now just cover and AI is even more stupid that it was. Oh and the games story sucks like hell, no-one even understand it anymore and where the hell are reapers. Now our enemy is this stupid ugly looking collectors what you don't even see in the game. LOL. Oh and why to hell you did delete all RPG part from this game while ME1 was done allready perfectly, now game is like 100% shooter with no roleplaying at all. Oh and why does ME2 has only few missions what are even story related, while ME1 allmost all missions where story related and make sense too. Also where did all fun weapon and armor modification go, not we have no choises at all.  This game should be about RPG, not some ****ing shooter. Can't you see that this game is now totally crap, because you removed the part what did make it fun. You had good solid game with ME1 what maybe needed some little improved and you bring us this ME2 crap?
---- The whiner ends ---

---- Feedback  starts ---
I would like to say little about this new combat system. First  even if termal clips does the job in ME2 combat, it did not really feel right. Mostly this is because picking up clips isn't really fun and it breaks players impression while playing. Mostly because ground full of ammo clips doesn't make sense. Also combat system is now based alot of taking cover, what isn't bad thing, but players also sees inside game missions alot of cover possibilities now, maybe more than should be there. It doesn't feel natural, more like game.

When You tell the story in ME2 there is many times situations where player did lost the plot, like why is this happening, doesn't make the sense at all. Like there was part of story missing. I did not get that feeling in ME1, story there feeled more solid. I think while telling story about collectors is fine, I also expected to see more about reapers, what was behind the ME1 story. Now the story was too much about squad members, what did leave the main story little weak. I got feeling like storytelling was not consistent, more like many seperated small stories.

ME2 seem to improve item handling system, but also the system lost alot of customation and modification while it was done. Like customation did come too simplifyed and general. In ME1 we had more variety and more personal customation possilities. Example in squad members armors choises, weapon and armor modification to all characters. Even if inventory did not work so well in ME1, I think now the customation possiblities are way too limited.

Also the character powers as character development part lost all non-combat related skills and got very simplifyed. Now we have very few choises left to make our character as we want.

Now even if combat and many aspect of the game seem to got better, game also lost alot of small RPG related stuff in total. What have caused players feeling like game is now too balanced for shooter side. I think we lost missiing what aren't so much combat, but actaully RPG.
--- feedback ends ---

Hope, this helps the see the difference. Between emotianal whining and players feedback.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 juin 2010 - 10:19 .

[Ecael]

ShepardWrex wrote...

Ecael wrote...

ShepardWrex wrote...

Did you not read any of the 170 pages of this thread?

-Dialogue only matters when you actually CARE about the characters. I found myself uncaring to practically all the characters except Wrex, who didn't feel like telling Shepard his life story at first. Therefore, ONLY the number after Wrex is what matters.

-Quality beats quantity any day of the week. Final Fantasy's missions are extremely high quality -- although linear -- compared to BioWare's disjointed way of presenting missions in Mass Effect 1 and 2.

-What does Mario have to do with anything? So people are yapping about how the sequel is bad, what's that supposed to mean?

Wrex may be awesome, but he's not the only important character. Dialogue is dialogue, whether you choose to listen to it or not. I, on the other hand, want to get to know every character BioWare has written.

I brought up Mario and then you bring up Final Fantasy? They're not even in the same exact genre. Mario is an excellent example of both games getting high scores (97%+) , yet there's backlash to only one of them just because it's a sequel.

Not in the same exact genre because Mass Effect 1 and 2 have more guns or what? Are you going to tell me that they have better voice acting too? Because that's purely subjective when compared to FF.

And reviews are completely irrelevant. ME1/ME2 should be about 4 points lower -- around where Dragon Age on the X-Box is -- because neither can actually match up to the RPG that Dragon Age is.

I noticed you didn't even bother to go over what I said about the characters. You mention voice acting yet you hardly care about the dialogue in the first place. And you didn't register either Dragon Age: Origins or Awakening. Nice.

If Mass Effect 1 were re-released with the appropriate bug fixes and control changes for the Mako, it would have received 3 points HIGHER instead. Your opinion is no more important than any other critic - in fact, it's less important than a game critic.

[Orchomene]

Very interesting editorial comparing european and US reviews from the perspective of expecting a shooter game or a RPG game. I don't specifically agree with the separation between european and us audiance (it's a blatant simplification of social environments), the idea behind such contrast between reviews is highlighting the subjectivity of such reviews like it's already been said above in this topic.

This editorial talks about Alpha Protocal and is thus more "neutral" in the current discussion because there is no fanbase war between pro- and anti- AP in this ME forum a priori.



http://free-pc-guide...hos-wrong-01928

[ShepardWrex]

Ecael wrote...

I noticed you didn't even bother to go over what I said about the characters. You mention voice acting yet you hardly care about the dialogue in the first place. And you didn't register either Dragon Age: Origins or Awakening. Nice.

If Mass Effect 1 were re-released with the appropriate bug fixes and control changes for the Mako, it would have received 3 points HIGHER instead. Your opinion is no more important than any other critic - in fact, it's less important than a game critic.

Fine. I registered it since you obviously care so much.

NEWSFLASH: BioWare's not re-releasing Mass Effect 1 or 2 any time soon.

It's better to look at ONLY the bad reviews for Mass Effect because they are the ones that are truly objective.

[Jebel Krong]

Orchomene wrote...

The problem I have with ME2 is that it's been advertised as a RPG, yet it's not an RPG for me and even if an action/RPG like ME1 is at the limit of my appreciation, I may enjoy those games whereas I do not at all enjoy games like ME2.
To me, video games are like whisky : some single malt are really exceptional and blends are generally mediocre.

neither mass effect 1 or 2 were marketed as "rpgs."

[ShepardWrex]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

The problem I have with ME2 is that it's been advertised as a RPG, yet it's not an RPG for me and even if an action/RPG like ME1 is at the limit of my appreciation, I may enjoy those games whereas I do not at all enjoy games like ME2.
To me, video games are like whisky : some single malt are really exceptional and blends are generally mediocre.

neither mass effect 1 or 2 were marketed as "rpgs."

They were marketed as RPGs, but they failed miserably at reaching that.

Just slap the Gears of War 1/2 covers on them and get it over with. Or just play Gears 1/2 instead - it has better AI.

[Jebel Krong]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Maybe you werent paying attention, or your eyes were blocked by your denial... *snip*

given your track record/statements/opinions and signatures this gave me quite a laugh.

[Jebel Krong]

ShepardWrex wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

The problem I have with ME2 is that it's been advertised as a RPG, yet it's not an RPG for me and even if an action/RPG like ME1 is at the limit of my appreciation, I may enjoy those games whereas I do not at all enjoy games like ME2.
To me, video games are like whisky : some single malt are really exceptional and blends are generally mediocre.

neither mass effect 1 or 2 were marketed as "rpgs."

They were marketed as RPGs, but they failed miserably at reaching that.

Just slap the Gears of War 1/2 covers on them and get it over with. Or just play Gears 1/2 instead - it has better AI.

no they weren't: they were marketed as a hybrid of 3rd person shooter and rpg. both games. that is exactly what they are.