10273 réponses à ce sujet

[BlackyBlack]

Rejoy Skinler wrote...

Mass Effect 2 scores .7 less in user reviews than critics
Mass Effect scores .4 less in user reviews

Depends where you look
On GameSpot, for ME2 it's .2 less for both the PC and the 360 version.
For ME1 it's .1 less for the PC version and it's the same score for the 360 version
However, both the user scores and the critic scores for ME2 are higher than the ones for ME1

Modifié par BlackyBlack, 09 juin 2010 - 08:35 .

[tonnactus]

Orchomene wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Then you have to exclude a lot of possibilities.
Take alpha protocol. An agent that couldnt shoot?

Alpha Protocol is not the best example because you have three main possibilities at the beginning :
- play an agent having 30 points to put in skills and that may know how to shoot (or hide, or techno, sabotage, depending of its former profession)
- play a recruit that has no skill at all. There are then specific dialogues during training about that.
- play a veteran that has 120 skill points and thus know many things (unlocked after a successful playthrough as a recruit). Then, there are also specific dialogues in the training reflecting this.
So in AP, the BG is pretty consistent with the skill of the character.

I didnt play the game until now,so i guessed. Did playing as an agent require a recruit playthrough too?

[FlintlockJazz]

tonnactus wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Then you have to exclude a lot of possibilities.
Take alpha protocol. An agent that couldnt shoot?

Alpha Protocol is not the best example because you have three main possibilities at the beginning :
- play an agent having 30 points to put in skills and that may know how to shoot (or hide, or techno, sabotage, depending of its former profession)
- play a recruit that has no skill at all. There are then specific dialogues during training about that.
- play a veteran that has 120 skill points and thus know many things (unlocked after a successful playthrough as a recruit). Then, there are also specific dialogues in the training reflecting this.
So in AP, the BG is pretty consistent with the skill of the character.

I didnt play the game until now,so i guessed. Did playing as an agent require a recruit playthrough too?

You get the choice of Freelancer, Tech guy and soldier at the start, which are all agents with specific skills already selected but you can change them however you want so it really doesn't matter which one you pick.  You also get Recruit, which as Orcho has said starts with no skills whatsoever and gets dialog mentioning the fact that they have had to wipe his ears and such like, at the start as well, and to get Vet you need to finish the game as a recruit first.  Vet gets special dialog like the recruit but his dialog is basically how badass he is.  You also get some differing things such as a certain someone's face appearing on the pda at the start as a hallucination..."Hey my friend!  Cone to go?"

[spacehamsterZH]

finnithe wrote...
Can we really tell the different between 8.7 and 8.9 though? Is there any materiality to 0.2 when it comes to scores? 

That depends if it supports the completely irrational "point" I'm "making".

[FlintlockJazz]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

finnithe wrote...
Can we really tell the different between 8.7 and 8.9 though? Is there any materiality to 0.2 when it comes to scores? 

That depends if it supports the completely irrational "point" I'm "making".

And I got a little 'tip' for you, get the 'point'?

Sorry, Monkey Island moment there, I'll be going now...

[SSV Enterprise]

Rejoy Skinler wrote...

I really hate it when people talk about which game is better looking at the metacritic aggregates.

Mass Effect 2 scores .7 less in user reviews than critics
Mass Effect scores .4 less in user reviews
DA score 1.3 less in user reviews.

This tells me is that Bioware games are genuinely over rated by western critics, which is fair enough because you cannot not like your Bioware games as they produce the top notch stuff but I would be hard pressed to propose that a game which scores 8.9 is better than one which scores 8.7 for the majority.


From my experience and the few people I know that have played the game, they mostly loved it because it was technically really good but were either disappointed at the lack of RPG elements or story to speak of.

User scores averages are always lower than critic averages.  This is possibly because of some troll commenters just trying to bring the score down, like a guy gave a score of 0 and simply said "The graphics are poor at best and the online is constantly laggy.
Overall I was let down by the badly written story and generic
characters. This game tries to copy Battleship Earth and does it badly."  Wtf?  Mass Effect 2 didn't HAVE an online mode.  Looking in the comments of Uncharted 2 you can find the exact same comment.  Coincidence?  I think not.

However, when compared to the user scores of other  360 games on Metacritic, Mass Effect 2 still comes out on top.

Grand Theft Auto IV: 7.9
Bioshock: 8.7
The Orange  Box: 8.9
Red Dead Redemption: 9.0
Gears of War: 8.5
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion: 8.7
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare: 8.5
Halo 3: 7.5

Mass Effect: 8.7
Mass Effect 2: 8.9

So, putting the professional critic reviews aside, both Mass Effect games are still regarded as being as good or better than the most popular and well-reviewed games.  If anything, it's GTA IV and Halo 3 that are overrated by critics.

[Orchomene]

tonnactus wrote...

I didnt play the game until now,so i guessed. Did playing as an agent require a recruit playthrough too?

Nope. Besides the difficulty (easy, normal, difficult), recruit mode is there to give a bit more challenge and veteran mode is the earning of the recruit playthrough. Some say that in veteran modes, combat is more difficult (more enemies, tougher), but I have not tried and can't confirm.
All I can say is that the reviews saying that you adon't know how to use a weapon at the beginning is very exagerated. During the intro, I had no real issue to hit my targets as long as I took the time for it : the skill gives less recoil, more damage, some more precision and a quicker reticule size decrease.
You should at least rent it and see if it suits you.

[KitsuneRommel]

Orchomene wrote...

All I can say is that the reviews saying that you adon't know how to use a weapon at the beginning is very exagerated. During the intro, I had no real issue to hit my targets as long as I took the time for it : the skill gives less recoil, more damage, some more precision and a quicker reticule size decrease.
You should at least rent it and see if it suits you.

Good. That part really had me worried. I'll probably buy it after I've finished my ME and FFXIII playthroughs.

[KotOREffecT]

AlanC9 wrote...

Again, I must point out that when Bio made BG2 -- arguably the greatest success they ever had --

Yep, thats arguable.... KotOR, nuff said.

[chzr]

finnithe wrote...

Rejoy Skinler wrote...

I really hate it when people talk about which game is better looking at the metacritic aggregates.

Mass Effect 2 scores .7 less in user reviews than critics
Mass Effect scores .4 less in user reviews
DA score 1.3 less in user reviews.

This tells me is that Bioware games are genuinely over rated by western critics, which is fair enough because you cannot not like your Bioware games as they produce the top notch stuff but I would be hard pressed to propose that a game which scores 8.9 is better than one which scores 8.7 for the majority.


From my experience and the few people I know that have played the game, they mostly loved it because it was technically really good but were either disappointed at the lack of RPG elements or story to speak of.

Can we really tell the different between 8.7 and 8.9 though? Is there any materiality to 0.2 when it comes to scores? 

i doubt that. imho you can hardly do more objective rating scale than about  1-5, whole numbers, maybe with halves max.
the 1-100  or 1.0-10 scales dont really tell you moar than subjective feeling of the reviewer. as you said, can anyone tell if his me2 experience was like '0.2 points better' than me1? i dont think so.

[AlanC9]

Ecael wrote...

The existing design for Mass Effect is shooting, dialogue and characters. BioWare is free to revamp anything and everything they wish as long as there's good development in those three. Usefulness is not defined by how many flaws someone can point out, but how many they know how to fix. BioWare considers serious criticism to come from actual game critics - many of whom pointed out the control problems with the Mako, elevator loading times and inventory clutter. Just because some 'fans' had the same opinion back then doesn't mean they listened to those people - they listened to the critics instead.

I said utility, not usefulness. Which is just economic/philosophical jargon for personal satisfaction.

Modifié par AlanC9, 09 juin 2010 - 09:58 .

[AlanC9]

tonnactus wrote...

Like i wrote,you exclude a lot of possibilities in that way.Just an example: Marvel Ultimate Alliance.

Even superheroes have to level up...

Not if you're playing a good system, like Champions. No levels in that system. Though you do have to spend points.

Actually, a pretty good example in terms of starting power levels being variable.  Superheroes start at all kinds of different power levels. The thing is, they typically don't go through anything like the same type of adventure. You write something completely different rather than scaling stuff up.

Modifié par AlanC9, 09 juin 2010 - 10:07 .

[finnithe]

chzr wrote...

finnithe wrote...

Rejoy Skinler wrote...

I really hate it when people talk about which game is better looking at the metacritic aggregates.

Mass Effect 2 scores .7 less in user reviews than critics
Mass Effect scores .4 less in user reviews
DA score 1.3 less in user reviews.

This tells me is that Bioware games are genuinely over rated by western critics, which is fair enough because you cannot not like your Bioware games as they produce the top notch stuff but I would be hard pressed to propose that a game which scores 8.9 is better than one which scores 8.7 for the majority.


From my experience and the few people I know that have played the game, they mostly loved it because it was technically really good but were either disappointed at the lack of RPG elements or story to speak of.

Can we really tell the different between 8.7 and 8.9 though? Is there any materiality to 0.2 when it comes to scores? 

i doubt that. imho you can hardly do more objective rating scale than about  1-5, whole numbers, maybe with halves max.
the 1-100  or 1.0-10 scales dont really tell you moar than subjective feeling of the reviewer. as you said, can anyone tell if his me2 experience was like '0.2 points better' than me1? i dont think so.

This is somewhat off topic but I've never found Metacritic too helpful in evaluating a game. The person in control of the games section has to scale every score to a 0-100 scale, resulting in some sites/shows that use a different scale (Giantbomb, X-play, and The A.V. Club come to mind) having their metacritic scores being poor reflections of the review. Similarly, that same person has to assign scores for reviews that don't provide one. I'm sure you can figure out the problems that come with that.

That said, we should not be debating over which game was received better and which game is objectively better as it is not conducive to the discussion. We should be looking for ways to improve the game. Instead of making your post "ME1 or ME2 is better", discuss some features of ME1 you want back or features of ME2 you think need improving.

Some stricter mods would help.

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...


Also I did find consept of sabotage skill totally idiotic. No army would use  weapons what enemy can sabotase from remote.

Attacks develop faster then protection against attacks. There is nothing idiotic about this.

Are You kiding?

Sabotase cause weapon to overheat. Because overheat on weapon is termal energy cause by friction and ammo exlosions. How to hell you create overheat from distance to someones weapon. If you actually could do it, then why use it agaist weapon, why not just blow up the head of it's user with  that heat energy. Like I sayed, most stupid skill ever invented.

No military would EVER bring weapon to battle field, what can be disabled by enemy by remote.

Modifié par Lumikki, 09 juin 2010 - 11:06 .

[Ecael]

Can't post thread in this forum, since there are spoilers:

The Anti-Plothole Thread: Fight for the Plot!

Modifié par Ecael, 09 juin 2010 - 11:11 .

[chzr]

Lumikki wrote...


Are You kiding?

Sabotase cause weapon to overheat. Because overheat on weapon is termal energy cause by friction and ammo exlosions. How to hell you create overheat from distance to someones weapon. If you actually could do it, then why use it agaist weapon, why not just blow up the head of it's user with  that heat energy. Like I sayed, most stupid skill ever invented.

No military would EVER bring weapon to battle field, what can be
disabled by enemy by remote.

and what's your point? that me1 isnt realistic?

[Iakus]

Okay, I went and did it.  It's about nine pages long and reads like a "greastest hits" list of my thoughts and postings on ME 2's storyline.  I'll warn you right now it has spoilers for ME 1 and ME 2, and is subject to change as I get inspired:

social.bioware.com/718939/blog/5734/

[ShakeZoohla]

AlanC9 wrote...

ShakeZoohla wrote...
No, i have no data, but just from reading these forums, the place I would think people with strong opinions about either game would gather, it seems clear there is a divide among fans.  A 200 page thread so heated on both sides about whether the changes implented were good or bad will probably never see a winning side emerge, but i think it does evidence that these changes implented were drastic, and drastic to the people that actually matter: the fans. 

Drastic, yeah. But "drastic" doesn't mean "bad."

Maybe the minority of people were disapointed, and maybe not, either way there is a good chunk of fans who were fans of ME1 and are not of ME2.

Yep, and there seem to be even more ME1 fans who like ME2 better. 

How should a game company weigh these interests? Should they avoid trying to displease any of the fans of the first game? Or should they just make the best game they think they can make even if they displease a minority of the fans of the first game

Again, I must point out that when Bio made BG2 -- arguably the greatest success they ever had -- they changed major aspects of the first game. Most notably, they abandoned open-world exploration for the quest-related area system they still use to this day (ME1 UNC worlds excepted). A minority of BG1 fans thought this was a terrible, terrible decision, and still do.

I'm not quite sure the two cases are equivalent, since I don't know how many fans ended up not liking BG2 at all because of these changes.

No drastic doesn't mean bad, as some people liked the changes and some did not, but I do think it's bad to make a trilogy of games that barely resemble each other (we'll see what ME3 is like).  This is especially true for Mass Effect because of the way it stresses importing a character and continuing the story.  One would think that first and foremost the sequel to such a game would do its best to appeal to fans of the original, and not entirely change its style in hopes of sucking in new ones.  

I personally think you have the situation flipped backwards; ME1 seems to me to be the game of a company making something unique and to the best of their ability, while ME2 seems to be the game of a company making something samey that will suck in as many fans and as much revenue as possible.  One is art, the other is business.

[Sirsmirkalot]

iakus wrote...

Okay, I went and did it.  It's about nine pages long and reads like a "greastest hits" list of my thoughts and postings on ME 2's storyline.  I'll warn you right now it has spoilers for ME 1 and ME 2, and is subject to change as I get inspired:

social.bioware.com/718939/blog/5734/

That was a good read. All we can do now is hope that Bioware does a 180° turn for it's story direction of ME3. Alpha Protocol was far from an equal or better game than Mass Effect 2, but Mass Effect 2's story was so poor that it ended up being an overall bigger disappointment than Alpha Protocol.

And for what it's worth, I've subscribed to your blog.

Modifié par Sirsmirkalot, 10 juin 2010 - 03:13 .

[Xeranx]

iakus wrote...

Okay, I went and did it.  It's about nine pages long and reads like a "greastest hits" list of my thoughts and postings on ME 2's storyline.  I'll warn you right now it has spoilers for ME 1 and ME 2, and is subject to change as I get inspired:

social.bioware.com/718939/blog/5734/

I subscribed to it and I'll put any responses I have there as well.  Just one thing I feel I have to ask because it's been I don't know...bugging me maybe, but how many times were you going to tell people that your blog was your opinion and when did this whole obsession with stating that something is someone's opinion start?  This is not directed solely at you as it's more of a general statement made after observations of several individuals.

I assumed, and maybe that's a problem, that anything posted on the boards was someone's opinion.  I don't think I've ever had to wade through so many posts of people stating "that's your opinion" as though it seemed like it would be a missed mark of pride to not say it to someone who expressed something... especially if you didn't agree with it.

Again I'm sorry.  This isn't a question just to you, but for anyone who felt the need to express that someone's opinion was an opinion.  It's just something that's been bothering me.

[Iakus]

Xeranx wrote...

iakus wrote...

Okay, I went and did it.  It's about nine pages long and reads like a "greastest hits" list of my thoughts and postings on ME 2's storyline.  I'll warn you right now it has spoilers for ME 1 and ME 2, and is subject to change as I get inspired:

social.bioware.com/718939/blog/5734/

I subscribed to it and I'll put any responses I have there as well.  Just one thing I feel I have to ask because it's been I don't know...bugging me maybe, but how many times were you going to tell people that your blog was your opinion and when did this whole obsession with stating that something is someone's opinion start?  This is not directed solely at you as it's more of a general statement made after observations of several individuals.

I assumed, and maybe that's a problem, that anything posted on the boards was someone's opinion.  I don't think I've ever had to wade through so many posts of people stating "that's your opinion" as though it seemed like it would be a missed mark of pride to not say it to someone who expressed something... especially if you didn't agree with it.

Again I'm sorry.  This isn't a question just to you, but for anyone who felt the need to express that someone's opinion was an opinion.  It's just something that's been bothering me.

I understand.  I know it's my opinion.  You know it's my opinion.  But there have been, shall we say, "misunderstandings" between some posters as to whether one is posting "opinion" or "fact"  Just wanted to make sure there was absolutely no question ahead of time.  Can't be too careful, ya know

[SSV Enterprise]

Lumikki wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...


Also I did find consept of sabotage skill totally idiotic. No army would use  weapons what enemy can sabotase from remote.

Attacks develop faster then protection against attacks. There is nothing idiotic about this.

Are You kiding?

Sabotase cause weapon to overheat. Because overheat on weapon is termal energy cause by friction and ammo exlosions. How to hell you create overheat from distance to someones weapon. If you actually could do it, then why use it agaist weapon, why not just blow up the head of it's user with  that heat energy. Like I sayed, most stupid skill ever invented.

No military would EVER bring weapon to battle field, what can be disabled by enemy by remote.

Which is probably why the weapons have an "override" button for their heat monitoring systems!

[SilentOne1]

I was honestly disappointed with the lack of MAJOR sidequest action...Like choices regarding Genophage, Quarian Homeworld (Geth situation)...You know what I mean. I guess we'll all have to wait till ME3...

[Xeranx]

@Iakus



Got it. =)