Aller au contenu

Photo

whats with the negative reviews?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
163 réponses à ce sujet

#101
Computron2000

Computron2000
  • Members
  • 4 983 messages

Kalfear wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

They're just a vocal minority. Here:

http://social.biowar...093/polls/1659/
http://social.biowar...596/polls/1670/


Image IPB


great arguement troll boy.

Use bought and paid for reveiws as your counter point, I notice you dont use ANY reveiws by those that didnt get free stuff from Bioware and reveiwed the game as gamers who actually play the games!

Oh thats right, all those reveiws were bad! How silly of me, we all suppose to act like they dont exist as they far more plentiful then the good reveiws!

God I hate 13 year old trolls

PS: The mass majority have had negative opionons on the game.


I could have snipped off that big picture you quoted, but i want it there to make sure you can actually see it.

See that little thing called "USER SCORE"? Its right at the right hand side of the picture. Look from the top a little bit after "CRITIC SCORE".

Thats right, the "USER SCORE" are not by critics.

Then i could also raise the theory that the typical non paid critic  wishes they COULD be paid so they make up some hooha to draw attention on the premise they will be paid to shut them up

Hey i got no evidence but since we are using conspiracy theories why not throw that in there

#102
Jarcander

Jarcander
  • Members
  • 823 messages
I never trust really positive or really negative customer reviews. They are always biased in some way.

"Oh this game wasn't exactly how I wanted it to be. Stupid game! I'll give it 1/10, that'll teach it!"

"*ranting on about changed features and making every little glitch sound like the end of the world* 1/10, bastards, see if I buy the next game!"

Then there's this guy:

"10/10, awesome game. PS. Take that you who rates this great game 1/10. Ha ha."

Modifié par Jarcander, 23 mars 2010 - 11:51 .


#103
Sharn01

Sharn01
  • Members
  • 1 881 messages

jsachun wrote...

They oversimplify games to suit playability in consoles. I think lot of PC gamers who are used to the intricacies involved in real RPGs & RTSs will always be disapointed at games that are waterdowned for the Console Market.
$$=Bioware Image IPB


Such an intelligent argument.  Unlike dragon age, the ME games where designed around the game cocsole and ported the the PC, not the other way around.

Not every one who plays on consoles are little kids, you may be surprised that the gap changes back again when you get older.  I use to play games almost exclusively on the PC until I got married, my wife would much rather me sit with her on the couch and play a game then hide away in my computer room.  When you have a wife who not only lets you play video games but encourages it because she enjoys them as well, you best appreciate it and follow the path of least resistance.

Consoles are also a better long term investment on a tight budget, like a crappy economy that went to **** recently and leaves people like me lucky to work full time 6 months out of the year.  When you buy a console for $200 it will last close to a decade before its time is completely up, your lucky to get 3 years out of a $1500 PC, and that is being generous. 

#104
Ecael

Ecael
  • Members
  • 5 634 messages

Sharn01 wrote...

jsachun wrote...

They oversimplify games to suit playability in consoles. I think lot of PC gamers who are used to the intricacies involved in real RPGs & RTSs will always be disapointed at games that are waterdowned for the Console Market.
$$=Bioware Image IPB


Such an intelligent argument.  Unlike dragon age, the ME games where designed around the game cocsole and ported the the PC, not the other way around.

Actually, ME1 was originally designed for the PC, but Microsoft paid BioWare to make it exclusively for the XBox 360 at the last minute. EA bought BioWare and had them finish the PC version later on with the help of Demiurge Studios.

ME2 was solely designed for the XBox 360 and its controller. That's why ME1 feels much more like a PC RPG game, and ME2 feels more like a XBox TPS game.

Considering this isn't going to change in the next few years (and BioWare's already started on ME3), ME3 will be still be more XBox 360 shooter than ME1.

#105
Karstedt

Karstedt
  • Members
  • 1 536 messages
I find scoring to be pretty useless in general. They either ignore personal taste too much, or utilize personal taste too much. An in depth article by a thoughtful reviewer is the only thing that is really helpful. If it's not in depth, you can't get a very good read on where the reviewer is coming from, and how their evaluation will apply to you.

#106
superimposed

superimposed
  • Members
  • 1 283 messages
 Image IPB

People have opinions that don't coincide with your expectations!?

SHOCK HORROR!

Modifié par superimposed, 23 mars 2010 - 11:58 .


#107
Karstedt

Karstedt
  • Members
  • 1 536 messages

Ecael wrote...

Considering this isn't going to change in the next few years (and BioWare's already started on ME3), ME3 will be still be more XBox 360 shooter than ME1.


I HATE YOU ALL! *runs away crying*

#108
Ecael

Ecael
  • Members
  • 5 634 messages

Karstedt wrote...

I figured something like that was going on. It's been pretty clear
that EA has realocated it's resources from development to advertising
over the last decade. Not that I expect any sports gamers here, but have
you seen what happened to thier sports franchise? I haven't bought one
in over 6 years now, and I was a very faithful EA NHL/NBA patron from
the early 90's up until 04'

Karstedt wrote...

I find scoring to be pretty useless in general. They either ignore personal taste too much, or utilize personal taste too much. An in depth article by a thoughtful reviewer is the only thing that is really helpful. If it's not in depth, you can't get a very good read on where the reviewer is coming from, and how their evaluation will apply to you.

So if EA publishes a game that gets high scores, it's because they paid advertising dollars to make the game look good, but when EA publishes a game that's terrible and gets low scores, it's because they didn't spend much on development? And scoring is useless because it's either partial or impartial?

It looks like EA can't win here. If they make a good game, people will hate it because other people and the reviewers say it's good (EA's advertising dollars). If they make a bad game, people will hate it automatically just because they expected it from EA.

There are quite a few critics who are paid a salary (from their employer, not any one company) to write in-depth reviews. If what you're saying is true, those are the only people that can be trusted for their opinion - and those people rated Mass Effect 2 very highly.

Ecael wrote...

Considering this isn't going to change in the next
few years (and BioWare's already started on ME3), ME3 will be still be
more XBox 360 shooter than ME1.

I HATE YOU ALL! *runs away crying*

Well, Casey Hudson and Christina Norman don't intend to change the gameplay much from ME2 to ME3 (although they will tweak it so that there will be some RPG elements), so unless there's something that proves otherwise, that's the current state of development for ME3.

People can complain all they want on these boards about ME2, but the gameplay has already been decided.

#109
Cascadus

Cascadus
  • Members
  • 857 messages
Listen to this AI man. Listen

#110
Ecael

Ecael
  • Members
  • 5 634 messages

Cascadus wrote...

Listen to this AI man. Listen

If I mentioned the Lead Gameplay Designer of Mass Effect 2, would you think it were a woman or a man?

Now, if I mentioned Christina Norman, the Lead Gameplay Designer of Mass Effect 2...

Just refer to me as an AI.:innocent:

#111
Cascadus

Cascadus
  • Members
  • 857 messages
Will do. Much simpler and soothing to read your posts in EDI's calm, clinical voice anyways.

Modifié par Cascadus, 23 mars 2010 - 12:22 .


#112
Karstedt

Karstedt
  • Members
  • 1 536 messages

Ecael wrote...

So if EA publishes a game that gets high scores, it's because they paid advertising dollars to make the game look good, but when EA publishes a game that's terrible and gets low scores, it's because they didn't spend much on development? And scoring is useless because it's either partial or impartial?


Scoring is mostly useless, yes.

It looks like EA can't win here. If they make a good game, people will hate it because other people and the reviewers say it's good (EA's advertising dollars). If they make a bad game, people will hate it automatically just because they expected it from EA.


Name a good game by EA that I hate. And I pretty much automatically hate bad games regardless of who made them.

There are quite a few critics who are paid a salary (from their employer, not any one company) to write in-depth reviews. If what you're saying is true, those are the only people that can be trusted for their opinion - and those people rated Mass Effect 2 very highly.


I didn't say they could be trusted... I just said that they are the only one's who's reviews are usefull. And the scores they give are still more or less useless, it's the in depth review that is informative.

Scores are good for one thing. Did it do better than 60%? I have personal favorites that did not 'score' well. And I'm sure many other people do as well. 5000 people saying, "this rocks", and 500 people saying, "this sucks", is almost useless information.

Well, Casey Hudson and Christina Norman don't intend to change the gameplay much from ME2 to ME3 (although they will tweak it so that there will be some RPG elements), so unless there's something that proves otherwise, that's the current state of development for ME3.

People can complain all they want on these boards about ME2, but the gameplay has already been decided.


I HATE YOU ALL! *runs away crying*

#113
smudboy

smudboy
  • Members
  • 3 058 messages

Lonely_Fat_Guy wrote...

Game play aside, what matters to me in video game media is the creation of new experiences.  This is done through the difficult process of interactive storytelling.  How a story is told in such a manner.

Now there are many, many problems with ME2's game play and level design, (and plot) but it didn't really bother me too much, because I'm looking for that unique thing that you can't get anywhere else.  Story and plot are the things that make a sci-fi universe believable, and make a world compelling and interesting to want to explore.  I'm also evaluating it on that magical number 2 in the title.  Unfortunately, the two terms of the year for me are retcon and plot hole.

And I can say this: story, plot and pacing in ME2, though large/r in scope (at least story), don't do justice to its predecessor in comparison or as a sequel.  I also did not feel there was anything unique about ME2, aside from all the developed side-stories, most notably Tali's.  All of which, had almost nothing to do with ME2.  Which is 3/4/ths of the entire game experience.

There's also the argument for what it did to the overarching plot of the ME series, which I cannot see for the life of me.

The game's fun.  The side stories beautiful: they just weren't relevant.  Realize that everyone can potentially die at the end, and you've got an entirely expendable crew for a story that went nowhere and is quite forgettable, and that its sequel (ME3) is now on a fault-filled base.  I've no idea how ME3 is going to explain ME2, but I have a feeling none of the questions from ME2 will even be considered.

Modifié par smudboy, 23 mars 2010 - 12:41 .


#114
Cascadus

Cascadus
  • Members
  • 857 messages
I do need to mention half of my favourite games have gotten bad scores from things like IGN. God Hand? 3.0? That was the day that site was dead to me.

#115
InvaderErl

InvaderErl
  • Members
  • 3 884 messages

Computron2000 wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

They're just a vocal minority. Here:

http://social.biowar...093/polls/1659/
http://social.biowar...596/polls/1670/


Image IPB


great arguement troll boy.

Use bought and paid for reveiws as your counter point, I notice you dont use ANY reveiws by those that didnt get free stuff from Bioware and reveiwed the game as gamers who actually play the games!

Oh thats right, all those reveiws were bad! How silly of me, we all suppose to act like they dont exist as they far more plentiful then the good reveiws!

God I hate 13 year old trolls

PS: The mass majority have had negative opionons on the game.


I could have snipped off that big picture you quoted, but i want it there to make sure you can actually see it.

See that little thing called "USER SCORE"? Its right at the right hand side of the picture. Look from the top a little bit after "CRITIC SCORE".

Thats right, the "USER SCORE" are not by critics.

Then i could also raise the theory that the typical non paid critic  wishes they COULD be paid so they make up some hooha to draw attention on the premise they will be paid to shut them up

Hey i got no evidence but since we are using conspiracy theories why not throw that in there



How dare you bring up reason and logic! This is a place of extremist reactions!

Mass Effect 2 is the worst GAME EVAR! DO YOU HEAR ME! THE WORST GAME EVAAAAAAAR!

#116
Guest_Arcian_*

Guest_Arcian_*
  • Guests

Lonely_Fat_Guy wrote...

I see alot of negative review from players, mostly about the rpg element of the game.
i understand a few concerns or points of improvement, but some are just a matter of taste and perspective.

the so called RPG ellements, inventory, loot, xp per kill,... are these really a must in a game?
why do people keep using boxes to put things in?
so what that they axed a few things
the inventory whas messy, mako got tiresome afther a few hours, the combat was clunky. (serrious missing someone with a shotgun at point blank range is just wrong) for this game the whole % of hit ratio doesnt suit it.
do you really need those things back?

ofcourse there are improvements for ME2, scanning is dreadfull, shepard and especially the crew could use more and diverse skillsets.

i think ME2 is a improvement too ME1, gameplay wise (storys are too difrent, love them both) .
are the more RPG winged players more active on the forums and thats why there more negative posts here?
before some will say im a shooter fan, i love RPG's like fallout 1, BG2 etc.
it also bothers me that when some one is beeing postive about it he usually gets beaten down on his own thread by the negative posters. for some reason it just shows me how narrow/small minded people can be.

They hate it because it's different from ME1. ME1 is a really good game, but ME2 is better by far.

Personally, I believe it's one of the best games i've ever played. However - and this has nothing to do really with it being an RPG or not - some things have irked me.

1: The Cerberus symbol. It's f*cking everywhere. Why would an organization branded as terrorists go around wearing a ridiculously conspicious symbol? (They are in the Terminus Systems, the symbol is actually Cord-Hislop Aerospace's symbol etc, no matter the explanation its still bad).

2: Not being able to visit old locations. Seriously, they were already mapped out and done, why not just reuse the old models and slap some new paint on it? And why remove planet exploration? Those backdrops were so goddamn awesome. :crying: This isn't the most major issue though, if I want scenery porn, I'll just pop in the ME1 dvd and zigzag between the planets. Not being able to visit the old locations, on the other hand, is a pretty big issue.

Oh, and while I'm at it... too few hubs. Omega was great, Illium was okay, the Citadel was... mediocre. Tuchanka was pretty good actually. The Migrant Fleet should have been a hub.

3: The story in ME2 wasn't bad, it just lacked urgency. First of all, you're working for the military space equivalent of the NSDAP. This sucks, because working for terrorists - no matter how well-funded or awesome - is never cool. In fact, with the Illusive Man being such a suave bastard, having Cerberus as villains would have been a lot more sensible and a lot more awesome. It had made more sense for it to be the Shadow Broker or someone else concerned for the galaxy that revived Shepard.

Second, in the first game, Sovereign and the geth threatened everyone, which gave a sense of urgency... that if you failed, sh*t would really hit the fan, whereas in ME2 only human colonies founded in the Terminus Systems are the only ones truly threatened... and this despite very clear warnings in the first game that establishing human colonies in the Terminus Systems would eventually lead to trouble. Whoopdie-do, I'm saving idiots who can't listen to good advice? "Hurr durr aliens don't know sh*t." Yes, yes they do. They have 2 millenia of experience while your race has 2 decades. F*ck you, Terminus colonists, f*ck you.

4: The Collectors would have been a 1000 times less lame if they had been a stand-alone threat that's only allied to the reapers. Instead, we get this master-slave thing... and they're former protheans! Now, none of this would have been the problem if they had been periphery antagonists next to the reapers (like the geth in ME1)... but they're the main antagonists, which is exactly what makes it so lame. And in addition, their primary goal is really lame too... not the goal itself (i.e building a reaper to replace Sovereign, which makes complete sense), but how it is realized in the game... a human-shaped reaper? Wow, I'm... just speechless. If it had been an actual squiddie-reaper (miniature or whatever), it would at least have made sense.

You can argue that it looks like that because of the human genetic materiel, but genetics does not work that way in the ME universe. You simply CANNOT grind people into genetic paste and use it as a blueprint. In fact, the very idea of human genetic materiel being used to build them makes absolutely no sense - unless, and this is a stretch, the reapers want to have biotic capabilities (remember that the Collectors were interested in human biotics in Ascension). But even then, using humans exclusively would be senseless.

This is a pretty big roadbump in what would otherwise have been a perfectly smooth and awesome road.

5: The notable lack of armor pieces and casual clothes. This form of customization was actually 1000% superior to the one in ME1, so just adding a bigger variety of armor pieces will solve this issue flawlessly.

6: Post-game dialogue with the crew. I'm just going to go ahead and say that it made me lose my willing suspension of disbelief. Especially jarring when LI's treated the romance like a one-night stand.

7: Everything else about the game simply rocked.

#117
superimposed

superimposed
  • Members
  • 1 283 messages

They hate it because it's different from ME1. ME1 is a really good game, but ME2 is better by far.




Put down the Pom Poms for a moment, please.

#118
Guest_Arcian_*

Guest_Arcian_*
  • Guests

superimposed wrote...

They hate it because it's different from ME1. ME1 is a really good game, but ME2 is better by far.


Put down the Pom Poms for a moment, please.

Hurr, sir, hurr.

#119
InvaderErl

InvaderErl
  • Members
  • 3 884 messages
But to sum it up this is really the only place I've seen any sort of blacklash against the game. If you go almost anywhere else the game is very much praised - and even here most of it is from the same few posters.

#120
SurfaceBeneath

SurfaceBeneath
  • Members
  • 1 434 messages

InvaderErl wrote...

But to sum it up this is really the only place I've seen any sort of blacklash against the game. If you go almost anywhere else the game is very much praised - and even here most of it is from the same few posters.


Let me not only echo this remark but also say that this game is even pretty widely liked on /v, which normally hates all video games and even almost 2 months after release is still one of the most posted about games... even if half of those are Garrus and Tali threads...

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 23 mars 2010 - 01:36 .


#121
Guest_NewMessageN00b_*

Guest_NewMessageN00b_*
  • Guests
The obvious thing is... that those who really enjoyed Mass Effect 1, still enjoy Mass Effect 2. Except that Mass Effect 2 is a somewhat degraded of an experience, compared to the first game.

Personally, I can be imagining Mass Effect 1 as a story right now. Interesting and plenty. I can also imagine it as a game, where certain aspects had to be learned. The big picture in my head just makes sense.

Mass Effect 2... I can't tell the damn difference between parts of missions and the simplistic experience is lacking. Disconnection and thus chaos. The value is partially gone (only partially... because good aspects are also there). The picture makes little sense and is convoluted to the point of borderline between really good and just acceptable.

I will not reiterate the issues, as this has been brough up by every other 'dislike post'.

Modifié par NewMessageN00b, 23 mars 2010 - 01:47 .


#122
Fat Headed Wolf

Fat Headed Wolf
  • Members
  • 854 messages
Huh....



I'm starting to get flashbacks to the old forums when people said they were cancelling pre-orders because the ME1 LI wasn't in the game...... and after they saw the Jack preview vid...... and after they saw the Grunt preview vid...... and after they saw the Garrus in Omega Vid and claimed it was spoiler.



Anyway. I thought ME2 was slightly better than ME1 (close though). In the end, I appreciate all game genres.



Like recently, I have played all the Final Fantasy entries and of course that means I just recently beat the new one; XIII.



Was it different than the others? Hell yeah, its was completely linear. But does that mean it was bad just because it deviated from the original formula (I.E. towns, sidequests, exploration)? Of course not.



It was fun, and I walked away feeling good about my purchase.



I think the main reason your hearing a lot of these negative reviews from users (and I'm not saying my personal opinion is any more correct) is because the change from the traditional Bioware formula.



Sure it felt a bit alien, but I forgot it rather quickly. I suspect others did not.



Also I guess the rosy tinted glasses are coming into the equation as well. Like whenever I pop in a classic of any franchise; my memory seems a little better than the actual gameplay.

#123
Lonely_Fat_Guy

Lonely_Fat_Guy
  • Members
  • 384 messages

smudboy wrote...

Lonely_Fat_Guy wrote...

Game play aside, what matters to me in video game media is the creation of new experiences.  This is done through the difficult process of interactive storytelling.  How a story is told in such a manner.

Now there are many, many problems with ME2's game play and level design, (and plot) but it didn't really bother me too much, because I'm looking for that unique thing that you can't get anywhere else.  Story and plot are the things that make a sci-fi universe believable, and make a world compelling and interesting to want to explore.  I'm also evaluating it on that magical number 2 in the title.  Unfortunately, the two terms of the year for me are retcon and plot hole.

And I can say this: story, plot and pacing in ME2, though large/r in scope (at least story), don't do justice to its predecessor in comparison or as a sequel.  I also did not feel there was anything unique about ME2, aside from all the developed side-stories, most notably Tali's.  All of which, had almost nothing to do with ME2.  Which is 3/4/ths of the entire game experience.

There's also the argument for what it did to the overarching plot of the ME series, which I cannot see for the life of me.

The game's fun.  The side stories beautiful: they just weren't relevant.  Realize that everyone can potentially die at the end, and you've got an entirely expendable crew for a story that went nowhere and is quite forgettable, and that its sequel (ME3) is now on a fault-filled base.  I've no idea how ME3 is going to explain ME2, but I have a feeling none of the questions from ME2 will even be considered.


yeah i can understand it feels like that.
to each there own.
my impression of me2 afther beating it just felt better then me1, too me its ME2 on #1 and a close second ME1
both are great games.
i think constructive critism is good for bioware and there games. so you wont hear me crying :D
its good to have people with difrent oppinions.

jsachun wrote...

They oversimplify games to suit playability in consoles. I think lot of PC gamers who are used to the intricacies involved in real RPGs & RTSs will always be disapointed at games that are waterdowned for the Console Market.
$$=Bioware Image IPB

ME is a console game to start wth... so be glad it came on the pc too......gah awfull vieuw you got!

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

pacer90 wrote...


I admire your continued zeal against the tyranny that is bioware's improved shooter combat and non-cookie cutter mechanics.


I admire your dedication to illiteracy. I told you, I dont care if they improve the cover aspect, add locational damage, and try and improve the weapons. I do care when these improvements are the backbone of the entire game. Prime example is how the pathetic amount of cover litters the ENTIRE FRIGGING GAME.

What did I get as a biotics player who can handle insanity before even finishing the first playthrough? Oh thats right, nullified bioitics, and no out of combat talents. Just to name a few things.

ME2 didnt care about balancing the "genres". Its been admitted already. It cared above all else about being a good shooter for shooter fans.

I thought this ruined the game.

i agrea i felt nutured as a vanguard on insanity :(
the whole colldowns kinda limit it aswel, no beeing able too pull and push someone.

superimposed wrote...

 Image IPB

People have opinions that don't coincide with your expectations!?

SHOCK HORROR!

lol i never said that there opinion is bad, its the way they bring it and i dont think ME2 is perfect...ME1 isnt perfect either. read more then just the first post mhhhokay?

#124
Lonely_Fat_Guy

Lonely_Fat_Guy
  • Members
  • 384 messages

javierabegazo wrote...

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

A lot of people werent impressed by ME2. That so hard to believe?

Bioware went overboard in many areas, and the game itself is above all else tailored towards shooter fans as an out and out shooter game.

Plus some people were less than impressed by the story and characters and oft touted "impressive carryover" that fell totally flat.

Just because it scored numerous biased and ridiculous 10/10 doesnt mean the game doesnt majorly suck in many respects. It just takes real gamers to pick up on it, not folks whose paychecks are riding on their views.


What's even more silly about this is, practically every ME2 Preview article kept boasting about how Conrad Vernor was back in ME2, and despite him being back, he has a negative reaction to Shepard no matter your actions in ME1, really dropped the ball there

i dont think they brought in there ME1 save game or they just forgot cause the first came out 2 years before.
as too where like us played a new ME1 game just before ME2 came out :D
besids the reviewer sometimes only have what? 2 days to push a review out?

#125
The Governator

The Governator
  • Members
  • 1 034 messages

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

A lot of people werent impressed by ME2. That so hard to believe?

Bioware went overboard in many areas, and the game itself is above all else tailored towards shooter fans as an out and out shooter game.

Plus some people were less than impressed by the story and characters and oft touted "impressive carryover" that fell totally flat.

Just because it scored numerous biased and ridiculous 10/10 doesnt mean the game doesnt majorly suck in many respects. It just takes real gamers to pick up on it, not folks whose paychecks are riding on their views.


I loved ME2, but I loved ME1 more.  

I *kinda* liked the shooting aspect in ME2 a *LITTLE* bit more, not a lot.  But I hate the lack of customization on weapons and armor.  I absolutely LOATHE the 'thermal clips'...the retconn is just crap.  

I have NEVER liked shooters.  I think they are crap.  Boring; just the same old same old.  Whatever

It took Bioware to make a shooter that I LOVE.  I love both games, but I do not think that ME2 was a clear improvement over ME1.  I never will.