Mass Effect 3 Review

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

Kahunaburger:
Mass Effect 3 almost, but not quite, as good as Dragon Age 2, says The Escapist.

Yeah, I have it on good authority that Susan Arendt and Greg Tito are actually the same person. Good point.

tehroc:
Imagine that yet another absolutely glowing professional review for a major publishers marquee game while it's has generally terrible user ratings. If it isn't corruption, why is there such a divide between the professional reviewers and players? Quite honestly I just don't think Ms Arendt is as demanding in her games, which doesn't really bode well considering her position.

The vast majority of user reviews are giving the game zero out of ten. They're calling it "the worst game ever." Why the discrepancy? Because hyperbolic idiots outnumber professional journalists a thousand to one.

Susan Arendt:

chainguns:
Then how are you financed, Susan? Do you get no advertising revenue from EA, entities affiliated with EA or acting on behalf of EA? If you do, then you have a potential conflict of interest. Giving out near perfect scores to EA games raises concerns that a 'potential' conflict of interest might in fact be 'actual'. For example, to this day I struggle to think of a non-"nefarious" reason as to why your site gave Dragon Age 2 a perfect 5/5.

You realize there's no way for me to answer that question that will "disprove" your theory, right? If I say we don't get ad money from EA, you can say we're bumping up scores to try to persuade them to spend some. If I say we do, then clearly we're bumping up scores to keep the money flowing. If you're determined to believe that we're dishonest - which, frankly, many people are - then there's really nothing we can do about it.

You're right that accepting ad dollars from game publishers can create awkward situations and conflicts of interest. That's happened to us when we've had site skins running advertising a game that we just gave a bad review.

There isn't a gaming site out there that wouldn't rather be completely ad-free, or at least only have ads from what are called "non-endemics", which are non-gaming companies. But that's simply not possible. I was a founding member of a gaming site that made not accepting game company ad campaigns part of its mandate - Crispy Gamer. The site failed, in large part because it couldn't get enough revenue flowing. Non-gaming companies simply don't want to bother with gaming sites because we don't reach a big enough chunk of the population. (And they think you're all poor and therefore not making purchasing decisions within your household.) We get a few non-endemics here and there (and, amusingly, get a lot of negative feedback from the community about "running ads that have nothing to do with games"), but not nearly enough to keep the lights on. If we want to stay in business, we have to accept ads from game publishers.

As for Dragon Age, if you really can't accept that, hey, maybe we just liked the game that much, there's really nothing I can say. I will say that if we'd been using half stars at the time that review came out, it's very likely the game would've gotten a 4.5 and not a 5, but that's just speculation. I get why someone wouldn't enjoy Dragon Age 2, given that it's quite different from Origins, but to assume that the only reason someone would score it well is graft is foolish and ignorant.

But, like I said, people see what they want to see. If you want to believe that all reviewers are lying assholes with their hands out, then it's not much trouble to adapt the facts to suit your perspective. And, really, what are we supposed to counter with?

Either someone chooses to give us the benefit of the doubt, or they don't.

For what it's worth, The Escapist is my favorite gaming site, and I understand that money's required for a site such as this. I love the video series you guys do, I love the editorials and the articles. I also enjoy all of your reviews. They're well written, always point out the reviewer's qualms with the game, and seem to rate every game fairly. No, not every review will be accepted by the general population (For example, I have yet to find a reason for me to dislike DA2, in the few hours I played of it. Combat was intense, it was literally hack n slash Mass Effect combat, without covers. But I do believe you rate games fairly, with honest opinions, and without a skewed scale (Sorry GI, 7 is NOT "average". 5 is average. You guys are the first site I go to for reviews, and you're usually spot on with them. Keep up the good work!

Susan Arendt:

Blunderboy:

OT - Like Daystar, I'm going to just play the game and enjoy the hell out of it, regardless of any faults. I'm sure I'll be called a corporate tool by some whiny little tossers but I really don't care.

I cannot tell you how happy reading that made me. Good for you, man. :)

I love all the implications in this thread that anyone who didn't enjoy the game is what, doing it on purpose so they can look cool?

Sorry, nope. The game is, not subjectively but objectively, a let-down. You cannot give an "it's amazing lolz buy it" review to a game which bases an entire franchise on a sweeping and involving story where player choice is everything and everyone creates their personal continuity through gameplay, which then put out an ending which A; has so many plot holes it literally makes no sense at all, B; doesn't take any account of the player's previous actions, and C; doesn't actually conclude the story, and expect people to just put that down to "personal taste".

Here by spoilars, be ye fairly warned;

Who or what is "the Catalyst"; is it supposed to be an AI itself, an ascended organic intelligence, God? Is it the unknown force that Javik intimated was behind The Cycle, or is the Catalyst itself just another servant of it like the Reapers? Half of the shite they spring on you at the end would have been known by the Prothean VI; so why the hell didn't it tell you? How the fuck does the Normandy get from Earth orbit helping EDI with targeting, to the surface to pick up some/all of your crew(I'll get to this issue in a moment), and then out to the relay in time to already be in-transit when the energy wave hits them in less than ten minutes? How does Joker, a man who breaks a bone if you look at him funny, survive such an evidently brutal crash? If the Mass Relays are all destroyed, does that mean you've consigned every Quarian and Turian in the combined fleet to a slow and painful death through starvation, since they can't eat the same food as humans?

Those are just the question that ran through my mind in the ten or so seconds I stared at the credits in disbelief. By the time I skipped the credits to see the little badly acted vignette at the end that seems designed purely as a clumsy way of plonking you back on the Normandy right before the final assault so you're perfectly placed for whatever DLC they decide to shit out, I started thinking about just how unsatisfying a conclusion it is, and how poor the whole concept is beyond the gaping plotholes.

Where's the payoff? I mean, they crafted the entire second and third "acts" of the trilogy in order to attempt to get the player to invest emotionally in the characters and the story, and then they neither inform you what happens to those characters(other than the ones they arbitrarily kill off between the two without telling you why or how, or the ones they kill off during gameplay), nor provide any conclusion to the story itself beyond "everything you've done, everything you've struggled for, is all meaningless". Indeed, it's not a conclusion at all, but a cliffhanger!

It feels like the ending was the product of some ungodly committee composed of Michael Bay, his producers, one of the developers' emo teenagers, and several French surrealists. It was the ending for a sci-fi "cautionary tale" short story of the kind you get in the "Bumper Sci-Fi Omnibus - Airport Lounge Edition" type of collections, not an epic trilogy.

When you as a reviewer can look at that and give an unequivocally positive view, and add the Escapist's unrelenting praise of WoWTOR and Dragon Age 2, the inEscapable(ahaha) conclusion is that you're either blind fanboys(and fangirls? or is there a gender-neutral word?) who will vacantly praise anything with a Bioware logo on the box despite the fact that they're not Bioware anymore and haven't been for some time(rather they are "EA RPG and WFSWWTR(Whatever Flagging Series We Want To Relaunch) Division"), or you are under some financial imperative to provide said blind approbation.

I love the people (hint: no, I don't) who attempt to tout their subjective experience as objective, passing off their perspectives as facts. Even the professional journalists here don't lay claim to that.
The Internet, with a captial I, is opinions. Sometimes it's facts, but it's usually buried by several metric tons of opinions. Maybe this is just my opinion! *head explode*

I think if people are going to get this cynical about reviews: Don't listen to the Metacritic trolls giving 10s and 0s. If you guys think that Susan and Greg and whatever were being paid off, don't watch their reviews or listen to what they say. Play the demo, or buy the game. And then play through it more than once. First impressions sometimes change, and it's fairly easy to assume that with an average time of about 30-40 hours, the reviews on Day 1 of release were little more than first overall impressions, even if they were pirates.
In the past, what I found to be a steaming pile of crap later on made a little more sense once I got a little more open-minded. Sure, Mass Effect 3 might have a brain fart or two, but I don't think it deserves either the 10s or the 0s. And maybe not even the 2.5s or the 4.5s.

My game is almost finished being shipped, I'm really eager to find out whether or not these gripes are exaggerated. And then I'll probably play it a second time before trying to pass a personal judgement. I do have three characters, after all 8D

Also, slow figuring is slow, but

Wicky_42:

satsugaikaze:

I've had it [Origin] installed on my computer for a month now, and I haven't seen any noticeable change on my computer, whether or not it be spyware, adware, the thought police, my privacy instantly ruined and distributed to a hundred billion internet companies, or whatever people are getting butthurt about.

I'm not about to avoid something on some extremist principle, if that something involves a genuinely entertaining gaming experience.

You do realise that the whole point of spyware is that the user doesn't notice its presence, that it just sits there quietly watching and recording and reporting? That you won't notice your privacy suddenly being ripped away because it's already happened, that your hardware stats, software usage habits and favourite internet sites are already sitting happily as part of a corporation's aggregated database, with your assumption that it doesn't matter as naive as the Jews who registered their faith with the German government.

Just saying.

You just compared my anonymous usage details given to a large money-making corporation, to Jews registering their full identities to a genocidal dictatorship.

This is what I mean about extremist principle. I already know what the worries are about Origin, but why don't you backpedal on some of that hyperbole before an actual Jewish victim speaks up and makes you feel like an idiot?

Grey Carter:

tehroc:
Imagine that yet another absolutely glowing professional review for a major publishers marquee game while it's has generally terrible user ratings. If it isn't corruption, why is there such a divide between the professional reviewers and players? Quite honestly I just don't think Ms Arendt is as demanding in her games, which doesn't really bode well considering her position.

The vast majority of user reviews are giving the game zero out of ten. They're calling it "the worst game ever." Why the discrepancy? Because hyperbolic idiots outnumber professional journalists a thousand to one.

I think it's fair to say that both the Metacritic scores are equally useless.

satsugaikaze:

Also, slow figuring is slow, but

Wicky_42:

satsugaikaze:

I've had it [Origin] installed on my computer for a month now, and I haven't seen any noticeable change on my computer, whether or not it be spyware, adware, the thought police, my privacy instantly ruined and distributed to a hundred billion internet companies, or whatever people are getting butthurt about.

I'm not about to avoid something on some extremist principle, if that something involves a genuinely entertaining gaming experience.

You do realise that the whole point of spyware is that the user doesn't notice its presence, that it just sits there quietly watching and recording and reporting? That you won't notice your privacy suddenly being ripped away because it's already happened, that your hardware stats, software usage habits and favourite internet sites are already sitting happily as part of a corporation's aggregated database, with your assumption that it doesn't matter as naive as the Jews who registered their faith with the German government.

Just saying.

You just compared my anonymous usage details given to a large money-making corporation, to Jews registering their full identities to a genocidal dictatorship.

This is what I mean about extremist principle. I already know what the worries are about Origin, but why don't you backpedal on some of that hyperbole before an actual Jewish victim speaks up and makes you feel like an idiot?

Except that your details aren't anonymous (only information passed on is anonymised, they make no other promises with their snooping and storing), and the dictatorship wasn't genocidal when it asking for info. I don't care if you find the analogy distasteful or whatever, it's the same assumption that everyone is by default benevolent when really there are no safeguards, no protection, no oversight.

I imagine facebook could do some absolutely horrendous blackmail if it so wished, and one day its ceo might decide that the long-term damage that would do to the company is out-weighed by the short-term gain. It's unlikely, but there's very little anyone can do to stop it. We expect Steam to keep allowing us access to our games, but they can decide at the drop of a hat to delete our collections. They don't (generally) because of good business sense, but again, there's no higher power watching out for us. So yeah, welcome spy-ware with open arms if you wish, and cross your fingers that it never becomes more profitable for the company to sell your info than to merely collect and anonymise it, but please never assume that some mysterious caped crusader is going to swoop in and save you if they do decide to take liberties with the fig-leaf of pseudo-security you so desperately cling to.

18.99PlusTip:

You sound angry from reading your post, which I certainly hope your not.

I am annoyed... not at your post in particular but by the stupid assumption by many people (not just on this site) that a game they don't like getting a good review means someone was bought off.

This seems especially stupid when you remember it's the final chapter of one of the most critically acclaimed series of all time. OF COURSE it was going to get good reviews. It's an incredible experience for most people who play it, despite its flaws.

18.99PlusTip:

I'm just trying to make sure people understand WHY people are skeptical and reinforce this isn't some "nasty reddit troll" personal attack.
It's a legitimate concern. There is a huge discrepancy between critics and a large chunk normal customers as of late.

I completely understand.

But the problem is people don't seem to be taking Susan's word for it when she explains her side, which annoys the shit out of me. If people want to throw snide insinuations around they should be prepared to give benefit of the doubt.

And any argument about advertising 'influencing' the staff and all that jazz is rendered utterly void in my mind by the fact that every week the site's most popular show takes the absolute piss out of the same developers and games advertised here, sometimes viciously so.

Kahunaburger:

Grey Carter:

tehroc:
Imagine that yet another absolutely glowing professional review for a major publishers marquee game while it's has generally terrible user ratings. If it isn't corruption, why is there such a divide between the professional reviewers and players? Quite honestly I just don't think Ms Arendt is as demanding in her games, which doesn't really bode well considering her position.

The vast majority of user reviews are giving the game zero out of ten. They're calling it "the worst game ever." Why the discrepancy? Because hyperbolic idiots outnumber professional journalists a thousand to one.

I think it's fair to say that both the Metacritic scores are equally useless.

All reveiwers are useless. Only you, or someone that knows you can tell you that a game is good for you or not. Bugs are the only objective part of game reviewing, and even they are subject to case by case scrutiny.

The ending part you are died right on. Man i was dissappointed I wanted to see the little blue kids running around at the end.

Marik Bentusi:
Hello. I didn't play the ME3 demo, but I played an estimated good third of it at a friend's. If you'd like to, we could exchange notes, but I'd need to know what kind of stuff you like in games (ME1+2 especially) in order to give you a useful view.

For the record, I'm very mixed about BioWare games as I see some strengths, a lot of solid stuff, but also a lot of bad stuff. I played ME2 till the end and a bit of DLC but quit ME1 at a certain point I can tell you if you're not afraid of spoilers.

If you'd like an opinion from this kinda person, feel free to pitch me a message.

I was mostly wondering if the demo was indicative of the final quality of the game. I really wasn't that impressed with the demo, so I wanted to know if people felt like the demo didn't do the actual game justice.

Zom-B:

Marik Bentusi:
Hello. I didn't play the ME3 demo, but I played an estimated good third of it at a friend's. If you'd like to, we could exchange notes, but I'd need to know what kind of stuff you like in games (ME1+2 especially) in order to give you a useful view.

For the record, I'm very mixed about BioWare games as I see some strengths, a lot of solid stuff, but also a lot of bad stuff. I played ME2 till the end and a bit of DLC but quit ME1 at a certain point I can tell you if you're not afraid of spoilers.

If you'd like an opinion from this kinda person, feel free to pitch me a message.

I was mostly wondering if the demo was indicative of the final quality of the game. I really wasn't that impressed with the demo, so I wanted to know if people felt like the demo didn't do the actual game justice.

That depends on a few things. The gameplay is like the demo, but things like animations and textures are better in the final game. Environments are larger in the game, with more options to take different paths and flank your enemies. The game feels a lot less like a hallway than in 2, with some areas being quite large and varied.

There's also more weapons, armor and mods in the game than in the demo. Currently, 24 hours in and I have at least 5 different pieces of armor for every slot(I also have sets which you can buy in the store), most of which only effect my playstyle rather than being flat out better. Similarly I have between 5-8 different weapons per slot (I have 8 different shotguns, and like 9 assault rifles). and each weapon type has some interesting mods to better customize each weapon.

If you played the game and didn't like it it's really your loss since EA already has your money. Otherwise it's kind of pathetic to go out if your way to trash a game you have know intention of playing just because you don't like the developer. So far I'm loving this game and my only real complaint is the dlc rifle is a recoiling piece of shit.

MiracleOfSound:

I am annoyed... not at your post in particular but by the stupid assumption by many people (not just on this site) that a game they don't like getting a good review means someone was bought off.

This seems especially stupid when you remember it's the final chapter of one of the most critically acclaimed series of all time. OF COURSE it was going to get good reviews. It's an incredible experience for most people who play it, despite its flaws.

Well if the reviewers fail to catch the fuck-ups or just outright ignore them, it's logical to conclude that either the reviewer was bought off or is just incompetent. Can we expect perfect analysis? No, but from what I've seen and read, (I won't get ME3 because I refuse to have Origin on my system) Susan was wrong about the game being the "ending the series deserved" because of the actual endings. Her opinion? Sure, but it seems to be one of a very small minority that praised the endings.

When people are willing to pay to see the game unfucked, you know the developer did something wrong.

MiracleOfSound:

I completely understand.

But the problem is people don't seem to be taking Susan's word for it when she explains her side, which annoys the shit out of me. If people want to throw snide insinuations around they should be prepared to give benefit of the doubt.

And any argument about advertising 'influencing' the staff and all that jazz is rendered utterly void in my mind by the fact that every week the site's most popular show takes the absolute piss out of the same developers and games advertised here, sometimes viciously so.

Yes, but that's Yahtzee. Yahtzee's a special case not necessarily because he's a acerbic, but because he actually critiques a game and occasionally provides solvency to its problems. If you don't believe that, I fall back on him being motherfucking Yahtzee. Influencing the Escapist is far simpler than influencing Yahtzee because the body of the Escapist has less notoriety than he does. If he gave praise to a game that was panned, people would pick up on this and Yahtzee isn't stupid enough to compromise his journalistic integrity for a few extra bucks or some publisher threatening to pull funding. Everyone else (save for Bob) on the Escapist? I'd have never heard of any of the Escapist staff if it wasn't for Yahtzee. Much easier to assume direct control with.

Wicky_42:

Except that your details aren't anonymous (only information passed on is anonymised, they make no other promises with their snooping and storing), and the dictatorship wasn't genocidal when it asking for info. I don't care if you find the analogy distasteful or whatever, it's the same assumption that everyone is by default benevolent when really there are no safeguards, no protection, no oversight.

I imagine facebook could do some absolutely horrendous blackmail if it so wished, and one day its ceo might decide that the long-term damage that would do to the company is out-weighed by the short-term gain. It's unlikely, but there's very little anyone can do to stop it. We expect Steam to keep allowing us access to our games, but they can decide at the drop of a hat to delete our collections. They don't (generally) because of good business sense, but again, there's no higher power watching out for us. So yeah, welcome spy-ware with open arms if you wish, and cross your fingers that it never becomes more profitable for the company to sell your info than to merely collect and anonymise it, but please never assume that some mysterious caped crusader is going to swoop in and save you if they do decide to take liberties with the fig-leaf of pseudo-security you so desperately cling to.

I find that when my name isn't on any of the information being collected by Origin, it sounds like anonymity to me.

I also don't make the "assumption that everyone is by default benevolent". I like to think that as an adult I'm not so naive as to believe that EA can only do good things with the information taken from my computer. But at the same time, I'm not so cynical to believe right off the bat that the beaurocracy is going to ruin me by selling my entire private life to the highest-bidding megacorporation that wants to see the manila folder containing my deepest, darkest secretsm just so they can flood my interwebs with advertising. See, exaggeration, metaphors, and heavy prose! Two can play at that game.

People have gotten enraged over the 'what it could be doing' as opposed to 'what it's doing now'. I'm still hopeful that there are people out there who realise that the eventuality is quite unlikely, like you said.
Oh, and that "mysterious caped crusader"? I do appreciate good visual analogy, but again. Thanks for the hyperbole.

The ending essentially takes a sh*t on the entire ME story.

This is the one game I allowed myself to get my hopes up for (at least in regards to the story), and it ended up being one of the biggest disappointments I've ever experienced.

I seriously felt my heart sink when the credits started to roll, and the first thing I thought to myself was "Seriously? That's it?".

Susan Arendt:

The ending the series - and its fans - deserve.

So, if that's the ending fans deserve, you hate Mass Effect series' fans? ;P

Aisaku:

Susan Arendt:

The ending the series - and its fans - deserve.

So, if that's the ending fans deserve, you hate Mass Effect series' fans? ;P

I was thinking this exact thing.

I'm reminded of the KotOR 2 ending (Obsidian, not bioware, but eh). Such disappointment.

Well the fans definitely aren't silent: http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/category/355/index

Here's to hoping for DLC that will change the options presented at the end so we can have some sort of closure.

Just to point one annoying sticking point here: All the budget spent on trailers, and publicity stunts could've been put to use into actual video sequences to show the effects of your actions on the galaxy, you know, like proper endings.

Also, for better or worse, I think it's important for everyone to remember that Mass Effect 3's initial release date was postponed for more development time - so to me it's more logical to assume that the writing involved in the game wasn't a product of laziness or whatever skeptics seem to be projecting onto the writers. Bioware supposedly had a hell of a lot of time to work on this game, so in the end the majority of things people take issue with are probably purposeful, calculated design choices.

Magichead:

Susan Arendt:

Blunderboy:

OT - Like Daystar, I'm going to just play the game and enjoy the hell out of it, regardless of any faults. I'm sure I'll be called a corporate tool by some whiny little tossers but I really don't care.

I cannot tell you how happy reading that made me. Good for you, man. :)

I love all the implications in this thread that anyone who didn't enjoy the game is what, doing it on purpose so they can look cool?

Sorry, nope. The game is, not subjectively but objectively, a let-down.

Technically, that's not what they said. Blunderboy complains about the fact that everybody who indicates that they like the game are being discredited as being "bioware fanboys", "corporate tools", etc. The ones you quote did not imply that people who dislike the game are doing it to be cool. And seriously, can you blame them for calling you guys "whiny little tossers"? Some people've been constantly trying to force their opinion of the game on other people. (As proven by the last phrase I quoted.)
Please accept that some people like the game the way it is, because opinions are, quite frankly, subjective. So is yours.

On another note: no, I will not read your spoilers. I liked ME2, despite it's flaws, and I enjoyed DA II (though some parts of it made me cringe, because I really preferred DA:O), so I'll most likely enjoy ME3 as well. I haven't played the game yet, so it's quite possible that I'll be disappointed, but I'd rather give the game a try myself than read your spoilers.

EDIT: Minor change in wording, to make it less general.

Freechoice:

MiracleOfSound:

I am annoyed... not at your post in particular but by the stupid assumption by many people (not just on this site) that a game they don't like getting a good review means someone was bought off.

This seems especially stupid when you remember it's the final chapter of one of the most critically acclaimed series of all time. OF COURSE it was going to get good reviews. It's an incredible experience for most people who play it, despite its flaws.

Well if the reviewers fail to catch the fuck-ups or just outright ignore them, it's logical to conclude that either the reviewer was bought off or is just incompetent. Can we expect perfect analysis? No, but from what I've seen and read, (I won't get ME3 because I refuse to have Origin on my system) Susan was wrong about the game being the "ending the series deserved" because of the actual endings. Her opinion? Sure, but it seems to be one of a very small minority that praised the endings.

When people are willing to pay to see the game unfucked, you know the developer did something wrong.

I didn't like the actual ending of the game, but think that what leads up to it is so satisfying that I can forgive the last ten minutes. If you can't, fine. That's a difference of opinion, not evidence I'm dishonest or incompetent. I think the journey is more important than the destination. I'm not going to trash 35 hours of excellent entertainment because the last ten minutes are a letdown.

indeed, and this is the very reason i'll never preorder a bioware game again...twice i've been screwed by my own fanboyisum, never again

Susan Arendt:

Freechoice:

MiracleOfSound:

I am annoyed... not at your post in particular but by the stupid assumption by many people (not just on this site) that a game they don't like getting a good review means someone was bought off.

This seems especially stupid when you remember it's the final chapter of one of the most critically acclaimed series of all time. OF COURSE it was going to get good reviews. It's an incredible experience for most people who play it, despite its flaws.

Well if the reviewers fail to catch the fuck-ups or just outright ignore them, it's logical to conclude that either the reviewer was bought off or is just incompetent. Can we expect perfect analysis? No, but from what I've seen and read, (I won't get ME3 because I refuse to have Origin on my system) Susan was wrong about the game being the "ending the series deserved" because of the actual endings. Her opinion? Sure, but it seems to be one of a very small minority that praised the endings.

When people are willing to pay to see the game unfucked, you know the developer did something wrong.

I didn't like the actual ending of the game, but think that what leads up to it is so satisfying that I can forgive the last ten minutes. If you can't, fine. That's a difference of opinion, not evidence I'm dishonest or incompetent. I think the journey is more important than the destination. I'm not going to trash 35 hours of excellent entertainment because the last ten minutes are a letdown.

I've seen some genuinely tragic posts about how people loved the bejesus out of the series up till now, played the third and loved it. Then at the end, they feel dead and betrayed as their Shepard is invalidated by some bullshit choose your own deus ex. I read someone saying that the journey is irrelevant if the destination you end up at isn't where you wanted to be.

It`s the gameplay similar to the first game or the second game?

Freechoice:

Susan Arendt:

Freechoice:

Well if the reviewers fail to catch the fuck-ups or just outright ignore them, it's logical to conclude that either the reviewer was bought off or is just incompetent. Can we expect perfect analysis? No, but from what I've seen and read, (I won't get ME3 because I refuse to have Origin on my system) Susan was wrong about the game being the "ending the series deserved" because of the actual endings. Her opinion? Sure, but it seems to be one of a very small minority that praised the endings.

When people are willing to pay to see the game unfucked, you know the developer did something wrong.

I didn't like the actual ending of the game, but think that what leads up to it is so satisfying that I can forgive the last ten minutes. If you can't, fine. That's a difference of opinion, not evidence I'm dishonest or incompetent. I think the journey is more important than the destination. I'm not going to trash 35 hours of excellent entertainment because the last ten minutes are a letdown.

I've seen some genuinely tragic posts about how people loved the bejesus out of the series up till now, played the third and loved it. Then at the end, they feel dead and betrayed as their Shepard is invalidated by some bullshit choose your own deus ex. I read someone saying that the journey is irrelevant if the destination you end up at isn't where you wanted to be.

"Life is a journey, not a destination..." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

Seriously, sure, the last 10 minutes are pretty bad, but there's 30+ hours of great game ahead of it. That's 1800+ good minutes, and 10 bad ones.

The gameplay is great, the dialog is great, the side quests are..there..but people missed them in ME2 so they're there, the weapon customization is great, the set pieces are great, the build up is great, the characters are great.

Saying that ME3 should get a low score just because of the ending is like saying you should fail a test because you got the very last question wrong.

undeadsuitor:

Freechoice:

Susan Arendt:

I didn't like the actual ending of the game, but think that what leads up to it is so satisfying that I can forgive the last ten minutes. If you can't, fine. That's a difference of opinion, not evidence I'm dishonest or incompetent. I think the journey is more important than the destination. I'm not going to trash 35 hours of excellent entertainment because the last ten minutes are a letdown.

I've seen some genuinely tragic posts about how people loved the bejesus out of the series up till now, played the third and loved it. Then at the end, they feel dead and betrayed as their Shepard is invalidated by some bullshit choose your own deus ex. I read someone saying that the journey is irrelevant if the destination you end up at isn't where you wanted to be.

"Life is a journey, not a destination..." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

Seriously, sure, the last 10 minutes are pretty bad, but there's 30+ hours of great game ahead of it. That's 1800+ good minutes, and 10 bad ones.

The gameplay is great, the dialog is great, the side quests are..there..but people missed them in ME2 so they're there, the weapon customization is great, the set pieces are great, the build up is great, the characters are great.

Saying that ME3 should get a low score just because of the ending is like saying you should fail a test because you got the very last question wrong.

Mmmm... Part of me agrees with what you're saying, but GODDAMMN if the ending didn't make me walk out of there angry!! Everything that's great about Mass Effect 3 should be praised; but I'm surprised that not one of the reviewers on metacritic are calling out the bullshit in the last 10 minutes.

I mean I've been going through a million other endings in my head that are more satisfying than this.

Most trilogies are messed up in the last chapter, not the last 10 minutes.

Seriously, I know I've been saying this a lot but WTF happened?!

At the end there with Liara saying 'This is it, isn't it?'

Actual chills went down my spine.

So looking forward to this.

ChrisRedfield92:

Mmmm... Part of me agrees with what you're saying, but GODDAMMN if the ending didn't make me walk out of there angry!! Everything that's great about Mass Effect 3 should be praised; but I'm surprised that not one of the reviewers on metacritic are calling out the bullshit in the last 10 minutes.

I mean I've been going through a million other endings in my head that are more satisfying than this.

Most trilogies are messed up in the last chapter, not the last 10 minutes.

Seriously, I know I've been saying this a lot but WTF happened?!

That's what I'm saying.

undeadsuitor:

"Life is a journey, not a destination..." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

Seriously, sure, the last 10 minutes are pretty bad, but there's 30+ hours of great game ahead of it. That's 1800+ good minutes, and 10 bad ones.

The gameplay is great, the dialog is great, the side quests are..there..but people missed them in ME2 so they're there, the weapon customization is great, the set pieces are great, the build up is great, the characters are great.

Saying that ME3 should get a low score just because of the ending is like saying you should fail a test because you got the very last question wrong.

"Quotation confesses inferiority."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

When the destination invalidates the journey, you're going to basically regret everything you've done. That's not just me talking, that's the testimony of a thousand posts on the Bioware forums.

Your analogy is rather poor. Mass Effect is more like sex than a test. The first was good foreplay, the second was good... fuck it, thrust, and at the last second before climax, you get a cramp, stop moving and the whole experience gets eaten by your muscles painfully tensing.

And I didn't say it should get a low score, you did. The glowing praise it's getting from the "professionals" is just as bad as the vote bombing because the reviews declare it perfect/near-perfect and there's an absolute shitstorm going on over the endings, Tali's face and the wallpaper thing. Edge, Giantbomb and Destructoid gave the best reviews because they better quantified the problems.

Even the fucking biodrones are pissed off at this shit.

Freechoice:

"Quotation confesses inferiority."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

When the destination invalidates the journey, you're going to basically regret everything you've done. That's not just me talking, that's the testimony of a thousand posts on the Bioware forums.

Your analogy is rather poor. Mass Effect is more like sex than a test. The first was good foreplay, the second was good... fuck it, thrust, and at the last second before climax, you get a cramp, stop moving and the whole experience gets eaten by your muscles painfully tensing.

And I didn't say it should get a low score, you did. The glowing praise it's getting from the "professionals" is just as bad as the vote bombing because the reviews declare it perfect/near-perfect and there's an absolute shitstorm going on over the endings, Tali's face and the wallpaper thing. Edge, Giantbomb and Destructoid gave the best reviews because they better quantified the problems.

Even the fucking biodrones are pissed off at this shit.

But I don't feel like the ending does invalidate the journey. The ending I chose may not have been ideal, but I certainly didn't feel like it negated my efforts up until that point.

Susan Arendt:

Freechoice:

"Quotation confesses inferiority."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

When the destination invalidates the journey, you're going to basically regret everything you've done. That's not just me talking, that's the testimony of a thousand posts on the Bioware forums.

Your analogy is rather poor. Mass Effect is more like sex than a test. The first was good foreplay, the second was good... fuck it, thrust, and at the last second before climax, you get a cramp, stop moving and the whole experience gets eaten by your muscles painfully tensing.

And I didn't say it should get a low score, you did. The glowing praise it's getting from the "professionals" is just as bad as the vote bombing because the reviews declare it perfect/near-perfect and there's an absolute shitstorm going on over the endings, Tali's face and the wallpaper thing. Edge, Giantbomb and Destructoid gave the best reviews because they better quantified the problems.

Even the fucking biodrones are pissed off at this shit.

But I don't feel like the ending does invalidate the journey. The ending I chose may not have been ideal, but I certainly didn't feel like it negated my efforts up until that point.

That makes you like one of five people though. Everyone else is over here.

Lemme ask something. Did you restart from the save point or cross-reference with someone else that got a different ending?

Freechoice:

Susan Arendt:

Freechoice:

"Quotation confesses inferiority."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

When the destination invalidates the journey, you're going to basically regret everything you've done. That's not just me talking, that's the testimony of a thousand posts on the Bioware forums.

Your analogy is rather poor. Mass Effect is more like sex than a test. The first was good foreplay, the second was good... fuck it, thrust, and at the last second before climax, you get a cramp, stop moving and the whole experience gets eaten by your muscles painfully tensing.

And I didn't say it should get a low score, you did. The glowing praise it's getting from the "professionals" is just as bad as the vote bombing because the reviews declare it perfect/near-perfect and there's an absolute shitstorm going on over the endings, Tali's face and the wallpaper thing. Edge, Giantbomb and Destructoid gave the best reviews because they better quantified the problems.

Even the fucking biodrones are pissed off at this shit.

But I don't feel like the ending does invalidate the journey. The ending I chose may not have been ideal, but I certainly didn't feel like it negated my efforts up until that point.

That makes you like one of five people though. Everyone else is over here.

Lemme ask something. Did you restart from the save point or cross-reference with someone else that got a different ending?

Huh? I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. I just played straight through and made my selection from the three options available to me at the end point.

Susan Arendt:

Freechoice:

Susan Arendt:

But I don't feel like the ending does invalidate the journey. The ending I chose may not have been ideal, but I certainly didn't feel like it negated my efforts up until that point.

That makes you like one of five people though. Everyone else is over here.

Lemme ask something. Did you restart from the save point or cross-reference with someone else that got a different ending?

Huh? I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. I just played straight through and made my selection from the three options available to me at the end point.

I think what Freechoice means is did you reload your save from before you made your final choice, and make a different one?

FenixZero:

Susan Arendt:

Freechoice:

That makes you like one of five people though. Everyone else is over here.

Lemme ask something. Did you restart from the save point or cross-reference with someone else that got a different ending?

Huh? I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. I just played straight through and made my selection from the three options available to me at the end point.

I think what Freechoice means is did you reload your save from before you made your final choice, and make a different one?

No, I only played through the ending of the game once.

Susan Arendt:

FenixZero:

Susan Arendt:

Huh? I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. I just played straight through and made my selection from the three options available to me at the end point.

I think what Freechoice means is did you reload your save from before you made your final choice, and make a different one?

No, I only played through the ending of the game once.

I believe it would have been very wise to reload the game and choose a different ending to ascertain the impact of the endings. It should have been a pretty big indication of something going amiss if the game let you choose different endings (a la Human Revolution) without regarding anything but your input at that point. Yeah, the EMS thing and squadmate choices change the tone of the ending but...

There's rumors that there is a "best" ending, (but everyone is still screwed) but the dedicated people, the ones that did everything right (peace, scanning, paragon options) still couldn't get it.

It's more important that people hear about the straight up facts than personal experience. It's fine that you enjoyed it, but as a reviewer, you should have gone back to get an idea about the alternate endings if they were readily available. You're not obligated to play the game 50 times, but something as simple as a quickload falls more under professional obligation for two reasons:

A. Because it would have taken about 20 minutes and given you a lot of foresight as to why everybody's so pissed off.
2. Because you probably knew people would want to play through multiple times.

I challenge the review because it would have been obvious how serious it is that Bioware copy-pasted the cutscene with minimal inklings as to what actually happened (again, other than everyone is screwed.) People on the Bioware soc forums are clamoring for closure which they felt they didn't get. Hell, even /v/ is pissed off about that one thing in particular.

Also, it was probably worth discussing the multiplayer. Probably should have played the demo multiplayer (which was separate from the single player, I believe) because there's a metric fuckton of confusion on what EMS and GRR are and how Bioware either outright lied about not needing to play the multi or skirting the issue and making it nigh impossible (at least without an online guide or DLC, the former being immersion breaking and the latter being greed). Either way, it was a really bad design choice that should have been addressed.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here