The Story Doesn't Matter

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

RaikuFA:
I'll just put this here for reviewers. Hopefully Mr. Young will do an article on this double standard.

WRPG: Save the world = best story ever made
JRPG: Save the world = JRPG cliche would not play again

I'll take my group of androgynous 18yr olds to save the world any day tyvm!

Here's a simple thing, when people play a game for the story, the story matters. If you want a pure "game" game, just make that. Don't put in a story or make extensive mechanics BASED on story interaction.. like ME then say "Ah it doesn't matter, it's about the gameplay." That is a huge cop-out.

Shamus Young:
Should he have punished the game even though it was 30 hours of fun followed by ten minutes of drooling stupid?

I won't enjoy pizza with rotten chicken even if it's only small % of all ingredients. :]

Here is the thing, reviewers tend to attract followings of people who agree with them and share similar tastes, and thus respect their advice. Saying that reviewers should ignore story because it's subjective is incorrect, rather they should know about a game, in detail, before they publish a review and their opinion on things like the story is going to influance what people who follow that reviewer think. When reviewers become obsessed with trying to do their stuff for mass appeal, and what everyone wants to hear or might think, then they are missing the point.

Of course then again things like page views/site hits are a big deal to those who hire the reviewers in many cases, so trying to draw in the largest group of the populance favors them, and I'd imagine that trickles down to the reviewers they pay.

Reviewers saying they do not have time to review a game properly is not an excuse, as that means they are not doing the job properly. Needing to review a game quickly so as to review the next game and get another paycheck for an article is half the problem. Granted no reviewer can keep up with all the releases, which is one of the big reasons there should almost always be more than one reviewer on staff. For a game like Mass Effect a reviewer should be expected to put 40-60 hours into the game and do the required research if they have not playeed early gamers in the series. That is for all intents and purposes the job.

The issue of "taking bribes" is an issue because reviewers, and most importantly the sites that employ them, have their financial stability tied directly to the industry they are supposed to be reviewing and criticizing, and that creates a major conflict of interests that has come to a head in things like the Gerstmann scandal of yesterday. Ideally reviwers should be kept seperate from the industry and have little or no contact with it other than the products they review. Reviwers and critics should by definition not be attending events like E3, or PAX or getting to know the "great people in the industry" because that can cloud judgement... of course how to achieve this is an big issue. Honestly while Forbes has problems I am tending to gravitate towards sources like that whose fortunes are not directly tied to the gaming industry for information.

As time goes on I increasingly think reviewers need to have a fairly adversarial relationship with the gaming industry, much like food critics and resteraunts, or book critics with authors. It's not nice, but a situation where popular critics can literally wreck a creator's career act as a sort of balance on those they "police" by ensuring they do the best possible work.

For example, if you've followed the reason crap about "New Vegas" with stories that the game was rushed out without proper quality assurance testing despite what the Devs want, and then they missed a bonus because of scoring 1% too low on metacritic, you sort of see the point. If reviewers were considerably more adversarial and influential ones could say shut down a studio or publisher almost entirely with a few bad hits, you'd virtually guarantee that they would spend a LOT of time on quality assurance and not release products in that fashion. Right now the fact that the reviewers at least don't do their jobs properly and/or aren't feared (before even getting into the issue of bribery, or influnance of their employers who need industry advertising dollars) has done a lot to fuel the entire "well, we can patch it later" mentality.

Wow,I haven't seen reviewers being bashed for not telling that the ending was disappointing.

I did read an ME3 review on Rock,Paper,Shotgun ("Wot I Think" is how they call it) and all I got was: combat has been ramped up to be challenging and dialog choices have more of an "umph" to them.Of course there were vague refrences to the story itself,but I didn't mind,they weren't who knows how spoiler-ish.
It was well written and ofc it doesn't have a numeric score,which is pretty much a policy on RPS that I respect very much,leaves me to consider things for myself.

Even if story comments do make it into a review, nobody can agree on just how much they should impact the score. Angry Joe hated the ending to Mass Effect 3 really bad, but he still gave the game 8/10. Was he wrong? Should he have punished the game even though it was 30 hours of fun followed by ten minutes of drooling stupid? Depends on who you ask, and it's basically just an extension of the whole, "How to you assign a number to a game?" argument anyway.

Angry Joe had a LOT of complaints. I was amazed by how much complaining he did, followed up by an 8/10 score and giving the series his "badass" seal of approval. It's not just about the ending, then, and it's hard to reconcile Joe's claims with his score and its reflective "awesome." Joe spent a full third of the review ranting about the game, anf while I understand some of the elements (Day 1 DLC) were things his fans agree should not impact score, a good chunk of that rant should have.

Honestly, I think Joe's a terrible reviewer for this exact sort of reason. His scores often don't make sense given the context of his reviews. I know a lot of people criticise game journalists, but even if their reviews are horrible, there is some parity between what they say and the number they give the game.

On a side note, 2,000 words? I've never paid much attention to word count in reviews, but wow. As a freelancer for newspapers, I'm usually asked to put 500 words in on a subject. If game journalists have to do four times that, yeah, I must show some bloody respect.

RaikuFA:
I'll just put this here for reviewers. Hopefully Mr. Young will do an article on this double standard.

WRPG: Save the world = best story ever made
JRPG: Save the world = JRPG cliche would not play again

Hypocrisy in gaming? Tu blague!

Zhukov:
I understand the logic of, "the first thirty hours were good, it's not fair to condemn it for the last ten minutes."

On the other hand, a story without a decent ending is like a house without a roof. The rest of the house might be fine, but the roof is kind of important.

You sir, hit it right on the nail.

If I may add another point, the majority of game journalists are exposed to a wider array of games in a week than the average consumer. Hence each game they've played represent a smaller investment of time/money/emotion than say your average consumer.

BreakfastMan:

zinho73:

BreakfastMan:

So basically, if I am a consumer, who is not posting a review, and I liked the game and thought it was a great conclusion to the series, crappy ending notwithstanding, I am fine. If I am a reviewer and hold the same opinion, I am unprofessional/paid off/not worthy of respect? I don't get that. Tell me if I am misunderstanding your opinion, but as I understand it now, it makes absolutely no sense to me.

Sorry to get in the way of the discussion - just to add my 2 cents:

Sometimes the reviewer likes a game but he is also able to recognize that some people would not like some aspects of it. The best reviewer can mix their own opinion with a more broad analysis.

The Angry Joe review is something like this in reverse. He clearly dislikes the ending a lot, but recognizes that the game has other merits that are worth an 8/10.

To me, a reviewer that fails to understand what are the expectations for a game like ME3 is a bad reviewer - it simply does not matter if he likes the game or not.

I guess we are in disagreement here. When I read a review, all I want is the reviewers opinion of the game and the reasons they have that opinion clearly spelled out. If I want to know anything about a game I might not like, I can glean that from the meat of the review itself or from a different review. I don't feel a reviewer should be forced to arbitrarily lower or raise their scores depending on whether or not other people will like or dislike the game as much as them. It is up to the reader to decide, based on the reviewers opinion of the game, what to do with the info. But, I digress, that is getting away from the topic at hand. I don't want to lead this comments section down a bunny trail.

Fair enough. I would just like to point out that it is not arbitrary scoring (at least, not more arbitrary than assigning a score at all). Also, the technical flaws might not even be reflected in the score, but they must be referenced to in the review.

Letīs suppose a reviewer really liked Green Lantern (the movie), because he digs campy stuff. That's OK, but he must point out that the CGI is bad, that the acting is stiff and so on, otherwise he doesn't really know what he is talking about.

Thanks Shamus:
Whenever people talk about how narrative in games can be overlooked I think of Vanquish. Loved that game, the mechanics and the play. Tuned out of the narrative in the tutorial, and never went back. I think the thing few were expecting is how much the narrative in ME3 mattered to the fans.

Forbes has been running some interesting articles concerning Mass Effect 3, and "Journalistic Tampering" by the publisher... I wonder "just how much" all this "re-spin" has cost em?

Artistic Integrity?

hahahahahaha.... you have to have integrity to even attempt to stack that house of cards.

Seamus is right. As a literary man, I can give you the review of the content of a book in five minutes. Now a critical review is a different beast. Critical views have a thesis. They take a stand and try to prove something. A review of the content is a book report. You don't prove anything, you just state facts.

Game review equals book review. This this and this. This is implemented right or wrong.

Critical review take time. I can even give you a few basic theories to come out of ME3 alone.

The Indoctrination Theory is a critical review.

also there's (I say my because I think I put it on another site first, and I don't know how pervasive it's gotten) my in depth Jesus-Shepard Allegory review as a counter to the indoctrination Theory.

I did it in a few days because lets face it. There's not a whole lot of research out there for video game critique beyond the primary source. However, once this stuff start getting published more and more, you're going to see an upswing in a lot of critical theory

yeah bioware is praised because the gameplay is AMAZING in their games.

Wait no, they were praised because of the story and characters, which they failed to deliver with on ME3.

It's not paid review, it's The Escapist couldn't be trusted with the Mass Effect 3 review because there were advertisements all over the site. If they gave them a bad review, EA would pull the advertisements, which is the Escapist's main source of income. But the problem here is that this has caused your readers to loose their trust in you.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if EA specifically told you not to mention the lackluster ending. A similar thing happened with MGS4 and the loading times.

So, Shamus points out the obvious?

That game reviewers often don't have enough time to analyze a game as much as the normal gamers and often their reviews are more along the lines of "Whether it's a good purchase or not" or "Whether the game destroys its canonical endings"?

No offense to Shamus; I love his columns, and I usually believe that he's one of the more sensible and relatable columnists here on the Escapist, but this point just seemed a bit too obvious. The game reviewers have basically boiled down ME3 to this: Yes, the ending was bad and confusing when you look at it, but you should still buy it because it is still fun.

And I think that's what many ME3 haters are missing. Sure, a story is really good, and a great RPG developer like BioWare should have put more effort into making a good conclusion, but the game in itself was not 'bad', and if you don't look at the story that much, it's a great installment.

Inkidu:
Critical views have a thesis. They take a stand and try to prove something. A review of the content is a book report. You don't prove anything, you just state facts.

Agreed. Unfortunately there are reviews that pretend to be both at the same time... There is no "opinion" or "thesis" excuse when we deal with second case. And there is no requirement of mentioning every major gameplay mechanics in the first case if it is not relevant to the thesis.

And yet we deal with reviews that fail in both departments, but the most common explanation for their shortcomings are:

"The ending was not mentioned? So what, in author's opinion it was not important enough and this is critical review after all. You just hate the fact reviewer liked it, different opinions excuse everything etc..."

AND

"The review fails to inform about inconsistencies in storyline and ending having shred of sense only after patching it up with fanfic-ish explanations while still falling short of PR promises? I have not been playing long enough man, I only report standard facts about the game".

So how about authors deciding which approach to take instead of hiding behind double excuses while fulfilling none of responsibilities each approach demands? Because it sure feels this way after reading both reviews and discussions about them.

Good article. I would make one addendum. I think a review of the story on an RPG is important, as most people playing those games want a good story, otherwise they would be playing the latest call of duty (at elast in compared to Mass Effect).

It is hard to be objective in review of story and not give away the plot though, so it must be a delicate balance.

Adam Jensen:
Here are the facts: reviews said how it's the great and satisfying conclusion to the trilogy.

There are only two reason they would say that:

1. They are retarded.

2. THEY ALL GOT PAYED TO GIVE A POSITIVE REVIEW!

Seriously, who would buy this game if any major reviewer were to say how the ending destroys the entire trilogy and makes you feel empty and dead inside? NO ONE!

It's so fuckin' obvious what happened in those reviews. There is no justification.

Actually I did exactly that. I waited a couple of weeks and read a bunch of spoiler heavy threads about the game. (Hint THEY WERE ALL ABOUT THE END) And then when I actually started playing the game I thought it was a great story and great loads of fun.
Then I got to the end. Didn't like it at all felt like it was a bit rushed. But I also thought the different monologues were great. Maybe if the TIM monologue was in a different spot rather than at the end right before the Star Child. The monologues I feel were well written but being at the height of the game and opening up more questions than answers with the star Child.
Is it a great and satisfy end to the trilogy? In my honest opinion yes discounting the last 5 minutes. Does the last 5 minutes discount the hours of game play before hand? If you think it does then you are pretty sorely mistaken.
But in the end if I had to assign a number value to the game. The ending alone makes it drop a couple of points down to a 7 at lowest but I would probably give it an 8 out of 10.

Can fault ME2 for making "sprint" and "take cover" on the same button? That's the biggest complaint I hear from people on the ME3 multiplayer. The same button should not be used for "get away" and "stay exactly where you are". Add in "jump over things", and "use object/revive ally next to wall you can take cover on", and you end up with a lot of dying due to controls rather than enemies. The number of times I've seen someone instantly killed by the Banshee, because when they tried to run away they just sat down next to her...

I'm glad someone finally called out the "everything on same button" consolized control scheme. I stopped playing vanguard after the 2nd non-tutorial mission because I lost 4x in a row by taking cover in an enemy's crotch instead of sprinting away like I wanted to.

Guy Jackson:
I'm of the opinion that the real problem here is that gamers can't hold their load for more than five seconds when a new game is released. Gamers want new games NOW. Many gamers pre-order (a practice I will never understand) and the rest want to buy on the day of release or very shortly afterwards, which means the reviewers need to get advance copies and then play the games in a hurry, which means reviews are rush-jobs performed by people who are, in every sense, friends with the developers.

Gamers vote with their wallets and get the reviews they deserve.

That's an interesting observation. I'm not sure if I entirely agree, but do you think that the backlash over the game's ending would have been different if critics and reviewers had time to distill what they felt about the ending? Do you think that gamers would still be crying foul if they felt like they had been informed to even some small degree about how it ended unsatisfactory? A lot of what I hear from friends and read on the forums is that people loved the series so much that they would have boycotted. Actually, didn't that happen when the original ending was leaked over the web? I can't remember the specifics, I'm sure I could find it online, but didn't someone hack Bio-Ware and leak the ending thus having the righters scramble to change it because of boycotting threats from fan sites? I could be making that up, it might have been a different game, but I swear it was one of the Mass Effects, and I thought that is was ME3.

Shiro No Uma:

Guy Jackson:
I'm of the opinion that the real problem here is that gamers can't hold their load for more than five seconds when a new game is released. Gamers want new games NOW. Many gamers pre-order (a practice I will never understand) and the rest want to buy on the day of release or very shortly afterwards, which means the reviewers need to get advance copies and then play the games in a hurry, which means reviews are rush-jobs performed by people who are, in every sense, friends with the developers.

Gamers vote with their wallets and get the reviews they deserve.

That's an interesting observation. I'm not sure if I entirely agree, but do you think that the backlash over the game's ending would have been different if critics and reviewers had time to distill what they felt about the ending?

The backlash at Bioware? No, I don't think that would have been any different.

Krion_Vark:

Adam Jensen:
Here are the facts: reviews said how it's the great and satisfying conclusion to the trilogy.

There are only two reason they would say that:

1. They are retarded.

2. THEY ALL GOT PAYED TO GIVE A POSITIVE REVIEW!

Seriously, who would buy this game if any major reviewer were to say how the ending destroys the entire trilogy and makes you feel empty and dead inside? NO ONE!

It's so fuckin' obvious what happened in those reviews. There is no justification.

Actually I did exactly that. I waited a couple of weeks and read a bunch of spoiler heavy threads about the game. (Hint THEY WERE ALL ABOUT THE END) And then when I actually started playing the game I thought it was a great story and great loads of fun.
Then I got to the end. Didn't like it at all felt like it was a bit rushed. But I also thought the different monologues were great. Maybe if the TIM monologue was in a different spot rather than at the end right before the Star Child. The monologues I feel were well written but being at the height of the game and opening up more questions than answers with the star Child.
Is it a great and satisfy end to the trilogy? In my honest opinion yes discounting the last 5 minutes. Does the last 5 minutes discount the hours of game play before hand? If you think it does then you are pretty sorely mistaken.
But in the end if I had to assign a number value to the game. The ending alone makes it drop a couple of points down to a 7 at lowest but I would probably give it an 8 out of 10.

I think I'm on board with you Krion_Vark. (I was even fine with the ending.) I prefer to experience things for myself, regardless of what someone else thinks of it. However, I think that the point the article was trying to make at the top, i.e. the difference between critics and reviewer/ pundit and journalist, is something that Adam Jensen is missing. The idea that reviewers, rather then critics, don't generally add their spin/emotional response to their review doesn't mean they are paid off, it's just not in their job description or agenda (and for the most part is frowned upon by their employers and viewers if they are serious about journalism.) I get that sometimes it's hard to know when your are getting entertainment/punditry/critique and when you are getting informed/journalism/review - the lines can blur. You can hold people accountable, but I'm just not convinced that in this case (about ME3's polarizing ending) any reviewer or critic should be scrutinized. And to say that they are "retarded" is clearly an emotion response that might ultimately stem from their dissatisfaction of the game ending.

Guy Jackson:

Shiro No Uma:

Guy Jackson:
I'm of the opinion that the real problem here is that gamers can't hold their load for more than five seconds when a new game is released. Gamers want new games NOW. Many gamers pre-order (a practice I will never understand) and the rest want to buy on the day of release or very shortly afterwards, which means the reviewers need to get advance copies and then play the games in a hurry, which means reviews are rush-jobs performed by people who are, in every sense, friends with the developers.

Gamers vote with their wallets and get the reviews they deserve.

That's an interesting observation. I'm not sure if I entirely agree, but do you think that the backlash over the game's ending would have been different if critics and reviewers had time to distill what they felt about the ending?

The backlash at Bioware? No, I don't think that would have been any different.

Yeah, to Bioware. And I agree. I think that people really loved this trilogy and, like so many of my friends, are stating that the whole thing was a waste of time because of the last few minutes. At first I was sad, and surprised, at their response, but I really loved these games and don't think anyone needs to defend that position.

Do you think that the way many in the gaming community are responding to the the reviewers/critics, for lack of what some are calling "fare warning," would have been different if they had stated a dissatisfaction with the ending earlier? (Not trying to call you out. I'm just really curious)

It is refreshing to see an honest take on game reviews. It is like a political analyst saying "Well, of course he's playing politics. That is what a politician does!" I always appreciate seeing the nuts and bolts side of an industry instead of just the facade shown to the public. Good article.

Thank you. Honestly, I was hoping someone would finally explain this to people. Yeah I am disappointed reviewers did not factor in the bad ending, but its ridiculousness to assume everyone who neglected to mention it were bribed or something.

Zachary Amaranth:

Even if story comments do make it into a review, nobody can agree on just how much they should impact the score. Angry Joe hated the ending to Mass Effect 3 really bad, but he still gave the game 8/10. Was he wrong? Should he have punished the game even though it was 30 hours of fun followed by ten minutes of drooling stupid? Depends on who you ask, and it's basically just an extension of the whole, "How to you assign a number to a game?" argument anyway.

Angry Joe had a LOT of complaints. I was amazed by how much complaining he did, followed up by an 8/10 score and giving the series his "badass" seal of approval. It's not just about the ending, then, and it's hard to reconcile Joe's claims with his score and its reflective "awesome." Joe spent a full third of the review ranting about the game, anf while I understand some of the elements (Day 1 DLC) were things his fans agree should not impact score, a good chunk of that rant should have.

Honestly, I think Joe's a terrible reviewer for this exact sort of reason. His scores often don't make sense given the context of his reviews. I know a lot of people criticise game journalists, but even if their reviews are horrible, there is some parity between what they say and the number they give the game.

On a side note, 2,000 words? I've never paid much attention to word count in reviews, but wow. As a freelancer for newspapers, I'm usually asked to put 500 words in on a subject. If game journalists have to do four times that, yeah, I must show some bloody respect.

RaikuFA:
I'll just put this here for reviewers. Hopefully Mr. Young will do an article on this double standard.

WRPG: Save the world = best story ever made
JRPG: Save the world = JRPG cliche would not play again

Hypocrisy in gaming? Tu blague!

When I was writing for my campus paper I found game reviews to be much, much easier to stretch out than hard news stories. I think 2,000 words is pretty reasonable for just about any game considering all of the aspects of it you can go into. I believe mine were usually between 500-600 words (with one being around 1.5k) and I always had to cut a good bit out in order to fit it into the layout.

Wow, Shamus, you just handily summarized almost everything that's wrong with the gaming review industry, thanks.

Shiro No Uma:

Guy Jackson:

Shiro No Uma:

That's an interesting observation. I'm not sure if I entirely agree, but do you think that the backlash over the game's ending would have been different if critics and reviewers had time to distill what they felt about the ending?

The backlash at Bioware? No, I don't think that would have been any different.

Yeah, to Bioware. And I agree. I think that people really loved this trilogy and, like so many of my friends, are stating that the whole thing was a waste of time because of the last few minutes. At first I was sad, and surprised, at their response, but I really loved these games and don't think anyone needs to defend that position.

Do you think that the way many in the gaming community are responding to the the reviewers/critics, for lack of what some are calling "fare warning," would have been different if they had stated a dissatisfaction with the ending earlier? (Not trying to call you out. I'm just really curious)

If the reviews had stated that the ending was poor, I doubt that anyone would now be criticising reviewers for not mentioning the poor ending. ;)

One thing that really irks me is the reviewers who have later said "yeah, my ending sucked, but I just assumed the other endings were better." Is it just me or is this a facepalmworthy statement for a (supposedly professional) game critic to make? Your thoughts on that?

Hahaha and we are talking about a game marketed as "plethora of endings" - not just "there is different ending somewhere, possibly, who knows" :)

Guy Jackson:

Shiro No Uma:

Guy Jackson:

The backlash at Bioware? No, I don't think that would have been any different.

Yeah, to Bioware. And I agree. I think that people really loved this trilogy and, like so many of my friends, are stating that the whole thing was a waste of time because of the last few minutes. At first I was sad, and surprised, at their response, but I really loved these games and don't think anyone needs to defend that position.

Do you think that the way many in the gaming community are responding to the the reviewers/critics, for lack of what some are calling "fare warning," would have been different if they had stated a dissatisfaction with the ending earlier? (Not trying to call you out. I'm just really curious)

If the reviews had stated that the ending was poor, I doubt that anyone would now be criticising reviewers for not mentioning the poor ending. ;)

One thing that really irks me is the reviewers who have later said "yeah, my ending sucked, but I just assumed the other endings were better." Is it just me or is this a facepalmworthy statement for a (supposedly professional) game critic to make? Your thoughts on that?

I actually hadn't hadn't even thought of, or caught, that really until you pointed it out. (It seems like there is a new article about everything Mass Effect no matter what game site you are on, and I am starting to miss a lot in what's being said.) So yes, when "yeah, my ending sucked, but I just assumed the other endings were better." was brought up, I get that the gamer in him is still pondering the game, but it is his job to be more informed and that's not such great journalism. ( I do remember him saying that he checked youtube at some point, but I can't recall the reaction he had to the rest of the endings. I don't think it's good.) I guess though if the statement was more about him being honest and owning up to the mistake of not checking the rest out, I can have respect for him, or any person, admitting it. But, that sounded like that might have been a slip.

I don't know if this is relative either, but I was just talking to someone who doesn't play games but has heard the scuttlebutt over ME3. It was cool because he had this outside view and he pointed out, and I'm paraphrasing "In so many ways it seems like the gaming community, and press to some extent, has been put under the magnifying glass more then Bio-Ware. Almost like the bad ending was a publicity stunt that went so well, all they had to do was sit back and let us respond and repost doing more for the game then even the journalist could to promote the game." Not his exact words, but that was his sentiment. I don't think that is what Bio-Ware meant to do at all, but it was hilarious that he saw a bunch of angry post from his friends on FaceBook and thought that it was some weird new form of advertising...and it made him want to check Mass Effect out. Kind of cool.

Stories do matter, especially when it is part of a games USP! The entire game was created around the player making choices that had an effect on the gameplay. Also if a story does not matter lets make top down button mashing beat'em ups and watch Transformer movies. In fact let's give the gaming industry to Michael Bay.

SajuukKhar:

Adam Jensen:
Here are the facts: reviews said how it's the great and satisfying conclusion to the trilogy.

There are only two reason they would say that:

1. They are retarded.

2. THEY ALL GOT PAYED TO GIVE A POSITIVE REVIEW!

Seriously, who would buy this game if any major reviewer were to say how the ending destroys the entire trilogy and makes you feel empty and dead inside? NO ONE!

It's so fuckin' obvious what happened in those reviews. There is no justification.

Yes because NO ONE can have a view different then yours ever? right?

I don't particularly care for the ending myself, though I will defend some of its supposed holes because they aren't, but saying they MUST be bribed because their opinion is different is borderline conspiracy.

Tbh, I find it hard to believe that some people will say that they like it themselves. I can understand not caring about the ending, but if people say they liked the ending, I have to wonder if they were even paying attention to the lore. From what I've heard, if the Mass Relays blow up, they take whatever system they're residing in with them, which means everything living in them dies. Pretty much any other argument I can think of has already been mentioned numerous times, so I'll just leave it at that. I would like to see why some people would like the ending, if they can explain.

ramboagamemnon:
Stories do matter, especially when it is part of a games USP! The entire game was created around the player making choices that had an effect on the gameplay. Also if a story does not matter lets make top down button mashing beat'em ups and watch Transformer movies. In fact let's give the gaming industry to Michael Bay.

Hey ramboagamemnon,

I'm repeating myself from another post, so bare with me if you had seen it.
I didn't quite see the choices I made having a large effect on game play. Regardless of the choices I did make ultimately the out come would be the same, i.e. continuation of the game. The only thing that would change is how other characters viewed and brought up my morality and by extension I might not be able to get certain resources or finish a mission in a particular way. But I always got to go to the next main mission. I even felt like no matter what I actually chose in the dialogue wheel it would skew Shepard's spoken dialogue just a little to the paragon side. (I could swear I was always asking how I could make everyone's life easier.) Did you feel like your dialog choices also didn't come out exactly as you picked?

[/quote]
Tbh, I find it hard to believe that some people will say that they like it themselves. I can understand not caring about the ending, but if people say they liked the ending, I have to wonder if they were even paying attention to the lore. From what I've heard, if the Mass Relays blow up, they take whatever system they're residing in with them, which means everything living in them dies. Pretty much any other argument I can think of has already been mentioned numerous times, so I'll just leave it at that. I would like to see why some people would like the ending, if they can explain.[/quote]

Some people like their sic-fi dark, when not everyone lives at the end of a the story. As far as paying attention to the lore, the game is technically different for everyone who plays it, and while the lore does expand throughout the games, the characters are what are at the forefront. We add to them and relate to them even to the extent that it might change lore. But, I think you answer your question buy your own supposition "From what I've heard." We all add our spin. I didn't think that the mass relays killed everything. They were putting out some "beam" to create the synthesis of organic and synthetic recreating all life in it's vicinity (which might be a different ending then someone else chose). I liked that ending because of the lore used in the games to ask the question "is artificial intelligence life?" Was there a certain part of the lore, or a pervious argument that worked or didn't work for you?

Is anyone here mentioning the fact that the endings were basically ripped from Deus Ex?

Or that a lot of the story stupidity can be traced to one known as Hamburger Hepler?

Well, I do agree, and my understanding of reviewing games does seem in keeping with what you've described. Basically my own review could boil down to "game was good, ending was terrible" and everything is OK.

Now as for the concern of "you gave it a good review... taking bribes, bluh, bluh" How would something like including an IGN employee into the game factor into that? That strikes me as a pretty impressive conflict of interest, would I be able to viably say that they were at the least biased, at the most purchased?

Bretty:
I loved the ending of ME3. Maybe I chose the right one?

I put off playing ME3 for awhile because of all this and I can honestly say... FUCK YOU! You mean I put off playing what was one of the best playing experiences I have had for over a year? The fact that I sat there dreading the ending almost ruined my immersion entirely. To all those that winged and moaned, I hope you get nothing. I hope Bioware changes nothing and they still make a ton of money, they deserve it.

Again, like many other game related issues, people flock to an issue and (IMO) try to polarize. Seriously, I am becoming more and more despondent about 'gamers'. I have been a gamer for nearly 18 years now and only now am I starting to see this as a bad thing.

I read 4 reviews by Game Reviewers and because of their great reviews I figured what the hell. And damn am I glad I did!

I'm with you. I just played through the ending and at the back of my mind was this so called controversy which I'd been avoiding finding out the detail of. When I finally got through I was left wondering what the issue with it actually was. Still, it seems that many 'gamers' (especially on the escapist - compare with the rage over DA2) seem to love histrionic adolescent whining about things that aren't in the least bit important, or, for that matter, are problems.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 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
Register for a free account here