Mass Effect: Thread

[Pinkie Pie]

(Ashley Williams' little secret was a lie as well).

I never heard about this but don't tell me.

 

Anyway, that's what always keeps me coming back to reading people's opinions. I KNOW most of them are gonna be biased, and I know a lot of them are gonna spoil the crap out of the game without even thinking about it. But theres always little gems inside the crap, just waiting for someone to read them and give an honest review that actually makes sense instead of, "DOH YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR DAY 1 DLC SO THAT MEANS THE GAME SUCKS!!!" No. It doesn't. And what's even stupider is half the 'reviews' are, "I played the demo and I thought it sucked, so I feel it necessary to rate the ENTIRE FREAKING GAME down, because, I'm perfect, and my opinion should matter." And even then I think big name review sites still overrated ME3 just a tad, anyway. But what keeps me from wanting to read any reviews are the spoilers because SOME PEOPLE don't know how to not spoil things, apparently. I've been hit by so many reviews where they literally just spoil the ending for you. If you're gonna write a review, 1. Put SOME effort into it. and 2. Don't. Spoil. Or, at the very least, say there will be spoilers, so I'll know.

 

But at the end of the day, I really just like complaining about other people complaining because I still have to wait to play the game, and by the time I do ME3 will be an old topic.

 

EDIT: WAT

 

"Of course, not all of Mass Effect 3's endings actually end in Shepard's death. If you've met certain conditions, a short scene plays showing Shepard's body amongst debris, her chest expanding as she takes a breath. Only a subset of players will have actually accomplished this, though." Link tells what those 'certain conditions' are. http://uk.ign.com/wikis/mass-effect-3/Endings

Note: I didn't read anything in the link, I'm merely providing it, so please still keep ending stuff spoiled.

[Arby]

its just if your EMS is high enough and you pick destroy

[Pinkie Pie]

Oh. Well that seems easy.

[Kirkreng]

I guess this gif is loosely related, I just think it's funny.

[Alyxx Thorne]

Coca-cola and Mountain Dew? XD

[Pinkie Pie]

I still wouldn't rate ME3 a 1, anyway. XD

[Geneaux486]

Wouldn't be the smartest move on EA's part to pay reviewers to call an amazing game an amazing game.

[Kirkreng]

Yet an amazing amount of 13 critics rated it the maximum possible score.

[Geneaux486]

Not surprising, Bioware pretty much pulled out all the stops with ME3. It's also part of these reviewers' jobs to rate a game based on the game as a whole, not give it a zero because they don't like Day 1 DLC or because the ending wasn't what they hoped it would be. There's more integrity in rating the game highly based on all aspects of it than in rating it poorly because of one or two things you hate.

[Kirkreng]

First of all a 10 out of 10 is downright impossible. There is no such thing as a perfect game.

Secondly as you said it is a reviewer's job to rate the game as a whole. That includes DLC as well as endings. Both of which there was/is an outcry in massive numbers about. Now don't get me wrong many of these people just like a good hate-circlejerk but in these amounts there are people who are truly upset. There is obviously SOMETHING wrong with the game. Which instantly disqualifies it from being rated a maximum score.

[Geneaux486]

First of all a 10 out of 10 is downright impossible. There is no such thing as a perfect game.

 

Correct, there is no such thing as a perfect game, so logically we can assume that a perfect score doesn't mean it's a perfect game, just that it's probably as good as it can be, or that the reviewer recieved full enjoyment from the experience, or found no outstandingly horrible flaws. Mass Effect 3 deserves such a score.

 

Secondly as you said it is a reviewer's job to rate the game as a whole. That includes DLC as well as endings.

 

The DLC is supplimentary content and should not factor into a review of the game itself. Even if it did, the fact that it's Day 1 DLC has nothing to do with the quality of Mass Effect 3. The endings should be included, but you say that as though it is proven fact that the ending is bad. It is not. The ending is actually quite good, and I've layed out the reasons for why that is a completely valid opinion several times over now in spoiler tags, so I won't waste anyone's time repeating myself. Point is, it is entierly possible to play through this game from start to finish, see the ending, and sincerely give this game a ten out of ten. The loudest opinion isn't automatically the most accurate one. A lot of people genuinelly liked this game.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Guest (see edit history)

[Alyxx Thorne]

I'm pretty sure I'm gonna like it.

[Geneaux486]

I hope you do.

[Alyxx Thorne]

Judging by the fact I gave DNF a good review, I think I'm not much of a critic when it comes to games. As long as I enjoy them I don't care about criticism.

[Pinkie Pie]

Honestly I'm not sure how I'll react to the ending. But I'm not gonna go in overly optimistic. Realistically, I won't be expecting much, and if I decide the endings great, that'll blow me away by surprise.

[Kirkreng]

First of all a 10 out of 10 is downright impossible. There is no such thing as a perfect game.

 

Correct, there is no such thing as a perfect game, so logically we can assume that a perfect score doesn't mean it's a perfect game, just that it's probably as good as it can be, or that the reviewer recieved full enjoyment from the experience, or found no outstandingly horrible flaws. Mass Effect 3 deserves such a score.

That is not how a rating system works. At least not how it SHOULD work. If a something recieves 10 out of 10 than it HAS to be perfect. Because what if a better game comes that doesn't have outstandingly horrible flaws but doesn't have smaller, not outstanding flaws either. What will you rate it? It SHOULD deserve a higher score, but you can't give one because you already gave the highest score possible to a lesser game. Should you give it a 101 out of 100 instead?

See, if you do not follow the simple grade school scoring system of x out of 10 then you screw up the whole system. Like I said, scores are crap. They hold way to much value but are so manipulated(by all sides, both critics and users).

 

The DLC is supplimentary content and should not factor into a review of the game itself. Even if it did, the fact that it's Day 1 DLC has nothing to do with the quality of Mass Effect 3. The endings should be included, but you say that as though it is proven fact that the ending is bad. It is not. The ending is actually quite good, and I've layed out the reasons for why that is a completely valid opinion several times over now in spoiler tags, so I won't waste anyone's time repeating myself. Point is, it is entierly possible to play through this game from start to finish, see the ending, and sincerely give this game a ten out of ten. The loudest opinion isn't automatically the most accurate one. A lot of people genuinelly liked this game.

No, it is not. However it seems to be VERY coincidental that no above mentioned critic seems to have enough of a problem with the ending to make it worth even taking away 1 out of the 100 points, yet we have a lot of disappointed and upset players who feel it is so bad they demand a change of the ending. It is easy to say that all the screams are unjustified and ignore them but for many people there is obviously something wrong with it. And the fact that somehow so many critics seem to apparently think it is the best ending ever(after all, it is the perfect game, right?) is just a little odd, don't you think?

[Geneaux486]

That is not how a rating system works. At least not how it SHOULD work. If a something recieves 10 out of 10 than it HAS to be perfect.

 

Yes, that is how a rating system should work. There's no such thing as a perfect game, but there is such a thing as a perfect score. If two games produce the same level of enjoyment for a reviewer, but one is longer than the other, does the longer one deserve a higher score because it has more content? No. Scores should be assigned based on the individual game's merit, excluding outside influences. Along with that, the reviewer should provide a detailed description as to why he or she gave it that score, that way you know what the reviewer was looking for in a game, and you can know if you look for the same thing in a game.

 

It is easy to say that all the screams are unjustified and ignore them but for many people there is obviously something wrong with it. And the fact that somehow so many critics seem to apparently think it is the best ending ever(after all, it is the perfect game, right?) is just a little odd, don't you think?

 

A critic shouldn't base their opinion on other people's opinions. I've read countless arguments for why the endings are bad, so I have ignored nothing. Yet most complaints are easily refuted by the content of the game itself, or the complaints are with the tone of the ending, or the manner in which it was presented, which doesn't automatically have anything to do with whether or not it is bad. But again, I've been over all of that in previous posts, so basically the short answer here is no, I do not think it is odd at all that 14 or so impartial reviewers would have positive opinions about this game's narrative from start to finish. Basically, read a summary of why a particular score was given. Odds are if it's a professional review, they won't outright lie about the game's content (they can't get away with it), so read why they rated it so highly. If they say that they thouroughly enjoyed the story from start to finish, then that's probably the truth. Hell, I shelled out 80 bucks for the game and I'm fully satisfied even halfway through new game plus.

[Kirkreng]

Yes, yes the game should receive a higher score if is equally good but has more content. And they should compare it to other games.

 

I guess what it comes down to is you and I have different opinions on how a game should be rated, so this discussion won't lead us anywhere.

[Axeldeath]

I know how a game should be rated!

 

Not at all.

 

Seriously, game scores are the most retarded thing in the entire industry, even worse than day 1 DLC. The amount of sway they hold over the industry is ridiculous and the only people they cater to is braindead fanboys and ADD 12 years olds.

[Geneaux486]

Yes, yes the game should receive a higher score if is equally good but has more content. And they should compare it to other games.

 

I guess what it comes down to is you and I have different opinions on how a game should be rated, so this discussion won't lead us anywhere.

 

It's not a matter of opinion. If you're factoring in the quality of other games, then you're not rating the game based on its own merit, on the unique experience that specific game offers. A score should be determined by how well that specific game is put together, not whether or not some other game did it better. Like I said, there are perfect scores, but no perfect games, so logically we can infer that the two are not synonymous.

 

I know how a game should be rated!

 

Not at all.

 

Seriously, game scores are the most retarded thing in the entire industry, even worse than day 1 DLC. The amount of sway they hold over the industry is ridiculous and the only people they cater to is braindead fanboys and ADD 12 years olds.

 

I give this post a 9/10.