Mass Effect 3

[Mazakiel]

Product: The marketing and tie-in's are fairly evident in the product, from "Better with Kinect" being prominently displayed on the box and all their marketing to the Day 1 DLC ("We'll give you a pre-order bonus if you spend $10 to From Ashes on Day 1"). You need to buy EA's Online Code if you rent the product, etc. There's a lot of money tied into this one.

What did buying From Ashes on Day 1 get you?

From Ashes gets you a companion, a mission that returns you to a planet covered in a previous game, some stuff you can find to give you points for the war readiness thing, and a plasma rifle. 

The companion brings along a bonus ability you can gain, along with some infodump on setting lore. 

[Pezzle]

Not impressed yet myself.  Character control annoys me.  You run slow in non combat places.  The urgency of the story is totally flat.  Save the galaxy, find ship models?  At least in ME2 it was not ALL OUT WAR right at the start so little things were not really jarring.  

I have not played the Arrival DLC, so what the hell is going on?  There is still planet scanning and a reaper threatdown to make that more tedious.

At least there are gear mods and some of the characters say interesting things.  Still very early in the game, maybe it gets better and more challenging.  Right now I am actually missing the planet exploration from ME1 and I hated that stupid vehicle!  At least I got a better sense of scale.  In ME3 I get "go fix that comm tower"  You mean the one 10 seconds outside your wall?  Really?  I feel cramped in and inhibited.  


Maybe I am just cranky for some reason =P

[Ratman_tf]

He's just whining that if you don't play multi or the IOS games you have to play more of the single player (side missions), and your prior game choices make it easier or harder on you. So, if you like the single player.. you have to play more of the single player?

Someone explain to me how this is somehow a legit complaint and not just looking for reasons to bitch about ME3 again?

It is "you have to play more of the single player" in the sense planet scanning in ME2 was "playing more of the single player". Which yes, was fine as long as you were one of the three people on the planet who thought it's fun.

There's practically no scanning bullshit this time. What he's crying about are the side missions that are relatively plot-light(meaning no conversations, just background chatter). And not wanting to do all of them to get the complete score.

The scanning game this time around is basically pressing the scan button four times per sector. Crushing grind, yo.

Typical terrible integration of story and gameplay. I'm not surprised. Doing the side missions should be fun, but the game has this tacked on 'readiness' mechanic that sucks all the fun out and turns it into a grind.

[Ratman_tf]

Not impressed yet myself.  Character control annoys me.  You run slow in non combat places.  The urgency of the story is totally flat.  Save the galaxy, find ship models?  At least in ME2 it was not ALL OUT WAR right at the start so little things were not really jarring.  

I have not played the Arrival DLC, so what the hell is going on?  There is still planet scanning and a reaper threatdown to make that more tedious.

At least there are gear mods and some of the characters say interesting things.  Still very early in the game, maybe it gets better and more challenging.  Right now I am actually missing the planet exploration from ME1 and I hated that stupid vehicle!  At least I got a better sense of scale.  In ME3 I get "go fix that comm tower"  You mean the one 10 seconds outside your wall?  Really?  I feel cramped in and inhibited.  


Maybe I am just cranky for some reason =P

Well, I share your desire for more exploration. I didn't expect much of that for ME3. They threw away all that in 2, and made it a linear shooter with semi-interactive cutscenes. AND SCANNING! 

I'm only just getting to the Citadel, but from what everyone's saying, I'm not expecting the game to loosen up on the rails.

[Paelos]

From the looks of it, this game is getting firebombed by user reviews. I can't really decipher if it actually sucks, or if this is a whooooooole lotta butthurt over something else entirely.

[Pezzle]

I would not say it sucks.  It runs well, looks decent, acting is fine (even if the dialogue is   sometimes that is not the fault of the VA usually).  

What it comes down to, I guess, is that much of the fun is missing?  So far the exploring is terrible, there is no mystery, no surprise, no sense of wonder, other than wondering what is going on with a few things because I missed a DLC.  It also feels like the things you did in the first 2 really do not matter?  Maybe they do later.  The visual engagement in conflicts is missing for me and every time I get in a conversation with someone who should know something I have to ask myself why recording equipment was uninvented (it wasn't).  

Maybe a 7 or 8 range.  Not a Game of the Year

*edit*

I should add, if I have to repeat that terrible opening sequence for every playthrough (if I get that far) I will be pissed.  Cannot skip that shit enough, apparently. 

[Rokal]

Product: The marketing and tie-in's are fairly evident in the product, from "Better with Kinect" being prominently displayed on the box and all their marketing to the Day 1 DLC ("We'll give you a pre-order bonus if you spend $10 to From Ashes on Day 1"). You need to buy EA's Online Code if you rent the product, etc. There's a lot of money tied into this one.

What did buying From Ashes on Day 1 get you?

From Ashes gets you a companion, a mission that returns you to a planet covered in a previous game, some stuff you can find to give you points for the war readiness thing, and a plasma rifle. 

The companion brings along a bonus ability you can gain, along with some infodump on setting lore. 

Right, but you'd get all of that even if you bought the DLC 3 months from now. Lorekeep's post made it sound like there was something specific you got for buying it on day 1 ("a pre-order bonus"). Just confused about what he meant. I did buy the From Ashes DLC last night, because I am part of the problem (and would rather have new companion DLC for my first and only playthrough)

[Lakov_Sanite]

Diablo 3 is coming out this year so no, not game of the year.

[Pezzle]

Diablo 3 can DIAF

[Paelos]

Diablo 3 can DIAF

 

[kildorn]

ME3 calls back to ME2 as much as 2 called back to 1. There's very little overall OH SHIT plot impact, and a lot of characters showing up that you saved/cameos. A bit of chatter changes based on your choices as well. Some of it isn't blended properly (someone says something, and the scene shifts as they reference a prior event. Like they didn't line up the camera right when doing the decision tree. But that's uncommon.)

[Reg]

edit: moved to spoiler thread

[rk47]

Only Stormtroopers can fire blasters this accurate

 

[Velorath]

He's just whining that if you don't play multi or the IOS games you have to play more of the single player (side missions), and your prior game choices make it easier or harder on you. So, if you like the single player.. you have to play more of the single player?

Someone explain to me how this is somehow a legit complaint and not just looking for reasons to bitch about ME3 again?

It is "you have to play more of the single player" in the sense planet scanning in ME2 was "playing more of the single player". Which yes, was fine as long as you were one of the three people on the planet who thought it's fun.

There's practically no scanning bullshit this time. What he's crying about are the side missions that are relatively plot-light(meaning no conversations, just background chatter). And not wanting to do all of them to get the complete score.

The scanning game this time around is basically pressing the scan button four times per sector. Crushing grind, yo.

Typical terrible integration of story and gameplay. I'm not surprised. Doing the side missions should be fun, but the game has this tacked on 'readiness' mechanic that sucks all the fun out and turns it into a grind.

A lot of the side missions are fun (thought there are a few collection ones similar to ME1), and are typically where you seem to run into your ME2 squadmates.

[jakonovski]

How odd, the shooting doesn't feel as good as ME2. Not as polished. It's like they're in love with endless enemy waves again, like in DA2. Welp, at least they don't spawn behind you out of thin air this time.

[Rokal]

I think the pacing of the start is off (from the hour or so I played), so first impressions of the game are likely to be negative.

Spoilers for the first 10 minutes

[tmp]

I like the Batarians finally get helmets with proper number of eye shields.

[Rokal]

After reading a summary of the Arrival DLC, apparently the pacing of the start of ME3 feels off because I didn't play it. Suggest you read it here if you are going to play ME3 but have no plans of playing the Arrival DLC for ME2.

[Simond]

From the looks of it, this game is getting firebombed by user reviews. I can't really decipher if it actually sucks, or if this is a whooooooole lotta butthurt over something else entirely.

It's not Bioware's fault that people are still pissed off about DA2 being so aggressively terrible and SWTOR so terminally mediocre.



Oh, wait, yes it is. They shouldn't have released such a pair of poor games if they still wanted to have a reputation of making good games.

[Pezzle]

For PC players only: 

M-90 Indra Sniper Rifle code if you sign up at Alienware Arena

www.alienwarearena.com/giveaway/mass-effect-3-giveaway

[Sjofn]

From the looks of it, this game is getting firebombed by user reviews. I can't really decipher if it actually sucks, or if this is a whooooooole lotta butthurt over something else entirely.

It's not perfect (what is?) but if it's getting firebombed, it's butthurt.

I really like how they decided to go with leveling and equipment, my crosshairs are way too small which is annoying, all the humans are uglier than they were in ME2 (the aliens - including asari, somehow - look fine), fights are about the same for me, although it feels like I've had to be a bit more mobile because things will come from behind or the side more often, instead of just from the front (hopefully that made sense), there are some story directions they went that I don't get, but others I've really liked, so that's probably a wash.

[rk47]

For PC players only: 

M-90 Indra Sniper Rifle code if you sign up at Alienware Arena

www.alienwarearena.com/giveaway/mass-effect-3-giveaway

Thank bro, grabbed one!

[Velorath]

From the looks of it, this game is getting firebombed by user reviews. I can't really decipher if it actually sucks, or if this is a whooooooole lotta butthurt over something else entirely.

It's not Bioware's fault that people are still pissed off about DA2 being so aggressively terrible and SWTOR so terminally mediocre.



Oh, wait, yes it is. They shouldn't have released such a pair of poor games if they still wanted to have a reputation of making good games.

Yes, that's a totally valid reason for going through the trouble of going on Metacritic and giving bad reviews to a game they haven't played.

[Rasix]

It is if you're butthurt.  Simond's case appears to be aggressive, focused and probably terminal.

[rk47]

Great to counter the hype. This makes people less likely to do impulse purchase.
I encourage more of this sort of activity in the future. At least to slap some devs awake.

[Ingmar]

The only lesson any dev will take away from this is to ignore Metacritic even more.

[koro]

Truly the greatest loss of EA games on Steam is no longer being able to see how many people bitch endlessly about ME3 yet will still show up on friends' lists as plugging away at it for 40 hours a week starting day one.

I've stopped really bitching on the internet about the direction of Bioware games of late (though I do lament no longer being part of the audience they aim for at times and privately joke with friends about some of the dumber writing in recent games) and simply stopped buying the things. All in all I feel better about myself now that I've learned to

[RT81]

If I may un-lurk for a moment.

Some of the negative reviews might be due to this:

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/9513640/1

If you imported a character from ME 1 to ME 2, that character's face will not import correctly. It looked to me like Sjofn was having this problem. I encountered this problem myself, too. It seems the entire system for facial features changed between games. Any face from ME 1 doesn't have a proper face code and there is no way to obtain it without using one of a few convoluted work-arounds. Thankfully, I was able to get my Shepard *mostly* imported, I just had to make a few adjustments to skin tone, eye color, and nose shape.

[Miasma]

How does this war readiness degradation crap work?  If I do a bunch of side missions will it increase the percentage in one part of the galaxy, only to see it slowly drop as I go somewhere else?

Edit: nvm I guess it's multiplayer only.

[rk47]

The only lesson any dev will take away from this is to ignore Metacritic even more.

This is good too. So they can keep bribing the journalists for articles to discredit Metacritics all the money is back to the original pot: the prominent mouthpieces of IGN, Gamespot and the ever lovable Kotachu-chans.

Once the above is done, then they can move on to independent gamer reviews on youtube, accusing them of playing pirated version and demanding proof of their legitimate purchase of said game by revealing their Origins account details. This can only help making the whole company to consumer relations better.

[Kageru]

Meta critic works fine... the score that shows up on steam and I assume other sources is from paid off professional game reviewers. The user reviews are basically a grab-bag as they're always going to be.

[Margalis]

I assume most of the negative user reviews are a backlash to the extremely positive, hype-fueled press reviews.

This is one of those games where there is a strong disconnect between professional reviewers and normal people - something that seems to be happening A LOT more often in the past year or so. On one hand you have almost every player saying the pacing is weird because while you are in a state of all out war your character has his dick in his hand doing side missions where he rescues cats from trees, while professional reviews are lauding the sense of urgency that supposedly permeates the entire game. It doesn't help that Bioware has done a lot recently to tarnish their reputation.

I really noticed this sort of thing with Uncharted 3, where most reviewers found almost no flaws and IGN even wrote that the shooting is better than ever, despite the fact that the aiming was busted and needed a patch. Every single podcast I listened to about UC3 mentioned aiming problems as well as things like the poorly designed chase scenes, while almost no reviews brought up either of those.

Negative spite-based reviews are kind of lame, but they do sort of balance out professional reviews, which basically amount to scoring games linearly with budget.

[Paelos]

Here's a professional review that gave it a 100:

The overall presentation in Mass Effect 3 is the best we've seen out of BioWare yet. From the deep booms of explosions to the digital noise sound of Reapers and on to the wonderful soundtrack and spot-on voice acting, the game sounds simply amazing. The architecture and design are wonderful, and I want to give a special shout-out to BioWare for finally fleshing out the Citadel enough to make it truly stand alongside other great science fiction mainstays, like the Death Star or Serenity.

He gave a fucking shout-out in a review. 

Here's a score 0 user comment picked at random from the negative pile:

The writing and plot in this game are by far the worst in the trilogy. The use of deus ex machina betrays BioWare's incredibly lazy narrative and ridiculous ending. Choices and consequences are non-existent, the combat is simplified to the point it's painfully easy even on hardest difficulty, animations are clunky and facial animations are always deeply entrenched within the uncanny valley…

[Velorath]

Negative spite-based reviews are kind of lame, but they do sort of balance out professional reviews, which basically amount to scoring games linearly with budget.

That's not really balancing anything out, it's just adding more retardation to the mix.  If people want to balance out insanely positive reviews, they should write balanced reviews based on their experiences playing the game.

On a side note, if anybody thinks that reviewers are literally given money to by developers to write positive reviews, they're fucking insane.

[Kageru]

On a side note, if anybody thinks that reviewers are literally given money to by developers to write positive reviews, they're fucking insane.

Of course not!

... that would be publishers / Distributors to site owners via advertising. No need for peons to get confused by being offered money.