Mass Effect 3

[Velorath]

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.

So how does that end up trickling down to the reviews if the argument is that they get high scores because the site is paid off?  Fear of being fired?  We saw how well that worked out with the whole Gerstmann thing.

[Margalis]

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.

That's not how a balance works. Like literally that is now how a balance mechanically operates.

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

This is a complete red-herring. Do developers hand over cash for review scores? No. Do the draw up contracts where they grant a magazine an exclusive cover if the magazine promises to deliver a certain review score? Yes.

There is a huge amount of quid pro quo. While actual money does not change hands directly there is a clear monetary incentive to give high review scores. Again, reviewers WILL literally guarantee a floor review score in exchange for exclusives. That's a little hard to defend.

So how does that end up trickling down to the reviews if the argument is that they get high scores because the site is paid off?  Fear of being fired?  We saw how well that worked out with the whole Gerstmann thing.

If an editor has promised a certain review score they just edit the text of the review and change the score.

[rk47]

Once again, I reiterate, the consumers who paid the money for this game has more reason to be angry about it compared to journalists who gets free copies and ad revenues from the said review games. Who would want to criticize the game more? The former had nothing to lose while the latter risks losing those sweet, exclusive previews in the future.

Will they sacrifice those and remain fiercely critical of the product? Yeah, I thought so.  

[Margalis]

It's also a little confusing to me that someone can be aware of the Gamespot/Gerstmann thing and still believe that this sort of stuff doesn't happen.

[Ratman_tf]

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.

[/quote]

A hundred. Heh. So far, it's a solid 75 IMO. Good, but not great.

And I have issues with the sound. Some of the SFX are very loud, some are very soft, and I have to adjust my volume to get it to a decent level, and set the... field thing to low.
The earth invation sequence in particular had terrible sound quality. I felt like I was having some kind of driver problem for a while..

[Velorath]

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.

That's not how a balance works. Like literally that is now how a balance mechanically operates.

It doesn't balance scores out (professional and user reviews are calculated separately) and it's not balancing out bad writing with good writing.  You're talking about the most superficial kind of balance of "well a bunch of people are saying a lot of really good things about the game, and it's balanced out by a bunch of people saying bad shit", like that provides some sort of service.

As for the review stuff, yes some shady stuff goes on behind the scenes at some sites and mags, but people who suggest that every major and most minor sites that give a big release a high score has been "paid-off" are proposing a bigger conspiracy than the "OJ is innocent" crowd.  The number of people that have to be involved in that kind of payoff every time a game releases, from people at the publisher, to the owners of game sites and mags, to the reviewers who would be getting told "we promised the publisher the game would get a 9.5, please write some hyperbolic bullshit", and not 1 single person or site lets it slip out or makes a story out of it?  I've heard people more knowledgeable on the subject than you speak out on the subject, and while there are a lot of issues with the publishers wield through their advertising dollars and ability to grant access to game journalists, the idea that we can then dismiss every positive review of a game as being bought and paid for by publishers is retarded and a much more complicated explanation than most reviewers having poor writing skills, lack the ability to think critically in many cases, and having to get reviews and articles out quickly.

[Kageru]

It's not a conspiracy, it's all about incentives. Games reviewers who have become professionals (ie. get paid) have a nearly universal desire to continue getting paid. No matter how objective they believe they are (and there is no such thing as a truly objective review) they're going to speak carefully and look for upsides when they are reviewing the game of a major sponsor.

That's partly why meta-critic considers reviews in the aggregate.

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.

Well, I'd expect a professional reviewer to be less emotionally attached to the title (and they don't have to pay for DLC) so they are not likely to be as involved in the trust / betrayal cycle the fans have built up. Likewise there is probably an implicit favour towards big budget, impressive, short titles that they see as pushing the industry forward.

[Margalis]

This is an extremely labored argument you're making. You have absolutely zero first-hand knowledge here, so your relying on "people you've heard" who are supposedly more knowledgeable than me, ("a friend told me") to counter a point that I never made (that all reviews are "paid off") and that you seem to be debating mostly with yourself.

These things are true:

Editors can and do change review text and scores in the upward direction to please certain publishers.

Major publishers often know what major outlets are going to give their game (in a narrow range) before a review is actually written and exclusives are often predicated on the score falling into that range.

People can and do get let go for giving negative reviews to games in ways that damage the bottom line of the business, as in the Gamespot case.

There is large financial pressure to keep certain publishers happy, as these companies are a source of advertising dollars, review copies, access to events and exclusives.

If you are a staff reviewer or a freelancer for a place like Gamespot you aren't going to turn in a 6 review for ME3. That's just not how you keep being a staff reviewer or freelancer. Part of the job expectation is that you review "appropriately."
---

I don't particularly remember claiming that every review score is paid for but I'll gladly defend the things I have actually said. Sure, every time a review is written you can't find security camera footage of a mysterious man in a fedora handing a sweaty nerd a briefcase of cash. But review scores are very much entwined with money in a variety of ways and exclusive reviews are basically worthless.

[LK]

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)

Gamestop did a special where if you didn't pre-order (which gives you an extra armor and two guns from them) but bought the DLC they'd give you the pre-order bonus. So clever marketing to encourage you to spend the extra $10 for what others have described better with From Ashes. Cost-wise, Bioware likely made far more money off the $10 for the DLC (which has an insignificant amount of content and VO but has production values equivalent to the game) than they did from $10 as part of the main product's price.

[Ratman_tf]

The next developer who puts any turret sequences in a game should be beaten with a flaming 2x4.

[Quinton]

For all the worries about FPS-ification of ME3, the basic game systems seem pretty damn similar to ME2.

I sort of miss the hacking minigame, but am not horribly upset at its loss.

I do still hate the heatsink ammo system.  I'd much rather have a deus-ex-hr-ish inventory system so if I want to just carry a sniper rifle a a bunch of rifle ammo I can...

And really, why can't I pick up heatsinks and not immediately slot them into a gun?   So silly.

[Ratman_tf]

For all the worries about FPS-ification of ME3, the basic game systems seem pretty damn similar to ME2.

ME2 was the FPS-ification of Mass Effect. ME3 is just continuing it. Which kinda sucks if you were expecting more RPGish aspects, but there ya go.

[rk47]

I'm the opposite. Take out the RPG aspects, and we have a winner. ME3 is still half assed with the skill progression aspect and still incredibly crap when it comes to bullets vs spells. Anyone pretending this is better if it's more RPG is deluding themselves. It's a third person shooter, thank god for the return of weapon attachments but why is ammo mods & grenades still a skill? And having higher levels = more HP is so out of place, make me spend credits to get better shields & armour.

[jakonovski]

We saw how well that worked out with the whole Gerstmann thing.

Interestingly, Gerstmann's ME3 review gives one of the lowest scores for the game on Metacritic. The text isn't gushing either.

[Margalis]

I don't really understand that line of Velorath's. It's not like Gamespot got exposed and went out of business due to that. It worked our fine for Gamespot. They blatantly fired someone for giving a low review to a game that had a lot of advertising spend behind it and suffered no ill effects.

[Merusk]

It's not a conspiracy when it's out in the open and you label it "Industry standard" if anyone objects.

People are always willing to go along with a lie rather than an uncomfortable truth, you just have to find the right way to frame it.

[Lantyssa]

I wonder if unlimited ammo can be modded back in.  I can't believe they kept it from ME2.

[Sky]

I'm the opposite. Take out the RPG aspects, and we have a winner. ME3 is still half assed with the skill progression aspect and still incredibly crap when it comes to bullets vs spells. Anyone pretending this is better if it's more RPG is deluding themselves. It's a third person shooter, thank god for the return of weapon attachments but why is ammo mods & grenades still a skill? And having higher levels = more HP is so out of place, make me spend credits to get better shields & armour.

RPG != skills/hp/etc

[Pezzle]

Game is getting better.  Once you get your ship populated conversations actually draw some interest.  Pity it takes so long.  Also a shame that most of the new characters are boring.  The DLC guy is awesome though!

[Sjofn]

I love the DLC guy, yeah. 

Except for him, I find myself wondering "why did you waste a squad spot on that one waaaah." Lt. Dudebro hasn't been left off the Normandy since I got a third person. Which is more than a different New Squad Member has been let off the ship, I might add.

[kildorn]

DLCmate is kind of a douche. But has some randomly hilarious dialogue.

As for metacritic: professional reviews have a financial incentive problem. This isn't solved by replacing the review system with what amount to youtube comments.

The game isn't some amazing work of literary art. Never has been. It's stupid schlock scifi, which can be FUN. Anyone bitching that the combat's been dumbed down is just flat out lying, since it's ME2's combat + more RPG mechanics. I saw a great youtube video of someone bitching that it's too easy on insanity.. while playing the tutorial level. *facepalm*

Overall, I'm enjoying the game. I'm not really digging how every cameo of everyone you ever met starts with "Private soandso!" "It's Major now, sir" ... I get it, everyone I know is now in charge of the galaxy. Maybe Shepard should learn to read rank insignia before calling someone by rank.

[Sjofn]

I love douchebag characters if they're funny, Kildorn, I'd think you'd have noticed that by now. 

[kildorn]

You hate Corso.

[Mazakiel]

I have to say, I've been pleasantly surprised by some of the comments/insight that the DLC companion has had on the missions I've brought him on.  I haven't minded Dudebro too much, but the new one that comes after...yeesh.  I want to facepalm every time I see them.  

[Sjofn]

You hate Corso.

Corso is never funny, just infuriating.


And yeah, Lt. Dudebro isn't bad, exactly, I would've just prefered that slot being used on an old squaddie instead. And the One After. Well. That one just makes me sigh and shake my head. DLC guy goes with me all over the place, though, I do like hearing what he has to say. Plus it makes the third person I bring almost everywhere spouting exposition less dumb.

[Rasix]

Wife went to be early, so I got a solid 3 hours in.   Overall, I'm pleased.  But you know, I loved DA2 as well despite its flaws. 

Pros:
-MASS EFFECT, YAYAYAYAYAY
-Shooting seems similar to 2.  That's good.
-Ashley Williams.. so hot.  Although honestly I liked her ME2 look better.  Nicer butt then. Still, it's cool that she was integrated right from the start and the dialogue was good until <spoiler deleted>
-Start at a high level.  Yay.  No artificial reset to 0 and work my way up again.  Grenades! YEAAAH.
-I don't hate Private Mexican Dudebro.  I thought he'd be way more offensive.
-Seems like they put more RPG systems back in.  This is good.
-Tutorial + Mars was not overly difficult.  Easing me back into the thumbstick world is good.

Cons:
-Some goofy new systems that would probably be easily explained if I probably read a manual.  Wait.. do games have these anymore?
-People in this world are fucking ugly.  Seem double ugly now. 
-Some really awkward dialogue at the start.
-Max Payne crying baby scene. 
-Thumbstickin' on the 360.  God I hate this noisy, hot, antique. 

Overall, I don't think this game will be as good at 2, but probably better than 1.  One, while solid in the story department, has mechanics that just don't hold up anymore.  But it's early, my opinion can easily change with how this ends up progressing. So far this feels like their Return of the Jedi effort following Empire.  Hard to live up to, and fodder for detractors, but eminently fun for the fans of the series.

[rk47]

I'm the opposite. Take out the RPG aspects, and we have a winner. ME3 is still half assed with the skill progression aspect and still incredibly crap when it comes to bullets vs spells. Anyone pretending this is better if it's more RPG is deluding themselves. It's a third person shooter, thank god for the return of weapon attachments but why is ammo mods & grenades still a skill? And having higher levels = more HP is so out of place, make me spend credits to get better shields & armour.

RPG != skills/hp/etc

I forgot, RPG is about making meaningful choices, should I pick Liara, Tali or Ashley as my future wife or get out of the closet and move in on Vega? The tyranny of choices. *Shakes fist*

[luckton]

[Sky]

I've only done Mars, Citadel walkthrough of the ship, haven't even finished walking through the ship yet.

Seems like a nice game so far.

Pros
I like the companions commands, was it like that before?
Shiny
Weapon mods

Cons
Can't select enemies in the  pause/action/shift screen
No face import for original character (not a big deal)
One 'action' button

Really the only things I don't like are mostly consolization kinda things.

[Lantyssa]

People just raise hell about anything these days, won't they?

Yes.

It makes it hard to be a cynic with valid (in my mind) points, because it's instantly assumed I can't see any good about a project and just get lumped in with the haters.

[Segoris]

Against my best judgement and declining opinion of Bioware, I ended up buying this. I have to admit that it is better than I thought it would be, and would rank inbetween ME1 and ME2 based on the first 1.5-2 hrs of play.

- Shooting feels like a mix of ME1 and ME2. That is noticable immediately thanks to the massive recoil on every gun, but, iirc, there are equippable mods that will reduce it (similar to weapon stats and mods from ME1)
- I like the weight system. I'm someone who gives fuck-all about immersion so for a balance stand point it makes sense. The more guns you have on you, the more of a warrior type you are and the slower your skills recharge. Less weight results in faster recharge of skills but less firepower. In theory it's great, in practice spells/abilities are way too strong so it diminishes from that system but I still like it
- The character art feels a bit dated, I'm no art expert (far from it) and it just feels off.

Somewhat minor issues that can be considered spoiler:

Cons:
-Some goofy new systems that would probably be easily explained if I probably read a manual.  Wait.. do games have these anymore?

Hit ESC and it's the top option.

Pros
I like the companions commands, was it like that before?
Cons
Can't select enemies in the  pause/action/shift screen

Yes to commands

That is normal for FPS games without hard-targetting and feels like selecting enemies during pause/action/shift wouldn't be right imo.

[tmp]

People just raise hell about anything these days, won't they?

It's <spoiler>  The worshippers would raise hell even if it was visage of robot raptor jesus.

(that said, it is pretty lulzy/lazy)

[Sjofn]

Cons
Can't select enemies in the  pause/action/shift screen

Are you playing this on the PC? Because so long as you rotate your camera to land your crosshairs on someone, you can target anyone you have LoS to. Or maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by "select."

[tmp]

Yeah, unless it changed in ME3 you could just line up the crosshair while the command screen was up, then either invoke a power or let go of the Shift and start shooting/whatever.

[Sjofn]

Also, yes, the humans in Mass Effect 3 are hideously ugly. I find myself idly looking away from my monitor when I have to talk to Lt. Dudebro up close, for example.