magnuskn, That's a pretty pessimistic outlook. I think you're letting your disappointment with the ending influence your speculation about what happens next. I thought the endings could have been much better, but I wasn't going to toss out the entire franchise because of it. I think you're straying into "happy ending" territory here instead of "well-written and satisfying ending."
I've heard the "everybody starves" argument, but it's equally likely that the races that consume dextro-food already have solutions to this. It's the future man! Omni-tools are for more than just unlocking doors and stabbing people. It's mentioned in the first game that mini-facturing is possible with an omni-tool as well.
Earth is probably in a bad way, but that's to be expected. Even with the mass relay network no longer there, you're still going to have ships that can travel at FTL speeds. Travel across the galaxy isn't immediate anymore.
Anways, I disagree that the setting was "trashed" simply by the ending. Forever altered, yeah. If anything, the setting becomes even more interesting - Earth is now a galactic melting pot of war veterans from all over the galaxy. Quantum entanglement pairs would presumably still work, so all you have to do is pick up the phone to find out how Joker and ...EDI...well, whoever... are doing.
Hell, I'd run a campaign in a post-Reaper Mass Effect world. Shepard brought everybody together briefly, but how long would that last? There's potential for all kinds of conflict.
Of course, an optimistic speculative slant on the ending is still just speculative - and ending a series on a bunch of questions is never popular or satisfying. The Sopranos, Battlestar Galactica, Lost...all TV shows, sure, and not video games...but we've come a long way from final boss fights in video games. Do we want to go back to the video-gamey endings where you fight a really tough screen size BBEG and everything is roses and cupcakes and fireworks afterwards? That's as weak an ending as what we already got. I think what happened here was this: the deadline was creeping up on the BioWare folks in order to get this title out before the end of the fiscal year, so the ending was rushed out by the lead writer and project director before it was vetted. I have only a few problems with the concepts presented in the ending, but they just weren't presented WELL. Take that for what it's worth, I guess.
Also, Kai Leng was as video-gamey a villain as it gets. Shame, could have been an interesting character.
And the multiplayer is slowly going down in flames. Or rather is like the back half of the Titanic and is near the breaking point.
Between the ongoing bugs with locked out characters, no clear explanation to PS3 users being cut out of weekend events, poor weapon/class balance, Vanguards flying off the map, poor matching making, character promotion skill bugs, disappearing credits/packs... the list goes on.
It's a darn shame it's so bugged. Great game and franchise getting trashed so badly.
It's quite easy to find much better write-ups on BSN why the setting is screwed, no matter which ending one chooses. I'm not really speculating here, people who have read the Codex much closer than I did come to the same conclusions I got to, and earlier than me, too.
How wishing for an ending which doesn't destroy galactic civilization as we know it is "straying into "happy ending" territory here instead of "well-written and satisfying ending."" is not something I understand. Are you so nihilistic that "rocks fall, everyone dies" is what you call a satisfying ending?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really just playing devil's advocate here. I thought the endings were poorly executed as well - for something like Mass Effect, which seemed to be trying to strike a tone of "epic space opera" the nihilistic way in which it ended was...depressing to say the least.
That's not to say I wanted starbursts and sunshine, but in a video game series where you spend most of your time trying to save the galaxy in one way or another, it's a Pyrrhic victory at the end. I get the sentiment that nothing you did to impact events throughout the series seemed to have much of an impact at the end anyways. The entire thing seemed rushed and not really thought through. Other parts of the game were fantastic.
I still really like the series and setting, and I hope there are plans to at least release a few more titles set in the Mass Effect universe. So I'm "hopeful".
Also, as an aside - I really didn't like multiplayer having an impact on an important in-game statistic (galactic readiness). I'm sure it's fun, but I'm just not able to take advantage of it. Also, Day One DLC. Look, if you're going to include a character in a $60 retail game just include it on the disc, don't make me pay more for integral content. I hate this trend among developers. It's greedy and deceptive. Plus, again, I don't have the access to hook my console up to a connection - and I'm not paying a fee to use Live. I'd gladly pay to have the additional content (Like Arrival or Lair of the Shadow Broker) in disc format. /rant.
It's probably likely we'll see a Mass Effect: _______, or even a Mass Effect 4, and if so, that would be great. However, there's a lot of stuff that rubs me the wrong way about how BioWare and EA have been handling this franchise though.
FuriousPhil they don't need a devil's advocate. EA and Bioware have a PR team for that... and they are failing by staying almost dead silent on just about everything.
If they don't somehow manage to salvage their reputation much faster then they have, I don't think we'll see a Mass Effect 4 or any more out of the franchise. Least ways I won't be buying it and will be discouraging friends and acquaintances from doing so. The fan base as been shouting at them for almost a month now with no really response so the last and final option is vote with the wallet and truly walk away form them as a company.
I'd really like a Mass Effect: Mercenaries set during the proxy war in the Skyllian Verge. However at this point I can't trust Bioware.
Yeah, trust is something which BioWare will really have to work at to rebuild, if it can be rebuilt at all. We'll see if they come through at PAX.
FuriousPhil they don't need a devil's advocate. EA and Bioware have a PR team for that... and they are failing by staying almost dead silent on just about everything.
If they don't somehow manage to salvage their reputation much faster then they have, I don't think we'll see a Mass Effect 4 or any more out of the franchise. Least ways I won't be buying it and will be discouraging friends and acquaintances from doing so. The fan base as been shouting at them for almost a month now with no really response so the last and final option is vote with the wallet and truly walk away form them as a company.
I'd really like a Mass Effect: Mercenaries set during the proxy war in the Skyllian Verge. However at this point I can't trust Bioware.
Welcome to Bizzaro-world; where a company can release a game to 90+/100 review scores, and a pack of rabid fans respond by threatening to boycott the company.
Why should companies even try to please people like you? You make them suffer for it, and you have the combined loyalty of a piece of wet cardboard. They're better off not trying to draw you into their customer base in the first place.
Also, how does trust even enter into anything? Video game companies aren't investment firms. You don't need to give them money on the eventuality that they might make something you like. They make a game first, and then you give them money. You shouldn't be buying things sight-unseen. Read reviews, if you have to. Of course, what you look for in a game clearly has very little to do with what everyone for whom being able to judge the quality of a video game is their livelihood looks for in a game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get it. I hear/read things all the time where people will say, "If you don't like what a company does, don't buy their product." But when people finally decide to no longer support a company, in this case BioWare/EA, all of the sudden they're whiners that have taken things too far. Must be a timing thing.
As for the 90+/100 ratings the game got, I see it like going to the best restaurant in town, and enjoying one of the best meals ever only to have the manager say, "I hope you choke to death on your spoon a--hole." while you take your last bites of desert. That's how the ending to ME3 felt to a lot of people.
Trust comes into play in all corners of the consumer/producer dynamic. If a company builds a reputation within an industry of making a quality, solid product, the customers expect the company to keep dong that. Most companies strive to achieve and maintain that level of trust with consumers. That way it's easier to introduce new products and keep more money flowing in. Paizo and Pathfinder are good examples of this dynamic being done right.
I don't get it. I hear/read things all the time where people will say, "If you don't like what a company does, don't buy their product." But when people finally decide to no longer support a company, in this case BioWare/EA, all of the sudden they're whiners that have taken things too far. Must be a timing thing.
No, what we're saying is that deciding to boycott an entire company's games because they delivered a mediocre ending is silly and juvenile. If you don't like the product, don't buy the product.
As for the 90+/100 ratings the game got, I see it like going to the best restaurant in town, and enjoying one of the best meals ever only to have the manager say, "I hope you choke to death on your spoon a--hole." while you take your last bites of desert. That's how the ending to ME3 felt to a lot of people.
Clearly the reviewers didn't give a crap. And I guarantee you they care about games more than your average internet whiner. The actual difference is something else entirely. Something far less flattering.
Trust comes into play in all corners of the consumer/producer dynamic. If a company builds a reputation within an industry of making a quality, solid product, the customers expect the company to keep dong that.
You can't accuse Bioware of not doing that with any credibility. They haven't put out a retail release with an average Metacritic score of below 80 since the Nintendo DS game Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood came out four years ago. Bioware puts out consistently high-quality games, Mass Effect 3 included.
Most companies strive to achieve and maintain that level of trust with consumers. That way it's easier to introduce new products and keep more money flowing in. Paizo and Pathfinder are good examples of this dynamic being done right.
Paizo and Pathfinder are built on trust because their business relies heavily on subscriptions - so heavily, in fact, that they couldn't run their business without them (and feel free to correct me if I'm misspeaking here, Paizo employees). Subscription models are founded on trust - you agree to pay for products sight-unseen because you believe based on past experience that you will continue to receive products that are worth what you pay for them.
Bioware (and other major publishers) shouldn't need your "trust". They should make games, and then you should purchase the games you want. You don't need to trust them. You're not giving them your money blindly. You can read reviews of most major games before they're even released. The idea that video game publishers have a "trust vault" that needs to be maintained is wildly overrated. It matters in some cases - post-release support, MMOs, etc. - but for the purposes of this discussion, it can be safely ignored. It's just another attempt at concern trolling. "Oh no, Bioware's trust is damaged! They'll have to make it up to us." What rubbish.
And the quality of those reviews was never something you managed to justify, Scott. Critic corruption, no matter how it happens, is a serious issue when you are discussing this - and you keep referring to reviews when telling people they can know what they are getting without buying.
Matter of fact is, people have two different ways to find out what ME3 is before they buy it. First, they can read reviews by professional reviewers, which are all gaga over the game, and few even touch on the endings. Or, they can read on the net what others who have played the game thought. These voices are much more mixed - but a very large number of them are disappointed by the ending. With a large discrepancy here, it's not just a question of saying "trust the critics", because the critics don't say the same as what other people say.
When I read a professional review, I know the person writing the review wants me to like the game enough to buy it. Crappy situation, yes, but if you don't assume that today, more fool you. If I read a non-professional review, I have a much better chance of getting a view similar to what I would have gotten myself, if I were the one playing the game.
That said, I am playing through the game myself. I am very impressed so far. But with something like ME3, Bioware had two jobs. First, they needed to make the showdown with the reapers believable. Second, they needed to make an ending that people could accept. They did okay with the first, and from what I can tell, screwed up the second. We'll see what happens.
And the quality of those reviews was never something you managed to justify, Scott. Critic corruption, no matter how it happens, is a serious issue when you are discussing this - and you keep referring to reviews when telling people they can know what they are getting without buying.
AGAIN, the only way the "The critics are corrupt!" line is valid is if every single professional video game reviewer is in Bioware/EA's pocket, and not a one of them is willing to stand up and disagree with everyone else despite the huge influx of traffic the controversy regarding that review would deliver (which effectively means that you must imagine all reviewers to be corrupt enough to violate the most closely-held tenet of their profession, but at the same time not corrupt enough to stop violating that tenet just long enough to make a lot of money from a controversial review).
I just want to be clear, here: You actually believe that?
Matter of fact is, people have two different ways to find out what ME3 is before they buy it. First, they can read reviews by professional reviewers, which are all gaga over the game, and few even touch on the endings. Or, they can read on the net what others who have played the game thought. These voices are much more mixed - but a very large number of them are disappointed by the ending. With a large discrepancy here, it's not just a question of saying "trust the critics", because the critics don't say the same as what other people say.
Yes. And there are reasons for that. However, those reasons do not include, "Because the random internet people know what they're talking about and professional reviewers are all idiots or corrupt."
When I read a professional review, I know the person writing the review wants me to like the game enough to buy it.
You don't know that. You think that. Probably too much. Some reviewers are (perhaps) altering their reviews to be more flattering to publishers. But others are not. And those others still gave Mass Effect 3 positive reviews.
So please stop. This is just a wildly protracted effort to justify the discrepancies between fan reviews and professional reviews as anything other than the result of what happens when you give anonymous (or nearly-anonymous) internet people the ability to complain freely about things they are passionate about.
Crappy situation, yes, but if you don't assume that today, more fool you. If I read a non-professional review, I have a much better chance of getting a view similar to what I would have gotten myself, if I were the one playing the game.
No, you just have a much better chance of seeing someone give a stellar game a 0/10. Then again, maybe you are one of those people who would give Mass Effect 3 a 0/10. In which case, yes, you are probably getting a more accurate idea of the score you'd give from fan reviews.
That said, I am playing through the game myself. I am very impressed so far. But with something like ME3, Bioware had two jobs. First, they needed to make the showdown with the reapers believable. Second, they needed to make an ending that people could accept. They did okay with the first, and from what I can tell, screwed up the second. We'll see what happens.
I think they probably just need to make a good game. If 99% of the game was perfect and 1% was awful, I am going to have a favorable opinion of that game when I'm done with it, because nothing invalidates the fun I had for those first 49.5 hours.
I really don't pay much attention to what critics, pro or otherwise, think bout a game. I form my own opinions, and whatever some game journalist might have to say doesn't have any bearing on that. Just because a bunch of random strangers write articles telling me a game is good doesn't make it so in my eyes.
Mass Effect 3 is a great game overall, but for me and a large number of other players, the ending is a huge caveat. What we wanted out of the game just wasn't there, and we want those concerns addressed. The video game medium allows for us that want a better ending to potentially get one, while leaving those who like the original ending to keep it. It's a win/win.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I cleaned up some posts. Don't make things personal, and take a deep breath and think things over before posting. Is it really so bad if someone is wrong on the internet?
I removed another post. What did I just say?
(I also removed older posts I missed the first time around.)
Yeah, maybe removing the source post which provoked the other outraged posts is a better solution than just deleting the latter. Which you did, so it's good.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you cannot respond to something civilly, then don't respond. Flag it and move on.
Scott Betts, trust does factor into it. Even the 60+ dollar payment for the game is made on the trust that it isn't going to be a bad experience. Which for the majority of the Single Player was a good one. Expect the last 10 minutes....
It is the lack of feedback and engagement with the community that has taken this to the boycott level. Yes, I will walk from any company or product that does not respond well to consumer feedback. It's one of the reasons I'm here buying Paizo's stuff and not Wizards of the Coast if you get the point. It's also why I no longer buy anything with an Activision stamp on it. I'm also seriously considering walking away from Apple products after more then a decade of use.
You can see this is most acutely in the rather off-hand manner they are treating communication with the multiplayer community. Serious bugs such as locked or reseting characters/equipment are passed off to EA technical support, who then direct us to take it back to the forums, where we are encouraged to take it to tech support. Meanwhile bugs that were noted in the demo period (transactions involving actually money not being completed and vanishing) were not apparently addressed.
It is the lack of engagement, not the overall quality of the Single Player that is the issue. Bioware is not engaging with the community in a satisfactory way. If this trend of silence, evasions, and run-arounds continues, how can anyone trust this won't happen again or worse with their next game(s). Bioware moves from trusted (buy with virtually no question) to wait for a review to do a deep examination of any future material, including bugs and how they are being handled.
Have I not said that I would like more games based in the Mass Effect world. That I would be highly interested in a more refined multiplayer offering? If that didn't get through I will be blunt.
I want another Mass Effect game, Bioware and EA can get their s~$% together and deal with their atrocious PR up to this point. If they cannot do so then I will not trust them to deliver a satisfying product in the future and will look else where.
=====
TL;DR
1) Mass Effect 3 was over all very good.
2) Then ending was not in keeping with game or franchise as a whole.
3) Multiplayer Player is buggy beyond belief, and needs some serious balancing outside of the bugs.
4) Feedback/Criticism is either meet with silence, scorn, evasions, and the occasionally quickly suppressed leak from a sympathetic employee.
2 through 4 are why people are at the point of boycotting Bioware. #4 more so then anything.
Scott Betts, trust does factor into it. Even the 60+ dollar payment for the game is made on the trust that it isn't going to be a bad experience. Which for the majority of the Single Player was a good one. Expect the last 10 minutes....
You can read reviews before playing to get a very good idea of whether or not you'll enjoy the game before playing it. Of course, that only works if you like games that people who earn a livelihood knowing whether games are good or not like. If you like games that are widely considered bad, or if you don't like games that are widely considered good, then yeah, you probably will need to do a little more homework.
I like the fact that come the end, you have tough choices, none of which is ideal or without moral consequences. Real life is (sadly) that way. The whole series was about making tough choices and living with the consequences (I didn't feel railroaded by the forced choice on Vermire--the tone of the endgame is in keeping with the franchise).
Scott Betts, trust does factor into it. Even the 60+ dollar payment for the game is made on the trust that it isn't going to be a bad experience. Which for the majority of the Single Player was a good one. Expect the last 10 minutes....You can read reviews before playing to get a very good idea of whether or not you'll enjoy the game before playing it. Of course, that only works if you like games that people who earn a livelihood knowing whether games are good or not like. If you like games that are widely considered bad, or if you don't like games that are widely considered good, then yeah, you probably will need to do a little more homework.
That's a given on anything if you care about quality or want to avoid certain things. From food, movies, books, medicine, appliances, software(VGs), and beyond. However in those instances you are not trusting what the company or "professional" reviewers are saying about it or based on prior experience. Each time you are approaching it from a stance of distrust.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the fact that come the end, you have tough choices, none of which is ideal or without moral consequences. Real life is (sadly) that way. The whole series was about making tough choices and living with the consequences (I didn't feel railroaded by the forced choice on Vermire--the tone of the endgame is in keeping with the franchise).
Being a tough choice or involving sacrifice isn't the "tone" issue I (and many others) have with the ending. It is more the jump from a fairly grounded, techy sci-fi into kind of a Battlestar Galactica/Matrix mystical sci-fi. Not that there is anything wrong with that type of sci-fi, it just doesn't gel with what I got from the rest of the series. Your Shepard having no control (or even the illusion of control) over the conversation is another tone change, "funneling" you from a branching RPG experience into a completely set scene. Again, not wrong for all stories, but disappointing for a series that constantly presses the idea that you can influence the story.
Perhaps it wouldn't have been so bad if the consequences were explored. However, we really have no indication what actually comes from your choice. Whatever you choose, you get an explosion and... done. So I chose green... is EDI full of meat now? I chose blue... what actually becomes of the reapers? What sort of "Control" is there? Without real explanation of the choices or seeing any differentiated consequences, the whole experience feels very shallow to me.
As a sidenote, on the topic of "tough decisions," am I the only one that noticed Shepard's amazing ability to induce suicide in those around him (possibly heroic sacrifice, possibly just suicide)? I mean, it can be really emotional (see: Tuchunka), but when it happens in about 1/3 of the missions I stop caring. "Oh, another person dying to give us time to escape. That is nice. Pass the tea, please." It is sort of like the "jumping onto the flying spacecraft thing." It was cool once or twice in dire situations, but when Shepard does it all the time I just stop caring.
First off, Shepard finding another way to not do the bidding of those trying to manipulate him is one of the mainstays of the series. Having those three choices with no questioning them, with no way to find a better choice was thematically tone-deaf of the whole series.
Secondly, the Catalyst is a Deus Ex Machina of the worst kind, with almost no thematic connection to the rest of the series. It takes a side plot and suddenly, without setting it up at all, turns it into the main point of the series. And does so incredibly poorly, with the game itself having shown us that the whole reason given by Space Ghost Kid for the Reapers was complete and utter b@!@%**s.
Thirdly, I didn't see Shepard "inducing suicide" with more than Saren and TIM. Other people who sacrificed themselves did it for the cause, because it affirmed some of their life goals, because of themselves.
Thirdly, I didn't see Shepard "inducing suicide" with more than Saren and TIM. Other people who sacrificed themselves did it for the cause, because it affirmed some of their life goals, because of themselves.
I was mostly joking about "inducing suicide." It is more that the writers seem to really, really like using it as a cheap emotional punch. Off the top of my head I can think six suicides due to depression in ME3, three of which are the direct result of what Shepard says (not even including actions he takes). That doesn't include heroic last stands. While such things can be amazing when done right, I felt it was an overused plot device. You can't play your emotional trump card every hand, you know?
I don't know, the one which stayed with me was Mordin. Well, and TIM.
I don't know, the one which stayed with me was Mordin. Well, and TIM.
Oh, I'm not saying ALL of them were terrible. Those two were great. Mordin was probably the best moment of the entire series for me. Don't want to ruin it for people, so...
Maybe if the events had a bit more build up, or the game was a bit longer, it would work more for me. But as it stands, it felt a little... diluted, I guess?
Uh, let's just say that I only do Paragon playthroughs and so I completely missed most of those. You can imagine that I took the Paragon interrupt for Samara.
That's a given on anything if you care about quality or want to avoid certain things. From food, movies, books, medicine, appliances, software(VGs), and beyond. However in those instances you are not trusting what the company or "professional" reviewers are saying about it or based on prior experience. Each time you are approaching it from a stance of distrust.Scott Betts, trust does factor into it. Even the 60+ dollar payment for the game is made on the trust that it isn't going to be a bad experience. Which for the majority of the Single Player was a good one. Expect the last 10 minutes....You can read reviews before playing to get a very good idea of whether or not you'll enjoy the game before playing it. Of course, that only works if you like games that people who earn a livelihood knowing whether games are good or not like. If you like games that are widely considered bad, or if you don't like games that are widely considered good, then yeah, you probably will need to do a little more homework.
Not distrust. Just agnosticism.
By the way, for a rough idea of the ludicrous extreme to which internet people have allowed their heads to explode over Mass Effect 3, EA was just voted the Worst Company in America via a significant online poll.
That's right.
Apparently giving you the option of paying $10 to purchase extra content for a 90+/100 game, and creating a mediocre ending to an otherwise fantastic series makes you worse than a bank that has a storied history of ruining lives, being bailed out by the American people, and defrauding schools and hospitals of millions.
The days of trying to claim that gamers whining on the internet are deserving of your respect and attention are over. Gamers have just made a royal laughing stock out of themselves.
Way to go painting all those not happy with the endings of ME3 as 0/10 ranting, moronic internet idiots, and further generalizing a stupid poll to cover everyone who doesn't agree with you. Oh, and while we're at polls, I distinctly remember you claiming that internet polls are irrelevant.
It's not your views but your methods, Scott. Calm down.
|
By the way, for a rough idea of the ludicrous extreme to which internet people have allowed their heads to explode over Mass Effect 3, EA was just voted the Worst Company in America via a significant online poll.
That's right.
Apparently giving you the option of paying $10 to purchase extra content for a 90+/100 game, and creating a mediocre ending to an otherwise fantastic series makes you worse than a bank that has a storied history of ruining lives, being bailed out by the American people, and defrauding schools and hospitals of millions.
The days of trying to claim that gamers whining on the internet are deserving of your respect and attention are over. Gamers have just made a royal laughing stock out of themselves.
There has got to be some explanation to this? I cant believe ME3 alone caused this to happen.
People have been hating EA for years.
People hated it when EA and Bioware became paired.
ME3 has only a minor amount to do with EA's being voted the worst company in America.
Way to go painting all those not happy with the endings of ME3 as 0/10 ranting, moronic internet idiots, and further generalizing a stupid poll to cover everyone who doesn't agree with you. Oh, and while we're at polls, I distinctly remember you claiming that internet polls are irrelevant.
It's not your views but your methods, Scott. Calm down.
Internet polls are irrelevant, because their selection is awful. They do not generalize to larger populations at all. But the one thing that popular internet polls are good at is measuring the reactions of people on the internet who are motivated enough to bandwagon on a poll!
Besides, the whole point of the Consumerist poll is to take advantage of motivated, angry internet people and find out what they're most motivated and angry about. I'm not criticizing them for their participation in the poll. I'm criticizing them for deciding that a video game company that's done nothing to harm them or the American people is a worse company than Bank of America.
As for "painting" anyone anything, these people are constantly trying to speak for you. They're the ones talking about how "everyone" thinks ME3 sucked. Denounce them. Distance yourself from their insane vitriol. Adopt a reasonable stance that recognizes nuance. If you refuse to do these things, what complaint can you have to being lumped in with the rest of the internet crazies?
There has got to be some explanation to this? I cant believe ME3 alone caused this to happen.By the way, for a rough idea of the ludicrous extreme to which internet people have allowed their heads to explode over Mass Effect 3, EA was just voted the Worst Company in America via a significant online poll.
That's right.
Apparently giving you the option of paying $10 to purchase extra content for a 90+/100 game, and creating a mediocre ending to an otherwise fantastic series makes you worse than a bank that has a storied history of ruining lives, being bailed out by the American people, and defrauding schools and hospitals of millions.
The days of trying to claim that gamers whining on the internet are deserving of your respect and attention are over. Gamers have just made a royal laughing stock out of themselves.
EA has a history of doing stuff like the things that happened in ME3. Their reputation with the gaming community is not great.
That said, the worst thing they've ever done is charge some extra money for some content. The internet hordes, however, have decided that this makes them worse than BofA.
Go figure.
Bank of America is only a vile plague upon the USA. They are virtually unknown elsewhere. EA is a worldwide known bad company.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never claimed that EA are monsters, or participated in any poll about EA, or gave ME3 a 0/10 review. Don't keep saying or implying I did. Don't lump me with anyone. My view is, as I stated, that making a pissy ending does have an effect on the lasting impression of a game series. I think we haven't seen the last word in this. It will be interesting to see what they do about it. I have also been arguing against your professed stance that if the critics like a game, everyone should just accept and suck up their verdict because professional critics are Right. It is just as "crazy" an opinion as what "the internet crazies" say. Sane, balanced views are a good idea for everyone, not just for those who argue against you, Scott.
Bank of America is only a vile plague upon the USA. They are virtually unknown elsewhere. EA is a worldwide known bad company.
You're seriously trying to defend the idea that EA deserves this more than BofA?
I never claimed that EA are monsters, or participated in any poll about EA, or gave ME3 a 0/10 review. Don't keep saying or implying I did. Don't lump me with anyone. My view is, as I stated, that making a pissy ending does have an effect on the lasting impression of a game series. I think we haven't seen the last word in this. It will be interesting to see what they do about it. I have also been arguing against your professed stance that if the critics like a game, everyone should just accept and suck up their verdict because professional critics are Right. It is just as "crazy" an opinion as what "the internet crazies" say.
I make it a personal policy to defer to the judgment of professionals over the judgment of angry people on the internet.
Here's an interesting question, however; you state that the ending of Mass Effect 3 has a negative effect on the entire game, causing it to deserve a lower rating than a bad ending alone would suggest. Does it have a negative effect on the entire series, then? If you were to review Mass Effect 1, or Mass Effect 2, today, knowing how the series will end, would they receive a lower score? They really ought to, right? In order to be consistent? If a bad ending can stretch back through time to ruin your last 40 hours of play, what's to stop it from retroactively ruining the 40 hours of play you spent on the game before that? Or the game before that?