Mass Effect 3 is an action junk game that is nothing more than a means to entertain peoples virtual love interests. The writing is cheap Hollywood junk, the mechanics of the game are a cheap arcade thriller and the development and decision system is like a road that splits and turns back in on itself. The original may have been a good start, but they went down hill after. Nothing wrong with you liking it, but liking it doesn't make it quality.
Now, now... no need to praise such examples of shame of humanity with such sugary language and compliments.
Originally Posted by LordCrash
And you not liking doesn't make it less quality.
I think the writing is decent, the mechanics fun, the decisions engaging. Now what? Opinions, opnions... Don't mistake opinions for facts.
Heh. heh. heh...
If only you had a brain to understand what you just said... but, of course, if you had one you wouldnt be saying hilarious stuff like that.
What, you are everyone? And how stupid do you have to be to think i actually would? Oh noo, you didnt think that, right? You just said that to... what... hurt my feelings? maybe you should tell me how you put me on ignore again.
:lol:
Im not sure that me laughing at you for being a simpleton will make you feel better, so you better stick to something else.
Mass Effect 3 is an action junk game that is nothing more than a means to entertain peoples virtual love interests. The writing is cheap Hollywood junk, the mechanics of the game are a cheap arcade thriller and the development and decision system is like a road that splits and turns back in on itself. The original may have been a good start, but they went down hill after. Nothing wrong with you liking it, but liking it doesn't make it quality.
And you not liking doesn't make it less quality. I think the writing is decent, the mechanics fun, the decisions engaging. Now what? Opinions, opnions...
Don't mistake opinions for facts.
But yes, Mass Effect is indeed an "action" game. Nobody denied that. There is nothing wrong with making an action game. But haters gonna hate anyway.
The writing was bland, over used and common to the B budget action Hollywood movie script. The mechanics were pointless. You run in, cover... shoot... cover... shoot... cover... shoot. Over and over and over. The mechanics were generic like every other console trash game out there. Character development was dumbed down, and meaningless. You could click randomly and still have no problems with the game. The decisions? Really? Did you ever reload decisions to see how sub decisions and large decisions played out? Yeah..., they all ended up with the same basic result.
The first game, even the second to an extent had different results for the decisions you made. Your story was affected by the decisions. Mass 3 was an on rails kiddie ride. Sure, if you like to watch cut scenes, it can be entertaining, but it isn't a game, it was a gimmick that is all so common to console game. Yes, that is right... Mass 3 was a console game, not a PC game. It was designed for the console crowd in every way shape and form.
The game was garbage and one of the key examples used to show the decline of gaming in general. You liked it, great!! A guilty pleasure, but don't try and fool yourself that there is quality in that title.
The game was garbage and one of the key examples used to show the decline of gaming in general. You liked it, great!! A guilty pleasure, but don't try and fool yourself that there is quality in that title.
Presumably you have a huge list of PC games that all of this doesn't apply to just as much, lending creedence to your claim that this is a console problem?
The only games I can remember having played in a long time that weren't ostentisbly "on rails" as much as the mass effect games were has been some of Jeff Vogel's various projects, and even then just the better ones.
The game was garbage and one of the key examples used to show the decline of gaming in general. You liked it, great!! A guilty pleasure, but don't try and fool yourself that there is quality in that title.
Presumably you have a huge list of PC games that all of this doesn't apply to just as much, lending creedence to your claim that this is a console problem?
The only games I can remember having played in a long time that weren't ostentisbly "on rails" as much as the mass effect games were has been some of Jeff Vogel's various projects, and even then just the better ones.
D:OS does even better than Mass 3 in the sub choice area. There are many decisions you make in the game that result in a completely different outcome. Now, you can argue that the consequence to the overall story isn't changed, that I still have yet to determine. That said, D:OS was marketed as a spiritual successor to Ultima VII and it did a excellent job living up to that.
Mass effect 3 prided itself on being a story driven decision making game with all the consequences and benefits of such decisions. Heck, it even has a good/evil system that was supposed to layer an additional effect of play. The original game did a fair job of trying to hold to this. It actually attempted to be what it marketed itself as. Mass 3 was just a gimmick action game.
Now, if they would have marketed it as just an action game with some minor RPG components, I doubt I would have much of a problem. Even Dragon Age 2 if marketed as just an "action game" would have been fine. Thing is, they took games that had a specific RPG direction and simply turned them into action games with gimmick RPG features. It is much like they did with Fallout 3, destroying a PC RPG franchise by turning it into an action game.
The point is, on-rails is a very important objection to a game that was designed against that very premise. So another game that doesn't make that its main focus being on-rails isn't as detrimental as a game like Mass 3 which was centered completely around it as its sub genre.
I dare to say that I'm not satisfied with this review. Not because of the score but because the reviewer criticises stuff that is imo just ridiculous...
Wow, we must have played two completely different games then. Hey, but on the other hand: what to expect from someone who gave XCOM EU a 7/10, 19% below the metacritic average and the only yellow review for the game (besides 56 green ones)??? To each their own I guess but it's kind of sad for Larian that this reviews show up on metacritic among the first (at least he gave D:OS 10% more than XCOM)...
While being quite honest and to the point, the final verdict just indicates another "genre review".
I fear we will see much more "genre reviews" putting D:OS in strict (C)RPG categories and punishing it for "minor" weaknesses that were never the focus of the devs for this game...
Personally, I think 7/10 is generous, mostly gained because of the enjoyable combat. Writing/story/quests is like a 4/10.
Right....
By that definition XCOM Enemy Within would be a straight 5/10 because:
9/10 for enjoyable combat 1/10 for story/writing/missions
Glady most professional reviews tend to avoid these category traps nowadays, although you still often see these biased opinions...
As much as I loved games like the BG series the writing/story wasn't even better. BG2 was the typical chosen one story which was also strictly linear after act 2 and completely linear in ToB. DA:O just as BG2 was a generic chosen one story with a minor twist in the middle and that was it. Heck the main villain was completely void of anything and could have been just as easily a giant lego brick, unlike Irenicus/Melissan for example who had some depth at least. I could go on and bash any great game but I think I made my point.
DA:O just as BG2 was a generic chosen one story with a minor twist in the middle and that was it. Heck the main villain was completely void of anything and could have been just as easily a giant lego brick, unlike Irenicus/Melissan for example who had some depth at least. I could go on and bash any great game but I think I made my point.