We need to end these apologist review scores - especially ME3!

I had a discussion with a friend about a year ago, I said that there still has not been a definitive story told in video games. There has been nothing comparable Moby Dick, or Citizens Kane. Video games are still in their infancy as a story telling medium but to date video game stories are terrible.

I thought Mass Effect 1 was amazing, the game play was lacking but I felt the the effort was put forth to create something that transcended the game. I thought maybe it could become like the original start trek series, not a great show but the beginning of an idea, an intellectual property that has lasted almost 45 years. Then came Mass Effect 2 and 3, the Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions of the series.

Mass Effect 3 is terrible. The action is boring and rote. Incomprehensibly, faceless Cerberus shows up at every mission to create a Horde mode level, the story is dumb, and yet, rave reviews everywhere. Please, Please, reviewers, start holding games to a higher standard. Judge them for what they really are and not what you were hoping them to be. Force developers to give us something more, something better. I'm getting tired of paying $60 for games that are devoid of creativity and are simply mass market checklist products. Maybe I'm the minority but my desire to play these products is waning. Maybe I am just asking for too much. What do you think?

Have you read Jeff's review?

Mass Effect 3 is great.

3.5 million copies on it's debut says it's a hit. So yes, you are in the minority. Next time rent the game first.

Eh, I'm liking ME3 so far. So difference in opinion, though you stated your reasons as fact. Also, you have an icon from Ninja Gaiden 2, which... well yeah. I think it speaks for itself.

I love Mass Effect 3 (expect for the ending). You say its terrible I say its good. I even know some people that think Mass Effect 1 was a terrible game.

So, the point I'm trying to make is OPINIONS!

We need to end bitching about "Scores" and read more.

@Brodehouse said:

Mass Effect 3 is great.

I'd be hesitatnt to say it's great, but it's certainly a solid "good." As a standalone title ME3 would be a much better game than when put up against the backdrop of the trilogy.

I'm not going to start picking on other mediums for lacking values found elsewhere. "Oh, video games are so far incapable of delivering world class stories, alongside genre defining gameplay? How dour."
 
If that's your reaction, then maybe you would find books to be suitable. In any case, I fucking loved the donkey balls out of ME3, horrid ending included. So, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
 
If you can't enjoy things for what they are, that's more of a "you" thing then a "they" thing. It's never a good thing to point out "I do not like this game, but it's definitely not my fault, it's someone else' fault".

Spent 21 hours with mass effect 20 hours and 50 minutes was great. Full of emotion, good writing, some incredible moments and overall a whole bunch of fun.

I thought everything leading up to the ending in Mass Effect 3 was pretty awesome. It was the most fun I have had with a Mass Effect game.

Mass Effect 2 is equal to the Matrix Reloaded? Really? The original Mass Effect was crap, it was completely unplayable. The story was cool but the action was such a drag to get through that by the time it was over, I was happy to move on with my life

I think we need to stop comparing games to other mediums quite so closely. If we compare games to movies and books on story alone, then yes games are at a disadvantage. If we add in the interactive element, games can be amazing.

3.5 million copies on it's debut says it's a hit. So yes, you are in the minority. Next time rent the game first.

I agree with the others, I loved every moment of Mass Effect 3, up until that little platform raised Shepard up...

Of course, I don't agree with others saying that such amazing stories can't happen. Yes, with regards to story, we probably are still waiting. Who knows if we'll ever get it? Maybe games are different, maybe our most epic tales will be more like Shadow of the Colossus than Mass Effect. I guess you could say that this is how I feel.

Also, I think that Metal Gear Solid 3 is one of the greatest stories ever told. So, there's that.

@Humanity said:

@Brodehouse said:

Mass Effect 3 is great.

I'd be hesitatnt to say it's great, but it's certainly a solid "good." As a standalone title ME3 would be a much better game than when put up against the backdrop of the trilogy.

I'm with you. Mass Effect 3 has a lot of great improvements in there (the combat variety, your party member interactions, iotas of fan-service-y moments, dozens of refinements all around, turning Kaiden into a surprisingly cool fella), but then there's also a barrel full of bollocks that pulls it all down (lackluster side stuff, face importing problems, Shepard apparently now becoming his own 'character' limiting your dialogue options, the ending [of course] and the fact that none of your decisions don't have any influence towards the actual ending Earth battle) leaving ME3 as a bit of a black spot for the series. Of course it's still a really fun game, but in comparison to the first two, there's so many more negatives that have to weigh against the positive.

One more thing I've recently discovered, and hated ME3 for it, is how they don't have any Garrus/Tali replacements for your party. They saw fit to replace every other character from ME2 with some alternative should they of died, yet if Garrus and/or Tali died, then you're potentially instead stuck with a 4 man party (they didn't for my main, but I specifically had them die in ME2 with another just to see the repercussions). Obviously creating two new party members required more time than editing in some generic replacement for the ME2 party-member-turned-NPCs, but they should of put in the effort and given Garrus and Tali the same courtesy. I mean practically everyone in this Galaxy seemingly has a back-up ready in waiting to replace them should they die. I laughed out loud playing through a different Shepard where I decided to sacrifice the original council during ME instead, only to find that they pretty much cloned them for ME3 just with different voice actors.

@NTM: I lol'd

@logicbombx said:

I'm getting tired of paying $60 for games that are devoid of creativity and are simply mass market checklist products. Maybe I'm the minority but my desire to play these products is waning. Maybe I am just asking for too much. What do you think?

This is what people want. New IPs do not sell as well as established ones. You want something different, then people have to start supporting new ideas, but when a new game costs $60 and you don't have a lot of money are you going to go buy a game like Mass Effect 3 that you know will be pretty good based on the previous 2 games, or you going to risk your money and buy something unique like Asura's Wrath? It's cheaper and more profitable for companies to re-use assets from previous games. So don't blame the reviewers for saying "Hey this game is good, even if it is like the previous ones". Instead blame the companies that make them and your fellow gamers (including me).

If you are saying Mass Effect 3 is an awful game, then I have to disagree. I have enjoyed the 20+ hours I have put into this game. There are a lot worse games out there.

Does it feel stale? Yes to some degree

Do I want to stop playing it....nope.

@Brodehouse said:

Mass Effect 3 is great.

I'd be hesitatnt to say it's great, but it's certainly a solid "good." As a standalone title ME3 would be a much better game than when put up against the backdrop of the trilogy.

@Brodehouse said:

@Humanity

@Brodehouse said:

Mass Effect 3 is great.

I'd be hesitatnt to say it's great, but it's certainly a solid "good." As a standalone title ME3 would be a much better game than when put up against the backdrop of the trilogy.

I tend to be more positive about games in general than some of the people in community. Mass Effect 3 is almost incredible but the ending and the side missions/scanning is bad, so that knocks it down to great. It's also how I feel about the original. I guess four stars would be great. 3 is good, and 5 is incredible. 2 is bad and 1 is terrible. Mass Effect 2 on the other hand is incredible.

There weren't enough new elements added to the formula for me to reach the same wow factor as the previous two games did. That has been a running motif with most major titles lately and I was hoping ME3 would avoid it. Gears 3, AC Revelations, Uncharted 3, Arkham City to a lesser degree, they were all games I enjoyed to varying degrees this year but couldn't shake the feeling that apart from a new story I wasn't getting anything new. It used to be a standard that when new titles came out you expected awesome new guns, armor or abilities. Now the focus has shifted to a great new story with the same gameply elements. I've played an Adept through all the ME games and my set of powers basically has not changed, and thats a shame.

So yah it's a good game for me, but I feel that when you have a third game on your hands, especially a conclusion to a long running series like Mass Effect, you need to put in a little more.

Read don't look at just the score.

@Brodehouse said:

@Humanity

@Brodehouse said:

Mass Effect 3 is great.

I'd be hesitatnt to say it's great, but it's certainly a solid "good." As a standalone title ME3 would be a much better game than when put up against the backdrop of the trilogy.

I tend to be more positive about games in general than some of the people in community. Mass Effect 3 is almost incredible but the ending and the side missions/scanning is bad, so that knocks it down to great. It's also how I feel about the original. I guess four stars would be great. 3 is good, and 5 is incredible. 2 is bad and 1 is terrible. Mass Effect 2 on the other hand is incredible.

It's "good" in my opinion. Comparable to other games out there, it really does a lot and the writing goes above and beyond others. Comparable to the rest of the series? It's only mediocre. I'll agree though that ME2 was incredible.

@logicbombx said:

I had a discussion with a friend about a year ago, I said that there still has not been a definitive story told in video games. There has been nothing comparable Moby Dick, or Citizens Kane. Video games are still in their infancy as a story telling medium but to date video game stories are terrible.

I thought Mass Effect 1 was amazing, the game play was lacking but I felt the the effort was put forth to create something that transcended the game. I thought maybe it could become like the original start trek series, not a great show but the beginning of an idea, an intellectual property that has lasted almost 45 years. Then came Mass Effect 2 and 3, the Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions of the series.

Stop. Right. Fucking. There.

The only important thing is your own opinion.

PS I don't know you well, but I'm assuming you've a) never read Moby Dick, and b) never seen Citizen Kane. Those are played-out comparisons that people need to stop making.

@BrockNRolla said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Humanity

@Brodehouse said:

Mass Effect 3 is great.

I'd be hesitatnt to say it's great, but it's certainly a solid "good." As a standalone title ME3 would be a much better game than when put up against the backdrop of the trilogy.

I tend to be more positive about games in general than some of the people in community. Mass Effect 3 is almost incredible but the ending and the side missions/scanning is bad, so that knocks it down to great. It's also how I feel about the original. I guess four stars would be great. 3 is good, and 5 is incredible. 2 is bad and 1 is terrible. Mass Effect 2 on the other hand is incredible.

It's "good" in my opinion. Comparable to other games out there, it really does a lot and the writing goes above and beyond others. Comparable to the rest of the series? It's only mediocre. I'll agree though that ME2 was incredible.

ME2's suicide mission on its own trumps everything in ME3 I think. God fucking dammit, I loved that part! One of the few moments in the series where your choices actually mattered. Sure, it was super easy to determine who needed to do what, but it was an adrenaline rush all the same from start to finish.

@Liquidus said:

@logicbombx said:

Then came Mass Effect 2 and 3, the Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions of the series.

Stop. Right. Fucking. There.

I know, Reloaded and Revolutions are great. I mean, they're like a modern day "Citizens Kane."

I'd say Jeff is in the minority amongst his peers in terms of honesty and perspective.

@Abyssfull said:

@BrockNRolla said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Humanity

@Brodehouse said:

Mass Effect 3 is great.

I'd be hesitatnt to say it's great, but it's certainly a solid "good." As a standalone title ME3 would be a much better game than when put up against the backdrop of the trilogy.

I tend to be more positive about games in general than some of the people in community. Mass Effect 3 is almost incredible but the ending and the side missions/scanning is bad, so that knocks it down to great. It's also how I feel about the original. I guess four stars would be great. 3 is good, and 5 is incredible. 2 is bad and 1 is terrible. Mass Effect 2 on the other hand is incredible.

It's "good" in my opinion. Comparable to other games out there, it really does a lot and the writing goes above and beyond others. Comparable to the rest of the series? It's only mediocre. I'll agree though that ME2 was incredible.

ME2's suicide mission on its own trumps everything in ME3 I think. God fucking dammit, I loved that part! One of the few moments in the series where your choices actually mattered. Sure, it was super easy to determine who needed to do what, but it was an adrenaline rush all the same from start to finish.

ME2 overall was such a thrill ride from start to finish. The whole intro with you getting blown up and getting stitched back together, you get a whole new ship with a new paint job and everything. You gather a team and really delve into their personal stories making characters you didn't even like, that much more memorable (I never even used Jacob once but his loyalty mission on that planet with his dad is AMAZING) Seeing how great ME2 was about all it's content - hell even the planet scanning wasn't THAT bad in my opinion and it made sense in the grand scheme of things - it makes me wonder how come they didn't make ME3 like that or even better? Was ME2 just a fluke for them, was it the time, did they change key designers and writers?

@Brodehouse said:

Mass Effect 3 is great.

This.

@Humanity said:

@Abyssfull said:

@BrockNRolla said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Humanity

@Brodehouse said:

Mass Effect 3 is great.

I'd be hesitatnt to say it's great, but it's certainly a solid "good." As a standalone title ME3 would be a much better game than when put up against the backdrop of the trilogy.

I tend to be more positive about games in general than some of the people in community. Mass Effect 3 is almost incredible but the ending and the side missions/scanning is bad, so that knocks it down to great. It's also how I feel about the original. I guess four stars would be great. 3 is good, and 5 is incredible. 2 is bad and 1 is terrible. Mass Effect 2 on the other hand is incredible.

It's "good" in my opinion. Comparable to other games out there, it really does a lot and the writing goes above and beyond others. Comparable to the rest of the series? It's only mediocre. I'll agree though that ME2 was incredible.

ME2's suicide mission on its own trumps everything in ME3 I think. God fucking dammit, I loved that part! One of the few moments in the series where your choices actually mattered. Sure, it was super easy to determine who needed to do what, but it was an adrenaline rush all the same from start to finish.

ME2 overall was such a thrill ride from start to finish. The whole intro with you getting blown up and getting stitched back together, you get a whole new ship with a new paint job and everything. You gather a team and really delve into their personal stories making characters you didn't even like, that much more memorable (I never even used Jacob once but his loyalty mission on that planet with his dad is AMAZING) Seeing how great ME2 was about all it's content - hell even the planet scanning wasn't THAT bad in my opinion and it made sense in the grand scheme of things - it makes me wonder how come they didn't make ME3 like that or even better? Was ME2 just a fluke for them, was it the time, did they change key designers and writers?

The fact that "planet scanning" is one of the great criticisms of ME2 is evidence of just how fantastic the game was. Maybe it was just a lightning strike.

First of all, I wouldn't look to a big Sci-Fi franchise for gaming's "Moby Dick" or other equivalent to a work of great literature. The Mass Effect series is closer to a well-written sci-fi action/adventure series of books than anything that deep. You can't blame it for that.

I will say that I can understand why someone would enjoy Mass Effect 1 over the sequels. There was much more of a sense of a living breathing universe to explore back when you would just go down to random planets and find a thresher maw or some abandoned science outpost or whatever. In the sequels it feels like more attention was given to making sure the action sequences were more in line with the way they are in modern games, and less attention was given to making them fit into the world in an organic and interesting way (With small random encampments mixed in with the bigger stuff.) That's not to say it's the wrong choice, but it's definitely a choice that puts off some people.

@UlquioKani said:

I think we need to stop comparing games to other mediums quite so closely. If we compare games to movies and books on story alone, then yes games are at a disadvantage. If we add in the interactive element, games can be amazing.

I agree. Player agency and interactivity in games allow for emergent narratives that is unique to the medium.

Quite often the best game stories are the ones I'm making up in my own head. When I play Minecraft for example I'm essentially play acting my own version of gilligan's island, it's great that games allow me to do that.

Otherwise I'm just in it for the mechanics and treat everything around it simply as atmospheric garnish. Hence why I love old school Japanese arcade games however retarded the story or design.

If ME3 was a chick, I'd do her. After that, take her out to a nice lobster dinner and then never call her back.

I'd agree with the notion that ME3 certainly got too much praise from reviewers. Same with ME2 ... and many other hyped games.

I wish people would stop using Citizen Kane, that movie was boring.

@ShadowSkill11 said:

3.5 million copies on it's debut says it's a hit. So yes, you are in the minority. Next time rent the game first.

i don't care at all about mass effect 3 but man, that's a quote for the wall. so the $250 million dollar gross makes "grown-ups" a great movie? am i getting this right? then avatar is the best movie EVER MADE based on your statement. and you know what? it wasn't great at all. if you're buying and playing games based on the number of units they're selling then i'm super sorry for you. like, really super sorry.

I thought Mass Effect 1 was amazing, the game play was lacking but I felt the the effort was put forth to create something that transcended the game. I thought maybe it could become like the original start trek series, not a great show but the beginning of an idea, an intellectual property that has lasted almost 45 years. Then came Mass Effect 2 and 3, the Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions of the series.

That can't be right because I loved Mass Effect more than Mass Effect: Reloaded.

Mass Effect: Revolution I have yet to play.

I agree with most of the reviews. Mass Effect 3 is an awesome game, well deserving of the praise it's getting.

These topics are so freaking idiotic, no disrespect. I'm tired of people expecting video games to tell a tale equal to classic literature. There is nothing new under the sun. We are just finding new ways to tell the same stories over and over and over and over and over...You obviously didn't read Jeff's reviews but I'll rebut you anyway.

I do not think the combat is boring. You just complain about ME's wave style combat when you have a freaking Ninja Gaiden image for your avatar? lol worthy. Here's why Mass Effect was not amazing:

- Terrible Inventory

- Terrible Combat

- Terrible UI

- Terrible graphics and use of the graphics engine (when the graphics don't load for an entire cutscene at times then there is a serious problem)

- Terrible vehicle controls

- Bad boss battles

- Broken class structure and leveling

- Boring, uninspired, and intelligible loot system

I understand people being upset over certain aspects of the game, but honestly this is the same thing that happens with almost every major release these days. I wish the galaxy map was better but its fine. I wish some of the handling of characters was better, but its just OK and really doesn't even need to be in there but for certain characters I am glad there is some kind of resolution. I know there are people who think 2 is worse than 1 but they are wrong: the game play is better, the writing is better, and the story is equal or better than 1. If you want people to take you or your arguments seriously you might want to dial back the hyperbole. Comparing ME2 and 3 to the last 2 Matrix movies is laughable.

Does Mass Effect 3 exceed its predecessor? In the story department no, but the combat is improved and more enjoyable. ME3 is however better than even Mass Effect 1 and creates a world and a story better than most games released.

Games can still offer great stories but I can't help but think it is a tad pretentious and absurd to hope for stories rivaling classic literature. Maybe people should...read more...and stop expecting video games to take the role of actually reading. Games are there for one thing first and foremost...interaction and the story ALWAYS comes second, no matter how good or bad that is.

Also, we need to end people bitching about review scores.

Citizens Kane

I haven't quite finished it yet, so take this with a pinch of salt, but I've seen enough to know I'm torn on it and that it's a very hard game to review.  I think it's a good game on its own merits (not amazing), but I think it's underwhelming as the conclusion to the Mass Effect trilogy (both of which I think need to be taken into consideration).  However, I think a lot of the blame for this lies with Mass Effect 2.  I loved ME2, but even then I felt like they were developing themselves into an incredibly tight spot for ME3.  ME3 really suffers as a result of some of the same decisions which made ME2 great.
 
It's weird you know, because I think Mass Effect 2 is comfortably the best game in the trilogy overall, but I think it's also the most to blame for fucking the trilogy up. It didn't cover enough ground as a second act, it left Mass Effect 3 with far too much story to cover, and the decision to make everybody killable in ME2 (which helped make that a great game) just looks reckless when viewed through the prism of ME3.

@Brodehouse said:

Mass Effect 3 is great.

I do find it weird that reviewers are usually way more positive about blockbuster games than the target audience is. You would expect actual critics to be more critical than the typical consumer about a product, like you see in other entertainment industries such as movies and music. I believe I saw an interview by Jaffe yesterday where he also calls reviewers out on this. Most reviewers are fans, and not critics.

Games like Skyrim, Modern Warfare, Uncharted 3 and Mass Effect 3 have tons of fans, but also a lot of people that have some very insightful reasons why they didn't like it so much. These games got almost unanimous praise among critics, while the gaming public is way more devided. I don't know why this discrepency exists, but I would like to see more critical reviews. I want to see reviewers that really like a game and tell us about the positives, and I want to see reviewers that didn't like the game so much with their negatives.

The Mass Effect 3 review on giantbomb was the most critical reviews I read on this game, and I applaud Jeff for giving us a counter to all the praise.

oh look! Another thread complaining about a big hyped game! YOU GO GIRL!

@logicbombx said:

I had a discussion with a friend about a year ago, I said that there still has not been a definitive story told in video games. There has been nothing comparable Moby Dick, or Citizens Kane. Video games are still in their infancy as a story telling medium but to date video game stories are terrible.

I thought Mass Effect 1 was amazing, the game play was lacking but I felt the the effort was put forth to create something that transcended the game. I thought maybe it could become like the original start trek series, not a great show but the beginning of an idea, an intellectual property that has lasted almost 45 years. Then came Mass Effect 2 and 3, the Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions of the series.

Mass Effect 3 is terrible. The action is boring and rote. Incomprehensibly, faceless Cerberus shows up at every mission to create a Horde mode level, the story is dumb, and yet, rave reviews everywhere. Please, Please, reviewers, start holding games to a higher standard. Judge them for what they really are and not what you were hoping them to be. Force developers to give us something more, something better. I'm getting tired of paying $60 for games that are devoid of creativity and are simply mass market checklist products. Maybe I'm the minority but my desire to play these products is waning. Maybe I am just asking for too much. What do you think?

I completely agree with you; especially with your analogy to the Matrix series. I... haven't played ME3 yet, but that's because I don't want to spend 60 bucks for this game after what I've been hearing about it. My main gripe with the series is that it went from ME1's fantastical voyage of possibly discovering more about the universe or what lay beyond the galaxy -- to focusing entirely on the characters of the game... none of which I'm the least bit interested in besides Saren, Tali, and (ME1)Liara. I feel better just imagining the series ended with 1. I'll still play ME3, but not at full price.

edit: Actually, the original Matrix does kinda suck pretty hard after a recent viewing, but besides that the analogy holds up.

edit 2: The terminator end boss of ME2 is not equal to speaking with an ancient Prothean AI, making an epic escape to a lost Mass Relay, and then fucking crashing your Ford on the citadel, only to climb to the pinnacle of the Citadel with a giant reaper in the background, and then shooting your nemesis in the god damn face, and then making him shoot himself in the face in ME1. Fuck.

What's so great about Moby Dick and Citizen Kane?

@SASnake said:

oh look! Another thread complaining about a big hyped game! YOU GO GIRL!

He's a revolutionary mind! doing things the rest of the world should be in awe of. come closer....some say.....he's read moby dick.

@Nottle said:

What's so great about Moby Dick and Citizen Kane?

This, back in the day they may have been 'good'. However, compared to even the crappiest of movies and books, they are not good even in the slightest sense.

Video games have already had HUNDREDS of video games which have amazing stories in them. Denying all them saying that other mediums are still better without even looking makes you a worse person than Roger Ebert.

In fact, I am willing to bet my own manhood that if Citizens Kane and Moby Dick were turned into choice filled video games, they would be infinitely better than the movies or books. The interactive element in video games makes them better than most mediums by default of the fact that YOU are the one in the control.

MGS games, Alan Wake, Enslaved, Assassins creed series, Deus ex series, I have no mouth and I must scream, Dead space series, Castlevania lords of shadows, Batman games, Deadly premontion, Fallout new vegas+all the dlcs for it. Fallout 3 the pitt dlc, Metro 2033, Mafia 2, RDR, GTA4+dlcs. Many many more are amazing video games not just for the gameplay, but because of the stories they tell within them. If these games didn't have stories. They wouldn't be worth playing at all. They would be shit. But since they exist, they prove that this medium is a storytelling one and anyone who denies that denies the reality of what video games have become.

The thing we ME3 is. The developer is in control, not you, who they had promised that they would bring your choices out and actually matter. That was a lie. Completely, Bioware is a horrid company, Hell, I do not blame EA for this, because if EA had the choice, they would not have the game out until the ending was actually good. All the blame goes to Bioware for being dumbasses and not understanding story structure of what a ending is supposed to be.