Geneaux486

I don't know what Call for Communication is but i'm sure it's terribly relevant. Retake ME3 is about 50,000 people who think Bioware owes them free ending-altering DLC. I'm not bunching anyone into any group, I'm talking about groups that have already bunched themselves. If people who dislike the game aren't demanding a new ending, then you can safely assume I'm not accusing them of self-entitlement. Looking at my intial post that you responded to, I even specified that I was talking about people demanding a new ending.

Heh, the upside is that if anyone can hash out short-order endings and make them good, Bioware's got the best chance of being that. And your avatar... what is she planning... No one's arguing that it is. Demanding a new ending is entitlement, and it's the backbone of the retake ME3 movement. So it's actually you who is wrong.

Handing creative control over to an angry internet mob? Sure, great precedent to set. But hey, the fans deserve it, seeing as how they've been so pleasant about this whole thing >_>

Yup, noticed the signature pretty quickly.

Chuck, it probably took me way too long to realize you're Bullseye. Good to see ya! I wonder who else changed their name while I was gone.

Yeah. I can understand why people didn't like the ending (sort of), but to say that the outcry over it is proof that the ending is factually bad gives internet mob mentality way more credit than it deserves.

ftfy I don't approve of demanding a new ending to starting lawsuits. However I don't think the "whining" should go unnoticed. When so many customers are upset about your product, you did something wrong. That is my point. The logical fallacy of the majority automatically being right aside, no one's saying they shouldn't be unnoticed. They should be acknowleged, challenged, and disproven. Yep.

This just about sums it up for me: http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/03/16

It's not whining all of a sudden, it's been whining the whole time. Demanding a new ending where one isn't needed and trying to strongarm average user ratings down (in most cases ONLY because of the ending) is within their rights as consumers, but it's also in our right to call it what it is. Not only would that be a terrible idea, but it would also set a terrible precedent. Mob mentality forcing artists to alter their works after the fact? This whole thing has gotten fucking stupid. Also, this: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/03/17/mass-effect-3-ending-fighter-goes-to-the-ftc.aspx Did someone from Bioware put a gun to this guy's head and force him to purchase Mass Effect 3?

Yeah, everyone acts like the common sense response is to hate the endings. It isn't.

Is it weird that I read this in Legion's voice?

Then compare reviews. It doesn't make sense for the comparison to take place in one specific game's review.

Not in individual reviews they shouldn't. There are too many variables that factor into what makes for a good game, which is why a review of one specific game should be based on that game alone, on what it brings to the table.

It's not a matter of opinion. If you're factoring in the quality of other games, then you're not rating the game based on its own merit, on the unique experience that specific game offers. A score should be determined by how well that specific game is put together, not whether or not some other game did it better. Like I said, there are perfect scores, but no perfect games, so logically we can infer that the two are not synonymous. I give this post a 9/10.

Yes, that is how a rating system should work. There's no such thing as a perfect game, but there is such a thing as a perfect score. If two games produce the same level of enjoyment for a reviewer, but one is longer than the other, does the longer one deserve a higher score because it has more content? No. Scores should be assigned based on the individual game's merit, excluding outside influences. Along with that, the reviewer should provide a detailed description as to why he or she gave it that score, that way you know what the reviewer was looking for in a game, and you can know if you look for the same thing in a game. A critic shouldn't base their opinion on other people's opinions. I've read countless arguments for why the endings are bad, so I have ignored nothing. Yet most complaints are easily refuted by the content of the game itself, or the complaints are with the tone of the ending, or the manner in which it was presented, which doesn't automatically have anything to do with whether or not it is bad. But again, I've been over all of that in previous posts, so basically the short answer here is no, I do not think it is odd at all that 14 or so impartial reviewers would have positive opinions about this game's narrative from start to finish. Basically, read a summary of why a particular score was given. Odds are if it's a professional review, they won't outright lie about the game's content (they can't get away with it), so read why they rated it so highly. If they say that they thouroughly enjoyed the story from start to finish, then that's probably the truth. Hell, I shelled out 80 bucks for the game and I'm fully satisfied even halfway through new game plus.

I hope you do.

Correct, there is no such thing as a perfect game, so logically we can assume that a perfect score doesn't mean it's a perfect game, just that it's probably as good as it can be, or that the reviewer recieved full enjoyment from the experience, or found no outstandingly horrible flaws. Mass Effect 3 deserves such a score. The DLC is supplimentary content and should not factor into a review of the game itself. Even if it did, the fact that it's Day 1 DLC has nothing to do with the quality of Mass Effect 3. The endings should be included, but you say that as though it is proven fact that the ending is bad. It is not. The ending is actually quite good, and I've layed out the reasons for why that is a completely valid opinion several times over now in spoiler tags, so I won't waste anyone's time repeating myself. Point is, it is entierly possible to play through this game from start to finish, see the ending, and sincerely give this game a ten out of ten. The loudest opinion isn't automatically the most accurate one. A lot of people genuinelly liked this game.

Not surprising, Bioware pretty much pulled out all the stops with ME3. It's also part of these reviewers' jobs to rate a game based on the game as a whole, not give it a zero because they don't like Day 1 DLC or because the ending wasn't what they hoped it would be. There's more integrity in rating the game highly based on all aspects of it than in rating it poorly because of one or two things you hate.

Wouldn't be the smartest move on EA's part to pay reviewers to call an amazing game an amazing game.

They can look pretty damn well thought out, and that's the key. Less common with blind rage reviews, but troll campaigns can (and often do) look legit.

Basically with Mass Effect 3 ignore metacritic. The onslaught of negative reviews and scores, even the seemingly well thought out ones, are the product of either blind rage at the "From Ashes" DLC or part of a troll campaign (Ashley Williams' little secret was a lie as well).

EDIT: From Ashes Spoiler:

Your choices and EMS are one in the same, and they directly dictate how many of the endings you have to choose from. That's not a matter of opinion, those are the mechanics of the game.