Mass Effect 3 Review

[XUnsafeNormalX]

Mass Effect 3 was a fucking amazing game, and a great way to complete the trilogy. Until you actually get to the last ten minutes of the game. It was at this point in time that I figured out I hate Bioware, and that they managed to ruin a series of games that I've enjoyed over the past five years.

What in the fuck were they thinking?

They were thinking "At least we have their money, let's start making some DLC"

 

[Ridrith]

I will never forgive them, unless they release a new DLC ending that is used as the proper canon for the storyline and lore.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Mass Effect 3 almost, but not quite, as good as Dragon Age 2, says The Escapist.

 

[The Wooster]

Mass Effect 3 almost, but not quite, as good as Dragon Age 2, says The Escapist.

Yeah, I have it on good authority that Susan Arendt and Greg Tito are actually the same person. Good point.

 

[The Wooster]

Imagine that yet another absolutely glowing professional review for a major publishers marquee game while it's has generally terrible user ratings. If it isn't corruption, why is there such a divide between the professional reviewers and players? Quite honestly I just don't think Ms Arendt is as demanding in her games, which doesn't really bode well considering her position.

The vast majority of user reviews are giving the game zero out of ten. They're calling it "the worst game ever." Why the discrepancy? Because hyperbolic idiots outnumber professional journalists a thousand to one.

 

[Baralak]

Then how are you financed, Susan? Do you get no advertising revenue from EA, entities affiliated with EA or acting on behalf of EA? If you do, then you have a potential conflict of interest. Giving out near perfect scores to EA games raises concerns that a 'potential' conflict of interest might in fact be 'actual'. For example, to this day I struggle to think of a non-"nefarious" reason as to why your site gave Dragon Age 2 a perfect 5/5.

You realize there's no way for me to answer that question that will "disprove" your theory, right? If I say we don't get ad money from EA, you can say we're bumping up scores to try to persuade them to spend some. If I say we do, then clearly we're bumping up scores to keep the money flowing. If you're determined to believe that we're dishonest - which, frankly, many people are - then there's really nothing we can do about it.

You're right that accepting ad dollars from game publishers can create awkward situations and conflicts of interest. That's happened to us when we've had site skins running advertising a game that we just gave a bad review.

There isn't a gaming site out there that wouldn't rather be completely ad-free, or at least only have ads from what are called "non-endemics", which are non-gaming companies. But that's simply not possible. I was a founding member of a gaming site that made not accepting game company ad campaigns part of its mandate - Crispy Gamer. The site failed, in large part because it couldn't get enough revenue flowing. Non-gaming companies simply don't want to bother with gaming sites because we don't reach a big enough chunk of the population. (And they think you're all poor and therefore not making purchasing decisions within your household.) We get a few non-endemics here and there (and, amusingly, get a lot of negative feedback from the community about "running ads that have nothing to do with games"), but not nearly enough to keep the lights on. If we want to stay in business, we have to accept ads from game publishers.

As for Dragon Age, if you really can't accept that, hey, maybe we just liked the game that much, there's really nothing I can say. I will say that if we'd been using half stars at the time that review came out, it's very likely the game would've gotten a 4.5 and not a 5, but that's just speculation. I get why someone wouldn't enjoy Dragon Age 2, given that it's quite different from Origins, but to assume that the only reason someone would score it well is graft is foolish and ignorant.

But, like I said, people see what they want to see. If you want to believe that all reviewers are lying assholes with their hands out, then it's not much trouble to adapt the facts to suit your perspective. And, really, what are we supposed to counter with?

Either someone chooses to give us the benefit of the doubt, or they don't.

For what it's worth, The Escapist is my favorite gaming site, and I understand that money's required for a site such as this. I love the video series you guys do, I love the editorials and the articles. I also enjoy all of your reviews. They're well written, always point out the reviewer's qualms with the game, and seem to rate every game fairly. No, not every review will be accepted by the general population (For example, I have yet to find a reason for me to dislike DA2, in the few hours I played of it. Combat was intense, it was literally hack n slash Mass Effect combat, without covers. But I do believe you rate games fairly, with honest opinions, and without a skewed scale (Sorry GI, 7 is NOT "average". 5 is average. You guys are the first site I go to for reviews, and you're usually spot on with them. Keep up the good work!

 

[satsugaikaze]

I love the people (hint: no, I don't) who attempt to tout their subjective experience as objective, passing off their perspectives as facts. Even the professional journalists here don't lay claim to that.
The Internet, with a captial I, is opinions. Sometimes it's facts, but it's usually buried by several metric tons of opinions. Maybe this is just my opinion! *head explode*

I think if people are going to get this cynical about reviews: Don't listen to the Metacritic trolls giving 10s and 0s. If you guys think that Susan and Greg and whatever were being paid off, don't watch their reviews or listen to what they say. Play the demo, or buy the game. And then play through it more than once. First impressions sometimes change, and it's fairly easy to assume that with an average time of about 30-40 hours, the reviews on Day 1 of release were little more than first overall impressions, even if they were pirates.
In the past, what I found to be a steaming pile of crap later on made a little more sense once I got a little more open-minded. Sure, Mass Effect 3 might have a brain fart or two, but I don't think it deserves either the 10s or the 0s. And maybe not even the 2.5s or the 4.5s.

My game is almost finished being shipped, I'm really eager to find out whether or not these gripes are exaggerated. And then I'll probably play it a second time before trying to pass a personal judgement. I do have three characters, after all 8D

Also, slow figuring is slow, but

I've had it [Origin] installed on my computer for a month now, and I haven't seen any noticeable change on my computer, whether or not it be spyware, adware, the thought police, my privacy instantly ruined and distributed to a hundred billion internet companies, or whatever people are getting butthurt about.

I'm not about to avoid something on some extremist principle, if that something involves a genuinely entertaining gaming experience.

You do realise that the whole point of spyware is that the user doesn't notice its presence, that it just sits there quietly watching and recording and reporting? That you won't notice your privacy suddenly being ripped away because it's already happened, that your hardware stats, software usage habits and favourite internet sites are already sitting happily as part of a corporation's aggregated database, with your assumption that it doesn't matter as naive as the Jews who registered their faith with the German government.

Just saying.

You just compared my anonymous usage details given to a large money-making corporation, to Jews registering their full identities to a genocidal dictatorship.

This is what I mean about extremist principle. I already know what the worries are about Origin, but why don't you backpedal on some of that hyperbole before an actual Jewish victim speaks up and makes you feel like an idiot?

 

[Kahunaburger]

Imagine that yet another absolutely glowing professional review for a major publishers marquee game while it's has generally terrible user ratings. If it isn't corruption, why is there such a divide between the professional reviewers and players? Quite honestly I just don't think Ms Arendt is as demanding in her games, which doesn't really bode well considering her position.

The vast majority of user reviews are giving the game zero out of ten. They're calling it "the worst game ever." Why the discrepancy? Because hyperbolic idiots outnumber professional journalists a thousand to one.

I think it's fair to say that both the Metacritic scores are equally useless.

 

[Wicky_42]

Also, slow figuring is slow, but

I've had it [Origin] installed on my computer for a month now, and I haven't seen any noticeable change on my computer, whether or not it be spyware, adware, the thought police, my privacy instantly ruined and distributed to a hundred billion internet companies, or whatever people are getting butthurt about.

I'm not about to avoid something on some extremist principle, if that something involves a genuinely entertaining gaming experience.

You do realise that the whole point of spyware is that the user doesn't notice its presence, that it just sits there quietly watching and recording and reporting? That you won't notice your privacy suddenly being ripped away because it's already happened, that your hardware stats, software usage habits and favourite internet sites are already sitting happily as part of a corporation's aggregated database, with your assumption that it doesn't matter as naive as the Jews who registered their faith with the German government.

Just saying.

You just compared my anonymous usage details given to a large money-making corporation, to Jews registering their full identities to a genocidal dictatorship.

This is what I mean about extremist principle. I already know what the worries are about Origin, but why don't you backpedal on some of that hyperbole before an actual Jewish victim speaks up and makes you feel like an idiot?

Except that your details aren't anonymous (only information passed on is anonymised, they make no other promises with their snooping and storing), and the dictatorship wasn't genocidal when it asking for info. I don't care if you find the analogy distasteful or whatever, it's the same assumption that everyone is by default benevolent when really there are no safeguards, no protection, no oversight.

I imagine facebook could do some absolutely horrendous blackmail if it so wished, and one day its ceo might decide that the long-term damage that would do to the company is out-weighed by the short-term gain. It's unlikely, but there's very little anyone can do to stop it. We expect Steam to keep allowing us access to our games, but they can decide at the drop of a hat to delete our collections. They don't (generally) because of good business sense, but again, there's no higher power watching out for us. So yeah, welcome spy-ware with open arms if you wish, and cross your fingers that it never becomes more profitable for the company to sell your info than to merely collect and anonymise it, but please never assume that some mysterious caped crusader is going to swoop in and save you if they do decide to take liberties with the fig-leaf of pseudo-security you so desperately cling to.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

You sound angry from reading your post, which I certainly hope your not.

I am annoyed... not at your post in particular but by the stupid assumption by many people (not just on this site) that a game they don't like getting a good review means someone was bought off.

This seems especially stupid when you remember it's the final chapter of one of the most critically acclaimed series of all time. OF COURSE it was going to get good reviews. It's an incredible experience for most people who play it, despite its flaws.

I'm just trying to make sure people understand WHY people are skeptical and reinforce this isn't some "nasty reddit troll" personal attack.
It's a legitimate concern. There is a huge discrepancy between critics and a large chunk normal customers as of late.

I completely understand.

But the problem is people don't seem to be taking Susan's word for it when she explains her side, which annoys the shit out of me. If people want to throw snide insinuations around they should be prepared to give benefit of the doubt.

And any argument about advertising 'influencing' the staff and all that jazz is rendered utterly void in my mind by the fact that every week the site's most popular show takes the absolute piss out of the same developers and games advertised here, sometimes viciously so.

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

Imagine that yet another absolutely glowing professional review for a major publishers marquee game while it's has generally terrible user ratings. If it isn't corruption, why is there such a divide between the professional reviewers and players? Quite honestly I just don't think Ms Arendt is as demanding in her games, which doesn't really bode well considering her position.

The vast majority of user reviews are giving the game zero out of ten. They're calling it "the worst game ever." Why the discrepancy? Because hyperbolic idiots outnumber professional journalists a thousand to one.

I think it's fair to say that both the Metacritic scores are equally useless.

All reveiwers are useless. Only you, or someone that knows you can tell you that a game is good for you or not. Bugs are the only objective part of game reviewing, and even they are subject to case by case scrutiny.

 

[Slash Joel]

The ending part you are died right on. Man i was dissappointed I wanted to see the little blue kids running around at the end.

 

[Zom-B]

Hello. I didn't play the ME3 demo, but I played an estimated good third of it at a friend's. If you'd like to, we could exchange notes, but I'd need to know what kind of stuff you like in games (ME1+2 especially) in order to give you a useful view.

For the record, I'm very mixed about BioWare games as I see some strengths, a lot of solid stuff, but also a lot of bad stuff. I played ME2 till the end and a bit of DLC but quit ME1 at a certain point I can tell you if you're not afraid of spoilers.

If you'd like an opinion from this kinda person, feel free to pitch me a message.

I was mostly wondering if the demo was indicative of the final quality of the game. I really wasn't that impressed with the demo, so I wanted to know if people felt like the demo didn't do the actual game justice.

 

[gphjr14]

If you played the game and didn't like it it's really your loss since EA already has your money. Otherwise it's kind of pathetic to go out if your way to trash a game you have know intention of playing just because you don't like the developer. So far I'm loving this game and my only real complaint is the dlc rifle is a recoiling piece of shit.

 

[Freechoice]

I am annoyed... not at your post in particular but by the stupid assumption by many people (not just on this site) that a game they don't like getting a good review means someone was bought off.

This seems especially stupid when you remember it's the final chapter of one of the most critically acclaimed series of all time. OF COURSE it was going to get good reviews. It's an incredible experience for most people who play it, despite its flaws.

Well if the reviewers fail to catch the fuck-ups or just outright ignore them, it's logical to conclude that either the reviewer was bought off or is just incompetent. Can we expect perfect analysis? No, but from what I've seen and read, (I won't get ME3 because I refuse to have Origin on my system) Susan was wrong about the game being the "ending the series deserved" because of the actual endings. Her opinion? Sure, but it seems to be one of a very small minority that praised the endings.

When people are willing to pay to see the game unfucked, you know the developer did something wrong.

I completely understand.

But the problem is people don't seem to be taking Susan's word for it when she explains her side, which annoys the shit out of me. If people want to throw snide insinuations around they should be prepared to give benefit of the doubt.

And any argument about advertising 'influencing' the staff and all that jazz is rendered utterly void in my mind by the fact that every week the site's most popular show takes the absolute piss out of the same developers and games advertised here, sometimes viciously so.

Yes, but that's Yahtzee. Yahtzee's a special case not necessarily because he's a acerbic, but because he actually critiques a game and occasionally provides solvency to its problems. If you don't believe that, I fall back on him being motherfucking Yahtzee. Influencing the Escapist is far simpler than influencing Yahtzee because the body of the Escapist has less notoriety than he does. If he gave praise to a game that was panned, people would pick up on this and Yahtzee isn't stupid enough to compromise his journalistic integrity for a few extra bucks or some publisher threatening to pull funding. Everyone else (save for Bob) on the Escapist? I'd have never heard of any of the Escapist staff if it wasn't for Yahtzee. Much easier to assume direct control with.

 

[satsugaikaze]

Except that your details aren't anonymous (only information passed on is anonymised, they make no other promises with their snooping and storing), and the dictatorship wasn't genocidal when it asking for info. I don't care if you find the analogy distasteful or whatever, it's the same assumption that everyone is by default benevolent when really there are no safeguards, no protection, no oversight.

I imagine facebook could do some absolutely horrendous blackmail if it so wished, and one day its ceo might decide that the long-term damage that would do to the company is out-weighed by the short-term gain. It's unlikely, but there's very little anyone can do to stop it. We expect Steam to keep allowing us access to our games, but they can decide at the drop of a hat to delete our collections. They don't (generally) because of good business sense, but again, there's no higher power watching out for us. So yeah, welcome spy-ware with open arms if you wish, and cross your fingers that it never becomes more profitable for the company to sell your info than to merely collect and anonymise it, but please never assume that some mysterious caped crusader is going to swoop in and save you if they do decide to take liberties with the fig-leaf of pseudo-security you so desperately cling to.

I find that when my name isn't on any of the information being collected by Origin, it sounds like anonymity to me.

I also don't make the "assumption that everyone is by default benevolent". I like to think that as an adult I'm not so naive as to believe that EA can only do good things with the information taken from my computer. But at the same time, I'm not so cynical to believe right off the bat that the beaurocracy is going to ruin me by selling my entire private life to the highest-bidding megacorporation that wants to see the manila folder containing my deepest, darkest secretsm just so they can flood my interwebs with advertising. See, exaggeration, metaphors, and heavy prose! Two can play at that game.

People have gotten enraged over the 'what it could be doing' as opposed to 'what it's doing now'. I'm still hopeful that there are people out there who realise that the eventuality is quite unlikely, like you said.
Oh, and that "mysterious caped crusader"? I do appreciate good visual analogy, but again. Thanks for the hyperbole.

 

[Site Ser]

The ending essentially takes a sh*t on the entire ME story.

This is the one game I allowed myself to get my hopes up for (at least in regards to the story), and it ended up being one of the biggest disappointments I've ever experienced.

I seriously felt my heart sink when the credits started to roll, and the first thing I thought to myself was "Seriously? That's it?".

 

[Aisaku]

The ending the series - and its fans - deserve.

So, if that's the ending fans deserve, you hate Mass Effect series' fans? ;P

 

[Tsun Tzu]

The ending the series - and its fans - deserve.

So, if that's the ending fans deserve, you hate Mass Effect series' fans? ;P

I was thinking this exact thing.

I'm reminded of the KotOR 2 ending (Obsidian, not bioware, but eh). Such disappointment.

 

[Aisaku]

Well the fans definitely aren't silent: http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/category/355/index

Here's to hoping for DLC that will change the options presented at the end so we can have some sort of closure.

Just to point one annoying sticking point here: All the budget spent on trailers, and publicity stunts could've been put to use into actual video sequences to show the effects of your actions on the galaxy, you know, like proper endings.