Meh, don't sweat meta critic. Horizon is an unbelievable gaming achievement, one of the singular best and most impressive games I've played in years, and yet it only got 88 for some bizarre reason.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Mass Effect Community Thread
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
- Status
Meh, don't sweat meta critic. Horizon is an unbelievable gaming achievement, one of the singular best and most impressive games I've played in years, and yet it only got 88 for some bizarre reason.
AWizardDidIt
Member
It's because of people like me who think Horizon is "only" pretty great, 4/5
That mod seems a pretty good solution, but I'm not sure if that would work since I already turned down Kaiden and started Liara. I'd try it but one of the comments says it replaces some MEUITM files and I'm using that mod.
I think I'm fine going with Liara for ME1, even if she's kinda creepy she's not as generic as Ashley seems to be. It's ME2 that worries me, I would have liked to be able to choose Tali.
AWizardDidIt
Member
If it helps, I don't think Liara in ME1 is a good character at all but I think she gets considerably better as the series goes on. Just make sure you get the Shadow Broker DLC for ME2 since it completely revolves around her and your romance carries into that (it's also a really good DLC imo). I believe she also has more romance content in ME3 than any other character.
Personally Horizon is a solid game but nothing more than "just" an 80.
shinobi602
Member
Oh you can be sure there's going to be plenty of "Is Mass Effect no longer a quality franchise?" "Bioware on the decline!?" threads and posts if it lands sub-90, even the 87-89 range lol, even though scores are continuously lower overall compared to last gen.
Choo choo all aboard 🚂
Yep. Even though I think we're in the middle of an amazing run of truly spectacular games, the likes of which I can't ever remember happening previously, scores are overall lower than they used to be. Not that I mind that, but there's definitely been a shift to lower scores.
Shame that GTAIV score will never be reduced... ;-)
Hawkeye 131
Member
I may have missed it but has there been any news on when the review embargo's up?
DeadlyParasite
Member
I think Shinobi said it was the day before launch. :\
shinobi602
Member
Yea the 20th at 9 AM eastern.
They wanted them out earlier but they want reviewers to have the day one patch that fixes a lot of little bugs, nothing to do with lack of confidence.
They wanted them out earlier but they want reviewers to have the day one patch that fixes a lot of little bugs, nothing to do with lack of confidence.
lucebuce12
Member
I distinctly remember shinobi posting this earlier, but can anyone remind me when the pre-load for PS4 goes up?
I remember him saying that it WASN'T the standard "two days earlier".
I remember him saying that it WASN'T the standard "two days earlier".
DeadlyParasite
Member
lucebuce12
Member
TheUnsunghero26
Member
So who else is signing up for a month of EA Access to play this early?
Seems like the Day One patch is going out now. Looks to be around 2gb
https://twitter.com/tibermoon/status/840004151807528960
https://twitter.com/tibermoon/status/840004151807528960
DeadlyParasite
Member
Yeah I pointed that out when they announced the PC pre-load a while back. For all intents and purposes you are downloading the full game when you download the trial so why the actual "preload" date is a day later doesn't make any sense. If you have the trial you've got everything you need except any extra patches that haven't been released yet.
Heckler456
Banned
Server strain maybe? I'm guessing they have variable server capacity that gets increased around launches, and maybe they save a significant amount of money if they let two different groups download the game on two different days instead of one? Who knows, I'm sure there's some internal reason.
I'm going the opposite direction.
Got it preordered but not playing till 2nd-3rd patch
Ivory Samoan
Gold Member
I also find it kind of bizzare: Horizon has been a revelation, and the sheer quality of everything in the game (story being the biggest great surprise) makes me think that MC is starting to become slightly out of touch - too many edgelords trying to be edgy out there signed into the process.
I've played both Zelda and HZD, and I can't fathom how Zelda has 10 more on MC....especially with it's performance issues (which are considerable believe you me).
I see Mass Effect getting a 89-90 MC, lower if edgelords are feeling like throwing 5/10 spanners in the works (there's always some, still in pain somehow over ME3's ending).
DeadlyParasite
Member
I'm confused, Metacritic is just an aggregate of all review scores from different websites tallied and averaged, they aren't doing any of the reviewing. Not sure why you'd blame them, unless you're referring to user scores from random posters in which case I don't think any developer or half-sane person has ever cared about those. The reviews tally is all anyone refers to.
Ivory Samoan
Gold Member
No I'm referring to the ever-increasing reviewer pool, where a lot seem to be edgy for the sake of it, for hits a lot of the time.
Thus, making MC less and less relevant as a true gauge of a games quality.
Some publications even give reviews to people who even hate that certain genre/franchise going in...*looks at Washington Post*.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
I don't like referring to reviews or reviewers as edgy. It skewers a sense of relative perspective by dividing opinions between a faux objective right/wrong, as if personal experience with creative content is universal and external divergence from a personal standard is considered abnormal.
Plenty of people dislike games for a multiple of reasons we may or may not agree with, and even the concept of a review and its intentions varies. What matters is the authenticity of the person penning the review, and their ability to articulate their thoughts and perspective. There's been plenty of games I've adored that others have loathed, and many I've been baffled with the positive reception.
And I mean, if we're going to obsess over Metacritic, it has an 89% average. And that's outstanding.
Plenty of people dislike games for a multiple of reasons we may or may not agree with, and even the concept of a review and its intentions varies. What matters is the authenticity of the person penning the review, and their ability to articulate their thoughts and perspective. There's been plenty of games I've adored that others have loathed, and many I've been baffled with the positive reception.
And I mean, if we're going to obsess over Metacritic, it has an 89% average. And that's outstanding.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
We need more divergence of opinions on metacritic, more variation in score, not less. When everyone falls into line you wind up with shit like GTA4 98/100.
I would but I would probably spend most of the time in Character Creation trying to get the face right.
It probably won't be as bad as Inquisition with all the different races.
Blue Ninja
Member
As a reviewer, I definitely don't dole out bad or mediocre scores to be 'edgy'. The lowest score I've ever given out was for Dead Rising 4, and that was because the game literally broke on me about halfway through.
Having a great variety of people to review games is a good thing, not bad. It creates varying perspectives. Maybe reviewers should start stating their history with the game, series and genre before the review, so people know what angle a review coming from.
Being too excited for a game isn't neccessarily a good thing as a reviewer, either. I'm anxiously awaiting my Andromeda review code, but I also realize that my excitement has the chance to greatly color my review. The ability to play everything before anyone else does help in that regard, though: I had an amazing time reviewing Halo 5 and rated its campaign highly, before the game came out and everyone started shitting on it. This is from the perspective of a hard-core Halo fan, too: my editors asked me to rewrite my original text because I was getting too deep into the Halo lore at some points. :lol
Lastly, yes, we often get assigned games we know we probably won't like, or just generally don't care for. That's not because the higher-ups want to generate clicks, at least not in my experience. It's often because everyone else is already busy reviewing other games. It's our job to take these games seriously nonetheless: that's what makes it a job, not a hobby. I didn't particularly care for For Honor, but went in with an open mind regardless when I reviewed it.
So, like ThoseDeafMutes said, having some variance within reviews is a good thing.
Having a great variety of people to review games is a good thing, not bad. It creates varying perspectives. Maybe reviewers should start stating their history with the game, series and genre before the review, so people know what angle a review coming from.
Being too excited for a game isn't neccessarily a good thing as a reviewer, either. I'm anxiously awaiting my Andromeda review code, but I also realize that my excitement has the chance to greatly color my review. The ability to play everything before anyone else does help in that regard, though: I had an amazing time reviewing Halo 5 and rated its campaign highly, before the game came out and everyone started shitting on it. This is from the perspective of a hard-core Halo fan, too: my editors asked me to rewrite my original text because I was getting too deep into the Halo lore at some points. :lol
Lastly, yes, we often get assigned games we know we probably won't like, or just generally don't care for. That's not because the higher-ups want to generate clicks, at least not in my experience. It's often because everyone else is already busy reviewing other games. It's our job to take these games seriously nonetheless: that's what makes it a job, not a hobby. I didn't particularly care for For Honor, but went in with an open mind regardless when I reviewed it.
So, like ThoseDeafMutes said, having some variance within reviews is a good thing.
I am a bit confused with the 100 planets only 7 available for landing part.
Ok we get to land to 7 supposedly very large planets.
The rest 100, why are they even mentioned? Do we get the chance to even visit in some form other environments (even linear) apart from those 7 planets?
Also, are there towns/cities of newly introduced species or is it just outposts from the colonists?
Ok we get to land to 7 supposedly very large planets.
The rest 100, why are they even mentioned? Do we get the chance to even visit in some form other environments (even linear) apart from those 7 planets?
Also, are there towns/cities of newly introduced species or is it just outposts from the colonists?
Blue Ninja
Member
There's more than seven planets you can land on. That 7 number came from the amount of Golden Worlds in the Heleus cluster, but there's no indication we'll visit all those worlds.
Excuse me, but I still dont get it (maybe I am having a long brainfart, dont know).
So those 7 worlds are not necessarily the ones we will be able to explore? Its just that the story says that there are 7 potential candidates as planets to colonize?
I just read multiple articles that say that we are only able to land on a handful of planets and I have no clue what that means in relation to the numbers 100 and 7. My interpretation was that there 7 big planets and thats it.
Heckler456
Banned
You know how there are a hundred planets in other Mass Effect games? Probably the same deal here.
A handful of planets will be these gigantic open world zones (with supposedly the smallest one being as large as the largest zone in Dragon Age Inquisition). Some others might have a smaller map, or a more linear maps for story missions or whatever. That's basically all we know.
Anyway, with them hammering on the "7 golden worlds" thing, I would be genuinely surprised if our big open worlds aren't on those 7 planets.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
I'm assuming the 7 golden worlds will act as the hubs where most of the game will take place. There will also be the nexus. There might be other planets to land on briefly but considering each of the 7 main worlds are said to be extremely vast and packed with points of interest, I don't think there's any gameplay reason why you would need to land on other planets.
I'm expecting these 7 planets to be the big open world areas and other planets to be used in smaller side missions (Like in ME3).
Thanks folks, this sounds like the best thing so I hope you are correct.
I never understand why people think a score, as for example, of 88 is "negative". Imo anything above a 80~ is already great for a game. Im thinking Andromeda will end up on 88-91 as well.
Tony Redgrave
Member
I expect some of the 7 golden worlds (not sure if all of them) to be big, detailed explorable areas.
Then we'll probably have some ME1-esque missions when you land and drive a little until you find a prefab or a bunker or something.
Lastly we'll probably have ME2/3-like assigments where we'll probably simply start on foot in a small, detailed area to complete a mission.
That's my wishlist at least.
I really don't care a bit about what Metacritic says, the problem is when publishers and the industry in general starts to take it too seriously. It sounds preposterous but I can see the difference between 89 and 90 metascore making a big difference regarding how successful the game is considered critically.
Then we'll probably have some ME1-esque missions when you land and drive a little until you find a prefab or a bunker or something.
Lastly we'll probably have ME2/3-like assigments where we'll probably simply start on foot in a small, detailed area to complete a mission.
That's my wishlist at least.
I really don't care a bit about what Metacritic says, the problem is when publishers and the industry in general starts to take it too seriously. It sounds preposterous but I can see the difference between 89 and 90 metascore making a big difference regarding how successful the game is considered critically.
Heckler456
Banned
I only recently had some person in the Giant Bomb community thread saying that Mass Effect "had zero hype" behind it, after which I showed him the anticipation thread (where ME:A is 5th), to which he replied that that is a disappointing place for such a well known franchise. People don't really judge things on their own merit.
prag16
Banned
Divergence of opinions, absolutely 100%. But I think what people were getting at is that variation in score just for the sake of it is not good. You don't want people (and I'd hope professional reviewers never do this, but...) don't go higher or lower than their true feeling in order to try to weight the average in the direction they think it should go.
GTA4 is a solid 8/10 game; GTA5 is more of a 6.5 or 7 imo. Fight me.
But look at what beat it. Zelda and RDR2 are unsurprising. Horizon edged it out but has the entirety of Sony's marketing/hype machine behind it (and it doesn't hurt that it turned out great). Persona is the one that could be seen as an upset, but you have to take into account the gaf crowd; among "general gamers" Mass Effect likely has more interest and will sell better. Sounds like somebody trying to push a narrative and spin the facts in his favor to do so.
This is probably pretty close to the mark. I doubt we'll have large explorable areas on ALL seven of the golden worlds. Don't be shocked if one or two of them are discarded for story reasons. And nothing rules out large explorable areas on other planets necessarily.
If I had to guess:
-3-4 golden worlds with large explorable area
-1-2 golden worlds with smaller area/less to do
-1-3 golden worlds that we don't land on for story reasons
-Maybe 1 additional non-golden planet with large explorable area
-A handful more planets to land on that have more tightly contained missions; no vehicular exploration
We'll find out soon enough!
shinobi602
Member
GTA4 was, and frankly still is an unplayable trashfire of a game thanks to it being such a technical mess. 5 was both a strong game and technically competent.
prag16
Banned
Technically competent, sure. But no game has bored me to tears like that since RDR. (Again, fight me.) Not even Skyrim, and let me tell you, that was a boring ass game. (For the 3rd time, fight me.)
- Status