The facial animations and bizarre character animations ARE a major problem. This is Bioware, not Bethesda. Those games can be modded. Vanilla Skyrim is pathetic compared to fully modded Skyrim.
Bioware has a certain standard, and it's a pretty high standard. Maybe not the highest standard, but it is certainly up there. Every time I play a Bioware game, I know I am going to get top notch voices and an excellent story. I never really looked at the animations or facial expressions before in any Bioware game. I guess I never had any problem with them. When I played Morrowind, the first thing I noticed were the bizarre character movements, and in Oblivion it was the awful facial animations. But that is a Bethesda thing, always has been always will be.
But for Bioware? This wasn't an issue in ME1 or ME2....why should it be an issue in ME A? Did they lose a bunch of talented programmers? That could very well have happened, so they hired inferior people.
Any way you look at it, it's a big black mark on Bioware.
And as a side note, the stock female Ryder character face is one of the most unappealing, ugly creations ever to happen on a monitor. And here is the thing. I do not think they were trying to make a butch female character...my god, those eyebrows.
I simply cannot believe that at some point in a Bioware office, they gathered around a big table and not one single person raised their hand and said "Uh, are we really going with this Ryder? Is this the road we want to travel down?" And I cannot believe that when it was time to go gold, those same people watched the same buggy, bad animations/facial expressions and said "Yup, this IS a Bioware product and we are proud of it?.
If you're looking for reasons to hate a game, you'll find plenty... in ANY game.
But if you're enjoying the ride, you ignore the niggles. It's the overall experience that counts, not the small imperfections.
The internet has given everyone in the world a voice. Unfortunately, that seems to have been a mistake...
COULDN'T AGREE MORE!!
I remember back in the days of game review magazines (the paper kind...... paper is something they used to make out of trees for us to write/print on), all I could think about is how much more objective it would be if we could get reviews from the entire gaming community and not just a few gaming magazines. WOW! How wrong was I?
As I mentioned earlier, the range on nearly every single game review on Metacritic, for user reviews, is from 0-100. However, the range for critics is more in the 0-30 range. That's fucking crazy!!! It makes me laugh whenever someone talks about a lack of objectivity. I've even shown in the past how removing the ridiculously non-objective scores (like 0 through 4 and 10) actually end up boiling down to a score that is almost precisely aligned with critic scores. So why wade through mounds of bullshit from users, trying to figure out what's valid and what isn't? Once again ,the Internet ruins what should be a great tool.
Well, i've used metacritics as a guideline for some time now. I ignore all reviews from critics side, they write the same for every game. What i want to see is how long is the green bar compared to red one under the user reviews. That's all i need to know and that has worked for me a long time.
If i'm still in doubt, i read a few reviews in yellow section. The most objective ones can usually be found there. I don't know if i could buy any game these days if i didn't know how other gamers liked it. Prices have gone up while quality varies. Some games are next to unplayable at launch but they still charge you a full price.
If you're looking for reasons to hate a game, you'll find plenty... in ANY game.
But if you're enjoying the ride, you ignore the niggles. It's the overall experience that counts, not the small imperfections.
The internet has given everyone in the world a voice. Unfortunately, that seems to have been a mistake...
...
As I mentioned earlier, the range on nearly every single game review on Metacritic, for user reviews, is from 0-100. However, the range for critics is more in the 0-30 range. That's fucking crazy!!! It makes me laugh whenever someone talks about a lack of objectivity. I've even shown in the past how removing the ridiculously non-objective scores (like 0 through 4 and 10) actually end up boiling down to a score that is almost precisely aligned with critic scores. So why wade through mounds of bullshit from users, trying to figure out what's valid and what isn't? Once again ,the Internet ruins what should be a great tool.
Unfortunately, the blame there belongs to Metacritic, not the users.
They can very easily show a "normalised" rating with all the outliers trimmed, but they choose not to.
Why ?
They will be accused of attempting to "manipulate" review scores... Or of being paid lackeys of the game companies... Or of suppressing free speech...
Besides, they'll also lose those all-important page hits from the ultra fanboyz and the rabid haterz...
I vote for a system similar to metacritic, but also where people can rate your rating and if you have too many people voting that you're completely useless, you get banned from the island. Also, if someone finds your review of a review useless then that also counts towards their rating. I wonder how long it would take for the entire Internet to be banned from that site? Lol.
The animations are not that big of a deal to me, I play ME more for the story. That said, I will be holding off until summer before deciding to buy it. Partly because of school and partly due to reports of bugs and lack of content at initial release.
I am trying hard to no longer buy games at launch or pre-order. Soooo much disappointment over the last few years.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
If you're looking for reasons to hate a game, you'll find plenty... in ANY game.
But if you're enjoying the ride, you ignore the niggles. It's the overall experience that counts, not the small imperfections.
The internet has given everyone in the world a voice. Unfortunately, that seems to have been a mistake...
COULDN'T AGREE MORE!!
I remember back in the days of game review magazines (the paper kind...... paper is something they used to make out of trees for us to write/print on), all I could think about is how much more objective it would be if we could get reviews from the entire gaming community and not just a few gaming magazines. WOW! How wrong was I?
As I mentioned earlier, the range on nearly every single game review on Metacritic, for user reviews, is from 0-100. However, the range for critics is more in the 0-30 range. That's fucking crazy!!! It makes me laugh whenever someone talks about a lack of objectivity. I've even shown in the past how removing the ridiculously non-objective scores (like 0 through 4 and 10) actually end up boiling down to a score that is almost precisely aligned with critic scores. So why wade through mounds of bullshit from users, trying to figure out what's valid and what isn't? Once again ,the Internet ruins what should be a great tool.
Well, i've used metacritics as a guideline for some time now. I ignore all reviews from critics side, they write the same for every game. What i want to see is how long is the green bar compared to red one under the user reviews. That's all i need to know and that has worked for me a long time.
If i'm still in doubt, i read a few reviews in yellow section. The most objective ones can usually be found there. I don't know if i could buy any game these days if i didn't know how other gamers liked it. Prices have gone up while quality varies. Some games are next to unplayable at launch but they still charge you a full price.
I agree, and I do rely on metacritic a lot to make purchase decisions, but I go about it much the same way as you when it comes to user reviews. However, the objectivity seems directly proportionate to the polarity of the company. Diablo 3 is a prime example. Critics have it at an average of 8.8 and users rate it at a 4.0. No Man's Sky gets a 7.1 from critics and a 4.5 from users.
I'm not saying that the SYSTEM is a bad idea, but if we're pointing out warts of systems, between critics and users, I think that there is probably less objectivity from critics than there is from users, unless you go and search out users that seem to specifically identify with your personal likes and dislikes.
Again, I'm not saying user reviews are a bad idea. I think they are much more ideal. However, the Internet has a habit of taking a fantastic idea and breaking it horribly. That's my contention.
If you're looking for reasons to hate a game, you'll find plenty... in ANY game.
But if you're enjoying the ride, you ignore the niggles. It's the overall experience that counts, not the small imperfections.
The internet has given everyone in the world a voice. Unfortunately, that seems to have been a mistake...
COULDN'T AGREE MORE!!
I remember back in the days of game review magazines (the paper kind...... paper is something they used to make out of trees for us to write/print on), all I could think about is how much more objective it would be if we could get reviews from the entire gaming community and not just a few gaming magazines. WOW! How wrong was I?
As I mentioned earlier, the range on nearly every single game review on Metacritic, for user reviews, is from 0-100. However, the range for critics is more in the 0-30 range. That's fucking crazy!!! It makes me laugh whenever someone talks about a lack of objectivity. I've even shown in the past how removing the ridiculously non-objective scores (like 0 through 4 and 10) actually end up boiling down to a score that is almost precisely aligned with critic scores. So why wade through mounds of bullshit from users, trying to figure out what's valid and what isn't? Once again ,the Internet ruins what should be a great tool.
Well, i've used metacritics as a guideline for some time now. I ignore all reviews from critics side, they write the same for every game. What i want to see is how long is the green bar compared to red one under the user reviews. That's all i need to know and that has worked for me a long time.
If i'm still in doubt, i read a few reviews in yellow section. The most objective ones can usually be found there. I don't know if i could buy any game these days if i didn't know how other gamers liked it. Prices have gone up while quality varies. Some games are next to unplayable at launch but they still charge you a full price.
Yeah, but the user reviews are also unreliable when it comes to numbers. You have people filled with hate for "whatever reasons" giving games a 1 and then people who think that is unjust so they give the games a 10 to make up for it.
It's better not to look at numbers and just read what people are saying and see if they inform you based on your preferences.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I dont think Ive seen a single animation from this game's footage that wasnt awkward.
Probably because the whole internet is staring fixedly at the 15mins of blooper footage culled from the first 7 hours of game play ?
Hmm, well I just checked some gameplay from u-tube and that "pingu-effect" when people are speaking is just plain wierd. There is also something wrong with their eyes, particular on humans. Something feels off in general and when people say its like "Inquisition in space" I know this is one RPG Im not going to buy....sadly, I was hyped before, glad I didnt pre-ordered this.
If you're looking for reasons to hate a game, you'll find plenty... in ANY game.
But if you're enjoying the ride, you ignore the niggles. It's the overall experience that counts, not the small imperfections.
The internet has given everyone in the world a voice. Unfortunately, that seems to have been a mistake...
COULDN'T AGREE MORE!!
I remember back in the days of game review magazines (the paper kind...... paper is something they used to make out of trees for us to write/print on), all I could think about is how much more objective it would be if we could get reviews from the entire gaming community and not just a few gaming magazines. WOW! How wrong was I?
As I mentioned earlier, the range on nearly every single game review on Metacritic, for user reviews, is from 0-100. However, the range for critics is more in the 0-30 range. That's fucking crazy!!! It makes me laugh whenever someone talks about a lack of objectivity. I've even shown in the past how removing the ridiculously non-objective scores (like 0 through 4 and 10) actually end up boiling down to a score that is almost precisely aligned with critic scores. So why wade through mounds of bullshit from users, trying to figure out what's valid and what isn't? Once again ,the Internet ruins what should be a great tool.
Well, i've used metacritics as a guideline for some time now. I ignore all reviews from critics side, they write the same for every game. What i want to see is how long is the green bar compared to red one under the user reviews. That's all i need to know and that has worked for me a long time.
If i'm still in doubt, i read a few reviews in yellow section. The most objective ones can usually be found there. I don't know if i could buy any game these days if i didn't know how other gamers liked it. Prices have gone up while quality varies. Some games are next to unplayable at launch but they still charge you a full price.
Yeah, but the user reviews are also unreliable when it comes to numbers. You have people filled with hate for "whatever reasons" giving games a 1 and then people who think that is unjust so they give the games a 10 to make up for it.
It's better not to look at numbers and just read what people are saying and see if they inform you based on your preferences.
I don't think the numbers lie. Lots and lots of people giving a game 0 or 1 indicates a problem in the game. The game may not be a zero or one objectively speaking, but for some reason many people haven't liked it. More often than not i've agreed with those people.
Sometimes a game gets bad user reviews because of a bug that crashes the game, or some graphics issue on certain video cards, etc. Browsing through some red reviews usually reveals these soon, so yes, reading what people say is also necessary.
meh i played the 10 hours and i loved it i didn't realy see bad face annimations. sometimes the camera wasn't positioned good in the dialogue but that was the only thing bothering me. i liked the side story quests and the combad and i loved the main quest so far. the crafting is a bit of gathering but i don't have a problem with that i rather work for a good weapon; i found it a huge step up from da:i
@Shelassa My two cents. If other things in a game are exceeding one's expectations, one is more willing to overlook flaws/glitches/poor design. My conclusion is that ME:A fails in the category that it most needed to excel at, for a large chunk of its audience. Namely, compelling storytelling. At that point, awash in disappointment, people *will* become hyper-critical.
It would seem that ME:A continues to work for you, so you continue to be forgiving.
Honestly, I could overlook the animations if that were the games only problem. I've been a huge fan of Piranha-bytes all the way back to Gothic and even loved the Risen trilogy, and those are games that certainly lacking in terms of emotive facial expressions. But, what is more off putting is the hacky writing (Which all seems to indicate a desire to circle jerk onto a photo of their smarmy god, Joss Whedon) and overall ideology over at Bioware. Which thinks a diverse humanity means a lot of short frumpy beige people with large eyes and round faces. It seems to be a humanity free of the angular and squared features with the proportions of middle-school kids is somehow more conducive to the message? Less threatening, maybe?
I don't think the numbers lie. Lots and lots of people giving a game 0 or 1 indicates a problem in the game. The game may not be a zero or one objectively speaking, but for some reason many people haven't liked it. More often than not i've agreed with those people.
Sometimes a game gets bad user reviews because of a bug that crashes the game, or some graphics issue on certain video cards, etc. Browsing through some red reviews usually reveals these soon, so yes, reading what people say is also necessary.
It can mean that or it can mean that someone is just pissed.
That's the problem, it's not uniform. One could use the argument that a 0 or 1 means "unhappy customer". However, if you have some people who are completely writing the game off for one particular thing and then making that rating and then some people noting the same issue but noting other good things and say, rate it a 5 then that's not really using the same criteria for rating.
So let's take an example. This is a 0 for skyrim:
No more paid mods. No more paid mods. No more paid mods. No more
paid mods. No more paid mods. No more paid mods. No more paid mods. No
more paid mods. No more paid mods. No more paid mods. No more paid mods.
No more paid mods. No more paid mods. No more paid mods. No more paid
mods.
Doesn't say anything about the game just that they are angry about "paid mods".
Here's one that is a 10
Summery in a few words - "The BEST Elder Scrolls to date". Even those who loved Morrowind and liked Oblivion will LOVE this one.
It's good that they like it but it doesn't really say much about the game and I'm pretty sure that there are die hard Morrowind fans who would like Skyrim burned and the ground salted so that nothing ever grows there.
So the numbers aren't really reliable. Just what they say. that should be the thing.
Post edited by Sovrath on
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Some of you are ridiculous. You must live in a small bubble that always echos your opinion and the idea of a difference of opinion confounds you. You don't have to agree with a review. But to call it paid for is just you trying to fit your narrative. But im sure if it was a game you enjoyed you'do be perfectly ok with the score.
Yeah you got "Denuvo" on your system with the game );
Honestly I don't care how good people think "Mass Effect 4 Is" Doing something like including Denuvo DRM, which is malicious based off most games "Terms OF Service" and the Devuo company failing to contact me back on removal process of everything, plus companies refusing to change the "Terms OF Service" on Denuvo to reflect how to fully remove it...
I say don't buy the game, its the only way they are going to stop putting this shitty DRM in games, and I would leave this game the most negative review of 0 simply for including this and making the game unplayable.
I say don't buy the game, its the only way they are going to stop putting this shitty DRM in games, and I would leave this game the most negative review of 0 simply for including this and making the game unplayable.
Don't worry, the days of DRM will soon be over.
Internet access is almost universal in the NA/EU market by now, DRM will be replaced with "always-on" internet connections and player accounts, requiring you to be online for the game to work.
Having played through the trial I don't think the facial animations are any worse then the previous Mass Effect games. They obviously pale in comparison to some recent games, but I don't really care about that. The videos on the internet pointing them out are generally condensing a few minutes of bad animations into a 5 minute video, without context. Sometimes they are looped or cut in strange ways as well. I don't think it is nearly as bad as people claim it is.
The game is fantastic to me though. I really enjoy it. I think the only problem that Mass Effect faces is that it has to live up to the collective force of the original trilogy. That is just not possible. Go into it without this expectation and you will have a good time.
It is also pretty hilarious that there is actually someone trying to say MMORPG got paid for this review. Give me a break. You can't tell someone that they got paid for an opinion and then say THEY have to prove that they did not get paid after YOU accused them of it. That is not how the world works.
That is essentially the same as walking in front of someone, punching yourself in the face, and then claiming that the person you walked in front of did it. Then telling them they have to prove that they did not do it.
Now comes the point I’m surprised to having to address. The Internet’s biggest gripe with the game and the reason for petty witch-hunts: animation. Despite what you might have heard up to now, it is not that bad. Really. Occasionally, there might be a slightly weird facial expression or a stiff look another character gives you, but mostly it is people making a mountain out of molehill. In addition, let me be frank here: if you play(ed) Mass Effect and / or Dragon Age for graphics, you’re doing it wrong.
Except that things like this completely ruin any immersion. Just check that facial expression in dialogue at 38 second +
4 minutes of gameplay out of the 50+ hours...
You've proven your point................
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I'm interested in the game, or at least I was until reviews started saying it's DAI as a Mass Effect game. Now I'm not so sure. I liked the first 3 ME's well enough.
I was really annoyed by most of the side quests in DAI. They just felt like thoroughly uninteresting filler, to me. Meanwhile, the main campaign was short. Mounts were horrible and pointless... the list goes on...
Then I got Witcher 3 on sale and it blew me away. It was everything DAI should have been. The "side quests", aka Witcher contracts were as good, and sometimes better than the main story. The DLC was top notch.
Anybody have an opinion as to what the similarities are between DAI and MEA?
I remember the odd way by Mass Effect 3 Shepard would occasionally face a completely different direction from the person she was talking to in dialogue and it happened a few times. It was off putting for sure but I still liked the game a lot. So if in a game that is lasting many hours have these odd animations that occur over the course of a long game and if the game is good I am prepared to overlook all this and have no problems buying and playing this game.
Comments
Bioware has a certain standard, and it's a pretty high standard. Maybe not the highest standard, but it is certainly up there. Every time I play a Bioware game, I know I am going to get top notch voices and an excellent story. I never really looked at the animations or facial expressions before in any Bioware game. I guess I never had any problem with them. When I played Morrowind, the first thing I noticed were the bizarre character movements, and in Oblivion it was the awful facial animations. But that is a Bethesda thing, always has been always will be.
But for Bioware? This wasn't an issue in ME1 or ME2....why should it be an issue in ME A? Did they lose a bunch of talented programmers? That could very well have happened, so they hired inferior people.
Any way you look at it, it's a big black mark on Bioware.
And as a side note, the stock female Ryder character face is one of the most unappealing, ugly creations ever to happen on a monitor. And here is the thing. I do not think they were trying to make a butch female character...my god, those eyebrows.
I simply cannot believe that at some point in a Bioware office, they gathered around a big table and not one single person raised their hand and said "Uh, are we really going with this Ryder? Is this the road we want to travel down?" And I cannot believe that when it was time to go gold, those same people watched the same buggy, bad animations/facial expressions and said "Yup, this IS a Bioware product and we are proud of it?.
Not a chance. This isn't the Bioware I remember.
If i'm still in doubt, i read a few reviews in yellow section. The most objective ones can usually be found there. I don't know if i could buy any game these days if i didn't know how other gamers liked it. Prices have gone up while quality varies. Some games are next to unplayable at launch but they still charge you a full price.
I vote for a system similar to metacritic, but also where people can rate your rating and if you have too many people voting that you're completely useless, you get banned from the island. Also, if someone finds your review of a review useless then that also counts towards their rating. I wonder how long it would take for the entire Internet to be banned from that site? Lol.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I am trying hard to no longer buy games at launch or pre-order. Soooo much disappointment over the last few years.
I dont think Ive seen a single animation from this game's footage that wasnt awkward.
I agree, and I do rely on metacritic a lot to make purchase decisions, but I go about it much the same way as you when it comes to user reviews. However, the objectivity seems directly proportionate to the polarity of the company. Diablo 3 is a prime example. Critics have it at an average of 8.8 and users rate it at a 4.0. No Man's Sky gets a 7.1 from critics and a 4.5 from users.
I'm not saying that the SYSTEM is a bad idea, but if we're pointing out warts of systems, between critics and users, I think that there is probably less objectivity from critics than there is from users, unless you go and search out users that seem to specifically identify with your personal likes and dislikes.
Again, I'm not saying user reviews are a bad idea. I think they are much more ideal. However, the Internet has a habit of taking a fantastic idea and breaking it horribly. That's my contention.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
It's better not to look at numbers and just read what people are saying and see if they inform you based on your preferences.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
speaking is just plain wierd. There is also something wrong with their eyes, particular on humans.
Something feels off in general and when people say its like "Inquisition in space" I know this
is one RPG Im not going to buy....sadly, I was hyped before, glad I didnt pre-ordered this.
Sometimes a game gets bad user reviews because of a bug that crashes the game, or some graphics issue on certain video cards, etc. Browsing through some red reviews usually reveals these soon, so yes, reading what people say is also necessary.
It would seem that ME:A continues to work for you, so you continue to be forgiving.
That's the problem, it's not uniform. One could use the argument that a 0 or 1 means "unhappy customer". However, if you have some people who are completely writing the game off for one particular thing and then making that rating and then some people noting the same issue but noting other good things and say, rate it a 5 then that's not really using the same criteria for rating.
So let's take an example. This is a 0 for skyrim:
No more paid mods. No more paid mods. No more paid mods. No more paid mods. No more paid mods. No more paid mods. No more paid mods. No more paid mods. No more paid mods. No more paid mods. No more paid mods. No more paid mods. No more paid mods. No more paid mods. No more paid mods.
Doesn't say anything about the game just that they are angry about "paid mods".
Here's one that is a 10
Summery in a few words - "The BEST Elder Scrolls to date". Even those who loved Morrowind and liked Oblivion will LOVE this one.
It's good that they like it but it doesn't really say much about the game and I'm pretty sure that there are die hard Morrowind fans who would like Skyrim burned and the ground salted so that nothing ever grows there.
So the numbers aren't really reliable. Just what they say. that should be the thing.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Honestly I don't care how good people think "Mass Effect 4 Is" Doing something like including Denuvo DRM, which is malicious based off most games "Terms OF Service" and the Devuo company failing to contact me back on removal process of everything, plus companies refusing to change the "Terms OF Service" on Denuvo to reflect how to fully remove it...
I say don't buy the game, its the only way they are going to stop putting this shitty DRM in games, and I would leave this game the most negative review of 0 simply for including this and making the game unplayable.
Internet access is almost universal in the NA/EU market by now, DRM will be replaced with "always-on" internet connections and player accounts, requiring you to be online for the game to work.
The "final solution" for piracy is almost here...
The game is fantastic to me though. I really enjoy it. I think the only problem that Mass Effect faces is that it has to live up to the collective force of the original trilogy. That is just not possible. Go into it without this expectation and you will have a good time. It is also pretty hilarious that there is actually someone trying to say MMORPG got paid for this review. Give me a break. You can't tell someone that they got paid for an opinion and then say THEY have to prove that they did not get paid after YOU accused them of it. That is not how the world works. That is essentially the same as walking in front of someone, punching yourself in the face, and then claiming that the person you walked in front of did it. Then telling them they have to prove that they did not do it.
4 minutes of gameplay out of the 50+ hours...
You've proven your point................
I was really annoyed by most of the side quests in DAI. They just felt like thoroughly uninteresting filler, to me. Meanwhile, the main campaign was short. Mounts were horrible and pointless... the list goes on...
Then I got Witcher 3 on sale and it blew me away. It was everything DAI should have been. The "side quests", aka Witcher contracts were as good, and sometimes better than the main story. The DLC was top notch.
Anybody have an opinion as to what the similarities are between DAI and MEA?