@thageorgian: Nice one line comment ignoring what I briefly pointed out but could write a novel about: Witcher 3 suffered the exact same issues they are complaining about this game.
Look. Witcher 3 was not a masterpiece. Far from it. People got blinded by great dialogue and story/characters (characters built over 3 games, mind you) and ignored the atrocious technical issues and mediocrity of a gameplay system they had to trudge forth to even complete the story. Had Witcher 3 not been as gritty, or had the story not been as entertaining, it would have been a 5.0 at best.
Horizon: Zero Dawn - great gameplay covering for weak questing, bland (though pretty) world, completely forgettable characters, and a feeble story with generic cut/paste dialogue.
Metal Gear: TFP - Fantastic gameplay covering for atrocious story and almost comical dialogue (or lack thereof); lots of long load times, lots of helicopter sitting.
Witcher 3: Great story with fantastic dialogue and a natural, well-done grit covering for awful control mechanics, poor inventory, bland world outside of the main city-hubs, shallow/hollow combat. Keep in mind ... it also had 2 other games to build up characters/story. No one said Geralt, Triss, or Yennefer were amazing characters after Witcher 1. Trust me. I was around when that near unplayable game was released.
A TRUE MASTERPIECE is a game that gives you fantastic GAMEPLAY on top of FANTASTIC story-telling and characters.
None of those games I mentioned are masterpieces, or anywhere near it. To me, they are all in the 7-8 range. The only problem is we have no masterpieces ever come out, so we have to upvote games that don't really deserve it. Then we critizie other games for doing the same thing. And why? Because EA made it? Or it's the cultural-mindset to do at the time? This game comes out 5 months earlier or later, it might have an entirely different review. Probably be higher if it came out before Zelda and Horizon, truthfully. That is inconsistent game reviewing and reviewing influenced by culture and emotion more so than actual technical and gameplay capability.
They say Zelda was a masterpiece. We'll see. I have yet to try it.
But with ME:A, I have a feeling I'll play this game and enjoy the gameplay quite a bit, find the story okay and the characters lacking compared to Jack, Tali, Miranda, Mordin and a few others. But I also am realistic to understand I've only had one game to experience them in. Not 3.
When you herald Witcher 3 as a masterpiece, and when it is not, that sets the stage to have other games suffer the same problems. Companies will try to mirror that since its the standard culture set. And that is NOT a game you want to mirror. It had so many technical flaws it's not even funny.
But ignore my points. Post a one-liner. Also, hard to compare two games when you have yet to play this one...
"Within that short span of time, I'd already encountered unconvincing animations, bog standard missions, clunky user interface, stilted dialogue--basically every red flag you hope to avoid when approaching a lengthy shooter-RPG powered equally by action and story."
Which is basically Witcher 3, in a nutshell. I don't get why Witcher 3 was so well-received and regarded when it suffered all of the same issues. Why is it considered the new RPG standard? All it did well was tell a very good story with very good dialogue/characters --- dialogue that carried a mediocre game in terms of actual gameplay.
To me, ME:A looks to have fun and engaging/fluid gameplay. I find good gameplay enough to carry bad games: look at Metal Gear Solid: TFP, as a shining beacon of an example. But Witcher 3 had sub-par gameplay: horrible inventory; an awful loot-mechanic only fixable by mods; some of the worst character/horse controls in existence; basic combat system that was dodge+attack+attack+attack; dodge+attack+attack+attack no matter what difficulty you played on. Also a game with a fair share of animation and technical glitches, and a game that had nearly every action even during dialogue sequences occur off-screen (Triss lowers her hood? off-screen. Geralt kills someone? off-screen. Characters move to another location to talk? Off-screen).
Yet ME:A gets panned for some of the same issues? Look, not saying it's a great game, I just hate the inconsistent bandwagon reviewing these media sites subscribe to. It's like the news: people get this mass-mentality and just run with it. "Witcher 3 is fantastic!" is the memo, so everyone thinks that. ME:A is mediocre, so everyone thinks that. Star Wars: Force Awakens is GREAT! Everyone thinks that (when we all know it wasn't, especially in retrospect). Avatar is AMAZING! when no one remembers that sham of a movie existed.
Anyway. ME looks to be more fun than some other RPGs of late in terms of gameplay. That, I am looking forward to. What I am not really looking forward to is the sub-par character cast and I wasn't thrilled with the story setting, either. That being said, people forget that ME1-3 had 3 games to build up amazing characters over, not just 1. Yet, we want to instantly compare 1 game to a trilogy (that's only logical, and unavoidable though). However, after ME1 no one wrote home saying these were some of the greatest characters of all time. It wasn't until the following two games where some of those characters (Liara, Tali especially) were really flushed out. Hell, Liara was a lame duck in ME1.
If they can do 50% of what they say, this game will be the genre-changer the MMO market has needed for so many years. Unique servers would be great. I've been craving an MMO that would allow for different experiences each time you leveled a character due to ever-changing environments and A.I. feeding off those environments. Non-static worlds are the way to go ... now only if SOE can pull it off.
Ever since MGS3, I have lost interest quickly in this series - basically to the point where I skip by most MG related articles. I loved MGS1 and MGS2. I wasn't thrilled with MGS3 going back in time, but it turned out to be a great game. MGS4 had good gameplay, but the story was terrible and 80% of the elements felt like cop-outs to tie loose ends. Between 2-4 there's been about a million handheld releases which I could care less about. I had no interest in MG Rising. I'm having zero interest in this installment, especially with Keifer Sutherland being cast as Snake's voice. I don't know - this series just doesn't do it for me anymore. It jumped the shark a ways back, I think at least.
This is one of the few games I've really been waiting for the past few years. I loved the first game. The second looking nothing but better. Better quests, better guns, better environments, better enemies, tougher challenges complete with all the refined, detailed, and stylish game play Gearbox is legendary for.
Perfect example of how hype can sell a product. The product itself is nothing new, nothing that we haven't seen before - simply a revamped version of an older game yet the hype (and abudance of new age gamers) have allowed this to break records. But don't let that fool you, people. Does that mean Diablo 3 is some godly game? No. Is Avatar the best movie ever? Definitely not. Most people forgot they even ever saw it. And most people months from now will forgot they even own Diablo 3.
@Emoboii93 No, I don't. And I don't use terms like "lol" and reply with one line comments which just proves how far apart our mentalities are. Sadly, your comment only deserves a one line response ... but I'm making it a little longer just to add some flavor.
SlickMajestic's comments