398 replies to this topic

[Helmer]

http://www.pcgamer.c...-online-review/


Verdict : Slightly overpriced, but a more than worthy successor to one of PC gaming’s greatest franchises that nails the important part: combat.

Edited by Helmer, 26 October 2013 - 01:37 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

They havent played it long enough to be bored with the dearth of content. Barring that oversight I agree the combat is pretty good.

[Sybreed]

meh

[kesuga7]

Ehh pc gamer always covered MWO stories and had coconut monkey promo

Highish score doesn't suprise but mwo still good

[Kattspya]

I think I know where the founders money went

[Darius Deadeye]

I just wish PGI had had the foresight to WAIT with the official release untill the game was, you know, more than a mech combat simulator.

I also wish for world peace.

*twinkles his bright blue eyes at the sky*

[Silent]

Reason: Coconut Monkey and PC Gamer skin/colors.

[AlexEss]

83 is a tad to high... a 63 perhaps in it´s current shape 68-70 once U.I 2.0 goes in and i think it could land at a 83 once CW is in and working.

But right now it is a bit high.

[Deathlike]

Silent, on 27 October 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

Reason: Coconut Monkey and PC Gamer skin/colors.

You know what's worse? They have mentioned all the negative things that have been said time and time again about this game.

Hard learning curve (not enough tutorials), costs don't make sense (for paying customers), no end goal at the moment...

I mean, the score means nothing once you start reading the content and it doesn't match up with the assessment.

[Gremlich Johns]

83 is generous.

[Helmer]

Darius Deadeye, on 27 October 2013 - 05:53 AM, said:

I just wish PGI had had the foresight to WAIT with the official release untill the game was, you know, more than a mech combat simulator.

I also wish for world peace.

*twinkles his bright blue eyes at the sky*

I had the opportunity to talk to Evan at the launch party and asked about when he'd be doing his review. He said they wanted to wait until UI 2.0 and CW where out, and if they were coming out soon, they would. However, because it was going to be months before we saw those that they couldn't wait and review a "launch" title 6 months down the road.

I'm honestly a bit shocked by the review and think Evan was very generous. I expected , in its current state, more of a score of around 65-70%.

Edited by Helmer, 27 October 2013 - 09:46 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Deathlike, on 27 October 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

You know what's worse? They have mentioned all the negative things that have been said time and time again about this game.

Hard learning curve (not enough tutorials), costs don't make sense (for paying customers), no end goal at the moment...

I mean, the score means nothing once you start reading the content and it doesn't match up with the assessment.

That's how I felt reading the review. I was expecting some glowing and perhaps overenthusiastic review, but it was actually full of the type of critique you've seen in other reviews that gave poorer ratings.

I suppose it's another example of the arbitrariness of ratings...

[Windies]

MustrumRidcully, on 27 October 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

That's how I felt reading the review. I was expecting some glowing and perhaps overenthusiastic review, but it was actually full of the type of critique you've seen in other reviews that gave poorer ratings.

I suppose it's another example of the arbitrariness of ratings...

That's why I generally read the reviews and skip the ratings anymore, especially user reviews.

[Miekael]

It would probably be a bit of a paradox for PC Gamer to claim this game is "Top 25 shooter of all time," and then give it a poor review score.

[KovarD]

Kattspya, on 26 October 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

I think I know where the founders money went

Remember guys, According to PCGamer, MWO is one of the 25 Best Shooters of All Time.

Edited by KovarD, 27 October 2013 - 12:39 PM.

[Slaytronic]

white knights are gonna love this review lol the one good one but they will point it out in every argument from now on guaranteed

[Deathlike]

MustrumRidcully, on 27 October 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

That's how I felt reading the review. I was expecting some glowing and perhaps overenthusiastic review, but it was actually full of the type of critique you've seen in other reviews that gave poorer ratings.

I suppose it's another example of the arbitrariness of ratings...

I remember eating at a fast food place (not the traditional McDs and all) a long time ago and I ordered spaghetti... I decided that day to order meatballs with it.

When I got my meal, I got a meatball... just 1. It costed me .25 more for the one meatball they added in.

I decided then and there to not ever order meatballs for that meal ever again.

Saying I'd give an A for the entire meal would be disingenuous. I got a D-F quality "addition" at the value is a joke.

It applies here... you say all these legitimate negative things and then have previously said "Top 25 Shooter of All Time", you have no credibility when you put out the rating as listed there. As a "publication", you must be consistent and unless the facts change, you cannot go out by completely selling out to the companies you are reviewing. You have to be critical, and there's a reason why publications like even TVGuide has to mention that they are partly (?) owned by CBS. PGI has given PCGamer access in the form of that special MWO publication and PCGamer specific content in MWO, so to think there's "nothing out of the ordinary" is... putting blinders on.

Edited by Deathlike, 27 October 2013 - 12:32 PM.

[Novakaine]

Well I see PGI has put their money to good use.
Combat - Excellent.
Content - er.........hmmmmm well, hold on gotta look for it.

[Sug]

83% is about right if all MWO was meant to be was team deathmatch. It's a fun, basically stable, fairly balanced game.

Factor in all the missing features and MWO becomes a tech demo for a much bigger and better game. A score in the 60's would be more reasonable. Games like DOTA2 and LOL were given scores of 85% and they're arguable more complete and feature rich than MWO.





Something I noticed: DOTA2 was reviewed twice and given an 85% then a 90% a year later, I'd love to know what was added to the game that bumped the score to 90% and if what was added was anywhere near the equivalent of CW, clans, UI2.0 etc....

[Heffay]

The confirmation bias here is entertaining.