141 replies to this topic

[TLBFestus]

Country Gravy, on 11 September 2013 - 03:10 PM, said:

You know that game journalism is a joke, right? If you only play the games with high reviews, you only play games that have a high enough budget to grease the palms of game "journalists".

I'm not entirely as gullible as when I ponied up for MWO.

I've been gaming for 25+ years, going back to DOS based games with no graphics, and I read multiple reviews of games from different sources before forming an opinion. I just didn't want to type all that in the earlier post, but you done gone and made me do it din't cha?

[Alex Wolfe]

As was foretold months ago, back when the rushed, broken open beta was announced.



RIP, MWO. Taken too soon, and quite literally too.

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 15 September 2013 - 12:55 PM.

[Toong]

rdmx, on 11 September 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

It's not my review. 6/10 is not a great score. merely an OK one. I bolded the critical comments as I thought it pertinent to the discussion.

No, but it is your commentary when you bold the negative aspects of the review, and ignore the positivie aspects of which there were some. What I'm trying to get at here, is that emphasizing part of the review over the other implies that you are looking for a certain type of feedback.

[Sybreed]

if all reviews are like this one, it'll be the end of MWO for sure....... ouch

[Protection]

Prophecy, not speculation:




Although, on the other hand, 6/10 is blowing away my pessimistic expectations for the overall score.

[Tragos]

Well, Gamestar, one of the two biggest PC-Magazines in Germany awards 85%. That looks a bit different, doesn't it? They rate HAWKEN with 76% (just so you have a comparison).

http://www.gamestar....tung/45175.html

They like: Matchmaking (yes, they do), no p2w, atmosphere, gameplay itself.

One should have a look at what they do here: They simply LIKE the game like a lot of the players here do. Yes, it has it's bad sides (mainly the lack of progress) and PGI's lying. But what exactly are you guys trying to accomplish here? Get as many negative reviews as possible? What good will THAT do?

Edited by Tragos, 11 September 2013 - 04:29 PM.

[Johnny Z]

I give this review a 2/10 for not even trying to be genuine. If he started in 3pv then the review is invalid.

[MischiefSC]

Someone should have given the reviewer the link to remove film grain. While some new visual effects have rendered the film grain remover less effective it still drastically improves the visual fidelity of the game. Boy, if we had an option to just remove film grain.... *HINT*

[Sybreed]

well, so far, I'll wait. Those are not major sites or magazines anyway. If I see a gamespot or IGN review of 7 or less, than yeah, MWO is in trouble.

PGI will wish they haven't pissed their founders off

[rdmx]

Johnny Z, on 11 September 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

I give this review a 2/10 for not even trying to be genuine. If he started in 3pv then the review is invalid.

This review would have been written and released before 3PV hit. I did not post the full review, only quotes. Also, not genuine? lol

Toong, on 11 September 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

No, but it is your commentary when you bold the negative aspects of the review, and ignore the positivie aspects of which there were some. What I'm trying to get at here, is that emphasizing part of the review over the other implies that you are looking for a certain type of feedback.

Sure, it's discuss/consider how the game can be improved. If everything was hunky dory, there would be a lot more positive feedback in the review.

Edited by rdmx, 11 September 2013 - 04:44 PM.

[Alex Wolfe]

Tragos, on 11 September 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

Gamestar

My German is rusty, am I reading this right?

>graphics 8/10
>sound 8/10
>balance 8/10
>atmosphere 9/10
>controls 9/10
>amount of content 8/10
>level design 9/10
>weapons and gear 9/10
>fight system 9/10
>multiplayer modes 8/10

AssaultWarrior Online is worth 8/10 in balance, bowl arenas that either are cramped and laden with chokepoints or take ages to traverse (only to get back capped) are worth 9/10? Not a peep about the new player wood chipper?

Wow, so if this review is trustworthy, then MWO is a pearl and runaway hit after all! Phew. Guess I'll pop the good champagne now.

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 11 September 2013 - 04:50 PM.

[Alex Warden]

reviews are always subjective... you can take 10 different magazines, and find at least 80% of them coming to whole different scores...

gamestar for example almost NEVER writes reviews with which i agreed, but i also would give MWO 60% because i think the content which IS there is good... not perfect, but not bad either... only downside is that there is not MORE content, and the only longterm motivation is the hope for news every day

when PGI finally brings CW and such, i guess that might add another 10 - 15%, maybe 20% (depending on HOW they bring it^^) to my score...

as i said...it´s a very subjective thing, and i found that alot of games with bad reviews were actually very enjoyable... but yea, people tend to believe everything that a "professional" writes...

Alex Wolfe, on 11 September 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

then MWO is a pearl

for me it is...still the only online game that i playmore than once a week for a long time now

Edited by Alex Warden, 11 September 2013 - 05:08 PM.

[Tekadept]

LOL just found the article to read

There an image there and a caption is

Quote

We’re currently capturing the red team’s base. When the red bar depletes we’ll have won Which will likely occur without us, as the enemy STALKER in front is punishing our RAVEN"

The funny thing is it isnt a stalker in front of him only that he has a stalker targeted

[Alex Wolfe]

Alex Warden, on 11 September 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

for me it is...still the only online game that i playmore than once a week for a long time now

Reviews are subjective, of course. People all like different things. I myself am extracting minimally viable fun from MWO once every few days, only taking longer breaks on truly spectacular netcode/balance mess-ups.

Point is though, things like "balance" aren't subjective, and the author heavily implies that role warfare is still a thing and there are no top tier player avatar Uber-mechs (like, say, assaults) ruling over cannon fodder peasants (like, say, mediums). Or that maps are completely praiseworthy for all but size and textures, while not only the way matches play out, but also a glance at heat maps shows the ugly truth of MWO map design.

Oh, and it also says that one of graphics' pros is that "legs can fall off". So there's that.

You can like a bad game, but the article goes to questionable lengths to showcase MWO as a very good game. I cannot agree with that.

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 12 September 2013 - 04:36 AM.

[D1al T0ne]

Sybreed, on 11 September 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

well, so far, I'll wait. Those are not major sites or magazines anyway. If I see a gamespot or IGN review of 7 or less, than yeah, MWO is in trouble.

PGI will wish they haven't pissed their founders off

The big name magazines will play the game for a couple of hours and completely not see the issues. They will all most likely touch on the UI problems, and maybe the low quality graphics, but it took me a week of playing to even realize how broken the weapons and hardpoint systems are.

[Protection]

Sybreed, on 11 September 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

well, so far, I'll wait. Those are not major sites or magazines anyway. If I see a gamespot or IGN review of 7 or less, than yeah, MWO is in trouble.

PGI will wish they haven't pissed their founders off

Implying that IGN has any credibility as a gaming review site.

[Applejack]

I'm expecting MWO's Metascore to be less than 60%.

[TexAce]

Seriously this picture tells more than 1000 words. How can this be a good scale?? Change the mechs to people and it will look like it totally was made for humans than for mechs. Nothing here shows the real scale of the mechs. The alien plants dont help either.

It would be a good map for a quad racing game tho.

Dont get me wrong, I think its extremly difficult to get this right. The most important part are assets (trees plants cars buildings and so on) and textures. And textures are the biggest culprit in MWO because they dont tell the scale at all. You would need much more highres textures and I wonder if this is even possible.

Does anybody know if they ever told something about a normal pass coming? Meaning bump mapping. It could help and its not present in the maps at the moment, only on the mechs, so I wonder if they ever lost a word about it.

Edited by TexAss, 12 September 2013 - 04:12 AM.

[Johnny Z]

The biggest problem with scale for me didnt become apparent until the 3rd pseron view was added. 3pv makes the mechs look tiny. They should make the 3pv at ankle height to show the size of the mechs and allow to view the custom paint and such.

For 1st person view they would have to move the view back i am guessing further into the cockpit, but that might take to much away from the playabilty for real.

For the review of the game, i am not impressed and this make me want to stick with the reputable review sites even more.

[Sybreed]

Protection, on 12 September 2013 - 12:15 AM, said:

Implying that IGN has any credibility as a gaming review site.

they have 0 credibility, but they're the most viewed and have the biggest potential playerbase for PGI. Anything under 7/10 will make readers lift their noses over MWO.

Edited by Sybreed, 12 September 2013 - 05:36 AM.