1251 replies to this topic

[travelbug]

very surprised it hit 5 actually. with all the rage and disatisfaction i was expecting 3 or lower.


but the most glaring detail, no reviews from 'pro'/media critics. as marketing people say, bad reviews are better than no reviews. makes me think no one cares oustide of the mwo community.

Edited by travelbug, 17 September 2013 - 06:48 PM.

[Wired]

Livewyr, on 17 September 2013 - 06:33 PM, said:

I'm not talking about the people are giving their one review.. you have a right to your opinion and sharing it on a review site..

You do NOT have a right to 4 opinions, or the opinions of Bryan Eckman, Sean Lang, or Russ Bullock.

Hey, I am against it as well but I would like to point out that several of the glowing reviews are from people who are openly against the state of the game and the developers at the moment. Sudden brainwashing or someone making puppet accounts?

[Wales Grey]

Livewyr, on 17 September 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

I'm no where near a white knight- I'm waiting to write my review until I'm in a neutral mood (probably tomorrow morning)

Your previous posting indicates an attempt to "valiantly" defend the honour of PGI from the opinions of others; this is what I mean by "white knighting". There is nothing inherently wrong with defending something, but you have to do so logically if you want to make a solid case for it. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with writing a critical or negative review. The presence of multiple negative or critical reviews does not, in any way, imply that people are sock-puppeting.

The reviewers impersonating Russ, Garth, et. al. are not defensible, so I will make no effort to do so.

[Farpenoodle]

travelbug, on 17 September 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

very surprised it hit 5 actually. with all the rage and disatisfaction i was expecting 3 or lower.

Believe it or not people who actually like the game for what it is exist. You don't see them as often because why bother posting something positive if you're just going to get called naive or a corporate shill.

[Livewyr]

Wired, on 17 September 2013 - 06:43 PM, said:

Hey, I am against it as well but I would like to point out that several of the glowing reviews are from people who are openly against the state of the game and the developers at the moment. Sudden brainwashing or someone making puppet accounts?

I've no doubt there are dual accounts made for giving 9s/10s as well, and I think those should be culled-

However, I'm very vocal about the game as well (and very critical of PGI- have been ever since ECM) and despite my fairly consistent ragging on them, I will probably end up giving the game between a 5-9, TBD once I have some time to actually weigh the pros and cons.

(So just because someone is cynical doesn't mean they can't/shouldn't give a positive review- sorta like that parent who rags on their kid all the time to drive them, who is actually very proud..)

[Wales Grey]

Farpenoodle, on 17 September 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

Believe it or not people who actually like the game for what it is exist. You don't see them as often because why bother posting something positive if you're just going to get called naive or a corporate shill.

The most scathing reviews are the 5s and 6s. I like MWO, it's not a bad game. Mostly kind of fun. But I don't feel that it has done enough to merit much more than a 5 at this time.

It's simply not that good.

[DrSecretStache]

Wales Grey, on 17 September 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

Hi, please site one instance of a person giving a score of Zero and spamming squawk in their review, thanks in advance.

http://www.metacriti...m/user/TheGoons

Quote

Squawk squawk squawk squawk squawk squawk squawk squawk squawk squawk squawk
squawk squawk squawk squawk
oh you want a opinion on the game? it's something awful

Criteria met.

[Silent]

Zoughtbaj, on 17 September 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

http://www.metacriti...m/user/TheGoons



Criteria met.

That was me.

[Livewyr]

Wales Grey, on 17 September 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

Your previous posting indicates an attempt to "valiantly" defend the honour of PGI from the opinions of others; this is what I mean by "white knighting". There is nothing inherently wrong with defending something, but you have to do so logically if you want to make a solid case for it. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with writing a critical or negative review. The presence of multiple negative or critical reviews does not, in any way, imply that people are sock-puppeting.

The reviewers impersonating Russ, Garth, et. al. are not defensible, so I will make no effort to do so.

(editing out mean remark)

One Person, creating MULTIPLE accounts (Like the SeanLang and Russbullock accounts), in order to magnify the weight of their SINGLE opinion amongst others is wrong in general, for obvious reasons. Where do you keep getting that I'm against someone having a dissenting opinion?

Edited by Livewyr, 17 September 2013 - 06:53 PM.

[DrSecretStache]

Silent, on 17 September 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

That was me.

He asked. I guess you answered

[Farpenoodle]

Wales Grey, on 17 September 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

The most scathing reviews are the 5s and 6s. I like MWO, it's not a bad game. Mostly kind of fun. But I don't feel that it has done enough to merit much more than a 5 at this time.

It's simply not that good.

Indeed. It's definitely not more than a 6 in it's current state. But in terms of my personal enjoyment that I get out of the game, it's around an 8 for me. There's plenty of things that bug me but the core experience is good. That's what matters to me.

[merz]

Wales Grey, on 17 September 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

It's simply not that good.

you know, it really isn't that good, though how you go about calibrating that is kind of a problem. my guess is that if you didnt see potential to subvert the whole thing, you wouldn't invest the kind of dedication that your lot has. and its painfully obvious to damn near everyone from whence the rage flows. heard some of you lot have taken time off of work, thats some serious eve-nostalgia poopsock alarmclock op, towers coming out of siege..

but, yeah, going back to eve .. swing the heartache a bit. the game launched with a huge investment on the part of landsbanki, got a publisher who put it out in boxed form and tanked with a fraction of subscribers this one currently has. The game in its release form was borderline unplayable, the servers frequently had outages that lasted into multiple days. The numbers were quite humble but, despite a learning curve that makes this seem like toys suggested for 3-5 year olds, retention was and remains quite solid. And my guess is the same will happen here. Just as with eve, it will take many years and a lot of man-hours to flesh out the gameplay, continuously revise some of the core mechanics in order for newly-introduced content to be both meaningful and balanced. Some people, perhaps a fraction of the total subscriber base, will remain and continue paying. They are typically spending considerably more on this game per month than the considerably smaller number of subscribers $15-30 had been spending on their eve subscriptions.. As more people come, some fraction will continue to be retained. In time, old veterans may pick it up again to experience new features that, while long overdue, are something that is best done with time, consideration and quality assurance rather than under demands of some goonsperge threatening with community rage of holy retribution.

not happening. not your game to make. sod off.

Edited by merz, 17 September 2013 - 07:13 PM.

[Wired]

Livewyr, on 17 September 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

I've no doubt there are dual accounts made for giving 9s/10s as well, and I think those should be culled-

However, I'm very vocal about the game as well (and very critical of PGI- have been ever since ECM) and despite my fairly consistent ragging on them, I will probably end up giving the game between a 5-9, TBD once I have some time to actually weigh the pros and cons.

(So just because someone is cynical doesn't mean they can't/shouldn't give a positive review- sorta like that parent who rags on their kid all the time to drive them, who is actually very proud..)

I would be perfectly willing to bump my score up from a 0 the moment a few posts are removed. However, I cannot justify a score higher than 30 for a game which is incomplete and only a very small part of the whole is enjoyable. 5s and 6s are reserved for a decent attempt at a game with some minor problems which could be improved upon. MWO, however, has a enough other problems which you have to take into account for which have been discussed.

So while I agree, you can be upset with the game and give it an average score... You need to understand what an average score is supposed to be. A feature incomplete game with problems in art*, Lack of Content, and Dev communication as a whole does not count for an average game.


*in regards to mech scaling. The actual mech designs are good in most cases, they just need small tweeks and rescaled, along with the maps.

Silent, on 17 September 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

That was me.

I am sparticus!

But really, I have only seen one on there so that does not count for goon spam.

[Silent]

merz, on 17 September 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

you know, it really isn't that good, though how you go about calibrating that is kind of a problem. my guess is that if you didnt see potential to subvert the whole thing, you wouldn't invest the kind of dedication that your lot has. and its painfully obvious to damn near everyone from whence the rage flows. heard some of you lot have taken time off of work, thats some serious eve-nostalgia poopsock alarmclock op, towers coming out of siege..

but, yeah, going back to eve .. swing the heartache a bit. the game launched with a huge investment on the part of landsbanki, got a publisher who put it out in boxed form and tanked with a fraction of subscribers this one currently has. The game in its release form was borderline unplayable, the servers frequently had outages that lasted into multiple days. The numbers were quite humble but, despite a learning curve that makes this seem like toys suggested for 3-5 year olds, retention was and remains quite solid. And my guess is the same will happen here. Just as with eve, it will take many years and a lot of man-hours to flesh out the gameplay, continuously revise some of the core mechanics in order for newly-introduced content to be both meaningful and balanced. Some people, perhaps a fraction of the total subscriber base, will remain and continue paying. They are typically spending considerably more on this game per month than the considerably smaller number of subscribers $15-30 had been spending on their eve subscriptions.. As more people come, some fraction will continue to be retained. In time, old veterans may pick it up again to experience new features that, while long overdue, are something that is best done with time, consideration and quality assurance than under demands of some goonsperge shitlord threatening with community rage of holy retribution.

not happening. not your game. sod off.

You can't use "goonsperge shitlord" to insult us. You can only insult us by using "dezgra" and "surat"

Hope this helps. Sending in my report to the mods now.

[FriscoeHotsauce]

There are actually reviews up on metacritic where reviewers actually say "I'm giving this a 0 to negate blind PGI followers giving it a 10".

Really? Is this what we're stooping to? Is this a community or a rivalry?

All I want is for the game to improve, and deliver on it's amazing potential, and there is no way that bombing metacritic user scores is going to allow that to happen. Stop.

[Wales Grey]

Livewyr, on 17 September 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

(editing out mean remark)

One Person, creating MULTIPLE accounts (Like the SeanLang and Russbullock accounts), in order to magnify the weight of their SINGLE opinion amongst others is wrong in general, for obvious reasons. Where do you keep getting that I'm against someone having a dissenting opinion?

I said that the SeanLang and RussBullock accounts were inexcusable. I'm not saying that you're against people dissenting. Rather, I'm saying that you seem to be jumping to defend a company who does not need nor will reward your defense.

Flavious59, on 17 September 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

There are actually reviews up on metacritic where reviewers actually say "I'm giving this a 0 to negate blind PGI followers giving it a 10".

Really? Is this what we're stooping to? Is this a community or a rivalry?

All I want is for the game to improve, and deliver on it's amazing potential, and there is no way that bombing metacritic user scores is going to allow that to happen. Stop.

The "0s to balance the 10s" is because a bunch of people got upset that people had different opinions on the game and "rated 10/10 to balance out the haters".

If we look to the root cause of the problem, it's people trying to "defend" MWO from people who gave the game bad scores.

[merz]

i'd consider it a spiritual victory.

Edited by merz, 17 September 2013 - 07:08 PM.

[Livewyr]

Wales Grey, on 17 September 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

I said that the SeanLang and RussBullock accounts were inexcusable. I'm not saying that you're against people dissenting. Rather, I'm saying that you seem to be jumping to defend a company who does not need nor will reward your defense.

I'm not defending the company. (that will be very evident in my review tomorrow)

I am "attacking" those who actively use fraud to throw legitimate average rating one way or the other. This game deserves what it gets, as long as it legitimately gets it.

[Wales Grey]

Livewyr, on 17 September 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

I'm not defending the company. (that will be very evident in my review tomorrow)

I am "attacking" those who actively use fraud to throw legitimate average rating one way or the other. This game deserves what it gets, as long as it legitimately gets it.

Ah, I've seen so many people mount illogical and frankly bizzare attempts to defend PGI today that I've taken a critical hit to my content identifiers. Sorry if I jumped down your throat.

[Livewyr]

Wales Grey, on 17 September 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

Ah, I've seen so many people mount illogical and frankly bizzare attempts to defend PGI today that I've taken a critical hit to my content identifiers. Sorry if I jumped down your throat.

Yeah, I see those too.. lol. (I wince.. because I really do want the game to be successful, and it's nice to see people really support the company..but they do it on subjects without base or logic..)

I was a definitive supporter of PGI, so long as there was room for doubt on the doom and gloom to come.. then ECM happened, and was cemented after 5 months. (Then I became a hater- before centering on critic)