1251 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

RG Notch, on 18 September 2013 - 07:44 AM, said:

Yes the game will clearly get better if everyone with complaints leaves and people review the game based on rose colored glasses and hope and wishes. Wish in one hand and **** in the other and see which fills faster.

Well thanks for that - but that is exactly what I meant.
You think that everybody that say the game might be ok has rose colored glasses ... that means you don't use arguements you simple accuse me to be not objectiv. That is a trend i have seen to often.
Well the other side has another opinion ergo they have to be a bunch of idots?

Most forum poster misunderstand the meaning of placing polite critism and trading insults - and that is what makes me angry.

When I have the choice of wearing rose glasses or beeing one of hundreds in a flaming mob - believe me i choose the glasses over beeing a blatant clown - that will never be happy may it be a yes or a no

Edited by Karl Streiger, 18 September 2013 - 10:48 PM.

[Protection]

What I find really shocking is that people still think that community warfare is going to be anything more that a six coloured scoreboard and a static map of the Inner Sphere.

In case you haven't figured it out - community warfare is just going to be 'loyalty points' tacked on to the existing 12v12 deathmatch system.

There is never, ever, ever going to be an "assault the base," "destroy the dropsship," or "protect the convoy mission." Ever. It's not going to happen.

There's not going to be a player controlled map where you have to manage resources or have strategic limitations forcing choices on players. There's never going to be a purpose for unit alliances or an opportunity for betrayal or a purpose for diplomacy. It's random 4 man 12 v 12 deathmatches all the way down.

[WILL WORK FOR JUMPJETS]

I think that the large issue is perspective. If you judge a game by what it could be, then it's rare you will ever be completely satisfied.

If you judge a game by it's developer content, then you must also weigh it against the developer size, funding, and production ability.

For what it's worth, the game as it stands is alright. It has issues, it has perks. It has great art, sounds, and visuals. It lacks some important features. The game is functional, but not fully fleshed out. Communication is occasionally good, and occasionally bad. Development is steady, though not flawless. The game can be fun, but it's not always easy to have fun. New players can learn, but it's not necessarily one of the game's strong points.

So really, at the end of the day, people who roll with the hate train, or are deluded by promises of the moon, will always write polarized reviews. If you want to be fair to the game, you have to be fair to what it is, and not what you wish it could be. That also means checking your personal relations with the forum goers and dev's at the door- you're not reviewing a studio, you're reviewing a game.

[Sandpit]

The Cheese, on 18 September 2013 - 10:47 PM, said:

That's like saying that the money I won in a game of poker is worth less because I cheated in order to win.

The company's integrity has nothing at all to do with the actual product you're reviewing. They're two separate entities.

No sir they are not. This is no way anything like a poker game. I don't sit down at a poker game and expect a product to be delivered. Not to mention it doesnt' make the money less valuable but it does make you less valuable and once you open admit to cheating the other players at the VERY least you'll be forced to leave the game and not return. Your analogy is a poor example. The company's integrity has EVERYTHING to do with the product when many people are hinging their hopes and reviews on features that are going to be implemented "soon". This game would get a 4-5 if I based a rating purely on the core game. It's ok but has no storyline, collisions are still broken, heat and weapons still aren't balanced, the economy still isn't balanced, gameplay is stuck with two options of the same game(both options are stomp to points on the map and take them over and/or shoot everyone on the other team, rinse, and repeat), replayability is nil, there is no lobby for a team based tactical game, communication in game between teammates is unintuitive and nearly non-existent, the tutorials are horrid for a game with such a steep learning curve. So tell me what in that description of the game constitutes a great game? It's mediocre at best in it's current form

[Jestun]

The Cheese, on 18 September 2013 - 10:47 PM, said:

That's like saying that the money I won in a game of poker is worth less because I cheated in order to win.

The company's integrity has nothing at all to do with the actual product you're reviewing. They're two separate entities.

For a single player game that launches complete and doesn't require patching you are correct. For an online game where the devs have claimed that launch is just another day and development is ongoing, and where you are required to download the latest patch to play you are not. The company is very much a part of the review because you are forced to deal with their actions.

[Nauht]

The Cheese, on 18 September 2013 - 10:47 PM, said:

That's like saying that the money I won in a game of poker is worth less because I cheated in order to win.

The company's integrity has nothing at all to do with the actual product you're reviewing. They're two separate entities.

They're intrinsically linked when that company asked for money to build the product.

Company - pledge to us and we'll build you that car just how you like it, without that stupid looking spoiler and bright neon.
Backers - sounds great! Sounds like a car I'd drive and sure I'll back you on good faith.
Company - Thank you sir, you won't be disappointed

1 year later.

Company - sorry, we added a rude spoiler and made it bright neon cos it might possibly sell better, you understand. Sorry, we "changed our mind". No refunds.
Backer - da fuq is that monstrosity, that's not what I backed and you went completely against your initial word to me.

Now you tell me if there's an integrity issue there.

[KhanHeir]

Heffay, on 18 September 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

So, you failed to kill MWO then? I'm sure you're very upset about that.

It's a well known fact that any game with a metacritic user rating of under 5 is dead.

Actually the modern belief is any game not 8 or above is dead.

Which is one of the reasons why black isle did not earn their bonus to stay in business.

it's also the reason why game scores are so inflated.

[Ghogiel]

Protection, on 18 September 2013 - 10:56 PM, said:

What I find really shocking is that people still think that community warfare is going to be anything more that a six coloured scoreboard and a static map of the Inner Sphere.

In case you haven't figured it out - community warfare is just going to be 'loyalty points' tacked on to the existing 12v12 deathmatch system.

There is never, ever, ever going to be an "assault the base," "destroy the dropsship," or "protect the convoy mission." Ever. It's not going to happen.

There's not going to be a player controlled map where you have to manage resources or have strategic limitations forcing choices on players. There's never going to be a purpose for unit alliances or an opportunity for betrayal or a purpose for diplomacy. It's random 4 man 12 v 12 deathmatches all the way down.

[Al Bert]

The Cheese, on 18 September 2013 - 10:47 PM, said:

[...]The company's integrity has nothing at all to do with the actual product you're reviewing. They're two separate entities.

This, fundamentally. Unfortunately, it is alyways mixed up in these threads.

[The Cheese]

Sandpit, on 18 September 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:

Not to mention it doesnt' make the money less valuable but it does make you less valuable.

Ok, how about this: I tell you I'm going to give you $10. When it comes time to give you the money, I give you $5 instead.

Does the value of that $5 change based on whether I gave you what I promised or not?

Nauht, on 18 September 2013 - 11:13 PM, said:

They're intrinsically linked when that company asked for money to build the product.

Company - pledge to us and we'll build you that car just how you like it, without that stupid looking spoiler and bright neon.
Backers - sounds great! Sounds like a car I'd drive and sure I'll back you on good faith.
Company - Thank you sir, you won't be disappointed

1 year later.

Company - sorry, we added a rude spoiler and made it bright neon cos it might possibly sell better, you understand. Sorry, we "changed our mind". No refunds.
Backer - da fuq is that monstrosity, that's not what I backed and you went completely against your initial word to me.

Now you tell me if there's an integrity issue there.

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about whether there's an integrity issue with the company or not. I'm saying that this integrity issue doesn't change what the game is right now, at the time of review.

Jestun, on 18 September 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

For a single player game that launches complete and doesn't require patching you are correct. For an online game where the devs have claimed that launch is just another day and development is ongoing, and where you are required to download the latest patch to play you are not. The company is very much a part of the review because you are forced to deal with their actions.

See above.

[Sandpit]

"surprisingly game has been released in a very unfinished state. For what it currently is, it lacks any of the punch originally envisioned with the whole meta game missing, but is unique in how it presents its perspective on the first person mech simulation shooter. The graphics seem slightly subpar at times, but once you're in the mech and combat starts, you forget everything and become the pilot. The simulation/be the mech pilot has been implemented nicely. Sound effects are awesome although music is missing still.

Does it deserve the 8 I gave it? Arguably, yes, arguably no. It will be determined once the game is complete (which, currently, it is far from, although not beta), but any game that keeps me playing for a year, through ridiculous bugs and huge balance issues, deserves an 8 for addictive core quality alone" this review gave a rather high rating (8) The game itself is fun for a short period. It's free to play so you have nothing to lose by giving it a try but if you are looking for something deeper than "run out there and shoot the other guy" then pass this one by. I really wanted to give this game a great review but due to consistently missing the mark, failing to follow through with promised features, disregard and lack of communications on the forums by the dev team I simply cannot recommend this game.
In closing this game ALMOST delivered. I suppose there is still a lot of potential but as a final release this is a very shallow game. I can easily get the same type of game play out of free games offered on my tablet and smartphone. In today's market you simply must offer more than just point and shoot gaming.
Gameplay:5
Audio:2
Story:0
Social functions(voip, player communication options in game, lobby to chat with other players):0

Unfortunately the complete lack of being able to communicate effectively in a PC MMO is unforgivable

the second review gave a low rating (2) which do you feel is a more honest rating?

[Jestun]

Which is why the current developer - customer relationship is discussed.

The review is based on the current state, but it is not based on a single moment. just like it's ok to say that over time the lack of content will get boring, it's ok to discuss the developers who have a clear effect on the game.

Reviews are not written assuming you will play for a moment and then stop. that's why things like volume of content and replayability are a standard part of the review process. and in an ongoing development the developers matter.

[Sandpit]

Ok, how about this: I tell you I'm going to give you $10. When it comes time to give you the money, I give you $5 instead.

Does the value of that $5 change based on whether I gave you what I promised or not? Again your analogy serves no point. This company didn't give ME anything. I gave them money based on promises. They took my money. Then the disregarded their promise to me as a consumer. Therefore I can no longer trust them with my money and I would be remiss if I didn't warn other consumers. Why you ask? Simply put, they have no integrity. Therefore their integrity is directly impacting any commentary I make to another potential consumer. The fact that they use deceptive business practices to obtain money for a misrepresented product directly impacts my review. This game is unfinished. This game is not what a good final product should be. This game is not what was implied it would be. This game in no way, shape, or form resembles the product it was supposed to be at this point. Feel free to pick just about any other game on metacritic that is equal to what you would rate this game as and you justify to me how this game would stack up against that finished product.

[The Cheese]

@Sandpit

First: Your responses would be a lot easier to read if you used paragraphs.

Second: I feel that my analogy is apt. You'd be upset with me because I didn't give you what I told you I would, but the merits (or lack thereof) of the thing I DID give you aren't affected by that.

Sandpit, on 19 September 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

This game is unfinished. This game is not what a good final product should be. This game is not what was implied it would be. This game in no way, shape, or form resembles the product it was supposed to be at this point. Feel free to pick just about any other game on metacritic that is equal to what you would rate this game as and you justify to me how this game would stack up against that finished product.

There we go. Now we're talking about the game. Tell me; If the developers had, from day one, described their goal as the game we have right now, would that change your opinion of what the game is right now? I think not. It would still be the same half-baked product we see before us.

You're just mad that you paid for promises that weren't delivered. That's cool. Be mad. Tell them exactly what you think, but you've got to direct it at the people responsible. Saying that the game is bad because you don't like the way the devs do thing just makes you look bitter. No one except other bitter people who already share your view will take your review seriously.

And for the record, I gave it a 5.

[Jestun]

Your analogy may make sense for a free player, but not for the many people who paid because they believed in the game that PGI claimed they were going to create.

[Calica]

Jestun, on 18 September 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

For a single player game that launches complete and doesn't require patching you are correct. For an online game where the devs have claimed that launch is just another day and development is ongoing, and where you are required to download the latest patch to play you are not. The company is very much a part of the review because you are forced to deal with their actions.

This.

In an online game the reputation counts a lot. When you purchase stuff in an MMO you know that things can and very likely will change in the future. Sure, everybody hopes it might get better, but you really dont know. Part of the review of an online game should always contain information about how the devs have handled updates/balance/content/community concerns in the past.

I still have hope this all might turn out to be the "thunderstorm" that the Devs and maybe Publishers needed, otherwise i wouldn't have rated the game a 6. And that we might see a turn-around in several departments soon. After the Incarna Riots in EvE we had a similar situation, where the Devs and the community broke apart (Eve is a niche game too, although better established). And the following year was one of the best in Eve thanks to the Devs making a full turnaround back to the roots, as painful as it was. Including heads rolling.

Maybe after the storm has passed the Devs and the Community can see eye to eye again. It certaintly is late, but not to late.

[Darius Deadeye]

Sandpit, on 19 September 2013 - 12:25 AM, said:

the second review gave a low rating (2) which do you feel is a more honest rating?

That first review was mine. I'll admit to being slightly biased by the ridiculous amounts of 0's and perhaps went one grade above what I would have given if not annoyed by the grades already passed by negative reviewers. 7 would be more fair, looking at the game in its current state.

I'll give you an extra reflection upon my honesty, which i mentioned in short in the actual review: amount of hours put into this game. I have 1500 matches to my name. Others have 5000, some even more. We don't put that amount of hours into the game for love of the genre alone - there is quality to the gameplay. That was essentially the whole point of my review: "addictive core quality", which is key to retaining an audience. We all know much more is to come, so its very comforting to know that the fundamental retaining qualities are in place. 7-8, yea - i'll stick with that grade.

Had I not been a regular observant on these forums, i would've blisfully gone unaware of all the problems with communication and the development process. Forum users are extremely biased in their perception of the game, because of the process through which the game came to be. It'll get better. I trust in time to heal all wounds ;-)

[Jestun]

The negative reviews show how much people care about MWO. As long as they still care instead of just walking away PGI can still turn it around.

But it will require mire than their 3PV "sorry we didn't tell you we lied sooner" apology (and I use the word loosely) followed by going back to radio silence, which seems to be the route they decided to take.

Darius Deadeye, on 19 September 2013 - 01:34 AM, said:

That first review was mine. I'll admit to being slightly biased by the ridiculous amounts of 0's and perhaps went one grade above what I would have given if not annoyed by the grades already passed by negative reviewers. 7 would be more fair, looking at the game in its current state.

I'll give you an extra reflection upon my honesty, which i mentioned in short in the actual review: amount of hours put into this game. I have 1500 matches to my name. Others have 5000, some even more. We don't put that amount of hours into the game for love of the genre alone - there is quality to the gameplay. That was essentially the whole point of my review: "addictive core quality", which is key to retaining an audience. We all know much more is to come, so its very comforting to know that the fundamental retaining qualities are in place. 7-8, yea - i'll stick with that grade.

Had I not been a regular observant on these forums, i would've blisfully gone unaware of all the problems with communication and the development process. Forum users are extremely biased in their perception of the game, because of the process through which the game came to be. It'll get better. I trust in time to heal all wounds ;-)

Just like SWG NGE totally got better and was a huge success after the people who disliked it quit in disgust. Amirite?

[CravenMadness]

Jesus Christ... Thirty four pages of commentary about a critic forum? ... Should it be embarrassing if I've never even heard of this 'Meta-critic' website? Or to comment that the last 'reviews' I've ever considered, were in my old sega-genesis game magazines, you know.. the ones that had the cheat codes and all the fighter combos in them.

I don't think I know a single fellow gamer in the real world, who's actively been persuaded or dissuaded by 'reviews' in the last decade or more.

At the end of the day, no matter what people are ranting about, if they're playing... They're giving the game a ten out of ten. Only way to be a real 'negative' critic, is to stop playing.

[Jestun]

If no one cares about reviews why is there an entire industry focusing on reviewing games?

Are all of the companies which review hames subsidised? are they not for profit? how have they not gone bankrupt yet?