1251 replies to this topic

[FLes]

Mackman, on 17 September 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

[/i]

I think this is especially appropriate here. All the "true Mechwarrior fans" are taking to Metacritic to, as Azantia above pointed out, exact "payback" against the devs of MWO. These people talk about how "disappointed" they are by the state of the game, and then go and make sure that the game never has a chance to get better. They talk about how excited they were to see where the game was going, and then they try to stop it in its tracks.

(...)

PGI introduced 3rd person view after saying it is not even an option. And after saying we will never be forced to play with 3rd person players, they forced us to do just that. Well, except in 12v12. They reserved best modules for MC only, that is what we call pay to win.

It is now beyond reapair.

[Rhaythe]

FLes, on 17 September 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

PGI introduced 3rd person view after saying it is not even an option. And after saying we will never be forced to play with 3rd person players, they forced us to do just that. Well, except in 12v12. They reserved best modules for MC only, that is what we call pay to win.

It is now beyond reapair.

I was going to give a counter-point to this post. But now I think you're just trolling. So, 7/10. Kudos, sir!

[Iqfish]

Did you ever went to a restaurant and got a half cooked meal?

I dont think so.

Did you ever see any "AAA" Game out there with a freakin community created video?

I dont think so.

Did GTA V launch and Rockstar told you "Guys, just wait till next year for the main features we are advertising with!"

I really really dont think so.

Greetings.

[Mackman]

Sybreed, on 17 September 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

here's what you don't understand: Most founders don't give a {Scrap} about PGI, they give a {Scrap} about Mechwarrior and Battletech. They care because they feel their favorite IP is being butchered by a less than competent dev (until proven otherwise, I still give PGI the chance to redeem themselves) and no one can take over the project. The game is so far away from their vision of what a Mechwarrior game should be (and I believe most founders had a similar vision in mind, although not identical), that all they can feel is frustration because they have no control whatsoever on the development of the game, mostly because PGI simply doesn't listen even if we are right (see LB-X, MGs, PPCs, SSRMs... and I'd say ECM but PGI won't fix it). So, all they can do is vent their frustration, tell the world what is being done to their favorite IP.

It's a bit like having your pet dog sick to the point of dying. You'd rather end his miseries now then let it suffer a slow, miserable death.

Except other people are enjoying the dog and trying to help it get better. Pretty selfish of you to say "Well, if we can't have the game we want, you can't have the game you want!"

[Shumabot]

*look over thread*
*grand total of 3 non founders posting*
"These are just people poisoning the well so new players won't show up!"

Hey guys, I don't mean to alarm you, but... Maybe it's getting bad reviews because it's a legitimately bad game and the metacritic is a reflection of a quality of game that has driven veterans to be angry and is clearly unable to attract new players? You ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, you're all still here when no new players are because your opinion is compromised by your obsession with the IP?

Edited by Shumabot, 17 September 2013 - 11:56 AM.

[Mystere]

Sybreed, on 17 September 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

... that all they can feel is frustration because they have no control whatsoever on the development of the game ..

Then their first mistake was even believing that their lousy $60-120 gives them control. Try that in Wall Street and you would be laughed out and drowned into the East River.

[Sybreed]

to those throwing insults at the reviewers giving bad scores: Have you been following MWO's development for the last year and a half? Do you remember the first podcasts, the design pillars and what we have now? The missed deadlines, missing features, etc? I'm not saying it deserves a 2/10, as I said, I'd have given a 7 on 10. But, some people have spent 100-300$ on this game for almost nothing. No real development have been made since the last year. So yeah, before calling anyone a spoiled 5 years old (quoting someone here), I'd try to have a little more hindsight about the cause of the frustration. If I paid 300$ for a product and do not receive said product, I'd pretty pissed off.

Case in point, I ordered a Tissot watch last week that cost me around 500$. A little cap was missing on the chrono reset and I sent it back and asked for a refund. When you pay hundreds of dollars for a product, you expect to have something decent in return.

That's how it goes.

Edited by Sybreed, 17 September 2013 - 12:14 PM.

[Goose]

FLes, on 17 September 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

drivel

Oh, waa: Like they hadn't said for about a month ahead of time it was coming …

And the big modules consumables are the same, c-bils or MC.

[Sybreed]

Mackman, on 17 September 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

Except other people are enjoying the dog and trying to help it get better. Pretty selfish of you to say "Well, if we can't have the game we want, you can't have the game you want!"

not selfish at all. PGI asked us money for their founders program in exchange of a game that fit our vision of a MW game (through their design pillars). They changed that vision to something almost polar opposite of what we wanted, but they still keep our money. Are we really being selfish here? I paid for a refrigerator, but I got an oven instead. Can't blame me for saying the oven doesn't keep my food fresh.

Edited by Sybreed, 17 September 2013 - 11:58 AM.

[Shumabot]

Mystere, on 17 September 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

Then their first mistake was even believing that their lousy $60-120 gives them control. Try that in Wall Street and you would be laughed out and drowned into the East River.

Would today be when MWOs stock drops below a dollar in that case?

[JimSuperBleeder]

Reading the reviews, all people are doing is giving a low score and complaining about the devs; not even rating the game itself. People are so juvenile.

I'd also like to make mention of how much people are whining about 3rd person, still... There is an option to turn it off. Besides, it's not that great anyway. Move on!

Edited by JimSuperBleeder, 17 September 2013 - 12:05 PM.

[Mackman]

Sybreed, on 17 September 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

to those throwing insults at the reviewers giving bad scores: Have you been following MWO's development for the last year and a half? Do you remember the first podcasts, the design pillars and what we have now? The missed deadlines, missing features, etc? I'm not saying it deserves a 2/10, as I said, I'd have given a 7 on 10. But, some people have spent 100-300$ on this game for almost nothing. No real development have been made since the last year. So yeah, before calling anyone a spoiled 5 years old (quoting someone here), I'd try to have a little more hindsight about the cause of the frustration. If I paid 300$ for a product and do not receive said product, I'd pretty pissed off.

Case in point, I ordered a Tissot watch last week that cost me around 500$. A little cap was missing on the chrono reset and I sent it back and ask for a refund. When you pay hundreds of dollars for a product, you expect to have something decent in return.

That's how it goes.

But they're not just "venting frustration," and they aren't doing so in a way that will achieve positive results. They are doing so in order to deliberately harm the game and the company, in the forum most suited for doing so.

[Shumabot]

Sybreed, on 17 September 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

not selfish at all. PGI asked us money for their founders program in exchange of a game that fit our vision of a MW game (through their design pillars). They changed that vision to something almost polar opposite of what we wanted, but they still keep our money. Are we really being selfish here? I paid for a refrigerator, but I got an oven instead.

No, you donated to a cause that was going to build a refrigerator that you could later buy. You got a freezer instead. The reasonable thing to do would have been to stop playing months ago and just not paying any attention to the title.

[FLes]

Goose, on 17 September 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

Oh, waa: Like they hadn't said for about a month ahead of time it was coming …

Oh they said it a month ahead? Gee, that makes it alright then I suppose! Tnx!

Edited by FLes, 17 September 2013 - 12:00 PM.

[DEMAX51]

I've never given any credence to user reviews on Metacritic. Specifically because the majority of them are either angry Chicken Littles claiming the end is nigh, or "10/10 best game evar" {Noble MechWarriors} who would never say something bad about their beloved IP.

I write for a gaming website. We don't use review scores, but if we did I would give MWO in its current state a 5/10, and I would make it perfectly clear that the game has yet to incorporate many of the features that have the potential to elevate the game's rating.

Edited by DEMAX51, 17 September 2013 - 12:16 PM.

[Farpenoodle]

Haha wow. I recognize like 90% of the names on there.

[Mechteric]

http://www.ign.com/a...-games-industry

Quote

A Metacritic average undermines the whole concept of what a review is supposed to be: an experienced critic’s informed and entertaining opinion. Instead it turns reviews into a crowd-sourced number, an average. You can’t average out opinions. If you adore the new Muse album and your Radiohead-loving friend hates it, that doesn’t make it an average album. And yet this is exactly how Metacritic scores are treated by publishers. It punishes divisive games – and honestly, most interesting things are at least a bit divisive.

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 17 September 2013 - 12:02 PM.

[Sybreed]

Mackman, on 17 September 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

Except other people are enjoying the dog and trying to help it get better. Pretty selfish of you to say "Well, if we can't have the game we want, you can't have the game you want!"

we tried to help the dog get better. The thing is, the veterinary is actually a stressed out intern, and we're all people with pretty good knowledge of dog's anatomy (BT experts, gaming veterans). Yet, to every suggestion we give to the vet intern, he says: "NO, you're no vet and I know better, deal with what I'm gonna do with your dog and hope he'll get better, it cost 600$ btw".

[Shumabot]

JimSuperBleeder, on 17 September 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

Reading the reviews, all people are doing is giving a low score and complaining about the devs; not even rating the game itself. People are so juvenile.

There's not much game there to rate. It's buggy, featureless, unbalanced, devoid of a functional meta, has almost no social features, looks bad, performs badly, and plays badly. The interesting STORY is with the developers path to reaching this point, and nothing makes people angrier/more invested than a good story.

[DragonsFire]

IqfishLP, on 17 September 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

Did you ever went to a restaurant and got a half cooked meal?

I dont think so.

Did you ever see any "AAA" Game out there with a freakin community created video?

I dont think so.

Did GTA V launch and Rockstar told you "Guys, just wait till next year for the main features we are advertising with!"

I really really dont think so.

Greetings.

GTA V's budget was on the order of $200+ million, so why you're even beginning to make that comparison is confusing to say the least.

As to the video, why even get upset that they had someone in the community create it? I mean seriously, Celestial (SigmaLanceLeader) has been doing videos for a while and has done a pretty good job of them to boot. I think that was a pretty awesome way to say thank you for the effort he's put forth.