Jump to content

Metacritic: User Reviews Are Starting!


1251 replies to this topic

#501 bobzadar

    Rookie

  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 9 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 18 September 2013 - 06:52 AM

View PostNekki Basara, on 18 September 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

The Tortoise won because the Hare stopped running. Are you suggesting that all competitors will stop running?

No the hare feel asleep because it burned out to fast and had to recharge. MWO should build slow but sure.

#502 Alois Hammer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,296 posts
  • LocationHooterville

Posted 18 September 2013 - 06:59 AM

View PostSybreed, on 17 September 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

Take it for what you want... MWO's community is quite possibly the most passionnate community there is. PGI should learn something from this...


They have. They've learned that like an old enough and loyal enough dog, you can keep kicking their playerbase all you like and said base will still come crawling back to lick their hand.

...and they're using that information like it's the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything™.

#503 Oriius

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 160 posts
  • LocationTerra

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:01 AM

The silence of the critic reviews screams out painfully to me.

As it stands I am saddened by the 10 and 0 user reviews, though I understand people can be overly emotional and reactionary, it is to be expected.

I put in my own review, it is how i see it, I tried to put aside my emotions as best I could for it. Maybe someone will find it useful, who knows.

As i said in my review it really does pain me, because I'd love nothing more than to have an awesome mechwarrior game. I don't want to see it fail, but at the same time I will not let the desire for a good mechwarrior game overtake my senses or blind me to it's issues.

Now we can only watch and wait, will they turn the game around? All i can say is I sure hope so.

Edited by Oriius, 18 September 2013 - 07:02 AM.


#504 MechFrog1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 630 posts
  • LocationSouth Korea

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:03 AM

View Postbobzadar, on 18 September 2013 - 06:52 AM, said:

No the hare feel asleep because it burned out to fast and had to recharge. MWO should build slow but sure.

What version of the story did you hear?

The hare was overconfident and took a nap expecting to win anyway.

#505 Alois Hammer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,296 posts
  • LocationHooterville

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:06 AM

View PostWired, on 17 September 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:


Every time you try to dismiss negative complaints as "a vocal minority", "entitled", et el, Garth eats a kitten.


...and Russ dances a happy jig at another Knight realizing all the negativity comes from an island. -_-

#506 Stoicblitzer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,931 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:13 AM

View PostColonel Pada Vinson, on 17 September 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

No doubt in my mind at this point that the people giving sub 5 scores to 0 are purely trolling this game and care nothing for mechwarrior or this franchise.

that's your opinion. imo, the game deserves 5/10 as it stands. if you consider how little has changed since "OB" started and how much PGIGP has lied, then it should drop a couple points.

however, i typically ignore user reviews on metacritic. tbh i ignore all reviews; after pc gamer gave high score to dragon age 2 i cancelled my subscription.

#507 Monky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,219 posts
  • LocationHypothetical Warrior

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:14 AM

3/10 w/honest feedback.

#508 Nekki Basara

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 921 posts
  • LocationDublin

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:16 AM

View Postmint frog, on 18 September 2013 - 07:03 AM, said:

What version of the story did you hear?

The hare was overconfident and took a nap expecting to win anyway.
Emptyquotin'

#509 Alois Hammer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,296 posts
  • LocationHooterville

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:18 AM

View Postbobzadar, on 18 September 2013 - 06:52 AM, said:

No the hare feel asleep because it burned out to fast and had to recharge. MWO should build slow but sure.


Not sure what bowdlerized revision of the story you're reading, but in the original the hare didn't fall asleep from exhaustion- like PGI, he decided he was winning no matter what and decided to take a nap since nothing could possibly beat him.

#510 Karl Streiger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 20,369 posts
  • LocationBlack Dot in a Sea of Blue

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:20 AM

I had two options to rate MWO:
the fun and time i spend playing MWO - during the last 13th Months (with 4 months of great experiene with a small band of brothers 2 months with growing numbers and a forum that turns from a nice place into a mudhole)

And 7 months where i sparly run a match- mostly full of frustration - worse balance and even more frustration seeing the mobbing masses of captious critics....plus the current disappointment of the launch.

Well i choose the first option:
considering time spend playing that game and the fun at the first months result in a positiv rate.
I really hope that we will soon have a game that is worth the time and a forum that is cleansed of all agitators

#511 Morbid Jester

    Member

  • Pip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 18 posts
  • Location, Location, Location

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:21 AM

Stopped reading the red ones when it became clear that most of the low scores were lengthy diatribes along the lines of "my wants haven't been met by the devs". Not actual reviews of what the game actually is.
Smacks of ********.
But hey - everybody is entiteled to an opinion. If "help, help, I'm being disregarded so I'll give the game a bad score" reviews are going to help MWO in the long term is another matter. Personally, I doubt it.

#512 Jman5

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 4,914 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:21 AM

View PostStoicblitzer, on 18 September 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

that's your opinion. imo, the game deserves 5/10 as it stands. if you consider how little has changed since "OB" started and how much PGIGP has lied, then it should drop a couple points.

however, i typically ignore user reviews on metacritic. tbh i ignore all reviews; after pc gamer gave high score to dragon age 2 i cancelled my subscription.

Haha, I'm probably one of the few people that liked Dragon Age 2 more than Origins. The game had major issues, but the combat was enjoyable. On top of that they had the pacing down really well in my opinion. The levels and quests were long enough, but not too long that you felt trapped or stuck trudging through a zone for what seems like forever (deep road). Now if only they hadn't kept using the same couple maps over and over!

#513 WarHippy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,836 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:23 AM

View PostColonel Pada Vinson, on 17 September 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:


It is all petty nerd rage.

Realistically this mech-game is the best of the franchise. Anyone claiming otherwise is free to return to mech3/mech4 or even MW:LL - in theory if there are truly so many disgruntled players they could easily go play something "better".

Therefore the reality is that what we are seeing is ultra nerd rage that is completely uncontrolled. Outside of their desire to destroy this game with bad reviews they have no goals or direction beyond that, they either think it will hurt the game and therefore don't care, or they are too dumb to understand that.

Best in the franchise is debatable. Not everyone agrees on what make for good features, and some would have preferred a single player campaign. So realistically you can say in your opinion it is the best, but that does not make it true. Still hypocritical of you to ask people to leave while you accuse others of trying to harm the game.

View PostColonel Pada Vinson, on 17 September 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

Fortunately stuff like Miley Cyrus twerking and the horrid bad press that generated ended up benefitting her. I expect to see the same thing in MWO. Generally the players on teamspeak that play, the overall population, care 0 for these forums or reviews, and while the early rage exists, over the long term just like Diablo 3 metacritic will clean up the trolling as necessary.

Diablo 3 is STILL going, and everyone constantly screams about what a failure that game is/was. Heck, I only logged maybe 80 hours of D3 and got bored, and yet it is still ticking.

Diablo 3 is indeed still around, but it has struggled. The devs have also admitted to their mistakes, and have announced the removal of the auction houses that have caused a lot of the anger in the community. They have also removed the lead game designer, and actually released content to the game to both fix and add to the in game experience. So the negative press had a positive effect on the game, yet here you are trying to use it to prove what exactly?

View PostColonel Pada Vinson, on 17 September 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

What some of the trolls trying to kill this game have not considered is that the core base still behind this game can keep our "0" going for another 10 years. So, they won't kill it and get their balony "remake" by X dev house, they'll still just be losers screaming into the wind, and we will be here, enjoying ui 2.0 and CW and all the goodies coming. Then the trolls will no doubt return, spend even less money, and cry about how the game is still P2W, or whatever else they want to cry about that day.
I will believe in ui 2.0 and CW when I see it. Until then it will remain a hollow promise.

Edited by WarHippy, 18 September 2013 - 07:43 AM.


#514 Telemetry

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 140 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:36 AM

There is a certain amount of money this game needs to guarantee in revenue per year in order to be considered "worth the hassle" by the publisher and the developer companies. What that amount is we don't know but I'm sure they do. If they can't get that much income then they are going to go with plan B. And Plan B would be to continue the game with minimum support and limit expenses. Developer and art resources would be moved to newer and more promising projects.

So, even if there is a small but dedicated user base it is probably NOT going to be enough to keep the game going. They need to increase the player base for a healthy game. A certain percentage of the player base must also be willing to spend cash on in game purchases to keep this game afloat.

In short, anything that prevents new players from trying out the game and staying is bad business. This includes negative reviews. So, this will be interesting to monitor and see how it pans out. The pissed off "vocal minority living on an island" vs "PGI white knights". The game of the century!

Edited by Telemetry, 18 September 2013 - 07:38 AM.


#515 RG Notch

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 2,987 posts
  • LocationNYC

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:44 AM

View PostKarl Streiger, on 18 September 2013 - 07:20 AM, said:

I had two options to rate MWO:
the fun and time i spend playing MWO - during the last 13th Months (with 4 months of great experiene with a small band of brothers 2 months with growing numbers and a forum that turns from a nice place into a mudhole)

And 7 months where i sparly run a match- mostly full of frustration - worse balance and even more frustration seeing the mobbing masses of captious critics....plus the current disappointment of the launch.

Well i choose the first option:
considering time spend playing that game and the fun at the first months result in a positiv rate.
I really hope that we will soon have a game that is worth the time and a forum that is cleansed of all agitators

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. :rolleyes:

#516 Aeolus Drift

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 138 posts
  • LocationStillwater, OK

Posted 18 September 2013 - 08:23 AM

I don't post often about MWO, but when I do I try to give an honest opinion.

Dos Equis jokes aside, I think its time we address MWO for what it is. I was one of those who found out about MWO, was excited to play it, but unfortunately didn't have the money or funds to afford a founders package. Never the less I was still excited to see what the game was to become, and became an active player in open beta's first months. During open beta I acted as an occasional critic. I posted on balance suggestions, and make my own comments drawing from my own observations of learning about the table top and the lore along the way as I saw them relevant to the discussion. I was critical of PGI's decisions when I disagreed with them, but I also tried to moderate some of the more neurotic criticisms as well, hoping to balance out discussions as they come along (like some kind of moderator, I guess). I have had times where I have let my personal cynicism slip past me, and times where I have been openly sarcastic to some members, but overall I try to be civil in my discussions.

Quite frankly, I want MWO to succeed, and I wanted PGI to be the one's who bring Mechwarrior and Battletech from the darkness of irrelevance. Lately however, I have found it increasingly difficult to justify PGI's behavior towards the community, as well as their seemingly chronic ineptitude to solving even their more mundane balancing and communications issues. I'm not a white knight, nor am I affiliated with "haters"; I do think there comes a point when your ability to defend your beliefs leaves the realm of reasonable and the rational and enters the land of denial and wishful thinking. I have come to believe that PGI's handling of the ECM debacle was a pretty strong indicator of PGI's community management model. After the subsequent review of the feedback and proposed solutions to ECM's balancing issues Paul went out and said it was working almost as intended, seemed to underscore a fundamental misunderstanding in PGI's understanding of handling public feedback. Then there was the Pay2Merc broohah, and a lot of Merc Corps (mine included) where thrown into disarray not knowing whether or not members of the corps would be required to have a premium account or not. Oh yeah there was coolant flush and 3rd person, can't forget those storms.

And while they were designing systems most of the community either did not want or did not care for, Major revisions the game needed such as UI 2.0, DX11, and the fabled community warfare were kept in the 30-90 days development window for the past year almost every timed they were asked. This was done without even a conciliatory explanation as to the cause of these delays, whether it was technical issues, monetary funding problems, or just plain needing a vacation. Thus when unpopular decisions are made by them, presumably for the good of the community or the game as a whole, they are met not with understanding or acceptance, but with frustration and anger at their apparent mismanagement of development resources towards inconsequential or detrimental features.

The game as a whole is decent, its gameplay is by no means the worst I have ever played, I just think it could do better. And that right there is the source of almost every problem Mechwarrior has. There are a whole lot of "should have" hypotheticals, but there are exponentially more "have nots". Every step of the development process has seemingly raised more questions then they have produced answers, and the dev's lack of clarity in it all has only led the community to the madness we see here. Can PGI recover from this debacle, perhaps. I would be hard pressed to say they couldn't, I don't believe in impossibilities, just high improbabilities. Nevertheless I think ts going to take a very long time to re-earn the trust of the community their actions have either disenfranchised or fractured. My only hope at this point is that they take the steps to resolve this disconnect before the damage truly does become irrevocable.

Edited by Interceptor12, 18 September 2013 - 08:24 AM.


#517 Huntrava

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 49 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 08:32 AM

It will be interesting to see what the MetaCritic official critics say, but the user reviews are pretty much locked in at this point. I'd be surprised if it gained or lost more than a point, putting it at somewhere between 4.3 - 6.3.

GameRankings gave it a 6. Seems fair.

GameFront wrote a "cautionary tale" about the decline of MWO.

A couple of other popular reviewers have given it a lukewarm reception.

Something to remember: every game has haters at launch, and every game has {Noble MechWarriors} at launch, yet they are reviewed more favorably than MWO. The final score isn't the fault of the community! At the end of the day, games generally get the score they deserve!

At some point, whoever is sitting in the Commanders Chair at PGI will have a panicking second-guess about the "vocal minority" they've been blaming for the past year. As the budget diminishes and the staff shrinks they will run out of community-developers to blame, and instead wonder how things could have been different.

#518 Phlinger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 595 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 08:41 AM

I happen to share in Interceptor12's opinion. I also want MWO to succeed and I want PGI to be the ones to make is succeed. However, I must insist PGI, stop dragging your feet. If you need the new mechs and purchases to stay afloat, I get that. Devote your time to mechs in spurts, so you have several planned ahead for strategic release then turn your dev's loose on the important things that your customers want. CW anyone? I want the ideas that were listed on my founder's package put into the game, I can play CoD already, but, I want Mechwarrior and not just Mechwarrior, but Mechwarrior Online.

In my opinion, and yes, I realize my opinion is just one in a sea of internet opinions, is PGi seems to have lost focus. It happens to everyone at one time or another. Tighten your boot straps and get back in the ring and ready to fight. I really want to have my faith restored in this game, but it keeps slipping with each passing day.

#519 MustrumRidcully

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,644 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 08:44 AM

So, this is my review. 5000 words are not enough!


Mechwarrior Online is the newest title in the series of Mechwarrior games. It is a Free To Play Game. Unlike its predecssors, it is a pure online PvP game. There is no campaign or story node and no Player vs Enemey combats.
As a mechwarrior game, it is based on the Battletech Table Top game and as a mechwarrior title, it puts you in the position of the pilot of a mighty, heavily armed and armoured war machine fighting together with 11 team mates against 12 others. In the Mechwarrior business, we like to call this "Big Stompy Robot Fights".

= Gameplay =
The gameplay is a mix of an FPS (now also with 3PV camera drone mode) and (walking) tank simulator. The controls are on the more complex side of things. You can twist your torso (similar to a tank's turret) seperately from your legs, and you can also move your arms seperately. Mechs consist of multiple hit locations (like Center Torso, Left Rear Torso, Right Arm etc) with seperate hit points for each location, and each location containing items that will be lost if the hit location is destroyed. The mechs are customizable to some extent in their weapon loadout, armor distrubtion, engine and other equipment, and each mech comes in multiple variants with slight diffferentiation in model or possible loadouts.
You queue up for a match alone or with friends, and the match-maker tries to pit two equally strong 12 man teams against each other on a randomly selected map and with a randomly selected game mode.
There is currently no lobby feature, though there is one announced for the future.

= Character Advancement =
For each match you pla you earn C-Bills and XP depending on your performance (kills, assists, spotting, win/loss). You spend C-Bills to buy mechs, weapons or other equipment, and you can use XP to unlock mech efficiencies (passive buffs to mech stats, like torso twist range or maximum heat threshold before shutdown) and modules (slottable buffs or even active abilities). You start the game only with access to trial mechs, which cannot be customized. You earn bonus C-Bills for the first 25 matches so you can afford your own mech soon.
Overall, the advancement is relatively slow and shallow. The mech efficiencies are the same for every mech, there is only a small number of modules, and if you want to gain all mech efficiencies for a mech, you also have to buy variants of the same mech.

= Long Term Motivation and Metagame =
When the title was announced, community warfare was intended to act as metagame and provide long-term motivation. Community Warfare means you fight for a faction (be it as part of it, as a merc corp, or as a lone wolf) and gain or lose territory for that faction, and earn loyality.
This feature is not implemented yet, so currently, there is very little long term motivations or metagame.
Without any lobbies, there is no easy way to organize player-run tournaments or leagues, though that hasn't stopped players from trying.

= Game Balance =
Being a PvP only title, balance becomes a naturally important topic to players. Without game balance, the many mech build choices are quickly narrowed down to the few good options, and the overall enjoyment drops due to lack of variety and surprises. Be warned that this is one of my "favorite" topics and I might be the least subjective here.
The game balance is still not in a good state.
Some of the problems arose from underlying systems.
The heat system (a core component of any Battletech derived game) effectively makes balancing weapon stats much more difficult. The stats for weapons come basically from a game that worked very differently, and so it just won't fit together well. Mech armor values are derived from the table top game, too, ignoring that there is a big difference between randomly rolled hit locaitons and mouse-aimed hit locations (with all FPS typically conceits added in).
There are also technical issues that affect game balance, like the hit detection still not being reliable (sometimes dependent on mech models) and imbalanced hit box sizes.
Personally I am having the impression (impression fact) that the development team is not prepared to analyize their own game design well enough, and are also a bit unwilling to accept critique or change certain systems due to their own emotional investment in them. (As I said, this part will be very subjective. Make up your own mind, if you're interested enough in the game.)

= Advice =
If you like stompy robot fights, or a battletech fan, check the game out. But the current game is not really worthy a released title, lacking too many features and still having too many shortcomings. There have been many delays and changes of stated goals (some might speak of broken promises and lies).
I'd carefully consider spending any money on the game in its current state.

Spoiler

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 18 September 2013 - 08:48 AM.


#520 MustrumRidcully

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,644 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 08:48 AM

View PostInterceptor12, on 18 September 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

I I'm not a white knight, nor am I affiliated with "haters"; I do think there comes a point when your ability to defend your beliefs leaves the realm of reasonable and the rational and enters the land of denial and wishful thinking. I have come to believe that PGI's handling of the ECM debacle was a pretty strong indicator of PGI's community management model. After the subsequent review of the feedback and proposed solutions to ECM's balancing issues Paul went out and said it was working almost as intended, seemed to underscore a fundamental misunderstanding in PGI's understanding of handling public feedback.

Damn, I should have written my review after I read your post.
This was the excellent point.

I mean, how many players really think that the current implementation of ECM is great? I think many have arranged themselves with it (thanks to plenty of indirect nerfs), but that's the only positive thing to say.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users