1251 replies to this topic

[Devils Advocate]

Just don't bomb the game in order to prove to yourself that people are going to bomb it. This game is not a 1 out of 10 it's just not where we'd like it to be.

[Heffay]

Ransack, on 18 September 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

You shouldn't have done that. I foresee more zero bombs.

Oh, they are trying hard. They even gave up on having unique sounding names. They've posted zeros from all the community moderators (Egomane, Prosperity Park (retired)), Sean Lang, Bombadil, miSs, and so on.

Edited by Heffay, 18 September 2013 - 12:03 PM.

[Lucian Nostra]

I don't see how people can possibly give MWO a 10, even when I was knee deep in my love of MWO it was around a 7.5-8. It may be tons of fun to play and offer you battlemechs to slug it out with but it's no way a 10.

as polarozied as my view is with PGI and all the nonsense they pull I'd put MWO at a 4-6 depending..

[Krivvan]

DeadlyNerd, on 18 September 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

I love the delusion some people have about this game.
There's a spot on your right shoulder. Better get it looking shiny white again.

I'm not saying that successful games will tend to have bad reviews. I'm saying that some successful games have bad user reviews. World of Tanks for example has a lower user score than MWO. I'm saying that the user reviews aren't all that significant.

[Hugh Fairgrove]

Nekki Basara, on 18 September 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

Don't tell anyone, but we get stuff early

I know reviewers get stuff early, especially high level sites like IGN, sure, but not all do. Plus with the grind and learning curve being what it is I don't think playing the game on its launch day for a few hours is enough time to evaluate the game properly. An again I'm sure review sites have some kind of budget that they use for F2P games for reviews. Still you would need a few days to get a proper feel for the game.

What I'm trying to say is, with the major sites, they’re going to have this game reviewed before the end of September. As for the smaller less popular those are the ones you’re going to see down the road.

Heffay, on 18 September 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

Oh, they are trying hard. They even gave up on having unique sounding names. They've posted zeros from all the community moderators (Egomane, Prosperity Park (retired)), Sean Lang, Bombadil, miSs, and so on.

Not defending the zero posters at all because I do think its bs, but in all fairness if you read alot of the 10s most have the same wording and sentence structure and 1 post as well. So I'm sure there's a few guys out there doing the same thing trying to counter the zero votes.

Edited by Hugh Fairgrove, 18 September 2013 - 12:09 PM.

[Krivvan]

Oriius, on 18 September 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

That is *if* they start reviewing it, it doesn't even seem to be on the radar of most places/critics at all. That doesn't bode well methinks.

That's the norm with F2P games, hence why launch usually isn't a big deal for them.

[Roland]

What is insane is that this game has as many user reviews as freaking GRAND THEFT AUTO V... and the reviews are not good.

Even if folks are going to argue that people are just giving it negative reviews, that just begs the question, "WHY are so many people going out of their way to trash this game?"

Because that in itself suggests that PGI has done something very, very wrong. It is simply not normal for a game to inspire that kind of hatred on the part of its community.

[Nekki Basara]

The place I write for has a trivially small readership, but people are still happy to throw stuff out to us way ahead of time. Anyone who was making this a priority has already posted their review.

[AlexEss]

Telemetry, on 18 September 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

The easy way out here would be to do the following:

• Separate queue for 1st person only (and I don't mean only 12v12).
  
• Rethink ECM with player input
  
• Rethink "ghost heat" mechanic
  
• Be realistic about time lines and explain why.
  
• Remove coolant
  
• Lobby
  
• UI 2.0
  
• Community Warfare

Do those things and we will come back and throw money at you PGI. You already got about $1,000 USD from me and there is a lot more where that came from, but you have to earn it.

1: Seeing how the ques are right nowi think it would be very boring for the people who actually stay diehard 1pv... my guess... cue times in the 25-30 minutes range.

2: I see no problem with ECM right now that would warrant dev time to be spent on it. Maybe down the road but right now it is fairly balanced.

3: The current heat mechanic is not bad as a core concept, they need to tweak some numbers but it is not a bad idea per se.

4:Agree. This is one key area to improve. '

5: Coolant hurt no one. One should not remove stuff "just because"

6, 7, 8: They sort of hang together. I guess we will get more info at the release party. But yes they need to go in.

[DEMAX51]

Nekki Basara, on 18 September 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

The place I write for has a trivially small readership, but people are still happy to throw stuff out to us way ahead of time. Anyone who was making this a priority has already posted their review.

I can confirm that - I too write for a small site, but we get major titles early just like the big guys.

[armyof1]

Roland, on 18 September 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

What is insane is that this game has as many user reviews as freaking GRAND THEFT AUTO V... and the reviews are not good.

Even if folks are going to argue that people are just giving it negative reviews, that just begs the question, "WHY are so many people going out of their way to trash this game?"

Because that in itself suggests that PGI has done something very, very wrong. It is simply not normal for a game to inspire that kind of hatred on the part of its community.

Really good point that is often disregarded as simply QQ. Is it just a coincidence the MWO players are way more inclined to act out on their disappointment than the average gamer? Or has this game community been mistreated worse than usual by the devs? I know which version I find a lot more likely.

Edited by armyof1, 18 September 2013 - 12:27 PM.

[Krivvan]

armyof1, on 18 September 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

Really good point that is often disregarded as simply QQ. Is it just a coincidence the MWO players are way more inclined to act out on their disappointment than the average gamer? Or has this game community been mistreated worse than usual by the devs? I know which version I find a lot more likely.

I think the main mistake was too much communication. All the rage is mostly about stuff they talked about before they were absolutely sure about them. That's why it's better to not announce things until they're ready to go.

[Nekki Basara]

^^^^
Disagree, I think it wasn't enough. If they said "we have to break our promise, here's why:" instead of "Ghost Heat, deal with it" we might not be so bothered.

DEMAX51, on 18 September 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

I can confirm that - I too write for a small site, but we get major titles early just like the big guys.

Sup small media bro. Linked to in your sig?

[RG Notch]

Krivvan, on 18 September 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

I think the main mistake was too much communication. All the rage is mostly about stuff they talked about before they were absolutely sure about them. That's why it's better to not announce things until they're ready to go.

Yes the key to having a good (read compliant) community is to not tell them anything. Too much communication sets up things like expectations and you can't have that. Ideally you want to string them along and get your money before they are on to you. Example, say you make some lets call it the Firebird Package and you don't tell people much about your meta game and don't release it until the deadline passes. That's top notch communiity management.

[DEMAX51]

Nekki Basara, on 18 September 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

Sup small media bro. Linked to in your sig?

Yes sir

What's your site?

[armyof1]

Krivvan, on 18 September 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

I think the main mistake was too much communication. All the rage is mostly about stuff they talked about before they were absolutely sure about them. That's why it's better to not announce things until they're ready to go.

No I don't buy into that at all. There's no way they failed to deliver on so many accounts and several times for things like CW simply by miscalculating things. A lot of the plans they introduced must have been known way ahead of ETA are things they can't deliver, but just tossed out there to keep the money rolling in as people thought the schedule was something to believe in. I mean how many of the founders would have given PGI money if they told them at the start CW would be done in about 2 years or so?

Edited by armyof1, 18 September 2013 - 12:44 PM.

[CrimsonOmega]

I knew this would happen.
I mean, I stay off the forums (a.k.a. warzone) because of all the complainers and that #whiningaboutwhatIwantMWOtobe thing, but at least thy shouldn't put this on Metacritic. They're not helping their case; they want the game to be changed, but by sending people away with negative reviews they don't allow new players to generate income for the game. The devs don't get income, the game never changes, and in the worst case scenario (sadly) the game dies. So they don't get what they want anyway. Unless of course MWO becomes a pay2win, which it isn't thankfully, and then people would start complaining more.

I've always loved battletech, I have the board game and I've played everything since MW 3. I really don't want this game to die. Sure the devs made some mistakes, but so do you and everybody else.

[Shumabot]

Krivvan, on 18 September 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

I think the main mistake was too much communication. All the rage is mostly about stuff they talked about before they were absolutely sure about them. That's why it's better to not announce things until they're ready to go.

I think the main mistake was releasing an unfinished, badly designed, ugly, poorly performing, pointlessly complex, shallow game. Missing almost every advertised feature just makes those issues more painful. Charging upwards of 40 dollars for barely different in game content is like those little wax figures at the top of a wedding cake layered full of awful decisions and disappointment. If they didn't communicate people would just think they had fired everyone and were on autopilot to squeeze money out of people, it's not like they're moving very fast with development.

This game is objectively bad, without the IP keeping diehards involved the game would have been canceled halfway into development once it became known that PGI didn't have the expertise to make this game at all.

Edited by Shumabot, 18 September 2013 - 12:49 PM.

[Krivvan]

armyof1, on 18 September 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

No I don't buy into that at all. There's no way they failed to deliver on so many accounts and several times for things like CW simply by miscalculating things. A lot of the plans they introduced must have been known way ahead of ETA are things they can't deliver, but just tossed out there to keep the money rolling in as people thought the schedule was something to believe in. I mean how many of the founders would have given PGI money if they told them at the start CW would be done in about 2 years or so?

Wouldn't it be better if they never mentioned an ETA, just said that they were working on it, and released screenshots of CW stuff now and then until it was done? People don't get mad at a long ETA (hell, games have features that people wait 3 years for); people get mad at missed ETAs.

[DEMAX51]

armyof1, on 18 September 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

No I don't buy into that at all. There's no way they failed to deliver on so many accounts and several times for things like CW simply by miscalculating things. A lot of the plans they introduced must have been known way ahead of ETA are things they can't deliver, but just tossed out there to keep the money rolling in as people thought the schedule was something to believe in. I mean how many of the founders would have given PGI money if they told them at the start CW would be done in about 2 years or so?

I still would have. I bought into the Founder's package just to be able to play in the Beta, because I had a deep craving for some giant stompy robot combat.