1251 replies to this topic

[Vassago Rain]

The lengths some of you have gone to to 'preserve MWO's dignity.'

You should know by now that no matter how many 10/10 and 9/10 you submit, the score will never go above 6, and once weekend hits, and all the usual players come home from work, it'll likely settle at a strong 5 - one it'll keep forever.

[Jack Gallows]

I stand corrected. When PGI said that I was on an island they were right.

It just happens to be called Altis is ARMA III.

[Alois Hammer]

Gremlich Johns, on 18 September 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

42?

Precisely.

[Heffay]

Vassago Rain, on 18 September 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

The lengths some of you have gone to to 'preserve MWO's dignity.'

You should know by now that no matter how many 10/10 and 9/10 you submit, the score will never go above 6, and once weekend hits, and all the usual players come home from work, it'll likely settle at a strong 5 - one it'll keep forever.

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.

Edited by Heffay, 18 September 2013 - 07:37 PM.

[Calica]

Actually quite entertaining the "Launch" Day... Community Warfare in two Topics here and on Metacritic. Was buisy reading for over an hour. xD

On a more serious note, going against the mainstream of Whiteknights and overly angry Trolls, i rated the Game a honest 6/10 (more of a 5.5 really). I sincerly believe that everything below 4 and pretty much everything above 7 isn't really a Review of the current State of the Game. Most of the "good" reviews which actually take the time to explain stuff can be found in this range.

The Lack of Meta Game beeing the main negative Point, along with some minor ones. Unlike some others i do think that Communication (or the lack of) plays a part in the review. This isn't a a single Player Game that wont change a lot after launch, this is Online and thus subject to future changes. We can't rate future changes, but we can make a educated guess judging from the history so far. It matters how a Developer treats its community and how he handles balancing/patches and changes to Gameplay.

Might change the rating +/- 2 depending on how and how fast they implement a real Meta Game. For now i'm happily browsing the Forums and play other stuff.

[Vassago Rain]

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.

I would rather it die, so someone else gets a chance to make a better game. That's just the drama queen answer, of course. You know, to counter your YOU WANT TO KILL THE GAME!!!!!!!!!! accusation.

Here's what I want to happen, and what will happen. MWO is gonna get stuck with a terrible 5 forever. Who's gonna want to play a 5 rated game? Really? And it's F2P, of all things. All the positive reviews have nothing to say about the actual game, but everything to say about nasty trolls/goons/Kong/bogeymen/the evil vocal minority. 9 and 10s only? Despite pointing out the game's not finished? Hmmm, nothing fishy at all going on here. Legit to the max.

So it gets a 4, a 5, or a 6 (deserved), and PGI are now FORCED to engage reality, and reality is, no one is gonna want to bother with a game with that low a score, no media coverage, nothing on release, history of broken promises, delays, unfinished content (placeholder command console still), a userbase that sets up spam accounts to put 9s and 10s on the game's metascore because the vocal minority isn't such a minority... This will lead to them doing actual work, because this game's their livelihood, and having it whimper and die would be a very bad thing for their income.

I win, and you lose. You made yourself look like a crazed {Noble MechWarrior} in the process, too, for an effective double win.

[TB Freelancer]

Anastasius, on 17 September 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

lol @ manchildren hissy fits on the internet.

Pathetic my friends, yet at the same time entertaining watching grown men lact like spoiled 5 year olds.

I see most of the bad reviewers with an ax to grind don't have the guts to use their usual handles and felt compelled to resort to pseudonyms.

5 year old kids would behave with far more poise and dignity.

[Sandpit]

TB Freelancer, on 18 September 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

I see most of the bad reviewers with an ax to grind don't have the guts to use their usual handles and felt compelled to resort to pseudonyms.

5 year old kids would behave with far more poise and dignity.

I used my screenie here for my review, have posted why I gave it such a poor review and stand by my review until they make some fundamental changes in the game. I am tired of hearing about how anyone giving the game a poor review is just a troll. You're entitled to your opinion and me to mine

[Toydolls]

TB Freelancer, on 18 September 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

I see most of the bad reviewers with an ax to grind don't have the guts to use their usual handles and felt compelled to resort to pseudonyms.

5 year old kids would behave with far more poise and dignity.

Not true at all try typing in some of the zero scored reviewers names you might be surprised I used mine as well

[Corvus Antaka]

The 0 reviews from dudes named "BastardGriefer" or "Trollofthecentury" are pretty funny stuff.

[Sandpit]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 18 September 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

The 0 reviews from dudes named "BastardGriefer" or "Trollofthecentury" are pretty funny stuff.

there will always be trolls but it's just as bad to make blanket statements about everyone giving a review whether that be a 0 or a 10

[Huntrava]

I used my name. I gave the game a 4/10 and explained why it deserved that score.

[The Cheese]

CapperDeluxe, on 17 September 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

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

What a load of BS. Metacritic reviews are like Ebay ratings. You can filter out the +/- from eachother and the only ones anyone should ever read are the negatives.

-If the negative ones aren't legitimate complaints or don't contain any common theme, then it's generally safe to say that the thing being reviewed isn't so bad.
-If the negative reviews DO contain a common theme, then it's safe to say that the game does indeed come with that issue.

[Protection]

This review is rather important, as it comes from the one of the few remaining guys who is distinctly among the very best Mechwarrior players across the past fifteen years, including nearly the whole run of Mechwarrior Online.

It says a lot about a game when you can turn your #1 player against you this hard.

[MustrumRidcully]

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 don't know, maybe most of them would have, actually, but at least it would have been honest and they wouldn't be terribly angry with PGI because they failed the "3 months after open beta" deadline and went back on features?

Krivvan, on 18 September 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

Expectations can be too strong.

Mentioning that the game would primarily be 1PV was a mistake (even though it's still true). I doubt many people were actually so adamant on 1PV only until they mentioned it. Every single other Mechwarrior title to date (except the first I guess) has had some form of 3PV.

And they all caused problems in Multiplayer environments that people remembered. That's why 1PV was not unimportant, though they could have always said "we'll have both and give you a choice what to play" - and done that. And it might be a mistake, but remember the way they said it - as if it was really important to them, just like it was important to them to not have a form of Coolant Flush. Of course they'd offend anyone that agreed with the importance of pure 1PV and no Coolant Flush if they'd go back on that.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 18 September 2013 - 10:13 PM.

[warp103]

And the normal Launch reviews start http://gamerant.com/...launch-trailer/ lol god we told you so. DEV you will see more of this. This does not look good for MWO even with a semi positive review.
"
Up until a few weeks ago, we were sure that the official release date of MechWarrior Online would mark the launch of Community Warfare and we were wrong, corrected via a series of mentions on the official MWO forums, in emails to us and even a few comments on our site. How is it we had no idea that the launch of the game wasn’t actually the launch of the game announced two years ago? Why is this even a launch?
As it turns out, the “launch” is nothing more than a milestone where the “beta” label could be dropped from the official website and game client. Not only is Community Warfare nowhere to be found, even after a year of a playable beta, but the much-needed user interface upgrade (dubbed UI 2.0) is also not here yet. This information on the lack of new features was only revealed less than two weeks before the game’s release date on the No Guts No Galaxy podcast where PGI’s Bryan Ekman guested for three episodes (beginning here)."


opps forgot this one toohttp://themittani.com/news/mwo-launch

Edited by warp103, 18 September 2013 - 10:34 PM.

[The Cheese]

Protection, on 18 September 2013 - 10:01 PM, said:

{GaussDragon review}
This review is rather important, as it comes from the one of the few remaining guys who is distinctly among the very best Mechwarrior players across the past fifteen years, including nearly the whole run of Mechwarrior Online.

It says a lot about a game when you can turn your #1 player against you this hard.

Unfortunately, he brought his trust with the devs into the review. As soon as you reveal that you've got personal issues with it, the rest of your review is painted with the brush of a scorned player.

[Sandpit]

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

Unfortunately, he brought his trust with the devs into the review. As soon as you reveal that you've got personal issues with it, the rest of your review is painted with the brush of a scorned player.

Uhm..... trust with a company that promised to deliver you a product in exchange for your money isn't a personal issue, it's an issue of professionalism and integrity. Everyone who gave this company money based on blatant lies has a right to use that as a portion of their review. You can't rate this game on what MIGHT be implanted "soon", "in the near future", "before, at, or after launch", especially when the company has blatantly lied to you about previous features. All of the quotes are actual quotes from developers in answers regarding various questions about timeframes for feature implementation by the way. Deceptive business practices deserve to be brought up when you're reviewing a product from a company. Integrity has been compromised which in turn means we have no reason to believe that anything said at any time will be done because they have already shown they are more than willing to completely disregard any and all statements, ideas, and features they have promised. If I write about a product from a company and I let other consumers know that I am unhappy with the product in large part due to the company using deceptive business practices that is a perfectly legitimate response.

[MustrumRidcully]

The trust issue...

Everyone remembers "you will never have to play in or against 3PV".
Everyone remembers "Coolant Flush is not a good idea and makes heat management less important."
Everyone remembers "3 months after open beta, the game will have Community Warfare"

But do people still remember:
- Drop Ship Mode?
- The PC Gamer description of what Conquest would be?

Going back on their plans and failures to deliver on their plans are a common theme. There might be all perfectly valid reasons why PGI might have done so (at least in their view), but it means that their "plans" are meaningless to their customers.
But not communicating plans doesn't help either. They'll need to get better at estimation the feasibility of goals and the timeline of their plans. If they can't get the timeline right, then they at least have to commit to their goals.

[The Cheese]

Sandpit, on 18 September 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:

Uhm..... trust with a company that promised to deliver you a product in exchange for your money isn't a personal issue, it's an issue of professionalism and integrity. Everyone who gave this company money based on blatant lies has a right to use that as a portion of their review. You can't rate this game on what MIGHT be implanted "soon", "in the near future", "before, at, or after launch", especially when the company has blatantly lied to you about previous features. All of the quotes are actual quotes from developers in answers regarding various questions about timeframes for feature implementation by the way. Deceptive business practices deserve to be brought up when you're reviewing a product from a company. Integrity has been compromised which in turn means we have no reason to believe that anything said at any time will be done because they have already shown they are more than willing to completely disregard any and all statements, ideas, and features they have promised. If I write about a product from a company and I let other consumers know that I am unhappy with the product in large part due to the company using deceptive business practices that is a perfectly legitimate response.

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.