1251 replies to this topic

[CravenMadness]

Don't get me wrong, a panel of judges who's -job- it is, to compare and study a game's playability and design, is good. People who can be held accountable, personally and professionally, by their handling of the reviews, such as being honest in their final assessment of key pros vs cons.

But, open to public reviews... Are a joke in it's foundation. Opinions are like ********, everyone has one, and nobody wants to hear anyone else's.

[The Cheese]

Jestun, on 19 September 2013 - 02:11 AM, said:

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?

Of course people care about reviews, but only if those reviews aren't so obviously biased by personal opinions.

Respected professional reviews separate companies from the games they make. The professional review rates a game based on it's current merits. It might make note of related groups or games, but they don't let that affect how they rate the game under review.

[Jestun]

If no one cares about these reviews then there's no reason to complain about people scoring it low.

The reality is that word of mouth (i.e. players opinions) is a thing thing these days. No matter how much some peple will deny it, I doubt many of us can honestly say they never tried a game, film, tv show, song, etc due to hearing someone who is not a professional reviewer talk about it?.

And to clarify, I gave an honest review, not a 0 or a 10.

[armyof1]

CravenMadness, on 19 September 2013 - 02:06 AM, said:

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.

Frankly I have to say you're on an island Of course people are reading game reviews and scores and they have an impact on people's decisions. Otherwise game review sites would have gone bankrupt and disappeared long ago.

And user reviews have one important merit that pro reviews don't, at that's how a product will perform over a longer period of time. Pro reviews will seldom tell you how the product fares in 6 months, but a consumer who has a product go bad prematurely will certainly tell you about it. And for a game midway in development, that is vital information.

Edited by armyof1, 19 September 2013 - 03:25 AM.

[Magna Canus]

I have to admit that MWO is my very first Online game. I have always avoided online games out of principle, but ever since MW3 & MW4 I have been waiting a long while for another MW title to come out. A very long while.

Despite its lack of features I still enjoy the game for what it is and when I stop enjoying the game I will stop playing it. Though I am not a founder I have spend a significant amount of money on this game despite the fact that this usually goes against my principles as well. Why? Because I want to see this next generation MW title continue and succeed.

I would really appreciate it if someone posted a link to the exact text that PGI posted with these "promises" that founds would have the level of influence that many claim their $ gave them the rights to.

For my first contact with Online games I think this is the saddest gaming experience I have ever encountered. The level of vendictiveness is rediculous and in the end those who go out and post zero's on some rating website because they feel slighted will kill the game. Sure, PGI is not doing the best of jobs. Sure, they are not communicating on a level that makes people happy.

But they did buy the license, they did put out a F2P game, which is a much larger effort that I have seen from any of those complaining about the game. Complaining is easy; you just sit down in your chair and type away. Making a game is not easy, dealing with an angry mob is not easy, not being able to live up to your targets is not easy.

Do the rest of us here a favor and quit the game quietly instead of poisoning the well. All you are doing is causing a chain of resentment if MWO fails now. The complainers will blame PGI and the rest will blame those demanding complainers. I want to continue playing so if you feel it has to be your way or no way, get out.

If I had the means I would even pay all of you your money back and show you to the door with a smile.

[Jestun]

Everytime someone claims that players should give inflated scores becaue they feel sorry for PGI instead of being honest I laugh out loud...

On the other hand, each time someone claims it's good that people are leaving, completely ignoring the fact that the only content in the game is shooting [b]other players[\b], I cry a little on the inside.

But when the same person complains about negative reviews due to the affect on new players while similtaniously saying they want people to leave... I honestly don't know how to react.

[Magna Canus]

It is a very simple concept; If you are dissatisfied enough to post a zero then logically you should have already left the game. Why continue to play if the game is a zero? If you continue to play then there has to be at least one reason for such which would conunt for at least 1 rating point, even if that point is "This is the only MW title out there in the moment". Anything else is not honesty. So neither the 10's nor the 0's are "honest scores".

[RadioKies]

So sad to see people actually use sites like metacritic to judga a game beforehand and to poll it's succes. Just like IMDB these site's are an indication that says allmost nothing because every ***** in the world can give a grade (giving bioshock games a higher grade than the System shock series WTF). if metacritic would induce a system that would only let people vote from 3/4 to 8 on a scale from 0 to 10 it might be a bit more worth. This because MWO isn't near done so a 9(near perfect) or 10(perfect) could not be possible, 0/3 wouldn't be possible because people have spend time with the game, it isn't broken to unplayability and has more unique content/gameplay than most copy/paste indigame/cod shooter nowadays.

If metacritic would take itself serious it would delete all extremely low or high grades and ban all people who gave them.

This is the reason why I hate people in general. Everyone is egoistic and **** on other people (especially politicians). I miss the "old days" when community's would help and have fun with eachother instead of trying to destroy things/hate eachother. I'm talking about the Vietcong/Mohaa/UT period. If you don't know what games those are you are too young to be here imo.

[Jestun]

0 and 10 votes are both stupid. The game did not melt my PC and it is far from being the perfect game.

The assumption that the people voting 0, or even the people who post on the forum all still play is just that, an assumption. I suspect I'm not alone in posting here and hoping PGI picks up the ball that they dropped while not having played for months.

[Farpenoodle]

RadioKies, on 19 September 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

This is the reason why I hate people in general. Everyone is egoistic and **** on other people (especially politicians). I miss the "old days" when community's would help and have fun with eachother instead of trying to destroy things/hate eachother. I'm talking about the Vietcong/Mohaa/UT period. If you don't know what games those are you are too young to be here imo.

Forums and most "communities" are almost universally terrible now. It's become too easy for everyone to have an opinion no matter how terrible. The noise drowns out intelligent discourse and I've reached a point where I'm usually in IRC which is ancient and obtuse enough that most people don't go there if I want to talk to people who aren't complete [redacted]

Edited by miSs, 19 September 2013 - 07:06 AM.
language

[Magna Canus]

I concede your point Jestun. It was an assumption that those posting about the current state of the game and voting 0 had had at least some form of contact with the actual game itself recently.

[MustrumRidcully]

Magnakanus, on 19 September 2013 - 03:59 AM, said:

It is a very simple concept; If you are dissatisfied enough to post a zero then logically you should have already left the game. Why continue to play if the game is a zero? If you continue to play then there has to be at least one reason for such which would conunt for at least 1 rating point, even if that point is "This is the only MW title out there in the moment". Anything else is not honesty. So neither the 10's nor the 0's are "honest scores".

Why do you believe that people that review as a 0 are still playing? There is no need to assume that, unless the reviewer specifically tells you so (or you see him in-game, presuming you can identify him from his online review).

[The Cheese]

Jestun, on 19 September 2013 - 03:01 AM, said:

If no one cares about these reviews then there's no reason to complain about people scoring it low.

I said earlier in this thread that the negative reviews are the only ones worth paying attention to. I stand by that.

What I'm getting at is that a person't feelings about the developer behind the game don't change the state of the product itself and that openly admitting dissatisfaction with the developer's practices makes the review of the actual product appear biased and therefore not an accurate representation of the product.

[Farix]

MustrumRidcully, on 19 September 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

Why do you believe that people that review as a 0 are still playing? There is no need to assume that, unless the reviewer specifically tells you so (or you see him in-game, presuming you can identify him from his online review).

Many of the 0/1 votes claim to be using alt accounts to avoid being banned from MWO. Now why would they care so much about being banned if they aren't playing the game to begin with? And if they are still playing the game, then their 0/1 vote is insincere, trolling, or the result of someone review bomb metacritic.

[Aerokii]

Jestun, on 19 September 2013 - 04:16 AM, said:

0 and 10 votes are both stupid. The game did not melt my PC and it is far from being the perfect game.

The assumption that the people voting 0, or even the people who post on the forum all still play is just that, an assumption. I suspect I'm not alone in posting here and hoping PGI picks up the ball that they dropped while not having played for months.

Agreed. The 0's and 10's are both lies. The game isn't a perfect 10- it's missing many key features that we'd originally been sold, and this was an awful time to "launch"- especially so near to GTA 5, and with the actual party being a week later. I've yet to figure out why they chose this week so arbitrarily.

On the other hand, I'm generally of the belief that the only time a review should be a 0 is when it's essentially not at all a game, or is otherwise unplayable. I suppose one needs to ask themselves if they're reviewing MWO, or if they're reviewing IGPGI.

[Jestun]

Why would they fear being banned if they don't play now? Incase PGI finally start listening and the game becomes worth playing again.

[Jestun]

Once again when a dev team considers launch to be a meaninless milestone and stress that the game is still in development, ignoring that development and the people doing it's record thus far would leave your review as incomplete as the game is.

If you want to play MWO you are 100% required to download every game changing patch PGI produce.


The people scoring the game low aren't complaining that the positive reviews contain things like "cw and ui2.0 will be here soon", why must the defenders complain that negative reviews question whether the devs will deliver?

[MaddMaxx]

When a supposed Game Review simply states, "They Lied!" then Metacritic becomes simply a Joke and those who run it should be ashamed to allow such BS to be posted. Post a review or don't bother, we hear the whining on here enough already...

[Star Witch Esperanza]

CravenMadness, on 19 September 2013 - 02:06 AM, said:

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.

Metacritic provides an aggregate score of several gaming news outlets and also has a side section for user scores. it then puts the average score up at the forefront so you can kind of get a jist of the game's quality at a glance. It also has all the reviews in one place so you can look through them.

However that's not really why it should be important to you. Why it should be important to you is that publishers actually care quite a bit about metacritic scores. Some publishers even give bonuses to developers who can deliver a game with a high enough score. Conversely some will cut funding or lay people off for a bad score.

[Mehlan]

For those digging on people giving bad reviews etc because features have not been implemented yet...******* user reviews over 'professional reviews/reviewers... I give you 'Outpost' by sierra online... http://en.wikipedia....ost_(video_game)

Quote

Initial reviews of Outpost were enthusiastic about the game. Most notoriously, the American version of PC Gamer rated the game at 93%, one of its highest ratings ever for the time. It was later made known that the reviewers had in fact played beta versions of the game, and had been promised certain features would be implemented, but never were.^{[citation needed]}
Indeed, many of the features described in the game's own documentation simply did not exist in the game at all. These included the ability to enter diplomatic relations with the rebel colony and the ability to build roads, orbital colonies, or the mass driver. Many of these gameplay aspects were later patched in, though in appearance only, as many of them failed to have any meaningful effect on gameplay.
Following the release of the game, the game's general bugginess and perceived mediocre gameplay, along with the lack of features described in most of the game's reviews and the game's own documentation led to a minor backlash against the computer game magazines of the time by consumers who bought the game based on their reviews