1251 replies to this topic

[Moromillas]

DeaconW, on 21 September 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

You obviously have a reading comprehension problem...I wasn't defending multiple accounts...I was defending legitimate "0" votes. Keep your fantasy that the game is getting low marks because of a "vocal minority"...and welcome to my ignore file.

Ok, here's some more legitimate "0" votes.

[Sandpit]

Moromillas, on 21 September 2013 - 07:47 PM, said:

Ok, here's some more legitimate "0" votes.

No offense but how are either of those considered legitimate ratings? You're simply picking ratings that offer no real review and then trying to make it sound like that's what he is defending....

[Hexenhammer]

Moromillas, on 21 September 2013 - 07:47 PM, said:

Ok, here's some more legitimate "0" votes.

The maxdest review is pretty spot on except for lack of maps. We've got 11 so far and one or two more on the way.

[Dr B00t]

GalaxyBluestar, on 20 September 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

This is a PR nightmare. Anybody who comes here will see that there’s controversy a plenty too many people have been ******** over and reading all over the net potential customers will see “oh devs haven’t delivered and went back on their word. Okay I’ll avoid that game” and the rush of whiteknighting doesn’t mean things are okay it just means mismanagement has completely polarised the playerbase.

There’s only one way to cure this and that is to deliver a quality product… which taking an hour to discover any newbie will find this game is a demo that can’t even offer turrets, hud toggles beyond zoom and battle grid, and 2 game modes.

Just think about this, remember when they did a reset and gave everyone 7 mil cbills to make up for it? Remember when they gave everyone 1 day’s worth premium on valentines day? the redeem button on the top menu bar of this forum, that was for that offer. i say this because newbies wouldn't know about it, that was when PGI thought they had a chance, igp pushing this launch under the gta V radar is one of many signs... From the people who brought us 3pv because “sometimes we care too much” they give you no incentive on launch but a medallion and thanks for the boosted statistics. It’s plain to see they are prepairing to scrap this game, tank it, cut their loses cause clearly white and black knights, they say retention and demographic, no loyal supporters and growth. Almost a year of collecting players and they still can’t show the player count. The amount of failed match finds just because of a tweak proves this isn’t a viable/sustainable product.

Guess we best wait another ten years for a proper mechwarrior game.

edit: i'm abstaining, i never have nor will i ever talk about MWO outside these forums. it's not fair on the company igp/pgi but the writing's been on the wall for ages, there are no surprises. i'll just watch this tank over the next few months {years if luck shines} and that will be that.

i only abstain cause i would give this game a 5/10 now...so it's not worth talking about...lots of other games out there

i take that back...i would talk about this game to my friend, but only because he might ask, and then shame would set in...it wouldnt be at all positive (sorry but being a founder i do feel lied to...and that's a lot of the anger on the forums)

they just dont understand their own demographic..."let's ignore the hardcore fan-base who put up money sight unseen...they live on an island...we know this because we took the game to some game convention and little kids couldnt figure out the controls in the 5 minutes we let them play"

i came from world of tanks and it took me a couple days to rid myself of old fps habits...

simple fix instead of 3pv would have been a tutorial and better hud that you dont have to look down at map to see alignment of torso...lord knows how many wasted man-hours went into making 3pv (which is useless to a newbie anyway since: no map, terrible aiming) and actual tips on the load screen like

PRESS C TO CENTER TORSO TO LEGS

damn...that last one would have saved me a couple games of wall humping...

instead we get "Use the in-game reporting feature to...blah blah"

Edited by Dr B00t, 21 September 2013 - 08:31 PM.

[Moromillas]

Sandpit, on 21 September 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

No offense but how are either of those considered legitimate ratings? You're simply picking ratings that offer no real review and then trying to make it sound like that's what he is defending....

He wanted proof of multiple fake account meta-bombing, I provided.

No, not going to post all the "reviews" that rate 0, have a read through on metacritic, then say with a straight face they're impartial.

[Kyrie]

I honestly can't muster the energy and enthusiasm to post a review. If I were to view this game as a new player, completely unfamiliar with the franchise, development background and promises, I would probably rate it about 7 due to some lingering new-player experience problems.

However, having lived through MWO since closed beta I find myself unable to be that objective -- what PGI promised to the community matters. 3PV, massive delays in all core "Design pillars" ... not a happy camper at the moment. Perhaps there will be a monumental announcement on the 26th that will fix everything. Or perhaps not.

[Literally]

Kyrie, on 21 September 2013 - 09:06 PM, said:

. . . what PGI promised to the community matters.

This is the only thing worth saying in this entire thread.

[Miekael]

The only way to prove a fake account/review is to determine the origin of the poster. If two reviews come from the same IP address, then it is fairly safe to say that it is a "fake" account. The fact that someone uses a screen name that is not their own, or belonging to someone else, does not prove the account is fake. It just proves that someone is using a screen name belonging to someone else. Furthermore, to my understanding, when metacritic was asked to remove "fake" reviews, more positive votes were discredited then negative ones. This probably has to do with both NGNG and reddit asking their communities to go vote on metacritic. At least NGNG had the tact to not ask for people to counteract the 0s with 10s, they just asked that you vote, reddit users on the other hand wanted people to post 10s to counter act the 0s. So until there is actual proof that the 0/10 votes are coming from the same person, which there is not by any means from people outside of metacritic, then there is really no reason to argue the validity of those scores. Is it that hard to believe that many people could possibly be angry with PGI?

[Wispsy]

DrxAbstract, on 21 September 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

Well im sorry Wispsy but there was never a statement saying the game would never be 3pv.

It was not on the forums it was on the website where they talked about their design pillars and advertised founders program.

[Toadkillerdog]

....I love how no one even tries to actually review the game. It's pretty much all 0s and 10s, which means that it's just people pissy about the devs, or people compensating for the whiners about the devs, and thus no one actually gets anywhere. This is why no one in my unit bothers with the forums, it's pretty much just **** flinging at this point.

[RedThirteen]

Toadkillerdog, on 21 September 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:

....I love how no one even tries to actually review the game. It's pretty much all 0s and 10s, which means that it's just people pissy about the devs, or people compensating for the whiners about the devs, and thus no one actually gets anywhere. This is why no one in my unit bothers with the forums, it's pretty much just **** flinging at this point.

For sort-of genuine user reviews look around the 3-7 out of 10 mark. The 0s and 10s cancel each other out by averages, so 5.5/10 or w/e it currently is seems fair.

[StoneMason]

Most are pretty unhelpful with regard to the actual game, though I think the 0-6 reviewers would be writing very positive 8-9/10 content if they felt that kind of support was what the game needed.

Unfortunately, this is an always online-free to play game, it's impossible to separate the core gameplay from the user experience. One of those is launch ready, the other is a liability that leaves the longevity of this game in question. Russ even states in a recent NGNG interview that he wouldn't have launched but was swayed by marketing concerns. At some point developers have to learn when to say NO to publishers and investors, doing otherwise is throwing away not just their own work but the enthusiasm of thousands in the community.

Toadkillerdog, on 21 September 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:

....I love how no one even tries to actually review the game. It's pretty much all 0s and 10s, which means that it's just people pissy about the devs, or people compensating for the whiners about the devs, and thus no one actually gets anywhere. This is why no one in my unit bothers with the forums, it's pretty much just **** flinging at this point.

Edited by StoneMason, 21 September 2013 - 10:56 PM.

[meteorol]

Metacritics is such a joke. Really.
I would rather trust a 5 year old kids review of a game than metacritics.

Seriously. Giving this Game a 0 or 10 is just plain stupid. The devs broke your heart because they "lied" to you? Worst thing ever happend in your whole life? Newsflash: This is no reason to give this game a 0. Do you even realize what 0 means?

Why are players always too immature to create an objective review for a game?
"Damn this game needs origin, better give it a 0 because im judging a distribution platform and not a game here".

It's really sickening. Guys making stupid jokes about "CoD Kids" thinking they are oh so mature, and then go to metacritics and give this game a ******* 0 BECAUSE THEY SAID NO 3PV OH MY GAWD.
If you want to make jokes about 12 year old kids, you should stop behaving like one.

[MadcatX]

StoneMason, on 21 September 2013 - 10:48 PM, said:

At some point developers have to learn when to say NO to publishers and investors, doing otherwise is throwing away not just their own work but the enthusiasm of thousands in the community.

Unfortunately rarely are publishers and devs on the same level. The devs want to push out the best product they can, the publishers are more interested in the business side of things. EA's bad rep of grabbing good franchises and just nuking them is partly due to them placing strict deadlines which are not attainable and result in a poor-quality product being shipped.

Can't say for sure if that's what is going on here although I believe it was mentioned that it was the publishers that forced the launch.

[Kaijin]

"Being the pilot is one of our key design pillars and 3rd person breaks that pillar on multiple levels as seen in many of the other 3rd Person discussions.

We will investigate 3rd person in the far off distance for special game settings, but this is very far off in the distance."
- Paul Inouye
http://mwomercs.com/...is-when-needed/

It'd be a slam dunk to say that pre-made 12 vs 12 drops certainly trump the default PUG mode as "special game settings", and yet it is the 'special game setting' that gets to avoid 3PV. The one where you've got to coordinate with 23 other players in order to not have 3PV. A proper 'special setting' for 3PV is a special queue for 3PV - not the entirely un-special default setting.

[StoneMason]

In a chain of command responsibility works both ways, including telling your superior when something flat out will not work. If you don't then it's your own people that get hurt...

MadcatX, on 21 September 2013 - 11:52 PM, said:

Unfortunately rarely are publishers and devs on the same level. The devs want to push out the best product they can, the publishers are more interested in the business side of things. EA's bad rep of grabbing good franchises and just nuking them is partly due to them placing strict deadlines which are not attainable and result in a poor-quality product being shipped.

Can't say for sure if that's what is going on here although I believe it was mentioned that it was the publishers that forced the launch.

[Johnny Reb]

I really dont care of the ******** ppl reviews! So, the game isnt want you wanted. **** you! Still it is fun and I hope for more! If not, then it stll got me of TF2. Guess, if I stop playing this might actually play Panzer Dragoon Saga. Or Xeno Chronicles, or Wrath of the whit Witch! Wow, not to mention the Fire Emblem game for the we and gamecube! Heh, so many games I own but don't play! I play this doa game instead!

[Johnny Reb]

I really need a reason to play Panzer Dragoon Saga! Payed enough for it!

[Gooner]

I think the 5.3 is a bit low right now. I'd personally give it a 7 (I don't have a metacritic account so I'm not actually going to post a review). The gameplay is fun, alot of players complain about balance and stuff being OP but you know ... welcome to multiplayer gaming. Every multiplayer game past present or future will have some players thinking the last weapon that killed them is OP. The switch to 12v12 has made the battles alot more interesting for me.

But I can't give it any higher than a 7 until community warfare is live. Right now we play a match, we win or lose, we get some cbills and some xp ... and then we go again. The matches are essentially pointless. If CW is what I think/hope it will be, with a persistant war between the factions that we can truly influence, I think my rating would go up to a 9.

[New Day]

AlexEss, on 18 September 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

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

Coolant hurt the gameplay. They took out a gameplay mechanic a monetized it thereby reducing it's role in the game. What would you say if they made ECM like that. It's the same thing but on a smaller scale. Coolant and the UAV should be items that you can equip not modules.