34 replies to this topic

[Corralis]

Mechwarrior Online is a good game in it's own right. It's not a true Mechwarrior sequel as it has no discernible story and does not establish a reason for what you are doing (basically blowing up big stompy robots). What it is currently is a pretty basic online shooter with simulation mechanics.

There are currently 21 Battlemech's to choose from ranging from 20 to 100 tons in weight and each Battlemech has between 3 and 6 variants to choose from so you have plenty to choose from and pretty much all play styles are covered. You can also fully customize your purchased Battlemech's to change out weaponry or increase engine size and armor distribution, and even design the look of your Mech with purchasable patterns and a huge amount of paints schemes.

There are 11 maps that you can fight in with various effects that the terrain or the ambient temperature can have on your Mech.

There are currently only two game modes, Assault which is a team deathmatch with base capping mechanics and Conquest which is a team deathmatch with multiple base capping mechanics and this is, in my opinion, the biggest let down so far. It doesn't feel like I ever have a reason for dropping onto a map and blowing up the big stompy robots other than the pure fun of blowing up big stompy robots and after 4000+ matches this get's really dull.

The developers of the game PGI is currently working on the meta game they are calling 'community warfare' and when this is live you will be able to capture and hold planets in the Inner Sphere (the Mechwarrior fictional galaxy) along with your Mercenary Corporation or as a house pilot or lone wolf. This is the feature that will make or break this game and while I am amazed it has not been implemented at launch, i am also glad they are holding it back until it is complete.

The other huge disappointment is that there is currently no Clan technology implemented into the game. If you have ever played another mechwarrior game you will know that the Clans are the reason most people are still playing the game. PGI said that this game would run alongside a full in-lore timeline that started midway through last year (2012 was 3049) and the Clan units should have invaded the Inner Sphere around May this year so they are well behind.

The pricing structure is, in my opinion, a little on the expensive side. A standard Mech (that you can buy with in game currency) could set you back anywhere from $5 to around $30 and the Hero Mech's that can only be bought with Mechwarrior Credits can cost between $10 to $40. These Hero Mech's are no more powerful than the standard variants but they give you a 30% increase to any C-Bills (in-game currency) you earn in a match. Combine that with the 50% extra you can get if you buy a Premium subscription with 30 days costing $15 and giving you an extra 500 MC to spend on other items and you can earn a lot of money really quickly if you pay to play.

Is the game Pay-to-Win? Well that entirely depends on your personal view of what Pay-to-Win is. In Mechwarrior Online you can't buy power but you can buy the Hero Mech's which other none paying players can not get and in some people's eyes that is Pay-to-Win. I don't believe it is however as all you are buying when you get a Hero Mech is a cool and unique paint job and a slightly different variant of a Mech that gives you the extra money.

This review is starting to get a bit too long and I have to mention the game's biggest problem if I am to be able to give an unbiased view of Mechwarrior Online. Balance is currently a nightmare, you get what the community calls the 'Flavour of the month' Mech's and weapons which everyone decides to use and then PGI smashes it with the nerf bat and all it does it make no one want to use that particular weapon but at the same time it also allows another type of weapon to become the FOTM and then that gets a good thrashing with said nerf bat and rinse and repeat. A little bit down the line those nerf'd weapons get slightly un-nerf'd and the whole thing starts again. I can honestly say that I don't know what the answer is to this but it's out there somewhere and eventually PGI will find it.

So to wrap up, I am 100% positive I have forgotten something (oh yea you play in 12 man teams but can only make groups of either 2, 3, 4 or 12 and they newly implemented Third Person View or 3PV for short has removed the simulation from this simulation game and turned it into another generic shooter) but hopefully I have given an unbiased view and allowed people who read this to at least give MWO a shot. It deserves that much at least. Mechwarrior Online is a good game that in time will become a great game, I just hope it still has a fan-base to support the game by the time it becomes great.

Thanks for reading.

Corralis.

(I scored it 8 out of 10)

Edited by Corralis, 17 September 2013 - 10:52 PM.

[Nikoliy]

Good review like it.

[Galen Crayn]

Lol. Youre funny. You really think YOUR opinion is the only "right" one? God complex?#
I gave it 4/10 with very good reasons...

@moderator pls delete this thread because there is one with the same theme. Or should everybody start a new one with his or her opinion?

Edited by Galen Crayn, 17 September 2013 - 10:20 PM.

[Felix Reynolds]

Corralis, on 17 September 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:

Just ignore all the scores below 5, it's just a bunch of disgruntled children who believe that the developers owe them something.

That's a shockingly blatant generalization to make. Just as your review is your opinion, so are others entitled to theirs. To immediately write off any review under a 5 as the work of a 'disgruntled child' is just as petulant as the behavior you're telling people to ignore.

Just food for thought. It only mildly undermines any unbiased objectivity in the rest of your review right off the bat.

Edit- also, am curious as to what it would have needed to do to score lower than an 8 out of 10, as you ding it for having no story, no place in the BT lore, say it's a 'pretty basic shooter', gets dull due to a lack of game modes, does not have a 'make or break' feature at launch, has no Clan tech (which according to you is why 'most' people still play BT- another blanket generalization), ditched the timeline, it's on the expensive side, balance is a "nightmare", and thanks to 3PV is another "generic shooter" - and it STILL got an 8 out of 10. So what, in your opinion, is a 5 out of 10?

Edited by Felix Reynolds, 17 September 2013 - 10:23 PM.

[ShadowSpirit]

8/10 ? Are you ranking it based on what you want it to be or what it is?

- Terrible user interface
- Terrible (virtually non-existent) joystick support
- Unbalanced weapons
- Broken hit boxes
- Spotty server rewind
- Only two game modes

You lost virtually all credibility with me with the first sentence. I stopped reading when you said "no clans" are a disappointment. Clans? We can't even have AC/2 without some weird kludge like ghost heat. And you are talking about clans?

Edited by ShadowSpirit, 17 September 2013 - 10:24 PM.

[Krivvan]

ShadowSpirit, on 17 September 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

- Terrible user interface
- Terrible (virtually non-existent) joystick support
- Unbalanced weapons
- Broken hit boxes
- Spotty server rewind
- Only two game modes

... 8/10? Really? Are you ranking it based on what you want it to be or what it is? Also, ego trip much?

The number is really meaningless. Some people take 8/10 to mean average. Some people take it to mean great.

[Corralis]

Felix Reynolds, on 17 September 2013 - 10:18 PM, said:

That's a shockingly blatant generalization to make. Just as your review is your opinion, so are others entitled to theirs. To immediately write off any review under a 5 as the work of a 'disgruntled child' is just as petulant as the behavior you're telling people to ignore.

Just food for thought. It only mildly undermines any unbiased objectivity in the rest of your review right off the bat.

Well I just think that people who review games and give it a 1/10 yet still mention several good points do not understand the concept of a review. It's the same when people give a game a perfect 10 but also mention that the game has flaws (not talking about MWO here). I wrote that bit at the top as I read quite a few reviews before I posted mine and that's the opinion I got from reading them. MWO does not deserve a 1/10 or as low as a 4 for that matter as it quite simply is not that bad.

Krivvan, on 17 September 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

The number is really meaningless. Some people take 8/10 to mean average. Some people take it to mean great.

I would have said 5 would be average but I guess it depends on your personal viewpoint.

[Varth Shenon]

Hello I'm a 'disgruntled child'.

[Corralis]

ShadowSpirit, on 17 September 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

8/10 ? Are you ranking it based on what you want it to be or what it is?

- Terrible user interface - It's not terrible, it works just fine.
- Terrible (virtually non-existent) joystick support - Totally agree here
- Unbalanced weapons - Also Agree
- Broken hit boxes - On some not all mech's
- Spotty server rewind - Hmm I'll give you that one
- Only two game modes - Mentioned that in my review

You lost virtually all credibility with me with the first sentence. I stopped reading when you said "no clans" are a disappointment. Clans? We can't even have AC/2 without some weird kludge like ghost heat. And you are talking about clans?

[Felix Reynolds]

Corralis, on 17 September 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:

Well I just think that people who review games and give it a 1/10 yet still mention several good points do not understand the concept of a review. It's the same when people give a game a perfect 10 but also mention that the game has flaws (not talking about MWO here). I wrote that bit at the top as I read quite a few reviews before I posted mine and that's the opinion I got from reading them. MWO does not deserve a 1/10 or as low as a 4 for that matter as it quite simply is not that bad.

Whereas you do the opposite, write primarily about the negative aspects of the game, and yet still give it an 8/10. As mentioned above, all review scores are relative, and for a lot of people, all the points you described don't total up to much more than a 2 or 3 when compared to something they think is 'good' - so to immediately assert that their opinion is factually wrong is ludicrous.

Saying it "quite simple is not that bad" is a subjective statement. And while I understand that many people are upset and are probably dinging it just because of *le rage* at PGI/some other reason, there are probably quite a few who actually do feel their score is justified by the game. Just a suggestion that you might have more traction convincing people to take your review as 'unbiased' if you don't open with a very biased statement.

Edit- Also, am very curious as to my edited question above from your perspective, and the relative nature of your out of 10 scale. If this is an 8/10 for you, does this place it on the same level of 'good' as other 8/10 rated games on Metacritic for you?

Edited by Felix Reynolds, 17 September 2013 - 10:29 PM.

[Krivvan]

Corralis, on 17 September 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:

I would have said 5 would be average but I guess it depends on your personal viewpoint.

Maybe it's a result of how schools grade people in a lot of places, but I find the majority view a 5 and lower as a complete failure. Even a 6 or 7 is sometimes considered to mean something is terrible.

It doesn't help that people tend to naturally rate things as a 0-1 or 9-10. A binary like/dislike tends to end up being more accurate.

[Corralis]

Felix Reynolds, on 17 September 2013 - 10:27 PM, said:

Whereas you do the opposite, write primarily about the negative aspects of the game, and yet still give it an 8/10. As mentioned above, all review scores are relative, and for a lot of people, all the points you described don't total up to much more than a 2 or 3 when compared to something they think is 'good' - so to immediately assert that their opinion is factually wrong is ludicrous.

Saying it "quite simple is not that bad" is a subjective statement. And while I understand that many people are upset and are probably dinging it just because of *le rage* at PGI/some other reason, there are probably quite a few who actually do feel their score is justified by the game. Just a suggestion that you might have more traction convincing people to take your review as 'unbiased' if you don't open with a very biased statement.

Edit- Also, am very curious as to my edited question above from your perspective, and the relative nature of your out of 10 scale. If this is an 8/10 for you, does this place it on the same level of 'good' as other 8/10 rated games on Metacritic for you?

You know you may be onto something, I gave the game an 8/10 before I wrote the review and then as I read it back to myself I realized that almost all the points were negative. Funny how that works isn't it? I still stick to my closing argument that MWO is a good game that can be a great game with some more features but the main thing I wanted to avoid was a complete rage at PGI cause that achieves nothing. I think they will be more inclined to read this review than something that just says 'FU*K YOU PGI YOU SUCK AT EVERYTHING!!!!!'

[Kiiyor]

Corralis, on 17 September 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:

Just ignore all the scores below 5, it's just a bunch of disgruntled children who believe that the developers owe them something.

I actually mostly agree with this, but I would say that the thresholds are lower. Those voting 2-3 could probably be shoe-horned into the disgruntled category, but 4-5 could actually be considered as legitimate reviews, depending on the user's experience (though, IMHO, the game is most certainly at least a 4).

Anyone voting 0 however... it's save to assume they are doing it out of spite. The whole 'vote a 0 to make a statement' crowd are one of the reasons I despise metacritic. Those that vote 10's to counter-counter those voting 0's also help to reduce the legitimacy of metacritic as a true rating system.

My 10 cents: the game has a solid core combat system, so I rate MWO a solid 7. When some of the promised features are implemented and the new-user experience is improved, my score would too.

[Destructicus]

I liked the part where he implied that his opinion matters more than anybody who dislikes this game.

[Felix Reynolds]

Corralis, on 17 September 2013 - 10:35 PM, said:

You know you may be onto something, I gave the game an 8/10 before I wrote the review and then as I read it back to myself I realized that almost all the points were negative. Funny how that works isn't it? I still stick to my closing argument that MWO is a good game that can be a great game with some more features but the main thing I wanted to avoid was a complete rage at PGI cause that achieves nothing. I think they will be more inclined to read this review than something that just says 'FU*K YOU PGI YOU SUCK AT EVERYTHING!!!!!'

I agree with that last sentiment entirely, and kudos for you for trying to avoid the rage and write something that people might be inclined to listen to, regardless of the viewpoint.

I was just pointing that out because I think that it's just as bad for people to rate the game 'high' out of some desire to balance out people rage-rating the game 'low' as it is for people to rage-review in the first place. Wasn't sure if that was why you scored it what I consider to be 'high' in the end despite your write up or if because you (as pointed out by others) might consider 8 to be only 'good' and not 'amazeballs'.

Good write up though, and good on you for taking the time to do it- I'm still working through mine. Hopefully get it up...you know, sometime. Rome 2 is still sucking down way to much of my time...

Edited by Felix Reynolds, 17 September 2013 - 10:41 PM.

[Krivvan]

There's also the issue of a player's priorities in the game. I gave it an 8/10 because the most important aspects of the game to me are the core mechanics and gameplay (movement, gunplay, etc.) and I believe the game to fulfill that. Other aspects such as the UI, additional features, and even balance, simply aren't as important to me as they are to some others.

An 8 to me is a game that is fundamentally good, but has issues that drag it down and/or seems to be in a state less than feeling complete. I'd give Rome 2 Total War an 8 too, and its user score is something like 3.8 right now.

Edited by Krivvan, 17 September 2013 - 10:43 PM.

[Corralis]

Kiiyor, on 17 September 2013 - 10:37 PM, said:

I actually mostly agree with this, but I would say that the thresholds are lower. Those voting 2-3 could probably be shoe-horned into the disgruntled category, but 4-5 could actually be considered as legitimate reviews, depending on the user's experience (though, IMHO, the game is most certainly at least a 4).

Anyone voting 0 however... it's save to assume they are doing it out of spite. The whole 'vote a 0 to make a statement' crowd are one of the reasons I despise metacritic. Those that vote 10's to counter-counter those voting 0's also help to reduce the legitimacy of metacritic as a true rating system.

My 10 cents: the game has a solid core combat system, so I rate MWO a solid 7. When some of the promised features are implemented and the new-user experience is improved, my score would too.

I actually like how big publishers like EA on one hand say that metacritic is the only worthwhile review site and on the other hand bash it as soon as their pride and joy AAA games get's less than 80 overall.

I actually agree with your last statement, there is room for improvement, I just hope it happens soon.

[Kiiyor]

Krivvan, on 17 September 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

There's also the issue of a player's priorities in the game. I gave it an 8/10 because the most important aspects of the game to me are the core mechanics and gameplay (movement, gunplay, etc.) and I believe the game to fulfill that. Other aspects such as the UI, additional features, and even balance, simply aren't as important to me as they are to some others.

Very close to my own sentiments. I rate all the other aspects you mentioned as icing on the cake, whereas a great number of people seem to use those elements as a less than 1 multiplier for their final score.

[Corralis]

Destructicus, on 17 September 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

I liked the part where he implied that his opinion matters more than anybody who dislikes this game.

No disliking the game is fine. A proper reviewer will dislike games from time to time but they still give the game a score that it deserves. All I am saying is that I can't believe that MWO deserves to be scored between 1 and 4 as it just isn't anywhere near that bad.

[Wildweasel1]

I tend to look at scores the same way most professional reviewers do.
10/10 Excellent game with no flaws what so ever
9 very good game some minor things that could have been done better.
8 Fun to play some obvious things could be improved
7 Still good but you need to be a fan to really get in to it.
6 Major issues or lack of a compelling reason to play.
5 All but the hard core will be disappointed by this in some way.
4 Game breaking issues not worth the time to play.
3-1 They developers didn't even try. Not worth down loading much less installing.

I would score this game an 8/10, I think that most people would enjoy playing it as well.
I take all user reviews with a grain of salt, the same thing with a lot of "professional" reviews, some times you wonder if they even played the game.
over all I think he did a fair review. I don't like they fact that he told people to ignore other reviews though.