34 replies to this topic

[Kiiyor]

Corralis, on 17 September 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

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.

Many of the bigger companies also (apparantly) have teams of people to add positive reviews, or negative reviews to competing games. There were some reports about it on the escapist once apon a time. Maybe.

[Corralis]

Wildweasel1, on 17 September 2013 - 10:46 PM, said:

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.

Hmm upon further consideration I think I'll go ahead and remove that opening sentence. Kinda makes me just as bad as the idiots down rating the game.

[Corralis]

Kiiyor, on 17 September 2013 - 10:46 PM, said:

Many of the bigger companies also (apparantly) have teams of people to add positive reviews, or negative reviews to competing games. There were some reports about it on the escapist once apon a time. Maybe.

I don't think even EA could affect the main critic review on Metacritic as they take the score directly from the reviewers websites. That, however, does not stop them from paying off the reviewers to give them a good score in the first place

[Varth Shenon]

Wildweasel1, on 17 September 2013 - 10:46 PM, said:

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.

I'll give it 5/10 then
This game is, somehow playable, but it can be improved further, much much much further.
f.e sugar is sweet, but cake is awesome, you know what I mean?

[Brut4ce]

Well, sorry i have to say this, but Corralis your review is bad mate.

First of all you start of with the worst possible way to introduce a review

Quote

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

C'mon. Just this line by itself pre-positions the reader to a defensive posture to reading the rest of the review as being subjective; people who have rated under 5 could easily say the same thing about "ignoring all the scores above them".

Then you have spent a good 3/4 of your review just describing the basic features of the game, i.e. it is a shooter, it has mechs, it has customisation of mechs, it has maps, it has 2 game modes, and some things in it cost money.

Now, for a game such as this, that is purely an on-line game, you have left the most important aspect of it out of the review. HOW does it perform ON-line? netcode, matchmaking etc. Also, important features to review would have been, detailed gameplay (compatibility of peripherals, "feel while in game", "immersion", environment), graphics settings (3D quality, colours, dynamic environments, interactive maps etc.), as well as game variety for its genre (lobbies, matchmaker, chat system, voice comms, on-line tools etc.)

Finally, there always has to be a comparison factor with everything described, such as "it's a bit on the expensive side, because....", or "it lacks in content, compared to...." or "In comparison to past mechwarrior products...." etc.

Now, don't get me wrong, i do not write reviews myself, 'cause i think one has to have particular writing skills and extented knowledge on what they are reviewing (as with every other profession out there e.g marketing, engineering, software development), but what i am merely pointing out is that, whoever does, should at least try and provide a pleasant and worthwhile read for the readers.

Just my 2 cents there, no offence mate ,

<S>

[Zaptruder]

If we are to look at MWO at this point in time in complete isolation, without regard to its development history, while at the same time considering only a narrow perpsective of what the game is...

Yeah, I can see it been a 8/10. There are the bones of a great game in there with a great deal of promise.

But if we are to see it in the context of what's happened over the last couple years, it's more like a 3/10. The promise is not just unfulfilled, but actively been sabotaged by its developers. Development seems to go no where - while they're zealously working on a UI2.0 still unseen, the game crumbles to dust as players get fed up waiting on significant game play changes that will never arrive because of the rank inefficiency that PGI has so thoroughly and repeatedly demonstrated.

[Corralis]

Brut4ce, on 17 September 2013 - 11:05 PM, said:

Well, sorry i have to say this, but Corralis your review is bad mate.

First of all you start of with the worst possible way to introduce a review


C'mon. Just this line by itself pre-positions the reader to a defensive posture to reading the rest of the review as being subjective; people who have rated under 5 could easily say the same thing about "ignoring all the scores above them".

Then you have spent a good 3/4 of your review just describing the basic features of the game, i.e. it is a shooter, it has mechs, it has customisation of mechs, it has maps, it has 2 game modes, and some things in it cost money.

Now, for a game such as this, that is purely an on-line game, you have left the most important aspect of it out of the review. HOW does it perform ON-line? netcode, matchmaking etc. Also, important features to review would have been, detailed gameplay (compatibility of peripherals, "feel while in game", "immersion", environment), graphics settings (3D quality, colours, dynamic environments, interactive maps etc.), as well as game variety for its genre (lobbies, matchmaker, chat system, voice comms, on-line tools etc.)

Finally, there always has to be a comparison factor with everything described, such as "it's a bit on the expensive side, because....", or "it lacks in content, compared to...." or "In comparison to past mechwarrior products...." etc.

Now, don't get me wrong, i do not write reviews myself, 'cause i think one has to have particular writing skills and extented knowledge on what they are reviewing (as with every other profession out there e.g marketing, engineering, software development), but what i am merely pointing out is that, whoever does, should at least try and provide a pleasant and worthwhile read for the readers.

Just my 2 cents there, no offence mate ,

<S>

None taken, I have just got back home from work when I wrote that (been awake almost 24 hours) and I could have added a lot more of what you have described but I realised that my review was already getting very large and I had to close it somewhere. I also didn't want to add it too many comparisons to other games as I just wanted to give people enough info to go play the game themselves and make up their own mind. I also think you completely forget a lot of what you set out to write when you start to do a review of this magnitude. Next time I write a review I'll try to do a better job

[Corralis]

Zaptruder, on 17 September 2013 - 11:10 PM, said:

If we are to look at MWO at this point in time in complete isolation, without regard to its development history, while at the same time considering only a narrow perpsective of what the game is...

Yeah, I can see it been a 8/10. There are the bones of a great game in there with a great deal of promise.

But if we are to see it in the context of what's happened over the last couple years, it's more like a 3/10. The promise is not just unfulfilled, but actively been sabotaged by its developers. Development seems to go no where - while they're zealously working on a UI2.0 still unseen, the game crumbles to dust as players get fed up waiting on significant game play changes that will never arrive because of the rank inefficiency that PGI has so thoroughly and repeatedly demonstrated.

Well reviews are based solely off the week prior to release that most reviewers get to play the game not the several years it took to make the game. If you look at the game from that perspective would you still give MWO a 3/10?

Right now it is mostly bug free, balance issues aside the combat is good, the graphics are good, the game play is fun albeit a little repetitive. The game has enough variation in Mech's and Maps that no one game is the exact same as any other (although sometimes it might feel that way). A 3/10 score would basically be saying that the game is broken and buggy, that it isn't fun in any way and almost every aspect of the game is wrong in some way. Can you honestly tell me that that is how you feel?

[MrZakalwe]

I couldn't score this game higher than 4- too many issues, too many promises with too little delivered.

Delivery goals:
1st person mech simulator - Failed
Role warfare - Failed
UI 2.0 - Failed
Community warfare - Failed

But rather than that high end stuff let's take a look at some really basic sh*t:

Mechs always take damage when I hit them - Failed

With all of this I just can't justify a good score.

EDIT: They are selling the game on promises that so far they have a very bad track record of delivering on.

Edited by MrZakalwe, 18 September 2013 - 12:19 AM.

[Mawai]

The interesting thing is that most people agree on the state of the game BUT depending on the individual's viewpoint and expectations they will rate the game anywhere from 0 to 10. The OP wrote a good review and he gave it an 8 ... another could write the identical words and only give the game a 3.

The problem is that all the features that could make MWO great are currently vapourware. The game as currently available is surprisingly similar to what was available in closed beta in terms of player experience. There have been significant back end improvements (host state rewind, netcode, bug fixes) but most of the visible additions have been art work, mechs and maps. Unless PGI implements a reasonable meta-game (XP system and community warfare) which has been stated by players since closed beta ... they will have problems with retention of players since they do NOT have any real reason to play at the moment other than blowing up mechs ... and unfortunately, at some point, that will cease to be reason enough to play.

[StandingCow]

Personally I would say any reviews from 0-2 and 8-10 would be worthy of just ignoring. Either people trolling or people giving the game way too good of a score... well imo anyway.

[DeadlyNerd]

Oh good, someone who is a self proclaimed saint and has the right to trumping everyone else's opinions just because he doesn't like them.

Here's something for you:

[ShadowSpirit]

Ahahaha ...this thread got stuffed by a mod.

[Corralis]

ShadowSpirit, on 18 September 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

Ahahaha ...this thread got stuffed by a mod.

Hmm I guess they aren't interested in honest opinion. Too bad.

[Steve Varayis]

Why wasn't this sent to K-town?

Come on Mods, I want quality content