398 replies to this topic

[TychoTheItinerant]

Cimarb, on 04 November 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

Exactly. The Eridani have learned their lesson - no need to continue beating them...

[Alaskan Nobody]

TychoTheItinerant, on 04 November 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

Problem being:
Both sides of the argument are both convinced they are right
In other words they are psychologically incapable of doing that.

Probably emotionally to if I were to hazard a guess.

[Heffay]

Shar Wolf, on 04 November 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

Problem being:
Both sides of the argument are both convinced they are right
In other words they are psychologically incapable of doing that.

Probably emotionally to if I were to hazard a guess.

Hey, I'm married. I haven't been right in the last 9 years!

[Alaskan Nobody]

Fun thought:
On a scale of 1-10....

I (personally) would not rate any of the Halo games higher than about 5 or 6, because, for me, they are nothing more than about absolutely average games - they did nothing that had not been done before, they only did it newer.

I (personally) would not rate Assassin's Creed higher than a 3 - the copy I have is buggy as it can get and still be playable - or at least it would be if I could get through the tutorial, as I reach a specific point and the buttons all rearrange what they do every time any subtitle dialog is played.

I (personally) would not rate God of War higher than 5 or 6, partially because I dislike greek mythology, partially because very little of Kratos' personality is original, partially because very little of the gameplay is original - just like Halo.

I (personally) would not rate ANY of the Elder Scrolls higher than a 4 - because I despise their leveling mechanics.

I (personally) would rate Dragon Age around 6 - I disliked the bulk of the characters, I disliked the fact that the game PUNISHED you for not being a Jackass, I disliked how absolutely broken the mechanics were.

All those 'Must Have' games I would rate far far below what is (on GameFAQs anyways, which is the only site I really use for reviews) the bare minimum for a game to be worth paying for. (7-8)

The review this topic is (supposedly) supposed to be discussing rated it approximately 8.
In other words:
There are better games out there.
It is not unplayable
It may or may not be worth your time (especially as it is a FREE game)
It may or may not get better with time.
It is by far not the worst game out there.
It is the only thing in it's competitive bracket.

-The reviewer specifically compared it to CRAPEN excuse me, Hawken, and Hawken did not compare - which is not to say Hawken is bad, but that it would be like comparing Legend of Zelda to League of Legends just because both have 'Legend' in their name.

Many of you do not feel the game is worth an 8
Some of us do.

Personally I would rate it about an 8: every "AAA" "Must Have" title I have played in the last 5 years has been just as, if not MORE, buggy - and most of them less balanced.
Personally I have little trouble with the grind - I do not even consider it a grind most of the time, because I am having fun playing in my mechs - from the Locust to the Atlas.
That Red Star under my name is me dedicating the bulk of my gaming budget for the year to this game: If this game falls I still have several decades worth of good fun games I have held on to because they were worth holding on to: from Mechwarrior2:31st century combat, to Civilization3 to Pokemon.

In my (personal) opinion a game is what you make of it, you do not like it then you have no one to blame but yourself for being miserable while playing it.
There are THOUSANDS of good games out there - yes even Halo and Dragon Age.
You do not feel this game is worth it - go find another that you feel IS.
If this game IS worth it - time will tell, if it is not, then we who chose to stay lose out - not those who chose to go find a game they actually did enjoy.

/End_rant.

[Literally]

Shar Wolf, on 04 November 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

. . . it would be like comparing Legend of Zelda to League of Legends

. . . Civilization3 to Pokemon.

You of course are entitled to have fun with any game you want, so don't feel like you can't enjoy MWO just because some of us are disappointed and it got an inflated review score. However, games, like movies, are also judged by their premise, the standards of their time, and the standards of their genre. Here you've given some examples of very different games, which have been judged very differently based on what they tried to be, what they could be expected to be.

PGI made promises about what MWO would be, and PGI fell miserably short. They missed the goals and deadlines they set for themselves. If they'd been honest and upfront from day one, we would have a very different situation here. MWO had a chance to be judged as a semi-persistent community warfare game, and they failed to even produce. MWO had a chance to be judged as a matchmaker grinding timesink like WoT, and they can't give us lobbies or stability or diverse game modes. MWO started with promises of amazing new mechanics and a new competitive atmosphere, and instead we got poor balancing, ghost heat, and broken matchmakers.

So by what standards can we say MWO is working well? Maybe you're having fun, and that's great, but most of us paid and jumped on board for something and didn't get it. So we're not having fun.

[Sug]

Shar Wolf, on 04 November 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

Personally I would rate it about an 8

What exactly are you giving an 8? An MC store, deathmatch, and all the mechs?

[Alaskan Nobody]

Sug, on 04 November 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

What exactly are you giving an 8? An MC store, deathmatch, and all the mechs?

You apparently missed the big point I tried to make:

Shar Wolf, on 04 November 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

Every "AAA" "Must Have" title I have played in the last 5 years has been just as, if not MORE, buggy - and most of them less balanced.

If Halo or Dragon Age qualify for an 8 or higher - this game - for simply what is IN this game, would rate 1000 or higher.
IN MY OPINION

Is there much to it?
No, and you cannot claim I ever said there was.

What I have claimed, is that this game - FOR WHAT IT IS - runs better, looks better, and is more entertaining, than any so called 'Must Have' 'AAA' title I have played.

I enjoy what little there is - and on THAT I put it at an 8.
You apparently do not - and it would benifit you and the rest of us if you simply went and found another that you enjoyed more.

I rather dislike being rude, but at your reading comprehension, might I recommend a Dora the Explorer game?

The reviewer gave his opinion, and I mirror it: there is not much to the game, there could EASILY be more - but what there is has no competition. Not Hawken, not Battlefield, not anything.

You want a "AAA-has-everything-you-want" game?
I would recommend one done by a company with enough people to do that - not one being done by around 50 people.

Please note: I am not defending PGI blindly, I am well aware of how much better it could be.
How could I not with people like you WHINING about how it isn't what it could be in 3/4+ of the topics?

I gave my opinion: Literally attacks. like all the Goons do, when anyone disagrees with their opinion.
I gave reasons for my opinion: YOU attack it apparently because you did not bother to pay attention to my whole post.

I have paid for this game - maybe not as much as you, maybe more, I have no interest in getting into a 'who-paid-more' fight.
I am more than satisfied with what I got for my money, so I rate the game from that perspective.

[Sug]

Shar Wolf, on 04 November 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

FOR WHAT IT IS

The battlecry of failure.

Shar Wolf, on 04 November 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

You apparently do not - and it would benefit you and the rest of us if you simply went and found another that you enjoyed more.

I rather dislike being rude, but at your reading comprehension, might I recommend a Dora the Explorer game?

[redacted]

Shar Wolf, on 04 November 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

You want a "AAA-has-everything-you-want" game?

Uh, if by "has-everything-you-want" you mean "everything-they-said-would-be-in-the game-two-years-ago-but-is-nowhere-in-sight" then yes.

The community has been keeping BT alive for a decade on it's own. Living Legends, mektek, free mw4, mechs, mods, maps. Hell the community's community warfare is in Season 3.

http://mwomercs.com/...anetary-league/

http://proxis.midgardmc.eu/mwo/

And that's one fricking guy doing that.

So excuse me if my expectations for an actual company taking in money are higher than for a handful of dedicated fans working in their free time. I guess I just don't know how the industry works or something.

83% is about right if all MWO was meant to be was team deathmatch. It's a fun, basically stable, fairly balanced game.

Factor in all the missing features and MWO becomes a tech demo for a much bigger and better game. A score in the 60's would be more reasonable.

Edited by miSs, 04 November 2013 - 07:45 PM.
insults

[Alaskan Nobody]

Sug, on 04 November 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

The battlecry of failure.

And yet shouted in the help forums of all the "AAA" "Must have" titles I quoted

Sug, on 04 November 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

[redacted]

And yet still no worse than the Goons no?

Sug, on 04 November 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

Uh, if by "has-everything-you-want" you mean "everything-they-said-would-be-in-the game-two-years-ago-but-is-nowhere-in-sight" then yes.

I repeat: 50 people making a game, where Halo had a good 700 for the FIRST one.
Dragon age had what? 3000?

Sug, on 04 November 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

And that's one fricking guy doing that.

And one guy does all the Touhou games - does not make your point beyond labeling that particular individual as exceptional.

Sug, on 04 November 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

Factor in all the missing features and MWO becomes a tech demo for a much bigger and better game. A score in the 60's would be more reasonable.

Quite possibly, but such scores are subjective no?
As stated REPEATEDLY, I PERSONALLY enjoyed what I got, to the point of feeling it was worth 8/10


At this point I am putting you on my ignore list as well:
Me and you apparently cannot agree on even whether I am allowed to enjoy this game to the point of PERSONALLY giving it an 8/10.

Now I am actually not very good at arguing (SURPRISE!)

I tried and repeatedly failed to make the point that - just because YOU PERSONALLY do not feel the game deserves the score it got, does not mean that the person giving it that score scored it wrongly, anymore than the people who scored Halo or Dragon Age or even the Dora game I still suggest you try (because you sir, are acting just as much a Troll as I)

[xhrit]

Sug, on 04 November 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

83% is about right if all MWO was meant to be was team deathmatch. It's a fun, basically stable, fairly balanced game.

Don't judge things based on what they are not. Just things based on what they are.

For what it is, MWO is a fun, basically stable, fairly balanced, team deathmatch game.

If Flower can get an 87% for being a flower petals blowing in the wind game, then 83% sounds right for a fun, basically stable, fairly balanced, team deathmatch game. Flower was great, but MWO has about 10x the gameplay and depth.

If MWo had CW it would easily be 10% higher.

Edited by xhrit, 04 November 2013 - 06:38 PM.

[Roland]

Lol @shar wolf saying that mwo is better than ever game in a list of games which are universally regarded as some of the best games ever.

[Ghogiel]

Shar Wolf, on 04 November 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

I repeat: 50 people making a game, where Halo had a good 700 for the FIRST one.
Dragon age had what? 3000?

Neither of those are true... just so wrong.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Roland, on 04 November 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

Lol @shar wolf saying that mwo is better than ever game in a list of games which are universally regarded as some of the best games ever.

NO.
I said that it ran better for me.
I said I PERSONALLY enjoyed it more.

Just as you are allowed your PERSONAL opinion - I am allowed mine.
Just as you are allowed your PERSONAL opinion - so is the reviewer.

Ghogiel, on 04 November 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

Neither of those are true... just so wrong.

I will admit I was, as they say, pulling numbers from my rear orifice.
I had not looked at Bungies employee list - much smaller than I remember the credits being, but that may simply be a repeat of names.

I suppose you could put a lot of my frustration down to simply being tired of people bashing almost every aspect of a game that I actually enjoy - warts and all.

Deathmatch? I never wanted it - too two-dimensional of gameplay for me.
Forums? Chased me out of more games than it helped with.

But I doubt any of the haters (Hi there World of Lowtax!) would care diddly about anyone elses opinions no?
(and if that offends you - welcome to labeling YOURSELF a hater)

Because OBVIOUSLY the lack of features YOU have to have for YOU to consider a game worth having makes the game completely unplayable in any sense of the word?
Well duh, that would only be "common sense" no? "Everybody" knows that.

Just like "Everybody" knew that the moment 3pv came in, no-one would use anything but 3pv?
Because "Everyone" knew there was no way to make 3pv NOT better than 1pv?

I say one more time:
I like the game, I look forward to seeing it's growth - but (FOR ME) it runs better and is better balanced than ANY so called "AAA" title I have played in 5 years.
And that is NOT a number pulled out of, as they say, 'my rear orifice'

Roland - for mocking rather than even attempting to refute my statements about those games: welcome to the ignore list.
Ghogiel - when you counter a statement like that - it helps your case if you present the facts rather than simply saying your opponent is wrong.

[Literally]

SharWolf you need to take a deep breath. If you slow down for a moment you might be able to get it together enough to say one thing that makes sense, instead of posting for pages about how "all goons are the devil" and "you can't tell me my opinions are bad". Slow your roll bro.

[Cybermech]

guys there is way to much discussion over a very bad review.

6/10 is where it should be, so much missing, I don't think anyone in PGI or IGP would be happy with a higher score.

just let this bad review die

[Tarzilman]

I am really shocked about, how ignorant some ppl can be. They just pick one or two sentences out of a message that has to be read (and understood!) entirely and then comment on it in a provoking way. Imho that's either trolling or at least a close minded behaviour.
Even if there was recognized a lack of content, saying it is satisfying though seems to be enough to get reactions like this.
I also tried to explain my own opinion and why I think this game is good though, but the only thing the hatecrew read is "I think..... (several words of explanation that you're talking about your own opinion, that you personally are still enjoying the game and also some agreements that it is really not so good, that promised content is still missing after 2 years) .... the game is good!"
It's really annoying, I totally agree with you, Shar and I personally think everyone of the BKs should be banned forever and their further accounts and the accounts of their children and their childrens' children accounts. ^^ But that won't be good, because critics and (factual) criticisim is important!
Now watch the last sentence be ignored. ;-) (well, now that I wrote it'll be ignored, maybe it won't)

Edited by Tarzilman, 05 November 2013 - 05:51 AM.

[Boymonkey]

I agree with the review, I would give it 90% because it is just so much fun and will only get better.

[Silent]

Literally, on 05 November 2013 - 01:13 AM, said:

SharWolf you need to take a deep breath. If you slow down for a moment you might be able to get it together enough to say one thing that makes sense, instead of posting for pages about how "all goons are the devil" and "you can't tell me my opinions are bad". Slow your roll bro.

Welcome to his ignore list, Literally!

[Ghogiel]

Shar Wolf, on 04 November 2013 - 10:02 PM, said:

Ghogiel - when you counter a statement like that - it helps your case if you present the facts rather than simply saying your opponent is wrong.

How about you back up your own claims first lol.

When Frankie joined bungie in 2003 it had 60 employees. In 2008
it had 120.

Source: bungie.net

[Chronojam]

Boymonkey, on 05 November 2013 - 06:18 AM, said:

I agree with the review, I would give it 90% because it is just so much fun and will only get better.

You do not provide scores of upcoming content or PGI's promises, because it would've been easy to give them a 90% back in November, 2012 based on the claims they were making at the time and yet every interviewer with integrity has marked them far below due to an inability to follow up on many of those claims.