398 replies to this topic

[Roland]

Heffay, on 28 October 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

Ah, my mistake. I thought it was an MMO list.

The reality is, MWO didn't belong on any list of "Best X of all time", especially back whenever that list was put together, given the game hadn't even been released yet.

[Sandpit]

Roland, on 28 October 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

The reality is, MWO didn't belong on any list of "Best X of all time", especially back whenever that list was put together, given the game hadn't even been released yet.

Yea that's called paid propaganda. No way is this the best game of all time on any list other than the fact that I love the ip this would just be another shooter for me

[Gallowglas]

Sandpit, on 28 October 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

Yea that's called paid propaganda. No way is this the best game of all time on any list other than the fact that I love the ip this would just be another shooter for me

I sincerely doubt that PC Gamer accepted money for a review. If they did such things, you'd never see low reviews from games that are advertised in their magazine or from big game publishers. Nevermind the fact that I doubt that PGI has deep pockets to buy off the reviewers. This smacks of tinfoilhattery. Game reviews are in large part based on opinion and despite what you may think, a lot of people do love the game, flaws and all. It doesn't mean the folks who enjoy playing don't want some major fixes and new content, or get frustrated by delays to either of those items, but not everyone throws the baby out with the bath water.

Edited by Gallowglas, 28 October 2013 - 10:07 AM.

[Fuzzbox]

Quite a spot on review, but I agree the score seems a bit high. Then again reviewers rarely play a game for long, so the absense of CW was probably not a great factor. This is a free to play after all, and will be judged as one.

[Heffay]

Sandpit, on 28 October 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

Yea that's called paid propaganda.

That's quite an accusation. You have any evidence to back it up?

[Aym]

Except that it's more like 45-100 matches w/out premium, 30-60 with preimium, and his inflated score of 83, it's a great review.

[SovietArmada]

Pretty decent review and maybe a little bit of a generous score given the state the game is in. And that doesn't mean it's a bad thing, PGI is clearly hard at work to move this game uphill. Just still not there yet. Though I am most surprised is his lack of mention the hit detection/hit box problems that really seem to plague combat. One of the most important and basic features that need to be fixed in any shooter looking to be successful.

[Tannhauser Gate]

The Good
From an existing player inside looking out (or a MW fan), it’s a 65 to 75 because of the depth of customization while also staying balanced, stability of combat, role warfare, excellent visuals, mech designs, sounds, and effects. Once you get in the combat, the “under construction” mess around feels functional.

The Bad
But, from the perspective of new player looking in, MWO is about a 55 to 65 mostly due to beta-level menus, poor tutorials, no community lobby, lack of maps and modes, and complexity without description or direction, and repetitiveness. It disappoints anyone expecting to see a typical post launch level game.

Yes, The Ugly
Of all the reviews Ive read, this one feels more fair than most when describing MWO’s present state but 83 is slanted high. MWO is a solid 70 imo. It easily has the potential for 83 after UI2.0 addresses the menu’s, tutorials, community lobby, and mech lab. Should reality reach the level of PGI’s plans, with CW, factions, mercs, and clans, more maps, mechs and other content, MWO would safely be in the 90s for most players and a ‘dream come true’ 100+ for the serious fans.

MWO has a solid, fun, exciting base to work from. People need to look at this as an atypical game, get excited about it but judge it on what it has and not what it might be. I think this review was spot on and fair but was 10 points generous with the final score. 83 in a year maybe.

Edited by LakeDaemon, 28 October 2013 - 10:48 AM.

[Heffay]

This game could be a lot worse. It could be Batman: Arhkam Origins, and score a brutal 3.5/10.

MWO: Better than Batman.

[Gamgee]

kesuga7, on 26 October 2013 - 06:04 PM, said:

Ehh pc gamer always covered MWO stories and had coconut monkey promo

Highish score doesn't suprise but mwo still good

Indeed. This was pretty much a bought and paid for ad.

[Heffay]

Gamgee, on 28 October 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

Indeed. This was pretty much a bought and paid for ad.

Ah, I see the Hawken paid shills are here today.

[Sandpit]

Gallowglas, on 28 October 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

I sincerely doubt that PC Gamer accepted money for a review. If they did such things, you'd never see low reviews from games that are advertised in their magazine or from big game publishers. Nevermind the fact that I doubt that PGI has deep pockets to buy off the reviewers. This smacks of tinfoilhattery. Game reviews are in large part based on opinion and despite what you may think, a lot of people do love the game, flaws and all. It doesn't mean the folks who enjoy playing don't want some major fixes and new content, or get frustrated by delays to either of those items, but not everyone throws the baby out with the bath water.

there's nothing wrong with loving the game flaws and all. Even though it's subjective, rating this game as a top25 of all times throughout decades of gaming is irresponsible. Just like anyone giving this game a 10 or 0. It's ludicrous. I like this game. I play this game. I give unbiased reviews of this to other people when they ask. If you honestly feel this is a top 25 anything of all time you seriously need to play a few more games. If you feel this is the worst then you need to play a few more games. There's nothing wrong with having a higher than average or lower than average review as long as it is a realistic review of the product. An incomplete online multiplayer game with no lobbies, no easy way to form teams without using 3rd party software, and absolutely no game play, story, or depth beyond stomp and shoot is no way no how a top 25 game of all time. Is it fun? Sure. Do I enjoy it? Most times.

[Deathlike]

Heffay, on 28 October 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

Ah, I see the Hawken paid shills are here today.

So, accusing others whether or not you're correct is the proper retort for people that disagree?

Great, that'll get you far.

[Sandpit]

Heffay, on 28 October 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

That's quite an accusation. You have any evidence to back it up?

It's called circumstantial since you always want proof from naysayers. Heffay, you can't honestly suggest this is one of the greatest all time video games ever in 3 decades of gaming. You talk about being unbiased all the time. So I ask you, flat out, do you think this is one of the top 25 greatest all time shooters ever in the history of gaming? Do you believe this is a 10? This isn't an attack I am just asking for your unbiased opinion on what you would rate this game.

[Heffay]

Sandpit, on 28 October 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

It's called circumstantial since you always want proof from naysayers. Heffay, you can't honestly suggest this is one of the greatest all time video games ever in 3 decades of gaming. You talk about being unbiased all the time. So I ask you, flat out, do you think this is one of the top 25 greatest all time shooters ever in the history of gaming? Do you believe this is a 10? This isn't an attack I am just asking for your unbiased opinion on what you would rate this game.

There is a world of difference between someone stating an opinion and claiming they were paid to do it.

How much does Hawken pay you to come here and complain about this game? Because only a complete fool would whine on the forums as much as some of you do without pay.

[Bilbo]

Sandpit, on 28 October 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

there's nothing wrong with loving the game flaws and all. Even though it's subjective, rating this game as a top25 of all times throughout decades of gaming is irresponsible. Just like anyone giving this game a 10 or 0. It's ludicrous. I like this game. I play this game. I give unbiased reviews of this to other people when they ask. If you honestly feel this is a top 25 anything of all time you seriously need to play a few more games. If you feel this is the worst then you need to play a few more games. There's nothing wrong with having a higher than average or lower than average review as long as it is a realistic review of the product. An incomplete online multiplayer game with no lobbies, no easy way to form teams without using 3rd party software, and absolutely no game play, story, or depth beyond stomp and shoot is no way no how a top 25 game of all time. Is it fun? Sure. Do I enjoy it? Most times.

What if I don't enjoy playing the games you consider to be top 25? Can I not consider a game to be top 25 unless you agree? In terms of hours played, this is one of my top 25. In terms of enjoyment, this is one of my top 10. In other terms the game might not make my list. Is someone irresponsible for liking different games than others or just for letting that opinion be known?

[Heffay]

Bilbo, on 28 October 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

In terms of hours played, this is one of my top 25.

It's in my top 5 already.

Of all the games in the history of video games, only Everquest and World of Warcraft have consumed more of my time. So would I rate it as one of the top 25 games of all time?

For me, yes. How about you, Sandpit? Where in your list of games you've ever played does this fit in terms of hours played?

[CyclonerM]

Combat is not actually the only important part, especially if the rest of the game is not immersive at all.

[Silent]

This game and Red Orchestra 2 are in the Top 25 Most Disappointing Games for me. Where exactly? I don't know who cares.

Edited by Silent, 28 October 2013 - 11:28 AM.

[Tannhauser Gate]

Silent, on 28 October 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

This game and Red Orchestra 2 are in the Top 25 Most Disappointing Games for me. Where exactly? I don't know who cares.

Just curious. What were you hoping to see with MWO that didnt happen?