66 replies to this topic

[Torgun]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 December 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

HAHAHAH! Rich, coming from you. My lie is where?

It doesn't matter where it comes from, your last couple posts to me speak for themselves how you're raging for no good reason. You claim that IGP forced PGI to change the game from beta to released when you have no info whatsoever to support that. I simply said they went to full release too early, without claiming the responsibility for that lies in any certain group of individuals. You just went flying off the handle for nothing.

[Vassago Rain]

lol no.

They made their bed years ago.

Bishop Steiner, on 13 December 2014 - 11:21 AM, said:

Yes, PGI did it to themselves because their Publisher who at the time had the rights and financial handcuffs to tell them what to do, said it wasn't a Beta. And you simply don't contradict your employer. So this argument, in light of the post IGP trends here, is as outdated as the reviews in question.

Yes, always blame the publisher. It was the publisher who thought it'd be a good idea to focus on making a new space game, rather than fix this mech game. Right, Bishop?

It was also the publisher who insisted they keep Niko employed despite monthly firestorms, and quarterly controversies.

Edited by Vassago Rain, 13 December 2014 - 02:26 PM.

[Deathlike]

TBH, it does PGI no favors for the reevaluation as it stands now.

Even before we factor in this entire year as a whole in "hitting deadlines", anyone with actual objectivity would still decry the thing that is UI 2.0... and that doesn't begin to address a host of other issues/deficiencies this game has.

The difference between today and a year ago is CW. Fundamentally a few things haven't really changed about the game. Even while balance is better, we still have joke Flamers, a still non-existent NPE (I mean, the tutorial before launch is the ONLY tutorial in the game), and bugs that never seem to die (like, the targeting letter bug, random leader-JJ bug, saving weapon order).

To be objective, there are just as much good as there are unresolved bad.

Edited by Deathlike, 13 December 2014 - 02:27 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Elaxter, on 13 December 2014 - 09:06 AM, said:

If you look at MechWarrior Online's page on Metacritic (not the user review section, because those are not considered real reviews) the average score is a 68. Not unexpected for MechWarrior Online on it's "release date." But it's been plenty of time, and I think the game needs some reevaluation. I think the game deserves and average of 75. Meaning you either like it or you don't.

So there are one of two things we can do:

Flood the user review section with 7s.
Or get professional reviewers to reevaluate their scores.

Most of the user reviews are about how the game is P2W or how it lacks content (most are from 2013!) and the wordy reviews are even worse.

Mechwarrior Online deserves a better average score than it does now. New players looking at reviews (like myself) would be turned off by the game's score of 68.

You have a point but they havnt taken this game to market yet as it were. Why? They are obviously waiting till the game is in a more presentable condition.

[Vassago Rain]

Lukoi Banacek, on 13 December 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

Gee, why the constant insults today. Not like you. Certainly doesn't help any point your trying to make frankly.

Cut it out man, just argue the merits. No need for the petty ****.

Most of the golds are rather flustered, because CW as it stands is poor and not well implemented. They see attacks in every post.

[Johnny Z]

Also I can say from watching alot of one of the top reviewers that he will give this game a good review next time even though he beat the crap out of it last time.

[Johnny Z]

Deathlike, on 13 December 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

TBH, it does PGI no favors for the reevaluation as it stands now.

Even before we factor in this entire year as a whole in "hitting deadlines", anyone with actual objectivity would still decry the thing that is UI 2.0... and that doesn't begin to address a host of other issues/deficiencies this game has.

The difference between today and a year ago is CW. Fundamentally a few things haven't really changed about the game. Even while balance is better, we still have joke Flamers, a still non-existent NPE (I mean, the tutorial before launch is the ONLY tutorial in the game), and bugs that never seem to die (like, the targeting letter bug, random leader-JJ bug, saving weapon order).

To be objective, there are just as much good as there are unresolved bad.

You got some of this right. But this is a big expansion I mean even an eject feature is in, even if it doesnt have an animation, at least the count down is cool. They have a third map thats somewhat ready they said.

But your 100% right before this not alot had changed. Have to wait till this beta is all fixed up and see where the game is.

Also I fully expect a big reveal on what they will start on next year.

[KharnZor]

Vassago Rain, on 13 December 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

Most of the golds are rather flustered, because CW as it stands is poor and not well implemented. They see attacks in every post.

And of course you're having a grand old time stirring the pot aren't you

[Johnny Z]

On the reevaluation thing, I think this game needs a great tutorial alot like what Hawken has, I even 100% think hawken stole the tutorial ideas from this games forums, and i am not kidding. Also Mechwarriors ui needs work to say the least.

A start up intro movie would be great and the title screen for this game at the moment blows

Edited by Johnny Z, 13 December 2014 - 02:54 PM.

[EvangelionUnit]

needs more of these as intro/training

[TELEFORCE]

It doesn't surprise me that the publisher was the big change. There's a reason why IGP is now out of business and PGI is not.

[Johnny Z]

EvangelionUnit, on 13 December 2014 - 04:13 PM, said:

needs more of these as intro/training

Anyone want to guess my favourite part of those 2 videos? lol

[RedDragon]

Well, frankly I don't think MWO would get much better scores if they reviewed it today since the game is basically the same as over a year ago when it launched. It has some new maps (not nearly enough for over a year) and just recently a new game mode that is in its earliest beta stage, and this time even the Devs admit it. The only thing MWO got lots of is mechs, but they added nothing of value to the game play.
On the other side most of the problems from back then are still here, including horrible performance (and that although the visual quality is steadily declining), lags, utter lack of ingame information and tutorials, no decent lobby systems, bugs that are as old as the game itself (hello, memory allocation error!), no VOIP, no command wheel... the list goes on and on.

Even though they seem to be making progress now that they got rid of IGP, the game is nowhere near where it should and could be by now, for since launch they basically did nothing than dish out new mechs to keep the money flowing.
And what should a reviewer review today? The beta of a minimally viable new game mode (which will get abysmal scores for it isn't finished yet) or the same stale deathmatch game play that was there 3 years ago?

[Johnny Z]

RedDragon, on 13 December 2014 - 04:32 PM, said:

Well, frankly I don't think MWO would get much better scores if they reviewed it today since the game is basically the same as over a year ago when it launched. It has some new maps (not nearly enough for over a year) and just recently a new game mode that is in its earliest beta stage, and this time even the Devs admit it. The only thing MWO got lots of is mechs, but they added nothing of value to the game play.
On the other side most of the problems from back then are still here, including horrible performance (and that although the visual quality is steadily declining), lags, utter lack of ingame information and tutorials, no decent lobby systems, bugs that are as old as the game itself (hello, memory allocation error!), no VOIP, no command wheel... the list goes on and on.

Even though they seem to be making progress now that they got rid of IGP, the game is nowhere near where it should and could be by now, for since launch they basically did nothing than dish out new mechs to keep the money flowing.
And what should a reviewer review today? The beta of a minimally viable new game mode (which will get abysmal scores for it isn't finished yet) or the same stale deathmatch game play that was there 3 years ago?

Ya a comms wheels with immersive chat would be a great addition to game play and even a picture in corner or something of the pilot doing the chatter.

[SweetJackal]

Back to the original topic. Getting professional reviewers to take a second look at a game won't change it's Metacritic score. Metacritic only takes the first review from a site.

Really we shouldn't be giving any weight to Metacritic. It's a horrible site that gives different sites a different weighting to it's formula without disclosing said formula or weighting. Promotion of review scores over the content of the actual review is extremely misleading and different review sites use different systems for their scores (X/5, X/10, X% for example,) a simple thing that Metacritic ignores when aggregating scores.

The entire practice is shady as hell, the industry itself has a strange fixation on Metacritic scores (much to the detriment of the industry,) and the promotion of scores over content leaves the consumer uninformed and just creates an incessant amount of noise over said score being too high or too low. This isn't even going into the idea that review scores become murky as hell when agenda driven, politics, or personal distaste over a small piece of the content are reflected in the score.

As a whole Review Scores and Metacritic need to go the way of the Dodo.

Edited by SuckyJack, 13 December 2014 - 04:39 PM.

[Johnny Z]

SuckyJack, on 13 December 2014 - 04:38 PM, said:

Back to the original topic. Getting professional reviewers to take a second look at a game won't change it's Metacritic score. Metacritic only takes the first review from a site.

Really we shouldn't be giving any weight to Metacritic. It's a horrible site that gives different sites a different weighting to it's formula without disclosing said formula or weighting. Promotion of review scores over the content of the actual review is extremely misleading and different review sites use different systems for their scores (X/5, X/10, X% for example,) a simple thing that Metacritic ignores when aggregating scores.

The entire practice is shady as hell, the industry itself has a strange fixation on Metacritic scores (much to the detriment of the industry,) and the promotion of scores over content leaves the consumer uninformed and just creates an incessant amount of noise over said score being too high or too low. This isn't even going into the idea that review scores become murky as hell when agenda driven, politics, or personal distaste over a small piece of the content are reflected in the score.

As a whole Review Scores and Metacritic need to go the way of the Dodo.

I usually check out Game Spot and IGN(less so lately) and Angry joe and Worth a buy(can be hilarious) on you tube. They can save players alot of time and money and usually are near the mark on the quality of games and if they are worth trying. For the most part anyway. Never did pay attention to meta critic. I will have to take a look and see how accurate they are.

Edited by Johnny Z, 13 December 2014 - 04:55 PM.

[Sandpit]

Vassago Rain, on 13 December 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

Most of the golds are rather flustered,

[Citation Needed]
Your evidence for "most"?

Because from what I see in the feedback is mostly positive and PGI is reporting record numbers.

Of course I guess we could take your "data" of "cuz I said so" as truth instead though...

[Pjwned]

Elaxter, on 13 December 2014 - 09:06 AM, said:

If you look at MechWarrior Online's page on Metacritic (not the user review section, because those are not considered real reviews) the average score is a 68. Not unexpected for MechWarrior Online on it's "release date." But it's been plenty of time, and I think the game needs some reevaluation. I think the game deserves and average of 75. Meaning you either like it or you don't.

The game still has numerous flaws, so I think a 68 is a pretty reasonable score actually; if you ask me it should've been an even lower score at the time.

Also:

Torgun, on 13 December 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

Well you have to admit PGI did it to themselves by saying the game wasn't BETA anymore. So at that point it's fair to do the reviews, and back then it really was one of the worst periods of MWO.

Quote

So there are one of two things we can do:

Flood the user review section with 7s.

Encouraging people to flood the user reviews with dishonest scores, yeah that's totally not a problem with sites like Metacritic already.

Quote

Or get professional reviewers to reevaluate their scores.

This can wait until the game is improved further.

Quote

Most of the user reviews are about how the game is P2W or how it lacks content (most are from 2013!) and the wordy reviews are even worse.

Both of those things are still true to an extent.

Quote

Mechwarrior Online deserves a better average score than it does now. New players looking at reviews (like myself) would be turned off by the game's score of 68.

They would be turned off by the score for good reason, there's no need to mislead people into thinking a game is so much better after a period of time when it's really not that much better...yet.

Edited by Pjwned, 13 December 2014 - 05:30 PM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Actually an average rating of 50 would mean "you either like it or you don't" as that would mean opinions are split down the middle.

At a raiting of 60+ that's generally favorable.

Anything above 50 is "Above average" by technicality. As the average would be the median point.

I'm not seeing the issue here.

[Johnny Z]

Flash Frame, on 13 December 2014 - 05:13 PM, said:

Actually an average rating of 50 would mean "you either like it or you don't" as that would mean opinions are split down the middle.

At a raiting of 60+ that's generally favorable.

Anything above 50 is "Above average" by technicality. As the average would be the median point.

I'm not seeing the issue here.

Not sure how meta critic works but when a reviewer reviews it a 5 means it starts up and is playable a 1 means it doesnt start up and isnt playable and you wouldnt want it to play if it did start up. A 10 is rare and is ground breaking game with everything amazing. 7 is a middle of the ground playable game with appeal and worth trying out.

8 and 9 are great games.

The Mass Effect series deserved a 10 for the most part but ruined it with the endings. Why did EA ruin the endings? For greed so everyone would love their game give it good reviews and then throw them in the trash instead of doing another play through. So players would buy more games. Thats tells you something about something.

No offense to EA I am sure they wont be doing that again any time soon and I heard some of their top guys have been let go.

I cant think of 1 game being a 10 but maybe this game if they had a 300 mill budget or more Star Citizen to a while down the road with a similar budget possibly if they do everything they are claiming they will do.

Edited by Johnny Z, 13 December 2014 - 05:53 PM.