66 replies to this topic

[Elaxter]

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.

[Torgun]

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.

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. Let's also be real here, it's such a small niche game on the grand scale of gaming overall, I doubt any bigger game review sites will be willing to put more time into doing another review.

[darkkterror]

I'd at least wait until CW is fixed up and people aren't waiting for a fight for hours and still not getting one.

[Krysic]

The games score isn't going to go up if they do a new review. It still has many of the same issues, ridiculously high time/money sinks, collision issues, lag issues, blah, blah, etc. etc. I'm still trying to convince myself I should spend another $5 on the game but simply can't.

[RockmachinE]

Why spend anything on it? Just enjoy it. It really is a game you can play for free and get 99% of the content. The only thing I miss is paint, but let the paying costumers get that, they need something.

[MechaBattler]

I tend to take anything on metacritic with a grain of salt. Actually I take all review site/blogs with a grain of salt. They're too self opinionated about what they think a game should be or... they sell their opinion.

68 is pretty good for that site.

[Lukoi Banacek]

My "wordy" review stands.

edit: at least until the CW dust settles and a few more CW maps are introduced...as well as Faction Groups in lieu of just unit groups. At that point I'll re-review it because the game is truly at the next stage.

Edited by Lukoi Banacek, 13 December 2014 - 11:14 AM.

[Rhent]

A 68 score is a fair score. You have to understand, only people who were truly big fans of battletech are still playing this game. There are a tremendous amount of issues with the game to date, including the time it takes for the Devs to understand a problem exists and for them to fix it. A 68 is a very fair score.

Think about how long it took to fix:
Splat Cats
CT seeking Streaks
4/6 PPC Death boats
poptarts

Think how long it will take to fix CW to get it to a point where the max wait is 6 minutes a match for PUG's? How long will it take for the devs to deal with zerging of the bases by light jumpers in CW? Its going to take months if not a year based on their prior track record. Frankly, whatever they have for data reporting at PGI is horrible.

[Bishop Steiner]

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. Let's also be real here, it's such a small niche game on the grand scale of gaming overall, I doubt any bigger game review sites will be willing to put more time into doing another review.

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.

[Rhent]

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.

PGI was taking full money to play the game that was open to the public. LIe to yourself all you want, but that isn't a Beta anymore. IF they kept the invites closed and took money, you could assume it was still a Beta. But a game that has been out in the open since 2012 isn't in Beta. Even trying to take the stance that CW was the final piece to put the game into open release would not be a true statement. Blaming everything on the publisher as well is a very convenient cop out for the game developer as well. All the bad decisions all the bad press thats on the Publisher, not us we are great. It doesn't pan out in the game.

[Torgun]

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.

Are you privy to all this inside info you're mentioning here, or is it just a case of blame everything bad ever on IGP?

Edited by Torgun, 13 December 2014 - 11:33 AM.

[Sjorpha]

Only way to change it is for the game to be consistently good for long enough.

CW and recent development is very promising, but quite frankly it's a bit early for reevaluation from a game reviewers perspective, at the very least CW should be out of beta, the backlog of undone basic stuff (VOIP, cockpit screens and so on) should be caught up with and the horrendous UI fixed before I'd even WANT reviewers to take a second look. There is everything to gain by waiting half a year for some polish before starting another hype campaign.

I still see myself as a beta tester of a (finally) promising game, I'm not going to hurt it's already torn reputation further by brandishing it as the product it will hopefully become in a year or two.

And to be completely honest, 68 average is higher than I expected. Not because I don't like the game, I do a lot, but because those are reviews of a beta marketed as a complete game. I'm actually not convinced at all that the current state of the game would push that up more than perhaps a percent or two.

The big mistake here was to pretend the game was released when it is still beta, that's a recipe for a public relations disaster if anything, we can be happy the game even survived it.

Edited by Sjorpha, 13 December 2014 - 11:43 AM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

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

So this argument, in light of the post IGP trends here, is as outdated as the reviews in question.

You are entitled to your OPINION, as I am to mine.

PGI, whether shackled by IGP or not produced a game that got the rating I gave it and I still believe it merits.

As I said, once the next stage is further along and not in the Beta, they'll get a re-review.

[Bishop Steiner]

Torgun, on 13 December 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

Are you privy to all this inside info you're mentioning here, or is it just a case of blame everything bad ever on IGP?

It's a case of we don't know, but the only actual evidence we have, is post IGP divorce..which is PGI delivering. So rant all you desire. Toxic people will always find a reason to be toxic.

Rhent, on 13 December 2014 - 11:23 AM, said:

PGI was taking full money to play the game that was open to the public. LIe to yourself all you want, but that isn't a Beta anymore. IF they kept the invites closed and took money, you could assume it was still a Beta. But a game that has been out in the open since 2012 isn't in Beta. Even trying to take the stance that CW was the final piece to put the game into open release would not be a true statement. Blaming everything on the publisher as well is a very convenient cop out for the game developer as well. All the bad decisions all the bad press thats on the Publisher, not us we are great. It doesn't pan out in the game.

Lol. See above. And change your name, i think the "he" in it is supposed to be an "a".

[LordKnightFandragon]

Bishop Steiner as part of the Lizard Lover faction....that just looks odd, having seen you with the Stiener fist for so long lol,.

[Talis Thunder]

Ridiculous hitreg issues

Half finished CW

Broken MM

Unstable connections / pings

I'm sure the current state of MWO would only get a review score of 60 (or lower) from major gaming sites.

Edited by Talis Thunder, 13 December 2014 - 12:11 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

LordKnightFandragon, on 13 December 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

Bishop Steiner as part of the Lizard Lover faction....that just looks odd, having seen you with the Stiener fist for so long lol,.

do ya HAVE to keep reminding me?? *sigh*

Life of a merc...and a boss with poor taste in employers.

[Sybreed]

the thing is, CW was supposed to be part of launch MWO. PGI couldn't deliver and was judged based on this. I don't think they deserve a new review. Do bugged games get new reviews once they get patched? Rome 2 was judged very harshly because of its bugs and missing features, it didn't get new reviews once they fixed everything (Emperor Edition not counting)

[Torgun]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 December 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

It's a case of we don't know, but the only actual evidence we have, is post IGP divorce..which is PGI delivering. So rant all you desire. Toxic people will always find a reason to be toxic.

We don't know, so basically you're just making things up aren't you? And you think my post was toxic? I was simply stating what actually happened, at least I wasn't fabricating things out of thin air.

[Bishop Steiner]

Torgun, on 13 December 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

We don't know, so basically you're just making things up aren't you? And you think my post was toxic? I was simply stating what actually happened, at least I wasn't fabricating things out of thin air.

Lol. No. You're just spewing 2 year old conspiracy theories with no actual knowledge of the whys or how either. Bet you're the real life of every party.

Sybreed, on 13 December 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

the thing is, CW was supposed to be part of launch MWO. PGI couldn't deliver and was judged based on this. I don't think they deserve a new review. Do bugged games get new reviews once they get patched? Rome 2 was judged very harshly because of its bugs and missing features, it didn't get new reviews once they fixed everything (Emperor Edition not counting)

Hmm, so 2012 Civic has issues, 2013 version most of those are fixed, should the current version be based off the failings of the past?

This is not a one time purchase console game. Can't base now off of then. Well, shouldn't. But it's definitely easier to stay angry and such if one lives purely in the past.