190 replies to this topic

[Kottonmouth]

Thank god once this game goes live "reviews" won't matter so much, due to the F2P. All we have to do is "trick" new players into downloading a game and trying it out. No need to throw money at it at first. Hopefully, that alone will allow the game to suck in enough new blood to get us mechjunkies through the next decade. Don't sweat the review too much. Just one guy, and we all know he is wrong.

Also, I am so very impressed with the amount of pure hatred some of you unleashed on this guy on the Gamespy site. He poked the wrong group of fans my friends.

[Bodha]

Brenden, on 18 July 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

He certainly has the right to his opinion, which I defend he has the right ot say but in all honesty, has he played it? All he has seen are gameplay videos it seems. Sure, the videos are boring because they show others playing in what could be your cockpit right now. We need a change from those twitch shooters, and this is what will lead the way. Hell, even stratigy games are becoming twitchier and twitchier. Then again, I still play CoD because I can't play MW right now, so am I any better then the twitchers? I don't think so.

I think the problem with his opinion is not that he has one, but rather that his opinion is based upon his preconceptions, lack of background information, and general lack of interest in this type of game. It would be like me writing a review on rap musicians. He would have been better off at the very least researching the game and related background info.

[ryuasiu]

Gamespy has not be relevant since the late 1990's. I remember when Boderlands for PC launched with the gamespy client for MP and everyone was asking why the outdated crude was doing there. gamespy is also owned by IGN it seems and they have not had the best track record at honesty at all. All IGN does anymore is take money to write reviews for publishers and write smack for those that dont to make them pay up.

[Brenden]

Bodha, on 18 July 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

I think the problem with his opinion is not that he has one, but rather that his opinion is based upon his preconceptions, lack of background information, and general lack of interest in this type of game. It would be like me writing a review on rap musicians. He would have been better off at the very least researching the game and related background info.

That is true, if he had an opinion he could have done some research and then, based on the evidence given to him, choose whether to change it or keep it. I say, let him pilot a few mechs for a few days and see if it changes. Probably would.

[Arson]

Silent, on 18 July 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

He has a point on the technobabble.

90% of what the announcer was saying in that video about variants and the various weapon loadouts is moon language to anyone that doesn't follow the franchise.

Autocannon, medium laser and 8.5 tons of armor count as technobabble now? I get how the exact specifics of that information may not be readily apparent to someone not familiar with BT, but it hardly counts as technobabble.

[Brenden]

Arson, on 18 July 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

Autocannon, medium laser and 8.5 tons of armor count as technobabble now? I get how the exact specifics of that information may not be readily apparent to someone not familiar with BT, but it hardly counts as technobabble.

Finally someone agrees with me! For any MW fan or BT fan, this would be interesting. You could use it to your advantage, like... Take out the Autocannon for a Large and Small Laser, or take out one ton of armour for one extra ton of ammunition to the Autocannon. Perhaps that's why his opinion was it was boring, the man made it sound like it was boring with all the technological talk he could not understand.

[Kremator1968]

Seen the reviewers name ? Taylor Cocke .... and what a **** he is!

They've obviously sent a boy to do a man's review.

[BioWeapons]

At first glance this had me about ready to write a big rant.. Until I read the comments on the post LOL, people are tearing this guy a new one (as deserved) If you need a good laugh just scroll through some of the comments left on the article.

Good to see people are not going to let this kind of horrible critiquing go unnoticed.

Mr. Cocke (that is actually his name)
You sir dont deserve to be on gamespy.

Edited by BioWeapons, 18 July 2012 - 02:07 PM.

[VK4502B]

https://twitter.com/...707637952614401

Wow, he calls us dumbos....

[mechsae]

I like conversation with the editor in chief of Gamespy here: https://twitter.com/...657293650403328

[Karyudo ds]

Arson, on 18 July 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

Autocannon, medium laser and 8.5 tons of armor count as technobabble now?

Well it is out of context. Who knows what 8.5 tons of armor ends up meaning beyond it's weight if you're unfamiliar with a franchise that basically hasn't existed for your entire career? I think opinions are simply that, opinions. The video's so far have not been very exciting really beyond the teaser trailer (some of the weight class/mechlab videos weren't terrible either of course). The footage looked to pretty much be almost if not all, in game, player-prespective footage. As a presentation THAT is boring. It's like someone is trying to head off Beta leaks after the last one and not much more. Though that's more of an editing question. The poster simply sounded like they saw Not-CoD and were disappointed, but I can sort of see why.

[Brenden]

VK4502B, on 18 July 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

https://twitter.com/...707637952614401

Wow, he calls us dumbos....

Did you see the comment below? Someone said MWO is like playing Armored Core with molassias.

[Vieric]

actually, this is a legitimate issue, the general public simply does not understand MWOs gameplay, they just see really slow lumbering mechs wailing on each other and nothing happening, that's it. What is needed is a video explaining the games battle mechanics, and a very very clear disclaimer that this is NOT a twitch based thing.

Right now, the main issue is mistaken identity. People see the game as something other than what it is (of a boring variety, no less!), and therefore don't give it a chance. They need to clear up these misconceptions, and show potential consumers the products true shape in order to get them interested.

Simply put its miscommunication at its finest, the devs will need to address this in their advertising itself in order to create a draw. I feel that once people try the product they will be much more receptive, but they must be pushed into that first step.

After that the game needs A clear coherent tutorial to ease new players into the way of things, this is also very important, as without it, players will walk in, have no idea of how things work then leave in frustration, probably giving a less than glowing report to anyone they know, damaging the games popularity. once players are in the game and know how it works though, all is well and you have a new player, raring to go.

Edited by Vieric, 18 July 2012 - 02:38 PM.

[Commie95]

I never take any review site seriously except when they say the game is malfunctional. I do my own "review" of it by watching youtube videos and take an average of both players and sites.

For example the average writer at a game website sucks horribly at playing games so if I want to see how much playtime I get for a singleplayer game, I check what time a "speedrun" is on youtube then add an hour or so to that.

Anymore websites are more to show that the game exists and learn a little about it, because the under the table pledges companies make for good reviews is pretty much the standard now. A big name company's game has to be so buggy it can't even install to get lower than a 8.0

[Jack Dalton]

To stay niche and restrict your income, or go mainstream and "sell out" for larger profits? I wonder...

As for the review... To be taken with a (large) grain of salt. I think the writer is just milking people's rage at this point for hype.

Edited by Jack Dalton, 18 July 2012 - 02:47 PM.

[Exilyth]

Wait... It's 2012 and people still use gamespy?

Aside from the general low journalistic quality of the site... it seems like the author of that article is not part of the target group. There is this certain kind of value dissonance in the text which seems to me like the dissapointment of someone who expected another mechassault.

[Rushyo]

Just had a quick conversation with him on Twitter. He's downloading MW4:Mercs now.

Cue a million people saying that's a bad idea

...aaand GO:

[deesoh]

Honestly the gamespy post shows how games have been over simplified for the masses. In-game items that require thought beyond "I have a pistol or rifle" is called too technical? It's pretty sad.

[supertrieuper]

I can understand someone not being too excited from that video if they have not really been a fan of MW. Still, I do not think that the way the writer described his own ignorance was the best way. In the comments other staff for Gamespy said that there are those who have been following MWO. Why didn't they write this article?

Also, 2nd most commented piece on Gamespy's home page. So there's that.

[Neenja]

It's not that bad of an idea... MW4: Mercs is a pretty fun game in the MechWarrior series, even if it's not the most accurate.

Again though, if he didn't have the patience to watch more than one video, he probably won't wait to learn all of the controls either and will just keep complaining that it's clunky and boring.