And IMO 9 isn't all that out there for a game like TOR anymore then a 6 is.
Sorry, I actually liked Vanguard better. Not a lot better, but a little. I'd give TOR a 6, and Vanguard a 6.5 or so... People who love Bioware story just can't seem to accept that it's a big non-factor for a lot of people. It adds almost nothing to the game, for some of us, meaning we judge the game based on everything else - and story aside, I don't know how anyone can rate TOR much higher than a 6.
Some people even count the story AGAINST the game, because it interupts the flow of the gameplay, and all that. You can point out that they should know better than to even try TOR, but that doesn't invalidate their opinion as much as you might like it to. Metacritic doesn't stipulate that you have to like the style of the game to have an opinion about it.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
One of the biggest problems with user reviews is that there are no real guidlines as to what the numbers mean. They mean something different to everyone. I can't imagine giving a game a 1 unless it was somehow broken and wouldn't install/run. To me 2-3 are for bug ridden messes that may have "gamebreaking" bugs for some people, but it is at least playable in its current state. 4-6 are that "average" range 4 being a meh to 6 being "acceptable" 7-8 is a good game, 9 is an excellent game and 10 is a "perfect" game. The problem is that not many people will agree with my criteria, and I won't agree with theirs. At least with a professional review they tell me up front what the grading scale is and what the different levels mean.
They're all valid. This is highly individualized: just pick which score you like.
Actually I'm I wrong there, that was KOTOR not sure why they have TOR articles linked to that score.
even still when IGNs review does come out I expect A 9 or so.. EA has some deep pockets
Yes because users that review games have absolutly no agenda.
Yeah, they do have an agenda: like or dislike of a certain game. Thinking that the competition can pay hundreds of users to write reviews dissing a game without anyone squealing is just plain ridiculous. Don't be silly.
the ratio of good reviews / mixed (none) / bad reviews tells the story. There are a group of people who will support the game no matter what, and there is a group who hate the game no matter what. Then there are those trying to counter the reviews on the other side.
If they were real review I would expect FAR more mixed reviews
They're all valid. This is highly individualized: just pick which score you like.
Actually I'm I wrong there, that was KOTOR not sure why they have TOR articles linked to that score.
even still when IGNs review does come out I expect A 9 or so.. EA has some deep pockets
Yes because users that review games have absolutly no agenda.
Yeah, they do have an agenda: like or dislike of a certain game. Thinking that the competition can pay hundreds of users to write reviews dissing a game without anyone squealing is just plain ridiculous. Don't be silly.
We're talking about averages here. So what if a lot of people give it a 0? They're not professional reviewers and are not required to present a modicum of objectivity so you can expect them to be more impassionate and yes, honest with their opinions. I don't see this as a bad thing lol, not if you read the complete body of reviews as a whole.
As for calling a "psychologist" to "analyze the pathology" of 0 reviews... That's just plain silly. He could as well "analyze" 10s by fanobois as impliedly "pathological". This really reminds me of Stalin sending his political opponents to mental institutions for not agreeing with communism because no one but an insane person would question that ideology lol.
They're all valid. This is highly individualized: just pick which score you like.
Actually I'm I wrong there, that was KOTOR not sure why they have TOR articles linked to that score.
even still when IGNs review does come out I expect A 9 or so.. EA has some deep pockets
Yes because users that review games have absolutly no agenda.
Yeah, they do have an agenda: like or dislike of a certain game. Thinking that the competition can pay hundreds of users to write reviews dissing a game without anyone squealing is just plain ridiculous. Don't be silly.
We're talking about averages here. So what if a lot of people give it a 0? They're not professional reviewers and are not required to present a modicum of objectivity so you can expect them to be more impassionate and yes, honest with their opinions. I don't see this as a bad thing lol, not if you read the complete body of reviews as a whole.
As for calling a "psychologist" to "analyze the pathology" of 0 reviews... That's just plain silly. He could as well "analyze" 10s by fanobois as impliedly "pathological". This really reminds me of Stalin sending his political opponents to mental institutions for not agreeing with communism because no one but an insane person would question that ideology lol.
As a single player game I would agree but as an MMORPG this game is a travesty. It has absolutely no business trying to be an MMORPG because so much focus has been put on the single player storyline.
So yes, I would rate it 4 because it is simply a devolution of the genre. I would never pay anything more than 10 euros to buy this game, ever.
That's exactly how I would rate it too, and for similar reasons. As we're talking about a scale of 0 to 10, 5 is average. We have a lot of MMO's out at the moment to decide what is good and bad, so from that we can get a base average of what we expect from these sorts of games. In my opinion, SWTOR falls below that standard.
In defence, people all seem to shout about how great the story is, or how wonderful the voice overs are, but the thing is: that's not the game. You can't 'play' a cutscene. It's padding, filler, meant to link one part of the game to the next. And before you all jump on me for hating these things, I loved Mass Effect 1 & 2 - the stories were good, yes, but if the gameplay wasn't there to support it then I wouldn't have enjoyed the game. That's the case in SWTOR, the game just isn't fun when you take away all the story and cutscenes. Would you still be playing with such enthusiasm if the cutscenes were replaced with the usual MMO wall of text?
And so to sum up. I find the 'game', the bit you play, lacking. You can wrap it up in as many pretty cutscenes as you like, but that doesn't make the actual game any better.
the ratio of good reviews / mixed (none) / bad reviews tells the story. There are a group of people who will support the game no matter what, and there is a group who hate the game no matter what. Then there are those trying to counter the reviews on the other side.
If they were real review I would expect FAR more mixed reviews
Who determines what reviews are "real"? Aren't we already doing that, by dismissing the scores we think aren't reasonable while praising those we find that are? If because reviews are user submitted, and that Metacritic can effect the overall economic performance for a game, I can understand why the two probably shouldn't belong together, but does anyone believe that this would change wildly from user submitted to journalist submitted? They're both groups of people, who are both subjected to the same flaws. What makes anyone think that the scores would truly be that different, and who determines what a professional journalist is? Is there a board or forum that approves these people for Metacritic? Who appoints the board? Where are my pants?
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
We're talking about averages here. So what if a lot of people give it a 0? They're not professional reviewers and are not required to present a modicum of objectivity so you can expect them to be more impassionate and yes, honest with their opinions. I don't see this as a bad thing lol, not if you read the complete body of reviews as a whole.
As for calling a "psychologist" to "analyze the pathology" of 0 reviews... That's just plain silly. He could as well "analyze" 10s by fanobois as impliedly "pathological". This really reminds me of Stalin sending his political opponents to mental institutions for not agreeing with communism because no one but an insane person would question that ideology lol.
If this doesn't open your eyes to the piece of shit that metacritic is nothing will.
As a single player game I would agree but as an MMORPG this game is a travesty. It has absolutely no business trying to be an MMORPG because so much focus has been put on the single player storyline.
So yes, I would rate it 4 because it is simply a devolution of the genre. I would never pay anything more than 10 euros to buy this game, ever.
That's exactly how I would rate it too, and for similar reasons. As we're talking about a scale of 0 to 10, 5 is average. We have a lot of MMO's out at the moment to decide what is good and bad, so from that we can get a base average of what we expect from these sorts of games. In my opinion, SWTOR falls below that standard.
In defence, people all seem to shout about how great the story is, or how wonderful the voice overs are, but the thing is: that's not the game. You can't 'play' a cutscene. It's padding, filler, meant to link one part of the game to the next. And before you all jump on me for hating these things, I loved Mass Effect 1 & 2 - the stories were good, yes, but if the gameplay wasn't there to support it then I wouldn't have enjoyed the game. That's the case in SWTOR, the game just isn't fun when you take away all the story and cutscenes. Would you still be playing with such enthusiasm if the cutscenes were replaced with the usual MMO wall of text?
And so to sum up. I find the 'game', the bit you play, lacking. You can wrap it up in as many pretty cutscenes as you like, but that doesn't make the actual game any better.
Well put. I was going to respond with a lengthy post, but you summed up my thoughts on the game. Thank you for saving me some time, hehehe.
We're talking about averages here. So what if a lot of people give it a 0? They're not professional reviewers and are not required to present a modicum of objectivity so you can expect them to be more impassionate and yes, honest with their opinions. I don't see this as a bad thing lol, not if you read the complete body of reviews as a whole.
As for calling a "psychologist" to "analyze the pathology" of 0 reviews... That's just plain silly. He could as well "analyze" 10s by fanobois as impliedly "pathological". This really reminds me of Stalin sending his political opponents to mental institutions for not agreeing with communism because no one but an insane person would question that ideology lol.
Missed the point eh
I don't think so. I've been saying the same thing. It's the average that matters, and if MW3 is so good, it would have a lot more fans rating it up. I said the same thing back when that article was first posted, and no one counters it. No one explains what I'm missing, or how my logic is flawed. I mean come on, how is this hard to understand?
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
That's exactly how I would rate it too, and for similar reasons. As we're talking about a scale of 0 to 10, 5 is average. We have a lot of MMO's out at the moment to decide what is good and bad, so from that we can get a base average of what we expect from these sorts of games. In my opinion, SWTOR falls below that standard.
In defence, people all seem to shout about how great the story is, or how wonderful the voice overs are, but the thing is: that's not the game. You can't 'play' a cutscene. It's padding, filler, meant to link one part of the game to the next. And before you all jump on me for hating these things, I loved Mass Effect 1 & 2 - the stories were good, yes, but if the gameplay wasn't there to support it then I wouldn't have enjoyed the game. That's the case in SWTOR, the game just isn't fun when you take away all the story and cutscenes. Would you still be playing with such enthusiasm if the cutscenes were replaced with the usual MMO wall of text?
And so to sum up. I find the 'game', the bit you play, lacking. You can wrap it up in as many pretty cutscenes as you like, but that doesn't make the actual game any better.
this is the point many "critical" people are making. Yes the VO's are nice and all and so is the story but overall everything is very average and in many cases below average when it comes to certain aspects of the gameplay, class system, talent trees, UI, and so on
They're all valid. This is highly individualized: just pick which score you like.
Actually I'm I wrong there, that was KOTOR not sure why they have TOR articles linked to that score.
even still when IGNs review does come out I expect A 9 or so.. EA has some deep pockets
Yes because users that review games have absolutly no agenda.
Yeah, they do have an agenda: like or dislike of a certain game. Thinking that the competition can pay hundreds of users to write reviews dissing a game without anyone squealing is just plain ridiculous. Don't be silly.
We're talking about averages here. So what if a lot of people give it a 0? They're not professional reviewers and are not required to present a modicum of objectivity so you can expect them to be more impassionate and yes, honest with their opinions. I don't see this as a bad thing lol, not if you read the complete body of reviews as a whole.
As for calling a "psychologist" to "analyze the pathology" of 0 reviews... That's just plain silly. He could as well "analyze" 10s by fanobois as impliedly "pathological". This really reminds me of Stalin sending his political opponents to mental institutions for not agreeing with communism because no one but an insane person would question that ideology lol.
Missed the point eh
What? That they are giving extreme scores in order to influence the average?
Again, what is wrong with this? In the end, a pretty accurate average score will emerge. That is just the nature of the game. They know that what counts is the total average score so they're trying to push in the direction they feel appropriate. That's perfectly valid considering the way this whole thing works. Rating system is basically a game system and the players want to push the game towards the state they find ideal. That's the way games work, you know.
Obviously the user reviewers are better aware of how the system works than us browsers who get shocked by such extremes because we're used to professional reviews which operate on a different ruleset.
If you're interested in particulars rather than the average score then skim the reviews themselves. Quite a lot of them openly admit that the score is extreme and then give a balanced textual review of their experiences with the game. These two, the score and the text, should be approached separately because they operate in different game-spaces.
They're all valid. This is highly individualized: just pick which score you like.
Actually I'm I wrong there, that was KOTOR not sure why they have TOR articles linked to that score.
even still when IGNs review does come out I expect A 9 or so.. EA has some deep pockets
Yes because users that review games have absolutly no agenda.
Yeah, they do have an agenda: like or dislike of a certain game. Thinking that the competition can pay hundreds of users to write reviews dissing a game without anyone squealing is just plain ridiculous. Don't be silly.
I've linked the same article in this thread 3 times so far, and I don't think anyone has clicked it in this rapidly growing thread. I've tried the thoughtful but concise summary post, the very brief 1 liner + link (a la your post), and I was about to try the intentionally antagonistic fake troll post + link because that's the one surefire way to generate some response. Tell me, what's your secret for getting people to actually click on your link?
I don't think so. I've been saying the same thing. It's the average that matters, and if MW3 is so good, it would have a lot more fans rating it up. I said the same thing back when that article was first posted, and no one counters it. No one explains what I'm missing, or how my logic is flawed. I mean come on, how is this hard to understand?
i agree also if the game is so amazing and perfect like many are trying to say why is it so hard to find or show examples of this? if a game is really amazing you are going to be hard pressed to find as many negative views on it.. take arkham asylum for instance(not CITY cause while good it was little to much of the same) in many peoples views the greatest super hero game ever made.. look through any review site I dare you to find even a decent majority of people that did not like that game cause it IS a amazing game.
Metacritic user score is basically a mass poll and should be taken as such. If you're looking into each individual taking a poll then you are missing what polling is all about. And besides, that guy has a full right to have the opinion he has (even if it was because he's employed at Bioware, lol what a douche!) It is the averages that count, like in any poll.
I don't think you can ever get an accurate average when people who haven't even played the game are rating it. There are literally reviews there that begin with the words, 'i didn't even play this game'.
I would be willing to venture a guess that a majority of the negative reviews were created by people who haven't, and will never, play this game. So why should these scores matter to anyone, positive or negative? If someone is going to this website and using it as a metric to decide what games to purchase based off user ratings, they're idiots.
I don't think so. I've been saying the same thing. It's the average that matters, and if MW3 is so good, it would have a lot more fans rating it up. I said the same thing back when that article was first posted, and no one counters it. No one explains what I'm missing, or how my logic is flawed. I mean come on, how is this hard to understand?
i agree also if the game is so amazing and perfect like many are trying to say why is it so hard to find or show examples of this? if a game is really amazing you are going to be hard pressed to find as many negative views on it.. take arkham asylum for instance(not CITY cause while good it was little to much of the same) in many peoples views the greatest super hero game ever made.. look through any review site I dare you to find even a decent majority of people that did not like that game cause it IS a amazing game.
Same goes for Skyrim, the game is so good even the critics admit it deserves praise. LOL! Yahtzee comes to mind.
I don't think you can ever get an accurate average when people who haven't even played the game are rating it. There are literally reviews there that begin with the words, 'i didn't even play this game'.
I would be willing to venture a guess that a majority of the negative reviews were created by people who haven't, and will never, play this game. So why should these scores matter to anyone, positive or negative? If someone is going to this website and using it as a metric to decide what games to purchase based off user ratings, they're idiots.
It is not as if TOR is radically different than any other MMO out there, so no one could even form an opinion simply by looking at what is offered, what is seen in the videos, and what is not included.
Restricting reviews to only those that have played the game, immediately biases the results to people that were already interested enough to purchase the game -- leaving all those opinions out from those that were not motivated by the Hype or were able to make a decisions simply upon the presentation.
It is like how you know who you would and would not date, without having to actually go out on a date with them.
Comments
Sorry, I actually liked Vanguard better. Not a lot better, but a little. I'd give TOR a 6, and Vanguard a 6.5 or so... People who love Bioware story just can't seem to accept that it's a big non-factor for a lot of people. It adds almost nothing to the game, for some of us, meaning we judge the game based on everything else - and story aside, I don't know how anyone can rate TOR much higher than a 6.
Some people even count the story AGAINST the game, because it interupts the flow of the gameplay, and all that. You can point out that they should know better than to even try TOR, but that doesn't invalidate their opinion as much as you might like it to. Metacritic doesn't stipulate that you have to like the style of the game to have an opinion about it.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
One of the biggest problems with user reviews is that there are no real guidlines as to what the numbers mean. They mean something different to everyone. I can't imagine giving a game a 1 unless it was somehow broken and wouldn't install/run. To me 2-3 are for bug ridden messes that may have "gamebreaking" bugs for some people, but it is at least playable in its current state. 4-6 are that "average" range 4 being a meh to 6 being "acceptable" 7-8 is a good game, 9 is an excellent game and 10 is a "perfect" game. The problem is that not many people will agree with my criteria, and I won't agree with theirs. At least with a professional review they tell me up front what the grading scale is and what the different levels mean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI
I don't care about innovation I care about fun.
For the win
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
the ratio of good reviews / mixed (none) / bad reviews tells the story. There are a group of people who will support the game no matter what, and there is a group who hate the game no matter what. Then there are those trying to counter the reviews on the other side.
If they were real review I would expect FAR more mixed reviews
So what? Tell me something I don't know, lol.
We're talking about averages here. So what if a lot of people give it a 0? They're not professional reviewers and are not required to present a modicum of objectivity so you can expect them to be more impassionate and yes, honest with their opinions. I don't see this as a bad thing lol, not if you read the complete body of reviews as a whole.
As for calling a "psychologist" to "analyze the pathology" of 0 reviews... That's just plain silly. He could as well "analyze" 10s by fanobois as impliedly "pathological". This really reminds me of Stalin sending his political opponents to mental institutions for not agreeing with communism because no one but an insane person would question that ideology lol.
Missed the point eh
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
That's exactly how I would rate it too, and for similar reasons. As we're talking about a scale of 0 to 10, 5 is average. We have a lot of MMO's out at the moment to decide what is good and bad, so from that we can get a base average of what we expect from these sorts of games. In my opinion, SWTOR falls below that standard.
In defence, people all seem to shout about how great the story is, or how wonderful the voice overs are, but the thing is: that's not the game. You can't 'play' a cutscene. It's padding, filler, meant to link one part of the game to the next. And before you all jump on me for hating these things, I loved Mass Effect 1 & 2 - the stories were good, yes, but if the gameplay wasn't there to support it then I wouldn't have enjoyed the game. That's the case in SWTOR, the game just isn't fun when you take away all the story and cutscenes. Would you still be playing with such enthusiasm if the cutscenes were replaced with the usual MMO wall of text?
And so to sum up. I find the 'game', the bit you play, lacking. You can wrap it up in as many pretty cutscenes as you like, but that doesn't make the actual game any better.
Who determines what reviews are "real"? Aren't we already doing that, by dismissing the scores we think aren't reasonable while praising those we find that are? If because reviews are user submitted, and that Metacritic can effect the overall economic performance for a game, I can understand why the two probably shouldn't belong together, but does anyone believe that this would change wildly from user submitted to journalist submitted? They're both groups of people, who are both subjected to the same flaws. What makes anyone think that the scores would truly be that different, and who determines what a professional journalist is? Is there a board or forum that approves these people for Metacritic? Who appoints the board? Where are my pants?
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
If this doesn't open your eyes to the piece of shit that metacritic is nothing will.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/big-rigs-over-the-road-racing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f3HDsgLV68
I don't care about innovation I care about fun.
Well put. I was going to respond with a lengthy post, but you summed up my thoughts on the game. Thank you for saving me some time, hehehe.
I don't think so. I've been saying the same thing. It's the average that matters, and if MW3 is so good, it would have a lot more fans rating it up. I said the same thing back when that article was first posted, and no one counters it. No one explains what I'm missing, or how my logic is flawed. I mean come on, how is this hard to understand?
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
this is the point many "critical" people are making. Yes the VO's are nice and all and so is the story but overall everything is very average and in many cases below average when it comes to certain aspects of the gameplay, class system, talent trees, UI, and so on
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/339443/Video-FollowUp-Guide-For-Enhancing-Graphics-and-Performance-in-SWTORSorry-still-Nvidia-Only.html
What? That they are giving extreme scores in order to influence the average?
Again, what is wrong with this? In the end, a pretty accurate average score will emerge. That is just the nature of the game. They know that what counts is the total average score so they're trying to push in the direction they feel appropriate. That's perfectly valid considering the way this whole thing works. Rating system is basically a game system and the players want to push the game towards the state they find ideal. That's the way games work, you know.
Obviously the user reviewers are better aware of how the system works than us browsers who get shocked by such extremes because we're used to professional reviews which operate on a different ruleset.
If you're interested in particulars rather than the average score then skim the reviews themselves. Quite a lot of them openly admit that the score is extreme and then give a balanced textual review of their experiences with the game. These two, the score and the text, should be approached separately because they operate in different game-spaces.
But jeez, i thought that was obvious.
I've linked the same article in this thread 3 times so far, and I don't think anyone has clicked it in this rapidly growing thread. I've tried the thoughtful but concise summary post, the very brief 1 liner + link (a la your post), and I was about to try the intentionally antagonistic fake troll post + link because that's the one surefire way to generate some response. Tell me, what's your secret for getting people to actually click on your link?
i agree also if the game is so amazing and perfect like many are trying to say why is it so hard to find or show examples of this? if a game is really amazing you are going to be hard pressed to find as many negative views on it.. take arkham asylum for instance(not CITY cause while good it was little to much of the same) in many peoples views the greatest super hero game ever made.. look through any review site I dare you to find even a decent majority of people that did not like that game cause it IS a amazing game.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/339443/Video-FollowUp-Guide-For-Enhancing-Graphics-and-Performance-in-SWTORSorry-still-Nvidia-Only.html
Good reviews.
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/3523/1324425881186.png
And this proves what? (thanks for the laugh tho
)
Metacritic user score is basically a mass poll and should be taken as such. If you're looking into each individual taking a poll then you are missing what polling is all about. And besides, that guy has a full right to have the opinion he has (even if it was because he's employed at Bioware, lol what a douche!) It is the averages that count, like in any poll.
I don't think you can ever get an accurate average when people who haven't even played the game are rating it. There are literally reviews there that begin with the words, 'i didn't even play this game'.
I would be willing to venture a guess that a majority of the negative reviews were created by people who haven't, and will never, play this game. So why should these scores matter to anyone, positive or negative? If someone is going to this website and using it as a metric to decide what games to purchase based off user ratings, they're idiots.
I can say the same thing about Bioware employees rating their own game(s)*.
*Not the first time this has happened.
You have proof of that? Disgusting if true... but at least they've played the games their reviewing.
Edit- Actually, now that I think about it, it's no different than a presidential candidate and his staff voting for himself.
Image link a few posts above. Also,
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/108482-BioWare-Employee-Busted-in-Dragon-Age-2-Review-Scandal-UPDATED
Same goes for Skyrim, the game is so good even the critics admit it deserves praise. LOL! Yahtzee comes to mind.
It is not as if TOR is radically different than any other MMO out there, so no one could even form an opinion simply by looking at what is offered, what is seen in the videos, and what is not included.
Restricting reviews to only those that have played the game, immediately biases the results to people that were already interested enough to purchase the game -- leaving all those opinions out from those that were not motivated by the Hype or were able to make a decisions simply upon the presentation.
It is like how you know who you would and would not date, without having to actually go out on a date with them.
There will always be haters, its part of the time we live in.
Even the new servers are packed,the old are packed, everyone is having a good time ,the only "hate" talk you find is in forums ,never ingame.