On top of that it has some very decent critic reviews as well.
Oh please. The "Critics" scores are just as bad as the Users.
80s, 90s? Seriously?
They are nothing but Fanbois too. Worse even. They are PAID Fanbois.
What Critic is going to risk his job by giving SWTOR an honest review?
None, because the companies they work for get bigtime $$$ for Advertising the game.
The wont bite the hand that feeds.
Yup, every reviewer is paid off, get a clue.
Gamers have unrealistic views on games, they think if its not innovative and 100% new that its garbage that deserves a 1, most have them have played to many games toe ver enjoy anything again.
Even if proff critics are paid off, better than the gamers who ACT exactly like theve been paid off but they do it for free.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling" Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
On top of that it has some very decent critic reviews as well.
Oh please. The "Critics" scores are just as bad as the Users.
80s, 90s? Seriously?
They are nothing but Fanbois too. Worse even. They are PAID Fanbois.
What Critic is going to risk his job by giving SWTOR an honest review?
None, because the companies they work for get bigtime $$$ for Advertising the game.
The wont bite the hand that feeds.
Yup, every reviewer is paid off, get a clue.
Gamers have unrealistic views on games, they think if its not innovative and 100% new that its garbage that deserves a 1, most have them have played to many games toe ver enjoy anything again.
Even if proff critics are paid off, better than the gamers who ACT exactly like theve been paid off but they do it for free.
DA2 was the ultimate proof that professional reviewers are highly influenced in the way they write reviews and the scores they give. Are they all paid off? Of course not. Do many probably give maybe 10 points more than they feel a game is worth for different reasons - definitely.
My opinion, the reviews there offer some nice criticism that could help improve any game. Let's be real. CoD isn't perfect, nor is SWTOR.
That would be positive if it wasn't the very core premise of the game that is faulty.
I saw some other games bouncing back, the most notable example being EVE which shot up immensely over time. That game was crap when it lauched but its core concept was sound and it could only go up with technical improvements and refinements.
SW:TOR's basic premise does not leave a lot of room for improvement. Technically it is almost as good and polished as it can get. Where can it go from now? Higher res textures? Even more kill-10-rats (smugglers) quests? I'd say that what we have now is it for SW:TOR scorewise.
They gambled on what they considered a safe bet and... we'll see yet what happenes... but if history is any example, cowardice almost never pays and you dont even get a satisfaction of being remembered a tragic hero.
I don't like cowards who play it safe and I have no sympathy whatsoever for whatever happens to BW after this.
Up to 6.1 on MetaCritic with only 845 ratings counted.
It'll keep going up for a little while, and then start going down a litttle, as the first wave of players get bored with it, and then it'll level off somewhere in between.
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.
On Metacritic most user reviewers give scores below 2 or above 8, there is no such thing as a poor game or a decent game. It is either crap or amazing. Just bear that in mind when you read them.
On Metacritic most user reviewers give scores below 2 or above 8, there is no such thing as a poor game or a decent game. It is either crap or amazing. Just bear that in mind when you read them.
Just ignore the scores. I view them more as a thumbs up or a thumbs down. When it comes to the total based on all results it then gives the true score, currently 6.1.
At least they don't all give 8+ like the pro are doing, except when they have an agenda against a company that pissed thier journalistic inflated ego, then they trash them with a 4,5 or 6 Lol.
On Metacritic most user reviewers give scores below 2 or above 8, there is no such thing as a poor game or a decent game. It is either crap or amazing. Just bear that in mind when you read them.
Just ignore the scores. I view them more as a thumbs up or a thumbs down. When it comes to the total based on all results it then gives the true score, currently 6.1.
What a bunch of absolute and complete cow dung I will try to explain why although the reasoning seems to evade alot of people.
Those giving SWTOR less than 4 (a large percentage of 0-3) should be excluded from the average result for a true reading, I mean even FF's chronic launch didn't get as many 0's
FACT: SWTOR launched with pretty stable code
FACT:All servers were up most of first says
FACT: no or little lag
FACT: 1-50 content if anything too much content
FACT: polished even if generic
Given the above for a launch day mmo NOT the best not the worst that has a potential to be improved and built on for an mmo it is not that bad whether you like it or not because it isn't inovative enough or is not to your like the game at launch does not deserve a 0-3 score.
If you exclude the 0-3 scores you will probably end up with more like a 8+ user score
If you exclude the 0-3 scores you will probably end up with more like a 8+ user score
And if you exclude the 8-10 scores you'll end up with more like a 3+ score. What's your point? That we exclude people who, in effect, gave the game a 'thumbs down', just so you can have a higher score? Most of those people giving between 0 and 3 have legitimate reasons for giving a thumbs down. Just because instead of that it's rated 0, you still get the same effect when all the scores are averaged, as people who like it are doing the same by giving 10's. If ten people rate the game 10 and ten people rate the game 0, the score comes out at 5.0. The more people that rate it highly, the higher the score goes, and vice versa. Thumbs up / Thumbs down in action.
If you exclude the 0-3 scores you will probably end up with more like a 8+ user score
And if you exclude the 8-10 scores you'll end up with more like a 3+ score. What's your point? That we exclude people who, in effect, gave the game a 'thumbs down', just so you can have a higher score? Most of those people giving between 0 and 3 have legitimate reasons for giving a thumbs down. Just because instead of that it's rated 0, you still get the same effect when all the scores are averaged, as people who like it are doing the same by giving 10's. If ten people rate the game 10 and ten people rate the game 0, the score comes out at 5.0. The more people that rate it highly, the higher the score goes, and vice versa. Thumbs up / Thumbs down in action.
No you do not but obviously I must explain again.
Voltron and other games that would shutdown/die/break bugged so bad as to be unplayable get 0-3 games that launch without mouse support or graphics support, do you get the point now ? No ? games that were so bad film ties in that you felt sick the moment you played, games that had 0 content or 0 sound, games so boring the review could not be finished THOSE are titles that deserve 0-3
In no way shape or form should a game that loads, runs, has content some polish and gameplay etc get 0-3 does that make the point ?
In no way shape or form should a game that loads, runs, has content some polish and gameplay etc get 0-3 does that make the point ?
That's just your opinion of what 0-3 means.
If you look at the ratings and blurbs there, you'll see a lot of people consider such low ratings to simply mean they don't like the game. Since people rate that way on Metacritic with all different games, you still get a valid average score, relative to other games on that site. It's a bit lower than scores on other sites, but naturally every site will have differences that effect their overall ratings.
If you remove all the 0-3s, that'd just be plain old innaccurate, since you'd be entirely ommitting so many opinions. A better solution would be to convert those 0-3s into 4s. And then do the same for every single game on that site. I'm just not sure what the point of that would be.
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.
If you exclude the 0-3 scores you will probably end up with more like a 8+ user score
And if you exclude the 8-10 scores you'll end up with more like a 3+ score. What's your point? That we exclude people who, in effect, gave the game a 'thumbs down', just so you can have a higher score? Most of those people giving between 0 and 3 have legitimate reasons for giving a thumbs down. Just because instead of that it's rated 0, you still get the same effect when all the scores are averaged, as people who like it are doing the same by giving 10's. If ten people rate the game 10 and ten people rate the game 0, the score comes out at 5.0. The more people that rate it highly, the higher the score goes, and vice versa. Thumbs up / Thumbs down in action.
Legitimate..i lol'd at this part. There can not be any legitimate reason for giving a game like SWTOR a 10 or 0 to 3. Other than pissing contest between fans and those who dispise the game... these scores have little meaning left now.
How many servers SWTOR will launch with on release?
ShredderSE - Umm how many do they need? Maybe 6. US, EU, Asian, France, German and Russian. Subs will be so low there is no need for more Snoocky-How many servers? The first 3 months a lot...after that 2 i guess, one for PVE and 1 for PVP...
Thorbrand - SWTOR doesn't have longevity at all. Might be one of the shortest lived MMOs.
If metacritic would just delete the posts that disagree with my opinion, then I would give the site legitimacy. Negative reviews are trolls and positive reviews are fanbois.
That was a bit toungue-in-cheek, but I think that's how most folks view the site.
"If World of Warcraft marked the beginning of a new era for the MMO industry back in 2004, then The Old Republic will no doubt be long remembered as the title that helped bring that era to a close on an astoundingly high note."
On Metacritic most user reviewers give scores below 2 or above 8, there is no such thing as a poor game or a decent game. It is either crap or amazing. Just bear that in mind when you read them.
Just ignore the scores. I view them more as a thumbs up or a thumbs down. When it comes to the total based on all results it then gives the true score, currently 6.1.
What a bunch of absolute and complete cow dung I will try to explain why although the reasoning seems to evade alot of people.
Those giving SWTOR less than 4 (a large percentage of 0-3) should be excluded from the average result for a true reading, I mean even FF's chronic launch didn't get as many 0's
FACT: SWTOR launched with pretty stable code
FACT:All servers were up most of first says
FACT: no or little lag
FACT: 1-50 content if anything too much content
FACT: polished even if generic
Given the above for a launch day mmo NOT the best not the worst that has a potential to be improved and built on for an mmo it is not that bad whether you like it or not because it isn't inovative enough or is not to your like the game at launch does not deserve a 0-3 score.
If you exclude the 0-3 scores you will probably end up with more like a 8+ user score
Writing fact infront of your opinions does not make it a fact. FACT.
FACT - The MMO genre has grown old and stale. FACT - Rift and SWTOR had the best launches, technically, of games that matter (whether you like the games or not). FACT - These anonymous opinion sites are the worst legal entity on the internet. Bull$hit hate from small and small minded people with too much time and too little life. FACT - WoW is a one of a kind success. It will not be matched in the western market. Please stop comparing other western titles to it.
Comments
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Yup, every reviewer is paid off, get a clue.
Gamers have unrealistic views on games, they think if its not innovative and 100% new that its garbage that deserves a 1, most have them have played to many games toe ver enjoy anything again.
Even if proff critics are paid off, better than the gamers who ACT exactly like theve been paid off but they do it for free.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
DA2 was the ultimate proof that professional reviewers are highly influenced in the way they write reviews and the scores they give. Are they all paid off? Of course not. Do many probably give maybe 10 points more than they feel a game is worth for different reasons - definitely.
Does anyone really take the user reviews on metacritic seriously? So many reviewers on metacritic are barely literate.
That would be positive if it wasn't the very core premise of the game that is faulty.
I saw some other games bouncing back, the most notable example being EVE which shot up immensely over time. That game was crap when it lauched but its core concept was sound and it could only go up with technical improvements and refinements.
SW:TOR's basic premise does not leave a lot of room for improvement. Technically it is almost as good and polished as it can get. Where can it go from now? Higher res textures? Even more kill-10-rats (smugglers) quests? I'd say that what we have now is it for SW:TOR scorewise.
They gambled on what they considered a safe bet and... we'll see yet what happenes... but if history is any example, cowardice almost never pays and you dont even get a satisfaction of being remembered a tragic hero.
I don't like cowards who play it safe and I have no sympathy whatsoever for whatever happens to BW after this.
Up to 6.1 on MetaCritic with only 845 ratings counted.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It'll keep going up for a little while, and then start going down a litttle, as the first wave of players get bored with it, and then it'll level off somewhere in between.
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.
On Metacritic most user reviewers give scores below 2 or above 8, there is no such thing as a poor game or a decent game. It is either crap or amazing. Just bear that in mind when you read them.
Just ignore the scores. I view them more as a thumbs up or a thumbs down. When it comes to the total based on all results it then gives the true score, currently 6.1.
At least they don't all give 8+ like the pro are doing, except when they have an agenda against a company that pissed thier journalistic inflated ego, then they trash them with a 4,5 or 6 Lol.
What a bunch of absolute and complete cow dung I will try to explain why although the reasoning seems to evade alot of people.
Those giving SWTOR less than 4 (a large percentage of 0-3) should be excluded from the average result for a true reading, I mean even FF's chronic launch didn't get as many 0's
FACT: SWTOR launched with pretty stable code
FACT:All servers were up most of first says
FACT: no or little lag
FACT: 1-50 content if anything too much content
FACT: polished even if generic
Given the above for a launch day mmo NOT the best not the worst that has a potential to be improved and built on for an mmo it is not that bad whether you like it or not because it isn't inovative enough or is not to your like the game at launch does not deserve a 0-3 score.
If you exclude the 0-3 scores you will probably end up with more like a 8+ user score
And if you exclude the 8-10 scores you'll end up with more like a 3+ score. What's your point? That we exclude people who, in effect, gave the game a 'thumbs down', just so you can have a higher score? Most of those people giving between 0 and 3 have legitimate reasons for giving a thumbs down. Just because instead of that it's rated 0, you still get the same effect when all the scores are averaged, as people who like it are doing the same by giving 10's. If ten people rate the game 10 and ten people rate the game 0, the score comes out at 5.0. The more people that rate it highly, the higher the score goes, and vice versa. Thumbs up / Thumbs down in action.
No you do not but obviously I must explain again.
Voltron and other games that would shutdown/die/break bugged so bad as to be unplayable get 0-3 games that launch without mouse support or graphics support, do you get the point now ? No ? games that were so bad film ties in that you felt sick the moment you played, games that had 0 content or 0 sound, games so boring the review could not be finished THOSE are titles that deserve 0-3
In no way shape or form should a game that loads, runs, has content some polish and gameplay etc get 0-3 does that make the point ?
That's just your opinion of what 0-3 means.
If you look at the ratings and blurbs there, you'll see a lot of people consider such low ratings to simply mean they don't like the game. Since people rate that way on Metacritic with all different games, you still get a valid average score, relative to other games on that site. It's a bit lower than scores on other sites, but naturally every site will have differences that effect their overall ratings.
If you remove all the 0-3s, that'd just be plain old innaccurate, since you'd be entirely ommitting so many opinions. A better solution would be to convert those 0-3s into 4s. And then do the same for every single game on that site. I'm just not sure what the point of that would be.
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.
Legitimate..i lol'd at this part. There can not be any legitimate reason for giving a game like SWTOR a 10 or 0 to 3. Other than pissing contest between fans and those who dispise the game... these scores have little meaning left now.
How many servers SWTOR will launch with on release?
ShredderSE - Umm how many do they need? Maybe 6.
US, EU, Asian, France, German and Russian.
Subs will be so low there is no need for more
Snoocky-How many servers?
The first 3 months a lot...after that 2 i guess, one for PVE and 1 for PVP...
Thorbrand - SWTOR doesn't have longevity at all. Might be one of the shortest lived MMOs.
Honestly never heard of the website, interesting read though.
If you don't like a game don't play it, and quit running to MMORPG.com to trash it.
People need to finally understand that scores don't mean quality... they are an opinion about the game of the user giving the score.
0 scores are absolutely valid for MW3, they don't mean the game doesn't install or run, it means the user really really didn't like the game.
10 scores don't mean perfection, they mean the user really liked the game.
Inbetween scores mean how much a person liked the game.
6/10 - I liked the game somewhat
3/10 - I didn't like it that much
8/10 - I liked it pretty much
If metacritic would just delete the posts that disagree with my opinion, then I would give the site legitimacy. Negative reviews are trolls and positive reviews are fanbois.
That was a bit toungue-in-cheek, but I think that's how most folks view the site.
I agree with ten ton hammer quote
"If World of Warcraft marked the beginning of a new era for the MMO industry back in 2004, then The Old Republic will no doubt be long remembered as the title that helped bring that era to a close on an astoundingly high note."
Kinda like Symbian^3 for the symbian era
Android/IOS here i come
Writing fact infront of your opinions does not make it a fact. FACT.
FACT - Rift and SWTOR had the best launches, technically, of games that matter (whether you like the games or not).
FACT - These anonymous opinion sites are the worst legal entity on the internet. Bull$hit hate from small and small minded people with too much time and too little life.
FACT - WoW is a one of a kind success. It will not be matched in the western market. Please stop comparing other western titles to it.
Finally - I'm out. Best wishes to all of you.