I liked it. Just because it doesn't fit your opinion, doesn't make it any less of a review - to the point of putting review in quotes as though it's a joke. It's a person's opinion, and far more in-depth than "your review is stoopid LOL".
I feel so ashamed that people like him are allowed to be born.
The review was decent. It had a few points I would disagree with, but overall was on the right track.
MMO's played: Ragnarok Online (For years), WoW (for a few weeks only), Guild Wars, Lineage 2, Eve, Allods, Shattered Galaxy, 9 Dragons, City of Heroes, City of Villains, Star Trek Online (Got someone ELSE to pay for it), Champions Online (Someone else paid), Dofus, Dragonica, LOTRO, DDO and more... A LOT more. I've played good AND bad. The bad didn't last long. :P
What I don't understand is why Rift has a 7.2 rating on metacritic. I'd rate Rift a straight up 5, a truly mediocre MMO with nothing really terrible or great to say about itself.
See now I don't think this is fair. I don't think Rift is a "great" game by any stretch of the imagination, but you have to admit that the class system was a bit innovative.
Okay, fair enough, but then SWTOR's rating shouldn't be sitting so low, either. Anyway, Metacritic is clearly borked. Star Trek Online is rated higher than SWTOR. Now that was a sad attempt at an MMO.
LOL yes I agree. In fact, I would give SWTOR an 8. I think that's a decent score reflecting its excellence at storytelling, but its failings at MMORPG innovation, and ultra-linearity.
I think I should wait for a free trial before buying this game. It doesn't really scare me that ppl vote 0 for it on Metacritic, but it does worry me that ppl vote 10 just to boost it. It does seem that some ppl (only some) that vote low have fairly valid arguments based on experience and thus it worries me that the high scores pretty much just rant on the "non-likers".
In my opinion, anyone who gives this game a 0 on metacritic has lost all credibility.
What about the ones giving it a 10?
I think he, and anyone else who is reasonable would know that a 10 in any game is ridiculous.
1-10 number system is horrid in any case.
how much different is a 7 to an 8? What does that really mean?
The only way a 0 or a 10 might be considered a fair review is if everyone panned/praised the game and there were no differences in opinion. Then that might make one pause.
Exactly. I never said that SWTOR was perfect and in my own reviews, I have never given it a 10. But it certainly does not deserve a 0. That is just not reasonable or fair.
I liked it. Just because it doesn't fit your opinion, doesn't make it any less of a review - to the point of putting review in quotes as though it's a joke. It's a person's opinion, and far more in-depth than "your review is stoopid LOL".
I feel so ashamed that people like him are allowed to be born.
The review was decent. It had a few points I would disagree with, but overall was on the right track.
That's what I'm saying. I have to respect anyone who gives detailed reasons for why they dislike something other than "I like another game better" or "I hate change!" If they have a misconception about something or obviously didn't play what they're reviewing, someone will call them on it. But Teala catches a lot of heat for being open and honest, when anyone else could simply challenge her review with a review of their own and not take things off-track with petty insults. Oh well. Any way you slice it, it's better than 0's on Meta with the text "WOW CLONE LOLOLOLOL".
They deserve the much stated hate on the character creation. I figured if they got that down, lots of these scors would be +2. Yep, Bioware you failed hard on that character creator :P I still enjoy the game though, at least I can be a green, blue, and red "human"...
2.1 out of 10 for MW3? I'm not a COD fan at all, never have been but seriously that's just ridiculous, this is agenda not a game review.
The problem is that users have no sense of proporation. They just vote 10 for "I like it" and 0 for "I don't like it."
Then why are there so many more people downraiting MW3 than uprating it? If the game is any good, shouldn't there be lots of people standing up for it, too? Even if it were just a thumbs up/down system, that still says to me that the game is hugely unpopular for some reason.
I just don't know what it is, because I don't play any of the games in that genre. (Shooters yeah, love a good shooter, just not modern realism shooters like CoD and BF that severely overemphasize (IMHO) multiplayer)
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.
2.1 out of 10 for MW3? I'm not a COD fan at all, never have been but seriously that's just ridiculous, this is agenda not a game review.
The problem is that users have no sense of proporation. They just vote 10 for "I like it" and 0 for "I don't like it."
Then why are there so many more people downraiting MW3 than uprating it? If the game is any good, shouldn't there be lots of people standing up for it, too? Even if it were just a thumbs up/down system, that still says to me that the game is hugely unpopular for some reason.
I just don't know what it is, because I don't play any of the games in that genre. (Shooters yeah, love a good shooter, just not modern realism shooters like CoD and BF that severely overemphasize (IMHO) multiplayer)
Most of the negative reviews are from the Battlefield Fans.
I liked it. Just because it doesn't fit your opinion, doesn't make it any less of a review - to the point of putting review in quotes as though it's a joke. It's a person's opinion, and far more in-depth than "your review is stoopid LOL".
I feel so ashamed that people like him are allowed to be born.
The review was decent. It had a few points I would disagree with, but overall was on the right track.
That's what I'm saying. I have to respect anyone who gives detailed reasons for why they dislike something other than "I like another game better" or "I hate change!" If they have a misconception about something or obviously didn't play what they're reviewing, someone will call them on it. But Teala catches a lot of heat for being open and honest, when anyone else could simply challenge her review with a review of their own and not take things off-track with petty insults. Oh well. Any way you slice it, it's better than 0's on Meta with the text "WOW CLONE LOLOLOLOL".
I believe that in order for a reveiw to be good that there has to be some sort of objectivity coming from the reviewer. I saw nothing in that "review" but someone who hates themepark ragging on TOR because its a themepark game.
There was absoultly no objectivity on Telala's behalve, and thus all I read was "WoW Clone LOLOLLO Themeparks suck same old stuff.".
Then why are there so many more people downraiting MW3 than uprating it? If the game is any good, shouldn't there be lots of people standing up for it, too? Even if it were just a thumbs up/down system, that still says to me that the game is hugely unpopular for some reason. I just don't know what it is, because I don't play any of the games in that genre. (Shooters yeah, love a good shooter, just not modern realism shooters like CoD and MW that severely overemphasize (IMHO) multiplayer)
This thread goes to show just how absolutely meaningless metacritic user ratings are. MW3 sold 23 million copies with a minimal dev budget. MW3 is the best selling fps ever. What extermists want does not equal majority desires.
Then why are there so many more people downraiting MW3 than uprating it? If the game is any good, shouldn't there be lots of people standing up for it, too? Even if it were just a thumbs up/down system, that still says to me that the game is hugely unpopular for some reason.
I just don't know what it is, because I don't play any of the games in that genre. (Shooters yeah, love a good shooter, just not modern realism shooters like CoD and BF that severely overemphasize (IMHO) multiplayer)
Most of the negative reviews are from the Battlefield Fans.
I get that. but why aren't there a comparable number of CoD fans countering 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.
That's what I'm saying. I have to respect anyone who gives detailed reasons for why they dislike something other than "I like another game better" or "I hate change!"
Exactly.
There is a movie review on "The Escapist" named "movie Bob". I love his reviews.
Not because I always think they are correct but because he gives actual reasons why he likes/hates things.
Because of this I can then compare to things I like/dislike and make an informed decision.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Then why are there so many more people downraiting MW3 than uprating it? If the game is any good, shouldn't there be lots of people standing up for it, too? Even if it were just a thumbs up/down system, that still says to me that the game is hugely unpopular for some reason.
I just don't know what it is, because I don't play any of the games in that genre. (Shooters yeah, love a good shooter, just not modern realism shooters like CoD and BF that severely overemphasize (IMHO) multiplayer)
Most of the negative reviews are from the Battlefield Fans.
I get that. but why aren't there a comparable number of CoD fans countering it?
cause the game is almost a carbon copy of MW2 with new maps.. hmm sounds familar
Then why are there so many more people downraiting MW3 than uprating it? If the game is any good, shouldn't there be lots of people standing up for it, too? Even if it were just a thumbs up/down system, that still says to me that the game is hugely unpopular for some reason.
I just don't know what it is, because I don't play any of the games in that genre. (Shooters yeah, love a good shooter, just not modern realism shooters like CoD and MW that severely overemphasize (IMHO) multiplayer)
This thread goes to show just how absolutely meaningless metacritic user ratings are. MW3 sold 23 million copies with a minimal dev budget. MW3 is the best selling fps ever. What extermists want does not equal majority desires.
Just because it sold well doesn't mean it was well liked. Could be 23 million unhappy customers.. I mean, otherwise, you'd think you'd see a lot more of them voting it up on metacritic, no?
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.
Then why are there so many more people downraiting MW3 than uprating it? If the game is any good, shouldn't there be lots of people standing up for it, too? Even if it were just a thumbs up/down system, that still says to me that the game is hugely unpopular for some reason.
I just don't know what it is, because I don't play any of the games in that genre. (Shooters yeah, love a good shooter, just not modern realism shooters like CoD and BF that severely overemphasize (IMHO) multiplayer)
Most of the negative reviews are from the Battlefield Fans.
I get that. but why aren't there a comparable number of CoD fans countering it?
While individual user reviews are rarely worth a cursory glance, I find their average score an extremely accurate measure of the games quality. And if you look at it this way, 0s and 10s are perfectly appropriate way to score becaue their sheer volume will give you an accurate number at the end.
I did a recheck of user scores for some of the games I know, love and hate and in most cases I found user score a much more accurate measure of how I would rate the game than the critics one which is more often then not influenced by peer and corporate pressure.
For example:
Earth Defense Force: critics 62 (ridiculous) user score 8.2
EVE online: critics 69 (LOOOOL) user score 8.2
WoW Wrath of the Lich King: 91 (/facepalm) user score: 6.5
Dragon Age 2: 79 (a bit too generous, really) user score: 4.4
I find Metacritic's user reviews are useful. Granted, most of them are spammed as either over-exagerrated 0-1s or 9-10s, but there's the occasional reasonably written review that actually outlines the real positives or negatives.
It's also great for spotting games that have been overhyped. Take Rage for example, average 79% from critics, 43% from users. Why? Because Rage was terribly overhyped. The reality of the game was that it was too shallow, generic, short, and plagued with technical issues.
Not saying that it's the exact same with SWTOR, but I have a feeling it's largely to do with backlash from all of the over-hyping people have been doing.
<--- read my quote.
Come on, no rating under 5 is really justified, nor a 10. That makes 90% of all so called reviews there highly irrelevant IMHO. Rasting SWTOR 10 or 2 or even 0 is just bullcrap, no matter if the game is your pair of shoes. A review has to take all possible customers into account not only your personal preferrence. For example, if you are a sandbox fan, for YOU the game might be 1 or 0, but such a rating would not be a review, as a reviewer has to be a neutral as possible and judge a product from the view of the possible target audience.
Contrary to public opinion here, a REAL review is NOT just "some dudes personal opinion".
Not sure if you even realize how well this illustrates your own personal bias.
As for the reviews, I'll take 'em with a grain of salt. The average score pretty much mimics my own personal perception of the game as an outsider who hasn't played it, nor ever will. It also seems rather lower than I would have thought. To me, the game seems wholly average, but I believed (and still do) that my opinion is a minority one. I expect that the score will rise to somewhere around 7 and stabilize there. The reason it's so low now is that everyone with a bone to pick with the game and with it's fans, rushed out to clobber it as soon as they could. The scales will balance once the fanboys emerge from their initial SWTORgasms.
The professional reviews will be just as absurd, only in the opposite direction. Don't expect any more honesty from them than you've seen from the gamers.
You know after thinking about it more, I think user reviews are best treated kind of like a "Rotten Tomatoes" of games. Where a "positive" review gets essentially a 100% always, and a "negative" review gets a 0% always.
You know after thinking about it more, I think user reviews are best treated kind of like a "Rotten Tomatoes" of games. Where a "positive" review gets essentially a 100% always, and a "negative" review gets a 0% always.
But on average you get quite an accurate score on how the gaming community feels.
Then why are there so many more people downraiting MW3 than uprating it? If the game is any good, shouldn't there be lots of people standing up for it, too? Even if it were just a thumbs up/down system, that still says to me that the game is hugely unpopular for some reason.
I just don't know what it is, because I don't play any of the games in that genre. (Shooters yeah, love a good shooter, just not modern realism shooters like CoD and MW that severely overemphasize (IMHO) multiplayer)
This thread goes to show just how absolutely meaningless metacritic user ratings are. MW3 sold 23 million copies with a minimal dev budget. MW3 is the best selling fps ever. What extermists want does not equal majority desires.
Just because it sold well doesn't mean it was well liked. Could be 23 million unhappy customers.. I mean, otherwise, you'd think you'd see a lot more of them voting it up on metacritic, no?
In my experience people that hate things will react more than people that love something, especially if the thing they hate is popular. Many people that thought MW3 was good probably never played a CoD game before, or played so little they don't even know it did nothing new...these same people are likely not going on metacritic or whatever to vote it up.
If you look at Gamespot user score, you see MW3 has a user Score of 6-7 depending on platform. So obviously Metacritic has more haters for some reason.
"Great minds talk about ideas, average minds talk about events, and small minds talk about people." - Eleanor Roosevelt "Americans used to roar like lions for liberty; now we bleat like sheep for security." -Norman Vincent Peale
If you read the reviews alot of them is bringing up the same thing that the critiques on this forum have. Shallow themepark, WoW copy, single player game, poor character customization, instanced and artifical world etc.
It seems that people are not as easily fooled anymore.
You know after thinking about it more, I think user reviews are best treated kind of like a "Rotten Tomatoes" of games. Where a "positive" review gets essentially a 100% always, and a "negative" review gets a 0% always.
But on average you get quite an accurate score on how the gaming community feels.
If this communinty (MMORPG.com) thinks that TOR is an 8.41 game then I don't see how the gaming community that comprises of normal people think any less of it.
Then why are there so many more people downraiting MW3 than uprating it? If the game is any good, shouldn't there be lots of people standing up for it, too? Even if it were just a thumbs up/down system, that still says to me that the game is hugely unpopular for some reason.
I just don't know what it is, because I don't play any of the games in that genre. (Shooters yeah, love a good shooter, just not modern realism shooters like CoD and MW that severely overemphasize (IMHO) multiplayer)
This thread goes to show just how absolutely meaningless metacritic user ratings are. MW3 sold 23 million copies with a minimal dev budget. MW3 is the best selling fps ever. What extermists want does not equal majority desires.
Just because it sold well doesn't mean it was well liked. Could be 23 million unhappy customers.. I mean, otherwise, you'd think you'd see a lot more of them voting it up on metacritic, no?
Look at last years MW, you will see the same pattern. This MW has outsold all others. I am betting the next one will sell even more.
Remember "misery loves company", people who are unhappy are far more likely to spend moaning and groaning than those with a more positive outlook on life. Griping about "problems" is a temporary release for negative people. The release of frustration gives them temporary satisfaction. Positive individuals usually do not see a need to espouse their views much because they interest people far more naturally.
If you read the reviews alot of them is bringing up the same thing that the critiques on this forum have. Shallow themepark, WoW copy, single player game, poor character customization, instanced and artifical world etc.
It seems that people are not as easily fooled anymore.
Then voting 0-3.
I have yet to play a game that diserves that, have you?
Comments
I feel so ashamed that people like him are allowed to be born.
The review was decent. It had a few points I would disagree with, but overall was on the right track.
MMO's played: Ragnarok Online (For years), WoW (for a few weeks only), Guild Wars, Lineage 2, Eve, Allods, Shattered Galaxy, 9 Dragons, City of Heroes, City of Villains, Star Trek Online (Got someone ELSE to pay for it), Champions Online (Someone else paid), Dofus, Dragonica, LOTRO, DDO and more... A LOT more. I've played good AND bad. The bad didn't last long. :P
LOL yes I agree. In fact, I would give SWTOR an 8. I think that's a decent score reflecting its excellence at storytelling, but its failings at MMORPG innovation, and ultra-linearity.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Exactly. I never said that SWTOR was perfect and in my own reviews, I have never given it a 10. But it certainly does not deserve a 0. That is just not reasonable or fair.
That's what I'm saying. I have to respect anyone who gives detailed reasons for why they dislike something other than "I like another game better" or "I hate change!" If they have a misconception about something or obviously didn't play what they're reviewing, someone will call them on it. But Teala catches a lot of heat for being open and honest, when anyone else could simply challenge her review with a review of their own and not take things off-track with petty insults. Oh well. Any way you slice it, it's better than 0's on Meta with the text "WOW CLONE LOLOLOLOL".
A testament to how shameless and pathetic the old SWG and the anti-wow crowd is.
They deserve the much stated hate on the character creation. I figured if they got that down, lots of these scors would be +2. Yep, Bioware you failed hard on that character creator :P I still enjoy the game though, at least I can be a green, blue, and red "human"...
Then why are there so many more people downraiting MW3 than uprating it? If the game is any good, shouldn't there be lots of people standing up for it, too? Even if it were just a thumbs up/down system, that still says to me that the game is hugely unpopular for some reason.
I just don't know what it is, because I don't play any of the games in that genre. (Shooters yeah, love a good shooter, just not modern realism shooters like CoD and BF that severely overemphasize (IMHO) multiplayer)
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.
Most of the negative reviews are from the Battlefield Fans.
I believe that in order for a reveiw to be good that there has to be some sort of objectivity coming from the reviewer. I saw nothing in that "review" but someone who hates themepark ragging on TOR because its a themepark game.
There was absoultly no objectivity on Telala's behalve, and thus all I read was "WoW Clone LOLOLLO Themeparks suck same old stuff.".
I don't care about innovation I care about fun.
This thread goes to show just how absolutely meaningless metacritic user ratings are. MW3 sold 23 million copies with a minimal dev budget. MW3 is the best selling fps ever. What extermists want does not equal majority desires.
I get that. but why aren't there a comparable number of CoD fans countering 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.
Exactly.
There is a movie review on "The Escapist" named "movie Bob". I love his reviews.
Not because I always think they are correct but because he gives actual reasons why he likes/hates things.
Because of this I can then compare to things I like/dislike and make an informed decision.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
cause the game is almost a carbon copy of MW2 with new maps.. hmm sounds familar
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/339443/Video-FollowUp-Guide-For-Enhancing-Graphics-and-Performance-in-SWTORSorry-still-Nvidia-Only.html
Just because it sold well doesn't mean it was well liked. Could be 23 million unhappy customers.. I mean, otherwise, you'd think you'd see a lot more of them voting it up on metacritic, no?
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.
Because people have better things to do?
I don't care about innovation I care about fun.
While individual user reviews are rarely worth a cursory glance, I find their average score an extremely accurate measure of the games quality. And if you look at it this way, 0s and 10s are perfectly appropriate way to score becaue their sheer volume will give you an accurate number at the end.
I did a recheck of user scores for some of the games I know, love and hate and in most cases I found user score a much more accurate measure of how I would rate the game than the critics one which is more often then not influenced by peer and corporate pressure.
For example:
Earth Defense Force: critics 62 (ridiculous) user score 8.2
EVE online: critics 69 (LOOOOL) user score 8.2
WoW Wrath of the Lich King: 91 (/facepalm) user score: 6.5
Dragon Age 2: 79 (a bit too generous, really) user score: 4.4
Not sure if you even realize how well this illustrates your own personal bias.
As for the reviews, I'll take 'em with a grain of salt. The average score pretty much mimics my own personal perception of the game as an outsider who hasn't played it, nor ever will. It also seems rather lower than I would have thought. To me, the game seems wholly average, but I believed (and still do) that my opinion is a minority one. I expect that the score will rise to somewhere around 7 and stabilize there. The reason it's so low now is that everyone with a bone to pick with the game and with it's fans, rushed out to clobber it as soon as they could. The scales will balance once the fanboys emerge from their initial SWTORgasms.
The professional reviews will be just as absurd, only in the opposite direction. Don't expect any more honesty from them than you've seen from the gamers.
You know after thinking about it more, I think user reviews are best treated kind of like a "Rotten Tomatoes" of games. Where a "positive" review gets essentially a 100% always, and a "negative" review gets a 0% always.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
But on average you get quite an accurate score on how the gaming community feels.
It might mean nothing it might mean something, but consider BF is a PC franchise, COD is largely a Console franchise.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
In my experience people that hate things will react more than people that love something, especially if the thing they hate is popular. Many people that thought MW3 was good probably never played a CoD game before, or played so little they don't even know it did nothing new...these same people are likely not going on metacritic or whatever to vote it up.
If you look at Gamespot user score, you see MW3 has a user Score of 6-7 depending on platform. So obviously Metacritic has more haters for some reason.
"Great minds talk about ideas, average minds talk about events, and small minds talk about people." - Eleanor Roosevelt
"Americans used to roar like lions for liberty; now we bleat like sheep for security." -Norman Vincent Peale
If you read the reviews alot of them is bringing up the same thing that the critiques on this forum have. Shallow themepark, WoW copy, single player game, poor character customization, instanced and artifical world etc.
It seems that people are not as easily fooled anymore.
My gaming blog
If this communinty (MMORPG.com) thinks that TOR is an 8.41 game then I don't see how the gaming community that comprises of normal people think any less of it.
Let that sink in.
I don't care about innovation I care about fun.
Look at last years MW, you will see the same pattern. This MW has outsold all others. I am betting the next one will sell even more.
Remember "misery loves company", people who are unhappy are far more likely to spend moaning and groaning than those with a more positive outlook on life. Griping about "problems" is a temporary release for negative people. The release of frustration gives them temporary satisfaction. Positive individuals usually do not see a need to espouse their views much because they interest people far more naturally.
Then voting 0-3.
I have yet to play a game that diserves that, have you?
I don't care about innovation I care about fun.