I wholly believe that an MMO should never be rated until after a full month of play.
/agreed
If someone is talking in general chat in a language you dont understand, chances are they're not talking to you. So chill out and stop bitching about it!
Originally posted by DannyGlover The problem is that a lot of so called reviews are nothing more than a personal opinion being presented as objective. We end up knowing more about what the author thinks of the game than the game itself. When you spend one or two sentences describing combat followed by three or four paragraphs of why you love it or hate it, youre no longer reviewing a game... People think thats a review, but its not. Talking about what you think a game should or shouldnt be is not a review either. Its perfectly fine to talk about those things and its a lot of fun too. But i see too many threads entitled "my review of ...." When they are just s list of likes and dislikes. Thats not a review.
No...you have it backwards. Reviews are the reviewer's opinion of the game, which may or may not include actual information about the game. That's why there's a rating associated with reviews. If there was no opinion associated with it, then there would be no rating.
Personally, I'm more interested in the information about the game, usually from the developer's website and 'overview' style articles. Then I like to see user reviews of games. Users are going to have more hangups about what games do and what games don't do, so if there's something in a game you're not going to like, it's probably going to show up in a negative user review. These two things combined usually give me an idea about how long I'll enjoy a game.
With SWToR, I figured the game would be fun for a couple months, maybe three and I was right. Ditto for Rift, though Rift actually lasted longer. Had I don't the same thing with Warhammer, AoC, and STO, I would have known that the games probably weren't worth my time.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by ShakyMo While I think tsw is a good game, and I'm enjoying it more than any new mmo I've played since eve / planetside times. (i also like gw2 beta but that ain't out yet)
I don't see how anyone can take mmo reviews seriously after the ridiculous swtor reviews.
"Professional" lol, reviews have absolutely nothing to do with any title, content or the quality of said content within a new game. It is designed to secure as much of the ad budget dollars as possible by any site that posts "professional" lol reviews.
Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by DannyGlover The problem is that a lot of so called reviews are nothing more than a personal opinion being presented as objective. We end up knowing more about what the author thinks of the game than the game itself. When you spend one or two sentences describing combat followed by three or four paragraphs of why you love it or hate it, youre no longer reviewing a game... People think thats a review, but its not. Talking about what you think a game should or shouldnt be is not a review either. Its perfectly fine to talk about those things and its a lot of fun too. But i see too many threads entitled "my review of ...." When they are just s list of likes and dislikes. Thats not a review.
No...you have it backwards. Reviews are the reviewer's opinion of the game, which may or may not include actual information about the game. That's why there's a rating associated with reviews. If there was no opinion associated with it, then there would be no rating.
Personally, I'm more interested in the information about the game, usually from the developer's website and 'overview' style articles. Then I like to see user reviews of games. Users are going to have more hangups about what games do and what games don't do, so if there's something in a game you're not going to like, it's probably going to show up in a negative user review. These two things combined usually give me an idea about how long I'll enjoy a game.
With SWToR, I figured the game would be fun for a couple months, maybe three and I was right. Ditto for Rift, though Rift actually lasted longer. Had I don't the same thing with Warhammer, AoC, and STO, I would have known that the games probably weren't worth my time. Yeah i dont go for those user reviews lol. Its one thing to be accredited with years of documented experience, paid to give an opinionated review using collegiate level grammar and writing structure with an established and expected point of view. Its another thing altogether to read an opinion of an anonymous forum poster, whos motives are unknown, credentials taken on the honor system, an inability to form complete sentences, and a track record of constant bandwagoning and flip flipping riddled with kneejerk reactions and hive mentality.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
I wholly believe that an MMO should never be rated until after a full month of play.
I consider that about any video game, not just an MMO. Heck, I'd say bring back the old "Computer Gaming World" magazine standard, single player games should not be reviewed at least until the reviewer has done a full playtrough from beggining to end. It's what we get for demanding reviews to come out sometimes even before games are out.
I wholly believe that an MMO should never be rated until after a full month of play.
I disagree. While i playing for 1 hour and judging the whole game is wrong, if you've played more then 75% of the content, tried all pvp maps, did tons of quests, crafting, dungeons, etc, etc. you're in a position to say what you feel about the whole game.
Quality doesn't have anything to do with how long a game last. If a game is good, it's good period. That said, longevity is important in mmorpgs of course, and things like ommunity also deserve a fair avaluation.
Finally, who the hell cares about press reviews? No, really, why do you care? Not sure if serious
So...This game comes out and there are no reviews for it...how am I supposed to know anything about it? The whole...wait 1 month, 6 months, or whatever silly number...is poppycock.
Things you can review in the first day of playing:
1. Bugs. Yup, if it's got them, you'll likely hear about them or see them yourself.
2. "Feel". Animations off? Graphic style, is it cartoon, realistic, etc. Does combat feel responsive?
3. General Content. What is the questing system like?
etc
etc
etc
1 day is normaly just not enough of course, but i don't see why i have to wait more than 1 month to review a anything if i already experienced most, if preferably all, of what the game as to offer.
Longevity in an mmos is 1 thing, but that doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the out of the box game. I'm not playing TSW yet, but from what i've been seeing, the game's solid and different, but of course, still as it's flaws and short comings.
But, i don't need to check TSW out in 3 months to mesure how good of a video game it is. Even if this game shut down in 6 months, the quality was still there.
I wholly believe that an MMO should never be rated until after a full month of play.
My stance about new MMOs atm is that I won't play a game unless it has been out for at least 6 months and is still doing good.
I am not saying this is the way to go, but it's what works for me. I could go on a long rant about why I think like this, but I ll say, in short, that longevity is an important factor when I choose a game.
I do understand that those players who hope from game to game every few weeks find those short term reviews useful, but ppl should not find surprising at all that some of us consider them worthless.
I guess it's got to do with the kind of player you are, as usual.
I am keeping an eye on this game, and these reviews are just more information. Thanks for the input, but I take all these reviews with a pinch of salt.. and pepper, lol.
Edit: horrendous grammar... yes what was written before was even worse XD
Originally posted by DannyGlover Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by DannyGlover The problem is that a lot of so called reviews are nothing more than a personal opinion being presented as objective. We end up knowing more about what the author thinks of the game than the game itself. When you spend one or two sentences describing combat followed by three or four paragraphs of why you love it or hate it, youre no longer reviewing a game... People think thats a review, but its not. Talking about what you think a game should or shouldnt be is not a review either. Its perfectly fine to talk about those things and its a lot of fun too. But i see too many threads entitled "my review of ...." When they are just s list of likes and dislikes. Thats not a review.
No...you have it backwards. Reviews are the reviewer's opinion of the game, which may or may not include actual information about the game. That's why there's a rating associated with reviews. If there was no opinion associated with it, then there would be no rating.
Personally, I'm more interested in the information about the game, usually from the developer's website and 'overview' style articles. Then I like to see user reviews of games. Users are going to have more hangups about what games do and what games don't do, so if there's something in a game you're not going to like, it's probably going to show up in a negative user review. These two things combined usually give me an idea about how long I'll enjoy a game.
With SWToR, I figured the game would be fun for a couple months, maybe three and I was right. Ditto for Rift, though Rift actually lasted longer. Had I don't the same thing with Warhammer, AoC, and STO, I would have known that the games probably weren't worth my time. Yeah i dont go for those user reviews lol. Its one thing to be accredited with years of documented experience, paid to give an opinionated review using collegiate level grammar and writing structure with an established and expected point of view. Its another thing altogether to read an opinion of an anonymous forum poster, whos motives are unknown, credentials taken on the honor system, an inability to form complete sentences, and a track record of constant bandwagoning and flip flipping riddled with kneejerk reactions and hive mentality.
I don't know how well this works with video games. A lot of times it seems like the idea of the game is reviewed, not the game itself and some games are better at hiding their warts than others. Trained reviewers are often just people who like playing video games. It's not the same as movies or books. There exist people who don't necessarily like movies and books as much as they like picking them apart and talking about all the pieces. There's not much difference between 'reviewers' of video games and 'players' of video games, besides sentence structure. Not as far as I can see.
The important part is knowing what I like. I know what I like, or what I'm likely to enjoy. This is why I like user reviews. Especially negative ones. People who don't like something about a game are going to harp on that something forever. They like nothing better than to show people the warts of the game. Since I know which warts are going to bother me and which ones aren't, I can get useful information from those reviews.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The reviews that are made this early from the games release definately are single character/single play through level of consumed content and therefore should be treated as such.
This doesn't actually invalidate the review, it just means that as far as long term gameplay is concerned, noone will truly know, but track record of video games pretty much paints a picture of alot of people playing - getting bored - and thus purchasing the next MMO/Game which would appear to be Guild wars 2 which will thus get dumped for Mists of Pandaria.
I already know from playing through the first three zones that this game will likely not grab great long term subscriptions due to content and story not being able to be delivered fast enough. But I believe TSW is aiming for the 'Seasonal TV show" effect, in which when content does get released, its substantial and the players will re-subscribe to play through the next story/zones.
Talk about contradicting oneself.
You say that the reviews are from single character/single playthrough and should be treated as such.... you then go on to say that YOU already know from the first three zones that the game won't grab long-term subs due to things that haven't even happened yet, ie; content not being delivered fast enough.
Sooo. It's' ok for you to make your predictions about the game from the first three zones and being released 4 days ago... but we should take the offical reviews with a grain of salt..... may I say.. WOW.
I can't take you seriously as you're saying YOU KNOW that they won't release content fast enough. You don't know anything of the sort. Perhaps you can make this argument again in a month or so and have a spec of credibility.
My take on game "reviews" is pretty cynical these days. Honestly I think it's partially that they're not really reviews, they're opinion columns being touted as reviews. The other reason is that these so called reviewers seem to be riding the same hype wagon that those of us that read the columns are either on or watching.
For instance, Tera and SWTOR. Both had a bunch of Hype, both had amazing reviews right out the door. As the hype from players declined, so to did review scores from "official" sites. They're not reviewing anything, they're just keeping pace with the majority opinion so that they seem like they're "on top of it".
People will eventually decide for themselves anyhow, the reviews do nothing more than add salt to the wound of an already gangrenous hype monster that is inevitably created everytime a new mmo comes out.
My opinion on these things is simple. If it asks you to subscribe to it, hold it to a standard equal to that subscription. If it's worth the 15 to you then good deal, when it's not, don't pay it. Too many people complain and moan that they're not enjoying something or just holding on until the next content patch, in the meantime you're paying them so that you can just wait and not enjoy yourself.
This is a big reason as to why I haven't found myself willing to pay subscription fees anymore. Games without Sub fees don't have to be held to such a high standard because I can just drop it and return to it without any commitment on my part. Again, these are just my opinions.
For TSW, I'll likely play it once it goes FTP and I have a feeling that it's designed to go FTP in a handful of months. Just a gut feeling I have, I have no proof nor do I need to demonstrate any reasonable facts to anyone other than to say that I'm going with my gut on this one.
I wholly believe that an MMO should never be rated until after a full month of play.
Yup. I ignore all reviews, good or bad, until the game has been out a month. At least for MMOs.
I don't understand how these sites feel any sort of journalistic integrity when reviewing an MMO in the first week.
"As you read these words, a release is seven days or less away or has just happened within the last seven days those are now the only two states youll find the world of Tyria."...Guild Wars 2
The fact is, I play the game and see if I like it. If I don't, I don't buy it. If I do, I buy it. I am done being spoonfed all the BS from media, especially since they never know what they are talking about anyways.
Games go from "glowing reviews" to "desert wasteland" in a month, they need to hire some people that actually know what they are talking about with gaming. Most flaws are easily spotted in just a few hours of play. A day one review of an MMO is just completely pointless, unless it was very negative.
Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by DannyGlover Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by DannyGlover The problem is that a lot of so called reviews are nothing more than a personal opinion being presented as objective. We end up knowing more about what the author thinks of the game than the game itself. When you spend one or two sentences describing combat followed by three or four paragraphs of why you love it or hate it, youre no longer reviewing a game... People think thats a review, but its not. Talking about what you think a game should or shouldnt be is not a review either. Its perfectly fine to talk about those things and its a lot of fun too. But i see too many threads entitled "my review of ...." When they are just s list of likes and dislikes. Thats not a review.
No...you have it backwards. Reviews are the reviewer's opinion of the game, which may or may not include actual information about the game. That's why there's a rating associated with reviews. If there was no opinion associated with it, then there would be no rating.
Personally, I'm more interested in the information about the game, usually from the developer's website and 'overview' style articles. Then I like to see user reviews of games. Users are going to have more hangups about what games do and what games don't do, so if there's something in a game you're not going to like, it's probably going to show up in a negative user review. These two things combined usually give me an idea about how long I'll enjoy a game.
With SWToR, I figured the game would be fun for a couple months, maybe three and I was right. Ditto for Rift, though Rift actually lasted longer. Had I don't the same thing with Warhammer, AoC, and STO, I would have known that the games probably weren't worth my time. Yeah i dont go for those user reviews lol. Its one thing to be accredited with years of documented experience, paid to give an opinionated review using collegiate level grammar and writing structure with an established and expected point of view. Its another thing altogether to read an opinion of an anonymous forum poster, whos motives are unknown, credentials taken on the honor system, an inability to form complete sentences, and a track record of constant bandwagoning and flip flipping riddled with kneejerk reactions and hive mentality.
I don't know how well this works with video games. A lot of times it seems like the idea of the game is reviewed, not the game itself and some games are better at hiding their warts than others. Trained reviewers are often just people who like playing video games. It's not the same as movies or books. There exist people who don't necessarily like movies and books as much as they like picking them apart and talking about all the pieces. There's not much difference between 'reviewers' of video games and 'players' of video games, besides sentence structure. Not as far as I can see.
The important part is knowing what I like. I know what I like, or what I'm likely to enjoy. This is why I like user reviews. Especially negative ones. People who don't like something about a game are going to harp on that something forever. They like nothing better than to show people the warts of the game. Since I know which warts are going to bother me and which ones aren't, I can get useful information from those reviews. I can see the logic behind that. I like reviews that explain the various functions of the game.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
I wholly believe that an MMO should never be rated until after a full month of play.
This exactly and the main reason being how can a reviewer experience the game fully enough to make an informed opinion in only a few days play? Yet so many do and so many get it completely wrong.
Expresso gave me a Hearthstone beta key.....I'm so happy
The fact is, I play the game and see if I like it. If I don't, I don't buy it. If I do, I buy it. I am done being spoonfed all the BS from media, especially since they never know what they are talking about anyways.
Games go from "glowing reviews" to "desert wasteland" in a month, they need to hire some people that actually know what they are talking about with gaming. Most flaws are easily spotted in just a few hours of play. A day one review of an MMO is just completely pointless, unless it was very negative.
Originally posted by DannyGlover I can see the logic behind that. I like reviews that explain the various functions of the game.
Yeah, that can be tricky, removing the the opinion bits from the informative bits. It's the difference between calling a game a Wow clone and describing how the skill tree system is nearly identical to WoW's skill tree system. Both could be true, but one doesn't give you anything useful to work with.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I wholly believe that an MMO should never be rated until after a full month of play.
+1
Indeed. TSW is an ok game, but it does have some serious flaws too. Not to speak we know little about the long term value atm.
lets here the serious flaws... let me guess, poor combat animations, clunky feel, 1 - 2 button combat? lmao absolutely love those three since they are extremely flawed perceptions.
I wholly believe that an MMO should never be rated until after a full month of play.
+1
Indeed. TSW is an ok game, but it does have some serious flaws too. Not to speak we know little about the long term value atm.
lets here the serious flaws... let me guess, poor combat animations, clunky feel, 1 - 2 button combat? lmao absolutely love those three since they are extremely flawed perceptions.
Serious flawed for him is that the content is too hard. I'm serious. He made a thread about it.
I wholly believe that an MMO should never be rated until after a full month of play.
+1
Indeed. TSW is an ok game, but it does have some serious flaws too. Not to speak we know little about the long term value atm.
lets here the serious flaws... let me guess, poor combat animations, clunky feel, 1 - 2 button combat? lmao absolutely love those three since they are extremely flawed perceptions.
Broken quests, including main story quests, which prevents your character from advancing forward.
Serious client optimization issues. People with high end machines are reporting inconsistent FPS and stuttering. Personally, I cannot play the game for more than an hour, 2 if I'm really lucky, before I get a huge FPS drop, the client begins to stutter really bad and I have to restart the game.
Broken abilities. Striker does no damage if you use it right after a hinder attack. Since Striker is one of the best single target resource builders in the shotgun line and since there is a passive that makes it do 25% more damage to hindered targets, you can probably see why that is a serious problem.
Quite frankly, and I've been saying this for months now, the game is not finished and was not ready for launch. There are many important "quality of life" features that are simply not added to the UI, making player's life harder than it has to be. For example, the 100% run speed increase requires a certain faction rank to purchase but it does not say that in the tool tip, so you have to guess. A lot of tooltips do not show the actual range of abilities which is important because certain boss fights, like the last boss in the Darkness War, require you to be at as far away as possible from the target (exploding adds). Quests that require you to translate large chunks of text (like that satellite dish quest in Egypt) do not let you copy the text so you have to sit there and retype all of that nonsense.
There are other problems but there is no point in listing them because I can guess right now that they are not an issue for you.
No matter how many videos I watch, the game doesn't look impressive or fun to me. Your attacks barely look like they connect with enemies, there's nothing visceral about combat, and that's important to me. Also, the guy in the review I watched said "People complain about kill x quests, well that's all MMOs are". That poor excuse for lazy game design didn't sit well with me, I've played enough WoW clones already. I'll just wait for a free trial, I'm not going to jump into this potential mess, regardless of how many game zines gave it high scores (don't they always?)
Comments
Also remember game review sites and mags usually get access to an early version so they can get the reviews out when the games launches..
AS for the scores they are giving i think they are about right... i would give it a solid 8/10 myself
At the moment, the players of TSW rate it better than reviewers. I think this is the frst time happening for a major game in a long, long time..
/agreed
If someone is talking in general chat in a language you dont understand, chances are they're not talking to you. So chill out and stop bitching about it!
No...you have it backwards. Reviews are the reviewer's opinion of the game, which may or may not include actual information about the game. That's why there's a rating associated with reviews. If there was no opinion associated with it, then there would be no rating.
Personally, I'm more interested in the information about the game, usually from the developer's website and 'overview' style articles. Then I like to see user reviews of games. Users are going to have more hangups about what games do and what games don't do, so if there's something in a game you're not going to like, it's probably going to show up in a negative user review. These two things combined usually give me an idea about how long I'll enjoy a game.
With SWToR, I figured the game would be fun for a couple months, maybe three and I was right. Ditto for Rift, though Rift actually lasted longer. Had I don't the same thing with Warhammer, AoC, and STO, I would have known that the games probably weren't worth my time.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
^^^^^^This x 1000000,000000000,000000000
"Professional" lol, reviews have absolutely nothing to do with any title, content or the quality of said content within a new game. It is designed to secure as much of the ad budget dollars as possible by any site that posts "professional" lol reviews.
Life IS Feudal
No...you have it backwards. Reviews are the reviewer's opinion of the game, which may or may not include actual information about the game. That's why there's a rating associated with reviews. If there was no opinion associated with it, then there would be no rating.
Personally, I'm more interested in the information about the game, usually from the developer's website and 'overview' style articles. Then I like to see user reviews of games. Users are going to have more hangups about what games do and what games don't do, so if there's something in a game you're not going to like, it's probably going to show up in a negative user review. These two things combined usually give me an idea about how long I'll enjoy a game.
With SWToR, I figured the game would be fun for a couple months, maybe three and I was right. Ditto for Rift, though Rift actually lasted longer. Had I don't the same thing with Warhammer, AoC, and STO, I would have known that the games probably weren't worth my time.
Yeah i dont go for those user reviews lol. Its one thing to be accredited with years of documented experience, paid to give an opinionated review using collegiate level grammar and writing structure with an established and expected point of view. Its another thing altogether to read an opinion of an anonymous forum poster, whos motives are unknown, credentials taken on the honor system, an inability to form complete sentences, and a track record of constant bandwagoning and flip flipping riddled with kneejerk reactions and hive mentality.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
I consider that about any video game, not just an MMO. Heck, I'd say bring back the old "Computer Gaming World" magazine standard, single player games should not be reviewed at least until the reviewer has done a full playtrough from beggining to end. It's what we get for demanding reviews to come out sometimes even before games are out.
What can men do against such reckless hate?
1 day is normaly just not enough of course, but i don't see why i have to wait more than 1 month to review a anything if i already experienced most, if preferably all, of what the game as to offer.
Longevity in an mmos is 1 thing, but that doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the out of the box game. I'm not playing TSW yet, but from what i've been seeing, the game's solid and different, but of course, still as it's flaws and short comings.
But, i don't need to check TSW out in 3 months to mesure how good of a video game it is. Even if this game shut down in 6 months, the quality was still there.
My stance about new MMOs atm is that I won't play a game unless it has been out for at least 6 months and is still doing good.
I am not saying this is the way to go, but it's what works for me. I could go on a long rant about why I think like this, but I ll say, in short, that longevity is an important factor when I choose a game.
I do understand that those players who hope from game to game every few weeks find those short term reviews useful, but ppl should not find surprising at all that some of us consider them worthless.
I guess it's got to do with the kind of player you are, as usual.
I am keeping an eye on this game, and these reviews are just more information. Thanks for the input, but I take all these reviews with a pinch of salt.. and pepper, lol.
Edit: horrendous grammar... yes what was written before was even worse XD
No...you have it backwards. Reviews are the reviewer's opinion of the game, which may or may not include actual information about the game. That's why there's a rating associated with reviews. If there was no opinion associated with it, then there would be no rating.
Personally, I'm more interested in the information about the game, usually from the developer's website and 'overview' style articles. Then I like to see user reviews of games. Users are going to have more hangups about what games do and what games don't do, so if there's something in a game you're not going to like, it's probably going to show up in a negative user review. These two things combined usually give me an idea about how long I'll enjoy a game.
With SWToR, I figured the game would be fun for a couple months, maybe three and I was right. Ditto for Rift, though Rift actually lasted longer. Had I don't the same thing with Warhammer, AoC, and STO, I would have known that the games probably weren't worth my time.
Yeah i dont go for those user reviews lol. Its one thing to be accredited with years of documented experience, paid to give an opinionated review using collegiate level grammar and writing structure with an established and expected point of view. Its another thing altogether to read an opinion of an anonymous forum poster, whos motives are unknown, credentials taken on the honor system, an inability to form complete sentences, and a track record of constant bandwagoning and flip flipping riddled with kneejerk reactions and hive mentality.
I don't know how well this works with video games. A lot of times it seems like the idea of the game is reviewed, not the game itself and some games are better at hiding their warts than others. Trained reviewers are often just people who like playing video games. It's not the same as movies or books. There exist people who don't necessarily like movies and books as much as they like picking them apart and talking about all the pieces. There's not much difference between 'reviewers' of video games and 'players' of video games, besides sentence structure. Not as far as I can see.
The important part is knowing what I like. I know what I like, or what I'm likely to enjoy. This is why I like user reviews. Especially negative ones. People who don't like something about a game are going to harp on that something forever. They like nothing better than to show people the warts of the game. Since I know which warts are going to bother me and which ones aren't, I can get useful information from those reviews.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Talk about contradicting oneself.
You say that the reviews are from single character/single playthrough and should be treated as such.... you then go on to say that YOU already know from the first three zones that the game won't grab long-term subs due to things that haven't even happened yet, ie; content not being delivered fast enough.
Sooo. It's' ok for you to make your predictions about the game from the first three zones and being released 4 days ago... but we should take the offical reviews with a grain of salt..... may I say.. WOW.
I can't take you seriously as you're saying YOU KNOW that they won't release content fast enough. You don't know anything of the sort. Perhaps you can make this argument again in a month or so and have a spec of credibility.
My take on game "reviews" is pretty cynical these days. Honestly I think it's partially that they're not really reviews, they're opinion columns being touted as reviews. The other reason is that these so called reviewers seem to be riding the same hype wagon that those of us that read the columns are either on or watching.
For instance, Tera and SWTOR. Both had a bunch of Hype, both had amazing reviews right out the door. As the hype from players declined, so to did review scores from "official" sites. They're not reviewing anything, they're just keeping pace with the majority opinion so that they seem like they're "on top of it".
People will eventually decide for themselves anyhow, the reviews do nothing more than add salt to the wound of an already gangrenous hype monster that is inevitably created everytime a new mmo comes out.
My opinion on these things is simple. If it asks you to subscribe to it, hold it to a standard equal to that subscription. If it's worth the 15 to you then good deal, when it's not, don't pay it. Too many people complain and moan that they're not enjoying something or just holding on until the next content patch, in the meantime you're paying them so that you can just wait and not enjoy yourself.
This is a big reason as to why I haven't found myself willing to pay subscription fees anymore. Games without Sub fees don't have to be held to such a high standard because I can just drop it and return to it without any commitment on my part. Again, these are just my opinions.
For TSW, I'll likely play it once it goes FTP and I have a feeling that it's designed to go FTP in a handful of months. Just a gut feeling I have, I have no proof nor do I need to demonstrate any reasonable facts to anyone other than to say that I'm going with my gut on this one.
Too early to tell if you ask me.
I will say this much, from the vocal majority I see it has had a smooth launch, which is a giant step for Funcom considering AoC and AO launches.
I am looking forward to trying out TSW in about 6 months.
Yup. I ignore all reviews, good or bad, until the game has been out a month. At least for MMOs.
I don't understand how these sites feel any sort of journalistic integrity when reviewing an MMO in the first week.
"As you read these words, a release is seven days or less away or has just happened within the last seven days those are now the only two states youll find the world of Tyria."...Guild Wars 2
I can't take review sites seriously anymore.
The fact is, I play the game and see if I like it. If I don't, I don't buy it. If I do, I buy it. I am done being spoonfed all the BS from media, especially since they never know what they are talking about anyways.
Games go from "glowing reviews" to "desert wasteland" in a month, they need to hire some people that actually know what they are talking about with gaming. Most flaws are easily spotted in just a few hours of play. A day one review of an MMO is just completely pointless, unless it was very negative.
No...you have it backwards. Reviews are the reviewer's opinion of the game, which may or may not include actual information about the game. That's why there's a rating associated with reviews. If there was no opinion associated with it, then there would be no rating.
Personally, I'm more interested in the information about the game, usually from the developer's website and 'overview' style articles. Then I like to see user reviews of games. Users are going to have more hangups about what games do and what games don't do, so if there's something in a game you're not going to like, it's probably going to show up in a negative user review. These two things combined usually give me an idea about how long I'll enjoy a game.
With SWToR, I figured the game would be fun for a couple months, maybe three and I was right. Ditto for Rift, though Rift actually lasted longer. Had I don't the same thing with Warhammer, AoC, and STO, I would have known that the games probably weren't worth my time.
Yeah i dont go for those user reviews lol. Its one thing to be accredited with years of documented experience, paid to give an opinionated review using collegiate level grammar and writing structure with an established and expected point of view. Its another thing altogether to read an opinion of an anonymous forum poster, whos motives are unknown, credentials taken on the honor system, an inability to form complete sentences, and a track record of constant bandwagoning and flip flipping riddled with kneejerk reactions and hive mentality.
I don't know how well this works with video games. A lot of times it seems like the idea of the game is reviewed, not the game itself and some games are better at hiding their warts than others. Trained reviewers are often just people who like playing video games. It's not the same as movies or books. There exist people who don't necessarily like movies and books as much as they like picking them apart and talking about all the pieces. There's not much difference between 'reviewers' of video games and 'players' of video games, besides sentence structure. Not as far as I can see.
The important part is knowing what I like. I know what I like, or what I'm likely to enjoy. This is why I like user reviews. Especially negative ones. People who don't like something about a game are going to harp on that something forever. They like nothing better than to show people the warts of the game. Since I know which warts are going to bother me and which ones aren't, I can get useful information from those reviews.
I can see the logic behind that. I like reviews that explain the various functions of the game.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
This exactly and the main reason being how can a reviewer experience the game fully enough to make an informed opinion in only a few days play? Yet so many do and so many get it completely wrong.
Expresso gave me a Hearthstone beta key.....I'm so happy
+1
Yeah, that can be tricky, removing the the opinion bits from the informative bits. It's the difference between calling a game a Wow clone and describing how the skill tree system is nearly identical to WoW's skill tree system. Both could be true, but one doesn't give you anything useful to work with.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
+1
Indeed. TSW is an ok game, but it does have some serious flaws too. Not to speak we know little about the long term value atm.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
lets here the serious flaws... let me guess, poor combat animations, clunky feel, 1 - 2 button combat? lmao absolutely love those three since they are extremely flawed perceptions.
Serious flawed for him is that the content is too hard. I'm serious. He made a thread about it.
Broken quests, including main story quests, which prevents your character from advancing forward.
Serious client optimization issues. People with high end machines are reporting inconsistent FPS and stuttering. Personally, I cannot play the game for more than an hour, 2 if I'm really lucky, before I get a huge FPS drop, the client begins to stutter really bad and I have to restart the game.
Broken abilities. Striker does no damage if you use it right after a hinder attack. Since Striker is one of the best single target resource builders in the shotgun line and since there is a passive that makes it do 25% more damage to hindered targets, you can probably see why that is a serious problem.
Quite frankly, and I've been saying this for months now, the game is not finished and was not ready for launch. There are many important "quality of life" features that are simply not added to the UI, making player's life harder than it has to be. For example, the 100% run speed increase requires a certain faction rank to purchase but it does not say that in the tool tip, so you have to guess. A lot of tooltips do not show the actual range of abilities which is important because certain boss fights, like the last boss in the Darkness War, require you to be at as far away as possible from the target (exploding adds). Quests that require you to translate large chunks of text (like that satellite dish quest in Egypt) do not let you copy the text so you have to sit there and retype all of that nonsense.
There are other problems but there is no point in listing them because I can guess right now that they are not an issue for you.
No matter how many videos I watch, the game doesn't look impressive or fun to me. Your attacks barely look like they connect with enemies, there's nothing visceral about combat, and that's important to me. Also, the guy in the review I watched said "People complain about kill x quests, well that's all MMOs are". That poor excuse for lazy game design didn't sit well with me, I've played enough WoW clones already. I'll just wait for a free trial, I'm not going to jump into this potential mess, regardless of how many game zines gave it high scores (don't they always?)