Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Angry Joe Show 5/10
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Huh? That bad? I usually like his reports and this time did not even bother to listen, because I will not playing. Not because what Angry Joe think, but because WASD used instead of mouse buttons to move. Obstacle I have decided long ago I will never again pass over. But this report of his tells me that game is really in pretty bad shape. Would be acceptable i.e. 10 years ago, but not in 2014. However I wish all best to those that enjoy it.
I have subbed for a few months , after that who knows , but I have no regrets so far. Sure there have been a few issues , but isn't there with most Mmo's on launch ?
So... you did not even listen, yet "this report of his tells me that game is really in pretty bad shape".
Wow.
Yes. Nobody has played the game and agree with the guy because it's true. He has mass hypnosis powers that only works on week minded sheeple. For shame.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I point to the post above this where I quoted someone else. Someone who seems to know nothing really of the game besides "i dont like it because of WASD", and agrees with Joe even though he didnt even listen to the review.
Well, I for one listened to the review in its entirety, and I found it actually fairly accurate (and humorous).
He praises the game where praise is due, but says that really this is a "weak" performance from ZO when expectations were so high for an elder scrolls game.
The so called "fanboys" can't disagree with him because he is simply right in that (his main complaints):
- the game isn't really fit for groups/grouping (lots of mechanics are getting in the way - he gives numerous examples if you care to watch his video)
- that the game (PvE) feels very static and empty (invasion = 5 soldiers fighting 1 on 1, not really epic).
Yes, on the whole it is an average performance for an MMO that feels incomplete. Nobody can prove the contrary, because it simply is. Everyone knows it could be so much better if bugs were fixed... if grouping was done better... if... if... if... (add your own)
ESO is an almost MMO.
This is the first thing he says in his review btw, he wanted to like it, but they failed to deliver. And they did fail. When the game is fixed, in X weeks/months, then go and ask him to "re review" the game if you feel it deserves better. But not right now. Right now, the game simply isn't where it should be.
Where I disagree with him is when he is saying the graphics aren't great (yes, there are ugly textures here and there, but overall it looks great). He is also very caricatural and exaggerates, but it's in his name: angry so I didn't expect him to be politically correct.
I think Angry Joe is amusing, but , PERSONALLY, i dont put any validity in his opinions. He liked GW2, I hated it and I really havent seen him review any MMO's Ive been interested in since then. He clearly doesnt like ESO, I do. So, obviously, we dont have the same gaming tastes, its that simple.
Also, I dont understand why everyone says the Imperial Edition is a cash grab. Yeah you get another race AND a mount for 20 more dollars. And? Lets use the MMO most compared to when any game comes out - WoW - it has several mounts on its cash shop for 25 bucks. Its a sub based game. No one calls it a huge money grab? Yeah you get another race, so what. Its not like its a super powered race. If you care about being able to play an Imperial on any faction then you could of just pre ordered and been able to play ANY race with any faction. I just dont get it, but thats just me.
Why can't we all just get along?
Also, when I look at reviews to purchase a game, I typically go to about half a dozen sites (IGN, PCGamer, Gamespot, MMORPG, Kotaku, Joystiq)
Then I go to half a dozen youtube reviewers (TotalBiscuit, Angry Joe, Machinima, Game Trailers, Angry Video Game Nerd, and SPOONY!!)
Or you can just go to metacritic.
If you like a game, there will most likely be others there with you...just enjoy your community and have fun
"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
Didn't watch the review.
Anyway, if it is his personal oppinion, sury why not.
If you see it as a review in context of all the other themepark MMOs out there a 5/10 is nonsense for ESO. A 7/10 would be more accurate.
But of course extreme reviews generate mre clicks.
5/10 is average and 7/10 is above average.
Extreme review would be more like between 1 to 2 out of 10.
Since when calling a game average is extreme?
I agree on the mount part, its been done in almost every AAA release so far. But locking out an entire race in a game, that already has a box price and a monthly sub, is super greedy IMO.
WOW didn't release with a very expensive in game horse to push people towards horse in cash shop. Blizz added mount to cash shop much much later on .
And those horses in cash shop are not necessity but more like a fluff because mounts are easily obtainable in game.
Where as in ESO it is a necessity give then huge size of maps especially in PVP. Why you thinkin game people joke and call ESO a walking simiulator?
Your comparison with WOW's cash shop is completely wrong.
It's extreme because reviewers don't use ratings that way. Usually 5 is a bad game, 7-8 average, 9-10 great. 1-4 is nearly never ever given to a game unless it is really crap. The ratings are not given in a linear way (hope that makes sense
).
Look at Angry Joes own reviews. GW2 is a 10/10 and ESI is 5/10 ? Really. THose two games aren't really that different. Bot themeparks, both some RvR, in both you most content is soloable with some added dungeons. If action bars are quite similiar. 10/10 for GW2 was too extreme, 5/10 for ESO is the same just the other way around.
people generally stick with what they know from school for scoring. 6/10 is an F, 7/10 a C, 8/10 a B, ect. Reviewers, to an extent have also been using scores like that for a while. Heck its even gotten so bad, that in some circles a 8/10 is viewed as 'average'.
I would say its because 9/10+ gets thrown around to much.
Also Angry Joe REALLY dislikes the sub model, thats, probably a large reason he gave GW2 a 10/10 rather than say, an 8/10.
Sadly he was not saying average good, he was saying for this market its average. Its with another bad game that was not finished or thought through. He does not like the game and his recommendation is not to buy and wait for it to go F2P. Not saying I agree with him but thats what I got from him.
Either you like it or not, smoothness on launch matters a lot for a review. Maybe not for a review after 2-3 months, but 10 days post launch it sure matters. GW2 had a great launch while ESO launch almost sucked. GW2 also is sub free and that's something Joe said many times for ESO. Expectations for a SUB based game are higher and you forgive less easily the weaknesses in a sub based game.
Imo GW2 8.5 / ESO 6.5
You are just looking at the final score and not the content of review. if you watch the whole thing he has praised many things about the game... PVP, exploration, music etc for instance.
So considering he didn't call ESO 100% terrible the scores make sense.
I think people are so used to seeing score like 8+ from big sites like IGN that 5/10 would seem extreme to them even though it means an average not terrible.
Joe's scoring is linear though, that is what causes so much 'confusion' since a lot of people don't listen to what he actually says about the game, just it's score and compare it to other games scores by other reviewers who don't share the same values when putting a score on a game.
I tend to agree with Joe on many reviews. He's like my Roger Ebert of the gaming world. While I wouldn't completely avoid a game because of his review, but it gives me a better idea of what to expect if I do decide to purchase.
As for your second point about the Imperial Edition. Many people, including myself, called it a cash grab because that's what it was. An entire race was locked behind a pay wall, in a game that is subscription based before the game was even released. Basically on par with day 1 DLC, which also tends to piss a great many people off. Your comparison to WoW's mounts isn't apples to apples. The mounts didn't appear until WotLK which was a good 4 years AFTER the release of WoW and a number of mounts and pets were part of fundraiser for different charities/relief efforts. Sure, it's additional content locked behind a pay wall, but it's not like any of the mounts in WoW are anything more than pure cosmetics.
Yes, they do. Because it is.
The big difference between ESO and WoW regarding mounts is that WoW makes mounts very accessible in game, the ones on the cash shop simply offer different cosmetics.
ESO on the other hand charges an arm and a leg for mounts unless you purchase the Imperial edition, in which case you can get a mount right out of the gate for 1 gold as opposed to 17K gold.
What really sucks is that a lot of us spent the extra $20 on the Imperial Edition to get the mount only to find out that it offers a pathetic 15% speed boost. Talk about a rip off.
I think most will agree both games are very similar in a lot of ways, despite what GW2 or ESO haters will say. Most of us seem to recognize that. However those features that you listed that gives both games their similarity are not the reason for ESO's low score. Not sure if you watched the review, but Angry Joe specifically calls out points such as pay walls for race and horse, bugs, and phasing issues/design just to name a few as his main beefs with the game. He then shows video proof to back up what he says, unlike the majority of other reviewers of games.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
Accoding to what I have been reading on these boards lately, ESO has a very simple scale
[ ] YES: I love ESO
[ ] Hater
I noticed you couldn't name me any games that are currently out. Point proven next! If you can't pay 50 cents a day ontop of a box price I would hate to see what you do when you see an ad on tv about feeding children from a third world country for 25 cents a day. So, it's not worth 50 cents a day to sub for a game. But, it's okay to get a deluxe founder's package for a game for say 75 dollars?A game that most people just want alpha or closed beta access to. You people really have a warped sense of spending money. Subscriptions are the devil.... Meanwhile some guy is spending 900 bucks a month on gamble boxes trying to get a rare squirrel or a gold gun to mow down people. Yay f2p!