I'm not really sure why the commenters are focusing on this New World comparison. I don't have the NW beta, I haven't played it, so I'm not aware of the similarities. But does that really matter? All PvPMMOs are going to have similarities. Why not make comparisons with Darkfall or Albion or EVE?
I'll give my opinion on Crowfall, unadulterated with comparisons. I bought that game ages ago, and only started playing seriously at launch, ignoring the alpha and beta phases almost entirely. I was pretty excited to try something new, but my expectations weren't very high; the game LOOKS unfinished.
The tutorial areas seemed to be teeming with players, which got me hopeful, but after reaching max level I quickly realized that the population in PvP zones was incredibly scarce. The people who were in these zones were grouped up guildies, usually in the form of gank squads or harvesters. A friendly guild saved me from a gank, and I joined them so I had people to play with.
That all seemed to be promising, but after about a week of trying to play daily, I realized how the odds were stacked against us. The vast majority of players had joined one of about 4 zerg guilds, and the dominated the PvP guild vs guild maps. It wasn't unusually to see one guild owning almost all the keeps on a single map, and since the "capture the flag" style seiges were always on timers, they could arrive early for defenses. The traditional flaw in a massive army simply being spread too thin to defend every front; because of the timers, this isn't really an issue.
If you're not in a zerg, you can join an alliance with the other small guilds. But you totally lack cohesion. Almost all of the planning has to be done through Discord; there's really no in-game interface for planning and communication that I found. The game is "hardcore", so fine, you have to do a bit extra to be any good. But the real problem is that allied guilds dont share ownership of keeps or resources, afaik. Inevitably, you'll be letting the strongest guild in your alliance take the most keeps, since they have the best chances defending them anyway. And they don't really have a tangible benefit in sharing, either.
But that's guild v guild, and it's kind of a clusterf***. That's not surprising, and this game was billed as faction vs faction anyway. Well, I can't really speak to FvF, since it didn't release on launch week. I fully admit, I didn't stick around for that, and that might be where it's at. But remember, having a factionVs faction server AND a guildvsguild server is splitting an already small playerbase. I suspect that large guilds will steal their members away to the guild war servers, since it's easiest for them to dominate there.
As for the crafting, harvesting and general grind, the reviewer is right on the money. I want to add that dedicated harvest/craft characters have this weird ...ability? It's supposed to make harvesting more engaging, but all it does it build 'pips' when you hit resource nodes. When you have the right amount of pips, you activate your harvesting ability to have some insignificant, 3 second buff to.. something. I suppose you can stack and exploit these bonuses, but it doesn't really help the fact that harvesting is tied to your stamina bar. You have to stop 3-4 times while harvesting a single resource node, just to catch your breath. This makes everything incredible tedious.
The combat is the main draw, and personally I find it quite finicky. Like the reviewer said, abilities lack visual impact, and you are never really sure what is working. I found myself using the same cycle-through of abilities every time, but never seemed to have enough visual or numerical information as to whether it was effective.
The problem for me, most likely, was that I was playing a build that heavily relied on crowd control. The problem is that every single class has a built-in CC break out button. It drains some of their stamina, so you're best bet is to stack CC over and over. This means the main effect of CC at all is to force the enemy to use their CC breaks and waste all their stamina.
This doesn't really create a responsive and interesting combat in my opinion. Most of the time, in the chaos of a fight, you will have very little idea as to how effective your CC abilities are, nor how much stamina an enemy might have to spend on breaking. Visually, many abilities and effects are very similar, so it's difficult to make split-decisions on how to respond. I devolved into using my most powerful AoE attacks, just so I knew I was doing -something-.
I suspect that the combat system is very complex, but it's hard to learn by playing. Everyone in my guild relied on build guides and figuring out the meta. That's inevitable in any PvP game, but it's hard to tell if your personal adjustments and experimentation is paying off. Heck, it's hard to tell how effective these build guides are.
I've been pretty harsh. The thing is, I really wanted to like this game. I like the idea of twitchy, action-rpg combat, guild wars and sieges, and all the neat race/class combinations. But nothing about Crowfall is working for me. It all feels like it needs a lot more work. The desolate, blocky landscapes add to this feeling of "still in beta". It's kind of a dreary, confusing game to play. And I really don't want it to be, since all the ideas it has seem solid. In fewer words, execution is lacking.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Looks like Artcraft has paid (each person states that this is sponsored by Artcraft in the video) the C and D Tier streamers to create "Crowfall vs New World" videos and say that Crowfall is great.
It's soooooo bad it's painful to watch these things.
Here's an example:
C & D tier streamers? Why insult people like that?
CF only has low sub number content creators but they are very informative so what's the problem and why does it matter how many subs they have? If they make videos that would not otherwise be available with helpful information then what's the problem?
Here are the OTHER videos by Parfax, Dvalin and Ezzorath...
All of them possibly give their biased opinions and comparisons because they are all Crowfall players. Watch the video for comparisons and just keep in mind that they may lean toward CF over NW.
I suggest the 2nd video by Dvalin for the most moderate middle ground comparisons IMO.
Not every person is satisfied with New World and ACE possibly saw an opportunity to attract some players which you're somehow making out to be a nefarious act.
It's called competition... something I thought everyone here wanted? Remember everyone here saying "competition from Epic launcher will make Steam improve"?
What if ACE saw an opportunity to get some sales from people unhappy with New World? Do we live in a happy sunshine world where companies in direct competition can no longer compete with one other? Maybe CF attracting some New World players will make it improve? I personally think it won't cause AGS doesn't need our money but that's another topic..
As a CF player I think the game has a lot to offer people who are dissatisfied with New World. Maybe they can dabble in CF for a month until NW comes out? They are both the same price, both have PVP, crafting etc. One was made for 20x the cost of the other but that's a whole nother topic.
All of them possibly give their biased opinions and comparisons because they are all Crowfall players. Watch the video for comparisons and just keep in mind that they may lean toward CF over NW.
As I said, Amazon paid streamers to play their game and stream them playing it. Artcraft paid the C and D Tier streamers to make "Are Crowfall and New World the same game?" videos.
If Artcraft pushes out the Faction patch to live next week, I'll be right in their giving it a shot. But that doesn't make these videos any less cringeworthy.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
What's the polar opposite of scrub? cause your entire post should be printed out and sent via snail mail to ACE immediately. What you wrote is absolutely amazing and deserves some type of award tbh.
Where's @Scot ??? he's usually around to do this so I'll step in just this one time and say...
I backed the game while it was in kickstarter, I mixed on the game. Sometimes the pvp is intense and fun, other times I'm wondering how the f*** did this get out of alpha.
One thing that EVERYONE should read though and I'm interested in the reviews' opinion on this.
Not everyone is meant to be a crafter. There is a spot for any "type" of player example: the no crafting pvper that only plays on the weekend can still be competitive and have fun with his buds pvping and looting farmers ( I know because that is me lol ) a good crafter is a gem of a find and is sought after by guilds. Which in turn creates politics.
With that said the game needs a ton of work it has no business being launched at the moment, sever sync is trash, zone caps ruin ( and cater cheap tactics like zone cap blocking ) and the lack of information available is criminal. I honestly think when they scraped the offline training and revamped the talents it set the game game 3+ years. That time could have been used fixing the most pressing issues that plague the game.
To close, I think the game needs time I can definitely see a market for this game and it has a decent floor to work from but let's not kid ourselves, this in alpha through and through. Sorry Todd j Coleman I loved shadowbane but you gotta fix this mess
Looks like Artcraft has paid (each person states that this is sponsored by Artcraft in the video) the C and D Tier streamers to create "Crowfall vs New World" videos and say that Crowfall is great.
It's soooooo bad it's painful to watch these things.
Here's an example:
He said it was his own opinion though at the beginning of the video. So are you just saying he's lying?
Anyways. New World is a sandbox game looking for a soul. Crowfall is a soul that has way too many demands on the player to ever be big in its current form.
I've played both.
The above review is pretty spot on from my experience. Crowfall is great if you have a big guild to roll in. Perhaps Faction vs. Faction will fix that issue or maybe it will destroy the Guild vs. Guild worlds.
Who knows, but they should have committed to it being in launch or delay if not ready. Once you lose the player base, it's really hard to get them back.
But New World will get an 8 from this site once released. And SOLO gets a higher one too?
Smells like paid reviews are more favorable, right?
Imagine thinking that reviews on this website are paid and sponsorship deals are not disclosed. Also, the score this site gave it was generous if you ask me.
Looks like Artcraft has paid (each person states that this is sponsored by Artcraft in the video) the C and D Tier streamers to create "Crowfall vs New World" videos and say that Crowfall is great.
It's soooooo bad it's painful to watch these things.
Here's an example:
C & D tier streamers? Why insult people like that?
CF only has low sub number content creators but they are very informative so what's the problem and why does it matter how many subs they have? If they make videos that would not otherwise be available with helpful information then what's the problem?
Here are the OTHER videos by Parfax, Dvalin and Ezzorath...
All of them possibly give their biased opinions and comparisons because they are all Crowfall players. Watch the video for comparisons and just keep in mind that they may lean toward CF over NW.
I suggest the 2nd video by Dvalin for the most moderate middle ground comparisons IMO.
Not every person is satisfied with New World and ACE possibly saw an opportunity to attract some players which you're somehow making out to be a nefarious act.
It's called competition... something I thought everyone here wanted? Remember everyone here saying "competition from Epic launcher will make Steam improve"?
What if ACE saw an opportunity to get some sales from people unhappy with New World? Do we live in a happy sunshine world where companies in direct competition can no longer compete with one other? Maybe CF attracting some New World players will make it improve? I personally think it won't cause AGS doesn't need our money but that's another topic..
As a CF player I think the game has a lot to offer people who are dissatisfied with New World. Maybe they can dabble in CF for a month until NW comes out? They are both the same price, both have PVP, crafting etc. One was made for 20x the cost of the other but that's a whole nother topic.
Not gonna argue which one is better.. but..
Crowfall was made with around, what, a 35 to 40 Million-ish Budget and New World has had hundreds of millions dumped into it.
If New World is not at least somewhat better than Crowfall, then seriously.. What the Fuck.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
But New World will get an 8 from this site once released. And SOLO gets a higher one too?
Smells like paid reviews are more favorable, right?
Dude, the game is a bucket full of turds. It can't even entice its target audience.
Also, to the guy above me: Everquest was made with $3 million, and was made form the ground-up with no existing technology to leapfrog off of, by a small team.
If you account for inflation, that's still around $5 million in 2020.
There is no excuse for Crowfall; or any of these awful MMO's over the past decade.
After years and years of MMO draught we are now bickering about which of all the newly released, or soon to be released, MMORPGs is better, what a great situation to be in.
Unfortunately the fuel that keeps the Crowfall engine going is player numbers, even more then in New World or SOLO, and without FvF at launch, an unfinished UI, still limited social options (horrible chat and no cross-guild communication tools to form alliances for instance) and this feeling of lack of polish these numbers have a hard time recovering, let alone grow. Can it happen? Sure, and I hope so because I really want it to succeed and play some more of the excellent classes. But it is really unlikely, and since I am having more fun in SOLO and New World my time will be devoted to these two for now.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
But New World will get an 8 from this site once released. And SOLO gets a higher one too?
Smells like paid reviews are more favorable, right?
Nah, I actually think a 5.0 is too high.
Yep, 5.0 feels like a higher score then crowfall deserves; the game very much feels like it's in a alpha state compared to what actual game polish feels like once one experiences it.
Fishing on Gilgamesh since 2013 Fishing on Bronzebeard since 2005 Fishing in RL since 1992 Born with a fishing rod in my hand in 1979
Also,
to the guy above me: Everquest was made with $3 million, and was made
form the ground-up with no existing technology to leapfrog off of, by a
small team.
This would also be feasible nowadays. But the finished product (which would be similar to the original Everquest) would no longer be in the league of modern MMORPGs. It would be more comparable to an MMO-light version of Valheim.
Does anyone even look at games that score less than 8 in gaming reviews?
If I remember right, Metacritic gives you a green colour at 75+ and that is what every studio aims for. I remember an article (on here?) with EA executives where 74 was a fail.
Personally I will look at anything that is 70+ unless it is in a genre that I really love, there I will look at anything 65+. Very rarely buy them, but I will look at them.
I am not sure a 5.0 is fair, for example "world feels empty" is hardly a design fault. But clearly the game was going to get a score below that which was acceptable for me. That said we invest way top much faith in these scores but I had already decided that I was not going to play CF before at least next year anyway, it was obvious they needed time to sort the game out.
Finally I would say that we often call for innovation on here, we often bemoan the state of one template themeparks. CF was a shot of something different I am hoping they can turn it round, AO did.
What's the polar opposite of scrub? cause your entire post should be printed out and sent via snail mail to ACE immediately. What you wrote is absolutely amazing and deserves some type of award tbh.
Where's @Scot ??? he's usually around to do this so I'll step in just this one time and say...
"Welcome to the forums!"
I missed that guy, well done!
Oh and why all the comparisons to NW, they released too close together and even though they have very different gameplay that's all it takes.
Crowfall got 5 from a site that gave 7 to torchlight III (gees) and 9 to cyberpunk (really?)
And I will not list other massive misses by them.
I'm not questioning CF review, its personal opinion based on very short playtime and that is ok. Not every game suits every reviewer. Some people like Fortnite while some like Eve Online better and completely hate Fortnite. Opinions are like asses, everyone has one and most smell bad.
What I'm questioning is the objectivity when it comes to well established brands. Where is the guts to call out ESO expansions a simple money grab? How can you rate 2 dungeons, one map and 3 quests for 50$ an 8+? And this for multiple expansions over the years? Yet when a small company show up with a novel idea its torn down in an instant? How can I trust your 5 when you gave torchlight (a game that is practically already dead) a 7?
I'm curious to read about New World review and see if they will have the guts to call it what it is: A game that has stolen all of its elements from other games without offering anything original in return. I predict a cool 8 (maybe 7.5 if they have a bad day) from mmorpg.com for NW once its releases. Not 4-5 that it deserves (in my personal opinion).
No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
On one hand, reviews are nothing more than one's opinion (take it as a grain of salt).
On the other hand, they're a company where a good portion of their lively-hood comes from adverts. If you bite the hand that feeds---
If you think any other review site or influencer is any different, you'd be wrong to think they won't be nice to a company that continues to fund them.
If you want the most unbiased review of a game. Watch a video that has no comments from the reviewer. Just raw gameplay footage.
Sadly this is what I suspect as well. This site used to have "braver" reviews. Now they are just brave when there is no money to lose. I guess I'm just getting tired of everyone selling out for a fistful of dollars.
No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.
This is the only MMO I bought into on kickstarter, eh I do regret it but I'm not bitter over it. I don't think they wronged me or ran away with my money so its just on me.
2 biggest things the game needs asap, IMO.
F2P option. Into the action immediately. This long tutorial where you run and run and run is the weirdest choice for starting point in a PvP centric game.
It is hard to gauge combat, classes, without the mass players it was designed around.
I didn't buy into it but I came close at one point. This is one that was definitely not a questionable near-scam and I had no doubts that it would be released. I'm glad I didn't though because...
... as you say, the game's Achilles heel is that it's meant to work with large numbers and barely works at all with their current low pop. That should be their priority and if it means going F2P early, so be it because it really, really needs extra bodies.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
What I have a hard time understanding is how these Crowfall devs can epic fail this much.
These are supposed to be experts, its not like they just invested 30+mil overnight into an unlucky gamble. This was developed over many years. They had plenty of time to figure out there was no audience for what they were making. How can these people be so blinded to make a game that doesn't even attract a niche audience. If they wanted an extremely niche hardcore server to fulfil some dream, they could have had it, but at least make a game with servers that appeals to an audience that will sustain it. They completely wasted all these peoples money.
I mean I guess if a game thinks its going to get 500k subs and ends up with 400k, 20% off could be disastrous to your business plan. Even 50% off sure that's a pretty serious misjudgment. People are saying this game is dead after a month live. This is beyond ridiculous.
Missing the mark completely after this many years. They couldn't see the warning signs? This is supposed to be a business to make money, not some lovesick fanboi hobby project. These devs need to get outside there little bubble echochamber. They were stars in their own little world while it lasted. Having their hardcore tiny audience telling them how great they are. Not strong enough to put their foot down and make the hard decisions to make the game attractive to a bigger audience. Too afraid of their clueless rabid fanboi's on the forums.
I will give at least some credit to NW, someone in that chain of command was smart enough to make the hard decision to redesign the game for a larger audience and take the fanbois heat in Alpha.
I wonder if anyone learned a lesson of what success looks like versus complete failure. I doubt it.
That review almost exactly reflects my experience and view of the game. I want to cheer it on because I only really play mmos for group pvp, and for years I have been looking for a RvR focused game, but unfortunately CF a convoluted mess on so many levels.
If it can't even hold onto people who love RvR pvp, who exactly is the audience for this game anyway?
Unfortunately, despite RvR being one of the only unique selling points of the genre, MMOs have gotten REALLY fucking bad at it. And it looks like Camelot Unchained will also flop - perhaps even run out of money before launch.
I disagree that opinions are relative and such. I think a good review is absolute cause is not trying to convince you to play or not play something, but it is elaborating if the media achieved it's goal (whatever it is) and that might help you to make a purchase decision.
But, the real point is: Doesn't matter if something is bad or good - if you enjoy playing you enjoy playing it and nobody can take it from you.
I'll enjoy my Quest 64 even if the entire internet slaps me in the face for it. And I know the game sucks. I just love it for some reason. No shame about it.
And I love Crowfall concept. But the execution... oh, boy - the execution is lacking to say the least. You can see the ideas. And I can basically hear the meetings and the brainstorming.
But most of its mechanics feels redundant or just fillers.
Here's the problem. Reviews aren't absolute, because you aren't accounting for whether the reviewer even likes the goal that the game is or isn't achieving.
If a reviewer doesn't like RvR PvP games, they shouldn't be reviewing them. If a reviewer doesn't like Musou games, they shouldn't be reviewing them. If a reviewer doesn't like strategy RPGs or JRPGs, they shouldn't review them. But they do anyway, and often disproportionately so. Certain franchises actually ARE unfairly defined by people who don't like them, so it's actually hard to find trustworthy authorities on what is and isn't a good entry.
You don't see me reviewing survival games, hardcore PvP MMOs, battle royales, first person shooters, etc. Because I don't like them and I'm not qualified to judge.
Comments
I'll give my opinion on Crowfall, unadulterated with comparisons. I bought that game ages ago, and only started playing seriously at launch, ignoring the alpha and beta phases almost entirely. I was pretty excited to try something new, but my expectations weren't very high; the game LOOKS unfinished.
The tutorial areas seemed to be teeming with players, which got me hopeful, but after reaching max level I quickly realized that the population in PvP zones was incredibly scarce. The people who were in these zones were grouped up guildies, usually in the form of gank squads or harvesters. A friendly guild saved me from a gank, and I joined them so I had people to play with.
That all seemed to be promising, but after about a week of trying to play daily, I realized how the odds were stacked against us. The vast majority of players had joined one of about 4 zerg guilds, and the dominated the PvP guild vs guild maps. It wasn't unusually to see one guild owning almost all the keeps on a single map, and since the "capture the flag" style seiges were always on timers, they could arrive early for defenses. The traditional flaw in a massive army simply being spread too thin to defend every front; because of the timers, this isn't really an issue.
If you're not in a zerg, you can join an alliance with the other small guilds. But you totally lack cohesion. Almost all of the planning has to be done through Discord; there's really no in-game interface for planning and communication that I found. The game is "hardcore", so fine, you have to do a bit extra to be any good. But the real problem is that allied guilds dont share ownership of keeps or resources, afaik. Inevitably, you'll be letting the strongest guild in your alliance take the most keeps, since they have the best chances defending them anyway. And they don't really have a tangible benefit in sharing, either.
But that's guild v guild, and it's kind of a clusterf***. That's not surprising, and this game was billed as faction vs faction anyway. Well, I can't really speak to FvF, since it didn't release on launch week. I fully admit, I didn't stick around for that, and that might be where it's at. But remember, having a factionVs faction server AND a guildvsguild server is splitting an already small playerbase. I suspect that large guilds will steal their members away to the guild war servers, since it's easiest for them to dominate there.
As for the crafting, harvesting and general grind, the reviewer is right on the money. I want to add that dedicated harvest/craft characters have this weird ...ability? It's supposed to make harvesting more engaging, but all it does it build 'pips' when you hit resource nodes. When you have the right amount of pips, you activate your harvesting ability to have some insignificant, 3 second buff to.. something. I suppose you can stack and exploit these bonuses, but it doesn't really help the fact that harvesting is tied to your stamina bar. You have to stop 3-4 times while harvesting a single resource node, just to catch your breath. This makes everything incredible tedious.
The combat is the main draw, and personally I find it quite finicky. Like the reviewer said, abilities lack visual impact, and you are never really sure what is working. I found myself using the same cycle-through of abilities every time, but never seemed to have enough visual or numerical information as to whether it was effective.
The problem for me, most likely, was that I was playing a build that heavily relied on crowd control. The problem is that every single class has a built-in CC break out button. It drains some of their stamina, so you're best bet is to stack CC over and over. This means the main effect of CC at all is to force the enemy to use their CC breaks and waste all their stamina.
This doesn't really create a responsive and interesting combat in my opinion. Most of the time, in the chaos of a fight, you will have very little idea as to how effective your CC abilities are, nor how much stamina an enemy might have to spend on breaking. Visually, many abilities and effects are very similar, so it's difficult to make split-decisions on how to respond. I devolved into using my most powerful AoE attacks, just so I knew I was doing -something-.
I suspect that the combat system is very complex, but it's hard to learn by playing. Everyone in my guild relied on build guides and figuring out the meta. That's inevitable in any PvP game, but it's hard to tell if your personal adjustments and experimentation is paying off. Heck, it's hard to tell how effective these build guides are.
I've been pretty harsh. The thing is, I really wanted to like this game. I like the idea of twitchy, action-rpg combat, guild wars and sieges, and all the neat race/class combinations. But nothing about Crowfall is working for me. It all feels like it needs a lot more work. The desolate, blocky landscapes add to this feeling of "still in beta". It's kind of a dreary, confusing game to play. And I really don't want it to be, since all the ideas it has seem solid. In fewer words, execution is lacking.
Ok, now call me a scrub
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
If Artcraft pushes out the Faction patch to live next week, I'll be right in their giving it a shot. But that doesn't make these videos any less cringeworthy.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
One thing that EVERYONE should read though and I'm interested in the reviews' opinion on this.
Not everyone is meant to be a crafter. There is a spot for any "type" of player example: the no crafting pvper that only plays on the weekend can still be competitive and have fun with his buds pvping and looting farmers ( I know because that is me lol ) a good crafter is a gem of a find and is sought after by guilds. Which in turn creates politics.
With that said the game needs a ton of work it has no business being launched at the moment, sever sync is trash, zone caps ruin ( and cater cheap tactics like zone cap blocking ) and the lack of information available is criminal. I honestly think when they scraped the offline training and revamped the talents it set the game game 3+ years. That time could have been used fixing the most pressing issues that plague the game.
To close, I think the game needs time I can definitely see a market for this game and it has a decent floor to work from but let's not kid ourselves, this in alpha through and through. Sorry Todd j Coleman I loved shadowbane but you gotta fix this mess
He said it was his own opinion though at the beginning of the video. So are you just saying he's lying?
Anyways. New World is a sandbox game looking for a soul. Crowfall is a soul that has way too many demands on the player to ever be big in its current form.
I've played both.
The above review is pretty spot on from my experience. Crowfall is great if you have a big guild to roll in. Perhaps Faction vs. Faction will fix that issue or maybe it will destroy the Guild vs. Guild worlds.
Who knows, but they should have committed to it being in launch or delay if not ready. Once you lose the player base, it's really hard to get them back.
Imagine thinking that reviews on this website are paid and sponsorship deals are not disclosed. Also, the score this site gave it was generous if you ask me.
Crowfall was made with around, what, a 35 to 40 Million-ish Budget and New World has had hundreds of millions dumped into it.
If New World is not at least somewhat better than Crowfall, then seriously.. What the Fuck.
Dude, the game is a bucket full of turds. It can't even entice its target audience.
Also, to the guy above me: Everquest was made with $3 million, and was made form the ground-up with no existing technology to leapfrog off of, by a small team.
If you account for inflation, that's still around $5 million in 2020.
There is no excuse for Crowfall; or any of these awful MMO's over the past decade.
Unfortunately the fuel that keeps the Crowfall engine going is player numbers, even more then in New World or SOLO, and without FvF at launch, an unfinished UI, still limited social options (horrible chat and no cross-guild communication tools to form alliances for instance) and this feeling of lack of polish these numbers have a hard time recovering, let alone grow. Can it happen? Sure, and I hope so because I really want it to succeed and play some more of the excellent classes. But it is really unlikely, and since I am having more fun in SOLO and New World my time will be devoted to these two for now.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Yep, 5.0 feels like a higher score then crowfall deserves; the game very much feels like it's in a alpha state compared to what actual game polish feels like once one experiences it.
Fishing on Gilgamesh since 2013
Fishing on Bronzebeard since 2005
Fishing in RL since 1992
Born with a fishing rod in my hand in 1979
If I remember right, Metacritic gives you a green colour at 75+ and that is what every studio aims for. I remember an article (on here?) with EA executives where 74 was a fail.
Personally I will look at anything that is 70+ unless it is in a genre that I really love, there I will look at anything 65+. Very rarely buy them, but I will look at them.
I am not sure a 5.0 is fair, for example "world feels empty" is hardly a design fault. But clearly the game was going to get a score below that which was acceptable for me. That said we invest way top much faith in these scores but I had already decided that I was not going to play CF before at least next year anyway, it was obvious they needed time to sort the game out.
Finally I would say that we often call for innovation on here, we often bemoan the state of one template themeparks. CF was a shot of something different I am hoping they can turn it round, AO did.
Oh and why all the comparisons to NW, they released too close together and even though they have very different gameplay that's all it takes.
And I will not list other massive misses by them.
I'm not questioning CF review, its personal opinion based on very short playtime and that is ok. Not every game suits every reviewer. Some people like Fortnite while some like Eve Online better and completely hate Fortnite. Opinions are like asses, everyone has one and most smell bad.
What I'm questioning is the objectivity when it comes to well established brands. Where is the guts to call out ESO expansions a simple money grab? How can you rate 2 dungeons, one map and 3 quests for 50$ an 8+? And this for multiple expansions over the years? Yet when a small company show up with a novel idea its torn down in an instant? How can I trust your 5 when you gave torchlight (a game that is practically already dead) a 7?
I'm curious to read about New World review and see if they will have the guts to call it what it is: A game that has stolen all of its elements from other games without offering anything original in return. I predict a cool 8 (maybe 7.5 if they have a bad day) from mmorpg.com for NW once its releases. Not 4-5 that it deserves (in my personal opinion).
No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.
~Greatness~
Currently Playing:
Nothing
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.
... as you say, the game's Achilles heel is that it's meant to work with large numbers and barely works at all with their current low pop. That should be their priority and if it means going F2P early, so be it because it really, really needs extra bodies.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
If a reviewer doesn't like RvR PvP games, they shouldn't be reviewing them. If a reviewer doesn't like Musou games, they shouldn't be reviewing them. If a reviewer doesn't like strategy RPGs or JRPGs, they shouldn't review them. But they do anyway, and often disproportionately so. Certain franchises actually ARE unfairly defined by people who don't like them, so it's actually hard to find trustworthy authorities on what is and isn't a good entry.
You don't see me reviewing survival games, hardcore PvP MMOs, battle royales, first person shooters, etc. Because I don't like them and I'm not qualified to judge.