If new world came out from a korean DEV you will probably give it 3/10 with 40K if not less player base trashing it.
440 hours played, the game world is nice. Everything else falls short, infinite ways to exploit and dupe money to this day and will NEVER be discovered unless outed by the person themself.
I'm surprised by the review. I would also put the game between 5 and 6. Its way better than many games that were graded 7 or above on this site so that confuses me a lot.
But this review is spot on. 6 at best.
No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.
The game is client side authoritive. Nothing else really needs to be said. It's like letting my mobile banking app control how much money I have in my account.
This is plain wrong. Research before you tell lies. Read up the dev trackers, there are more than one dev posts on this.
Good review though! It is just like I had told it but with more words
I agree with all points in the article here but a 6 is too high! I say it's somewhere around a 4.5. it's below average as I said several times here. I don't care if God himself developed the thing, it's below-average as an MMO right now.
It could be the next FFXIV or NMS for all I know.. but guess what.. we aren't playing "could be". A lot of people graded this game based on the possibility and not the reality.
We aren't grading potential and cannot allow potential to be part of a grading system, grade what we have RIGHT NOW in front of us. hell, if we use "potential" as a barometer then CP2077 would be a 10/10 game, not a 3.0 or lower.
Like CP2077 the world design is good but that's about all it has. A game with a beautiful world design but nothing else is like a car with a nice body that has no engine or tires on it. Just a shell.
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
They have not actually addressed any of the gameplay issues that is dragging the game down, that has seen around 80% of the player stop playing.
Maybe a little off-topic, but what is actually an acceptable player loss for MMORPGs after about a month? Because until now I have only ever read extreme opinions on this: either "NW is dead" or "everything is in the green".
It is nice (and rare) to see a professional game journalist spend 120 hours on a game, so he can do a proper in depth review. Kudos.
It's good that this site has reviewers take the time to understand what they're talking about before writing a review, rather than it just being a first impressions review with a lot of howling, factual errors as happens on a lot of other sites. The review in progress approach allows the site to get some clicks from people who want to see early reviews, without the reviewer being obligated to give a final score before he has any idea if the game is any good.
They have not actually addressed any of the gameplay issues that is dragging the game down, that has seen around 80% of the player stop playing.
Maybe a little off-topic, but what is actually an acceptable player loss for MMORPGs after about a month? Because until now I have only ever read extreme opinions on this: either "NW is dead" or "everything is in the green".
according to steamcharts they have lost around 650k concurrent players. All games suffer this loss post launch though to some degree. I imagine NW will settle somewhere around 100-200k concurrent.
given their very high initial sales and buy to play model, I cant see why they wouldnt be in the green even with that relatively low number.
a giant playerbase in a b2p game is a liability especially when the cash shop isnt fully developed.
a giant playerbase in a b2p game is a liability especially when the cash shop isnt fully developed.
Okay, but how is the speed of player decline to be assessed (considering NW is an MMORPG)?
i guess you need to wait a few more weeks to see where the bottom is. If its under 100k( i.e 90%+loss) I would imagine we could call that a critical failure to deliver. For a regular game thats nothing, for a b2P mmo it matters a bit more and for a subscription game its the end of the world.
This a great game that been given a poor review by someone who clearly wanted to rush to 60 while skipping the content. This reviewer is what wrong with casuals...instant gratification or it's a 5 rofl...to all those who dont want to group never play a mmo there are not for u go back to console and play single player...there is a ton of stuff to do and the foundation is great...The combat is fantastic and challenging. The pvp is great and I've never not made it in a war or invasion...what other game has an npc invasion for all to do? Did I mention it's hard as heck to complete and most don't make it to stage 6....if you at this review and most of the post they are from non mmoers...pls go back to single player
Clearly your biased Ray-Bans make you see a really narrow picture..what s load of bullshit
a giant playerbase in a b2p game is a liability especially when the cash shop isnt fully developed.
Okay, but how is the speed of player decline to be assessed (considering NW is an MMORPG)?
i guess you need to wait a few more weeks to see where the bottom is. If its under 100k( i.e 80%+loss) I would imagine we could call that a critical failure to deliver. For a regular game thats nothing, for a b2P mmo it matters a bit more and for a subscription game its the end of the world.
Not really an issue for B2P in fact for both subscription and F2P player base loss is a huge issue. They already have the money in, more coming in will drop off but not so much its a problem until the next big DLC when it will pick up. Also Amazon need a game success, they won't let NW go south.
I think there is a curve for game reviews. 5 isn't average, even though it is the median.
The curve:
9-10 -- fantastic game
8 -- good game
7 - decent game
6 - not that good game
5 and below - trash
Based on this, a 6 is about right for where NW is now.
My curve goes more like:
10- should rarely, if ever be awarded 9- fantastic game, top of the charts
8 - good game, many will enjoy
7 - decent game, likely worth the money
6 - not that good game, OK if a fan
5 and below - don't buy until fixed
For most games, especially MMORPGs the score tops out between 8 and 9 for the best of them, though many never get out of the 7's
Unfortunately 10 point rating system are always unbalanced as a school and other tests of competency always require 70 or 80 percent to be considered a minimum acceptable grade leaving only a 20 to 30 percent range to improve on.
So it seems many consider NW as a 65% which is failure really, at least in the eyes of many.
I mean seriously, who would buy a computer or car which only got at best a "D" rating? Or go to a Doctor who passed medical school with a 1.5 GPA?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
a giant playerbase in a b2p game is a liability especially when the cash shop isnt fully developed.
Okay, but how is the speed of player decline to be assessed (considering NW is an MMORPG)?
i guess you need to wait a few more weeks to see where the bottom is. If its under 100k( i.e 80%+loss) I would imagine we could call that a critical failure to deliver. For a regular game thats nothing, for a b2P mmo it matters a bit more and for a subscription game its the end of the world.
Not really an issue for B2P in fact for both subscription and F2P player base loss is a huge issue. They already have the money in, more coming in will drop off but not so much its a problem until the next big DLC when it will pick up. Also Amazon need a game success, they won't let NW go south.
Yea 6 is high a 4.5 imo and falling , NW is in an Alpha state still full of bugs,exploits missing and incomplete features.. lack of content , challenge and a cohesive game loop ..
And on top of all that it's a soulless mmo, no feeling of being part of the world. It's just a glorified crafting sim with half assed elements of other mmo's that do it better. They should of left the game how it was at the start and continued making the lord of the rings mmo.
NW a survival pvp mmo.
Lord of the rings pve mmo.
Fuck sake, it's not like Amazon didn't have budget to make both.
It is nice (and rare) to see a professional game journalist spend 120 hours on a game, so he can do a proper in depth review. Kudos.
Appreciate this. MMOs are such beasts that I think throughout the industry you will find the vast majority of MMO reviewers out there take this approach. Amazon themselves recommended at least 40 hours, but even that felt too low. I know the reviewer at IGN spent about 180 hours on his review. Us MMORPG reviewers have this in common I think, but of course not every site or reviewer is going to spend that much time on a game, especially when it may not be the most profitable to both.
I think there is a curve for game reviews. 5 isn't average, even though it is the median.
The curve:
9-10 -- fantastic game
8 -- good game
7 - decent game
6 - not that good game
5 and below - trash
Based on this, a 6 is about right for where NW is now.
So you're not wrong, since scales work differently for each site (not every 10 point scale means the same since there is not standardized system) it's always best to take scores for what they are: a quick, numerical snapshot. We use a 100 point scale in our reviews, and on MMORPG 5 does actually mean average. But that doesn't mean it's an average across the industry. Just with us. More info (since we recently updated this page) can be found here if anyone is interested in seeing exactly how our scale shakes out.
Comments
440 hours played, the game world is nice. Everything else falls short, infinite ways to exploit and dupe money to this day and will NEVER be discovered unless outed by the person themself.
New world is a really expensive college project.
But this review is spot on. 6 at best.
No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.
https://www.thumbculture.co.uk/new-world-review
https://www.heypoorplayer.com/2021/11/08/new-world-review-pc/
https://www.shacknews.com/article/127154/new-world-review-brighter-days-ahead
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
This is plain wrong. Research before you tell lies. Read up the dev trackers, there are more than one dev posts on this.
Good review though! It is just like I had told it but with more words
Source: https://forums.newworld.com/t/client-authoritive-and-the-misconceptions-surrounding-the-term-from-a-software-engineer/473319/3
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
It could be the next FFXIV or NMS for all I know.. but guess what.. we aren't playing "could be". A lot of people graded this game based on the possibility and not the reality.
We aren't grading potential and cannot allow potential to be part of a grading system, grade what we have RIGHT NOW in front of us. hell, if we use "potential" as a barometer then CP2077 would be a 10/10 game, not a 3.0 or lower.
Like CP2077 the world design is good but that's about all it has. A game with a beautiful world design but nothing else is like a car with a nice body that has no engine or tires on it. Just a shell.
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
I would have given it an 8
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
given their very high initial sales and buy to play model, I cant see why they wouldnt be in the green even with that relatively low number.
a giant playerbase in a b2p game is a liability especially when the cash shop isnt fully developed.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
mmorpg junkie since 1999
9- fantastic game, top of the charts
For most games, especially MMORPGs the score tops out between 8 and 9 for the best of them, though many never get out of the 7's
Unfortunately 10 point rating system are always unbalanced as a school and other tests of competency always require 70 or 80 percent to be considered a minimum acceptable grade leaving only a 20 to 30 percent range to improve on.
So it seems many consider NW as a 65% which is failure really, at least in the eyes of many.
I mean seriously, who would buy a computer or car which only got at best a "D" rating? Or go to a Doctor who passed medical school with a 1.5 GPA?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
And on top of all that it's a soulless mmo, no feeling of being part of the world. It's just a glorified crafting sim with half assed elements of other mmo's that do it better. They should of left the game how it was at the start and continued making the lord of the rings mmo.
NW a survival pvp mmo.
Lord of the rings pve mmo.
Fuck sake, it's not like Amazon didn't have budget to make both.
Appreciate this. MMOs are such beasts that I think throughout the industry you will find the vast majority of MMO reviewers out there take this approach. Amazon themselves recommended at least 40 hours, but even that felt too low. I know the reviewer at IGN spent about 180 hours on his review. Us MMORPG reviewers have this in common I think, but of course not every site or reviewer is going to spend that much time on a game, especially when it may not be the most profitable to both.
So you're not wrong, since scales work differently for each site (not every 10 point scale means the same since there is not standardized system) it's always best to take scores for what they are: a quick, numerical snapshot. We use a 100 point scale in our reviews, and on MMORPG 5 does actually mean average. But that doesn't mean it's an average across the industry. Just with us. More info (since we recently updated this page) can be found here if anyone is interested in seeing exactly how our scale shakes out.