Brighter Shores Early Access Review | MMORPG.com

System

Brighter Shores Early Access Review | MMORPG.com

Brighter Shores is a new MMO from Andrew Gower, one of the founders of Runescape. Emilien takes this new MMO for a spin to see if it's worth your time in its current early access state, or if you should hold off for future updates.

Read the full story here

Tiller

I've played about 30 hours so far and I can say I agree with this review.

Elidien_ga

I will second that. Spot on.

Sovrath

I hate being that guy but….

“especially because Brighter Shores don't allow you to gather, craft, or kill mobs on autopilot…”

Should be “doesn’t.”

ZenJelly

It was boring, plodding and it genuinely will not have the legs this "review" says it will. The systems even for EA were baron. I think in the first 4 hours I had to submit no less than 6 bug tickets and my toon become stuck twice along with two crashes to desktop. Avoid this one.

Tiller

ZenJelly said:

It was boring, plodding and it genuinely will not have the legs this "review" says it will. The systems even for EA were baron. I think in the first 4 hours I had to submit no less than 6 bug tickets and my toon become stuck twice along with two crashes to desktop. Avoid this one.

Yeah, you either love these types of (numbers go up=brain happy) games, or despise them. There isn't much in between.

I assume you were never a fan of MMOs like Runescape, Linage, SWG, A Tale in the Desert where there is hours of grinding to advance, it's OK, most likely a generational/interest thing.

It's pretty early so there is plenty I feel is missing from the game, but I see it getting better due to how they have been excepting feedback. They have also been pretty quick about bug fixing and updates and I haven't had any so you must have played earlier on.

Angrakhan

Mmm I'm 51 going on 52 and I found SWG to be a mind numbing, tedious grind for the few weeks I tolerated it. I don't think it has anything to do with generations.

Sovrath

Angrakhan said:

Mmm I'm 51 going on 52 and I found SWG to be a mind numbing, tedious grind for the few weeks I tolerated it. I don't think it has anything to do with generations.

I know a guy who loved Everquest but when he played Star Wars Galaxies he felt it was like having a second job. Yet obviously there are people who love it.

Different strokes ...

slowz2secret

awesome game, still need lots of works but i see a future on it.

lotrlore

Sovrath said:

I hate being that guy but….



“especially because Brighter Shores don't allow you to gather, craft, or kill mobs on autopilot…”



Should be “doesn’t.”

appreciate u

Kyleran

Hate to be that guy...but cons like this just can't lead to an 8/10 score.

Cons

• The combat system is yet strictly limited, only allowing auto-attacking without any actual strategy
• Repetitive gathering system with same locations reused might be a sore spot for some

Scot

Good to see this is being titled "Early Access Review" every sites reviews should show that if they are and they don't.

I am going back to an old theme here because I don't think there is any way to properly resolve it, how do you do an early access review? Do you make allowances for early access or have you decide early access is the new proper launch so you review as if it was a fully released game?

Now I assume reviewers are taking the first approach, how on earth do you decided what allowances to give? That will vary wildly from one reviewer to the next. I still think we need to review at early access but that problem is not going to go away and it may explain some of the above posters comments.

Akulas

It has a skill where you can be batman that I'm 212 in. Which is about 10 hours of watching thieves at a stall and arresting them. 

Nephistos

Kyleran said:

Hate to be that guy...but cons like this just can't lead to an 8/10 score.

Cons

• The combat system is yet strictly limited, only allowing auto-attacking without any actual strategy
• Repetitive gathering system with same locations reused might be a sore spot for some

Hey, I've judged the EA on what the game is trying to achieve, which is an MMO explicitly dedicated to fulfilling progression and profession grind.

Brighter Shores is a far cry from a traditional experience, where combat is the game's primary interaction (it's quite the opposite).

Based on my experience, what I've regularly read on Reddit and even the first comments here, I firmly believe that Brighter Shores is a "Great" MMO for the niche it's aimed at (I've tried to make that as clear as possible in the conclusion).

Scot

Nephistos said:

Kyleran said:

Hate to be that guy...but cons like this just can't lead to an 8/10 score.

Cons

• The combat system is yet strictly limited, only allowing auto-attacking without any actual strategy
• Repetitive gathering system with same locations reused might be a sore spot for some

Hey, I've judged the EA on what the game is trying to achieve, which is an MMO explicitly dedicated to fulfilling progression and profession grind.



Brighter Shores is a far cry from a traditional experience, where combat is the game's primary interaction (it's quite the opposite).



Based on my experience, what I've regularly read on Reddit and even the first comments here, I firmly believe that Brighter Shores is a "Great" MMO for the niche it's aimed at (I've tried to make that as clear as possible in the conclusion).

Welcome to the forums!

This confirms what I was getting at: "I've judged the EA on what the game is trying to achieve", the bar for an early access is far lower than a proper launch. Now we may say naturally enough, but it muddies the water for how valuable reviews are, as there is no way of knowing what will get added, fleshed out or fixed for proper launch.

This is like doing a review of a new car while it is still in the development stage, it cries out for the need to do a second review at proper launch. But how are sites supposed to afford to do that?

Early access has opened a can of worms in more than one way, pushing the boundaries on what is acceptable and forcing gaming journalists and players to review or dip their hands in their pocket too early. Though I do note the first two episodes are f2p, which does help the players, perhaps it would have been an idea to do the review once players were expected to pay?

I don't see any total solution to this, not suggesting a different course, just pointing out where EA has landed us.

olepi

Scot said:

Good to see this is being titled "Early Access Review" every sites reviews should show that if they are and they don't.



I am going back to an old theme here because I don't think there is any way to properly resolve it, how do you do an early access review? Do you make allowances for early access or have you decide early access is the new proper launch so you review as if it was a fully released game?



Now I assume reviewers are taking the first approach, how on earth do you decided what allowances to give? That will vary wildly from one reviewer to the next. I still think we need to review at early access but that problem is not going to go away and it may explain some of the above posters comments.

A "review" is to look back on something again, to re-view it and come to a conclusion. EA games shouldn't have a review, they should have a preview. A pre-view is an early look at something before it is ready.

A preview could talk about the potential of the game based on the existing and incomplete gameplay. Maybe take into account the reputation of the developer, do they always miss their targets? Usually hit their targets? Have a history of releasing good games?

If this is a review of an MMORPG how could it get 8/10 if the game doesn't even have grouping or trading with others? What kind of MMORPG is that??

Elidien_ga

To review or preview or whatever a game like Brighter Shores, I think it has to take two things into account. First, the game itself. Is it a good, fun, well made game? Typical review stuff one would expect.

But because of EA, I think there has to be an EA aspect to it. EA right now can mean a feature complete game that needs a few tweaks to a game that is the exact opposite. EA can be anywhere from pre-alpha to a final beta and everything in between.

In both aspects, Brighter Shores is a solid game. It is for niche for sure but its pretty awesome as is.

xdave78

Sounds like Bitcraft or PaxDei but with bad gfx.
I´ll keep an eye on it but ...

harken33

olepi said:

Scot said:

Good to see this is being titled "Early Access Review" every sites reviews should show that if they are and they don't.



I am going back to an old theme here because I don't think there is any way to properly resolve it, how do you do an early access review? Do you make allowances for early access or have you decide early access is the new proper launch so you review as if it was a fully released game?



Now I assume reviewers are taking the first approach, how on earth do you decided what allowances to give? That will vary wildly from one reviewer to the next. I still think we need to review at early access but that problem is not going to go away and it may explain some of the above posters comments.

A "review" is to look back on something again, to re-view it and come to a conclusion. EA games shouldn't have a review, they should have a preview. A pre-view is an early look at something before it is ready.

A preview could talk about the potential of the game based on the existing and incomplete gameplay. Maybe take into account the reputation of the developer, do they always miss their targets? Usually hit their targets? Have a history of releasing good games?

If this is a review of an MMORPG how could it get 8/10 if the game doesn't even have grouping or trading with others? What kind of MMORPG is that??

This makes perfect sense.

Term it a review when its complete / released and that's the final tally as you said the conclusion. 

Term it a preview when you are talking about potential items / features to be added / reputation etc. 

Although i guess if promises for potential features counted some developers would have 18 / 10 scores until their reputations were adjusted accordingly

In any event since most people use the search term review not preview when researching games i don't think they can really afford to switch it up for articles without running afoul of their master Google PageRank.

Vrika

olepi said:

Scot said:

Good to see this is being titled "Early Access Review" every sites reviews should show that if they are and they don't.



I am going back to an old theme here because I don't think there is any way to properly resolve it, how do you do an early access review? Do you make allowances for early access or have you decide early access is the new proper launch so you review as if it was a fully released game?



Now I assume reviewers are taking the first approach, how on earth do you decided what allowances to give? That will vary wildly from one reviewer to the next. I still think we need to review at early access but that problem is not going to go away and it may explain some of the above posters comments.

A "review" is to look back on something again, to re-view it and come to a conclusion. EA games shouldn't have a review, they should have a preview. A pre-view is an early look at something before it is ready.

A preview could talk about the potential of the game based on the existing and incomplete gameplay. Maybe take into account the reputation of the developer, do they always miss their targets? Usually hit their targets? Have a history of releasing good games?

If this is a review of an MMORPG how could it get 8/10 if the game doesn't even have grouping or trading with others? What kind of MMORPG is that??

I disagree: When it's in mass sale and distribution, it should be reviewed, and that review should be called a review.

Limited enough access should not be reviewed. For example "pre-order and get access to 3 beta weekends", "pay $500+ and get access to our limited test", or "we're doing a test by releasing only in New Zealand". But not reviewing early access games at all was stupid, because the devs learned to abuse it.

Also Steam agrees that the early access games placed in it are ready for review. So it's not like Steam devs don't know they're going to be reviewed when they release into Steam's early access.


EDIT: I think MMORPG.com gave Brighter Shores a bit too good score. But I think that's another matter. /EDIT

Scot

Vrika said:

olepi said:

Scot said:

Good to see this is being titled "Early Access Review" every sites reviews should show that if they are and they don't.



I am going back to an old theme here because I don't think there is any way to properly resolve it, how do you do an early access review? Do you make allowances for early access or have you decide early access is the new proper launch so you review as if it was a fully released game?



Now I assume reviewers are taking the first approach, how on earth do you decided what allowances to give? That will vary wildly from one reviewer to the next. I still think we need to review at early access but that problem is not going to go away and it may explain some of the above posters comments.

A "review" is to look back on something again, to re-view it and come to a conclusion. EA games shouldn't have a review, they should have a preview. A pre-view is an early look at something before it is ready.

A preview could talk about the potential of the game based on the existing and incomplete gameplay. Maybe take into account the reputation of the developer, do they always miss their targets? Usually hit their targets? Have a history of releasing good games?

If this is a review of an MMORPG how could it get 8/10 if the game doesn't even have grouping or trading with others? What kind of MMORPG is that??

I disagree: When it's in mass sale and distribution, it should be reviewed, and that review should be called a review.

Limited enough access should not be reviewed. For example "pre-order and get access to 3 beta weekends", "pay $500+ and get access to our limited test", or "we're doing a test by releasing only in New Zealand". But not reviewing early access games at all was stupid, because the devs learned to abuse it.

Also Steam agrees that the early access games placed in it are ready for review. So it's not like Steam devs don't know they're going to be reviewed when they release into Steam's early access.


EDIT: I think MMORPG.com gave Brighter Shores a bit too good score. But I think that's another matter. /EDIT

The problem with a preview is presumably you would not score it? With it being unlikely that games are going to also get an actual review at proper launch, we could end up with no scored reviews, that would be dire. For all the issues, we must have a score.

Also expecting reviewers to successfully assess how much development is going to be done by launch and if it will launch based on what they know about the studio or developer may be asking too much of the reviewer. Though I guess that is already part of their thought processes for doing an EA review. A studio might be an indie with only one game released, or a AAA with no games released (hello CIG), tough call.

If a reviewer could successfully do that I would suggest they quit doing gaming reviews and work for big business instead who pay excellently for staff who can predict how well a business will do in the future. As business experts find that impossible to do consistently I can't see gaming reviewers doing it that well.

Wargfoot

Is there something difficult about understanding the score and the caveat that it is being applied to an early access title?

I feel like I'm missing something here.

As soon as any score is 6 months old on any title (even a released title) that score may no longer be valid thanks to updates/patches and so forth.  None of this is holy writ, they're just impressions from knowledgeable gamers.

olepi

Imagine reading a "review" of a car before it is built. Imagine the car is in EA and can only turn left and doesn't have brakes installed yet. What kind of "review" could you give? It is ridiculous.

If people insist on a real review of something that isn't finished yet, then be harsh and tell it like it is as of now. The game is missing half of its content? Then the max possible review number would be 5, assuming the working parts are perfect and would get a 10 in a finished product. Under this scheme, Brighter Shores might get a 3, or 4 if you are being generous.

"Well the car turns left really well, and the brakes are supposed to be installed next week. Then we can put it through its paces and see how it works. Meanwhile, we'll give it an 8/10".

A worthless review.

xanthouscrown

olepi said:

Imagine reading a "review" of a car before it is built. Imagine the car is in EA and can only turn left and doesn't have brakes installed yet. What kind of "review" could you give? It is ridiculous.

If people insist on a real review of something that isn't finished yet, then be harsh and tell it like it is as of now. The game is missing half of its content? Then the max possible review number would be 5, assuming the working parts are perfect and would get a 10 in a finished product. Under this scheme, Brighter Shores might get a 3, or 4 if you are being generous.

"Well the car turns left really well, and the brakes are supposed to be installed next week. Then we can put it through its paces and see how it works. Meanwhile, we'll give it an 8/10".

A worthless review.

That’s not a good analogy because in this case it’s a fully functional product that is delivering on its promise: you can play it with little to no issues. But you can’t drive a half built car.

I think it maked sense to review anything that is being sold to consumers in the market. It is available, people are buying it, and it should be reviewed because people are looking for information to help them decide if they want to pay it.

Cyberpunk 2077 launched in disastrous state, a product so technically poor and unplayable that it was removed from the PlayStation store and the customers were refunded. Should outlets have refused to review it since it seemed incomplete? How many games launch in an “unfinished” state? There is always more the developer could have be done, so the best approach is simply to review the product as soon as it becomes available for mass purchase, whether it is called early access or anything else. And when the game is updated, the updates can also be reviewed or the initial review can be revised.

Sovrath

Tiller said:

ZenJelly said:

It was boring, plodding and it genuinely will not have the legs this "review" says it will. The systems even for EA were baron. I think in the first 4 hours I had to submit no less than 6 bug tickets and my toon become stuck twice along with two crashes to desktop. Avoid this one.

Yeah, you either love these types of (numbers go up=brain happy) games, or despise them. There isn't much in between.

I assume you were never a fan of MMOs like Runescape, Linage, SWG, A Tale in the Desert where there is hours of grinding to advance, it's OK, most likely a generational/interest thing.

It's pretty early so there is plenty I feel is missing from the game, but I see it getting better due to how they have been excepting feedback. They have also been pretty quick about bug fixing and updates and I haven't had any so you must have played earlier on.

Also, it's early access. There should NEVER be complaints about bugs in early access. Of course there are bugs, of course there are unfinished bits. Why in the heck do people play early access games not knowing this?

Brainy

So if this game is around 10 years from now then they will finally release and it gets a truthful review then?  After 10 years of charging customers?  

Then 6 months later it closes because the review is a 2/10 because it never did anything people said they hoped for.

If this game is charging customers money then I consider it released.  Review it for what it is now, not what you hope it will be.

Early access but charging people money is just a way to work the system.
Most MMO's get worked on after release, what is the difference?