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??
It is a review of how things stand as of now and identified as such. They can be quite helpful as early access games can range anywhere from barely conceived to well into development. Kind of handy to know.
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.
People don't typically buy cars before they are built, but with early access many buy games before they are finished. As such a review of how things currently are would be helpful in deciding to do so or not. That has worth.
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??
It is a review of how things stand as of now and identified as such. They can be quite helpful as early access games can range anywhere from barely conceived to well into development. Kind of handy to know.
Then the score should reflect the unfinished state it currently is at, so 8/10 just isn't appropriate, even for the intended audience.
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
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.
People don't typically buy cars before they are built, but with early access many buy games before they are finished. As such a review of how things currently are would be helpful in deciding to do so or not. That has worth.
Taking a better analogy. I've watched 3 episodes of the 2nd Season of Arcane: LOL.
Is it appropriate to score the series as 9/10 even though I have no idea how the rest of the story will play out?
After episode 5 of the Sandman I was ready to shut the series off and would have called it a 3/10.
My daughter convinced me to press on at least one more episode....and I ended up loving the rest of the episodes and would call it a 9/10.
So back to gaming, is it fair to rate the content viewed to date, and if so, give it high or low marks on effort delivered and reviewed to date?
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
Then the score should reflect the unfinished state it currently is at, so 8/10 just isn't appropriate, even for the intended audience.
The problem is that it is not possible to have guidelines that work as well for EA as it is for a proper launch. The "being built" issue means that no matter how the review is done it has problems like these.
I note Steam has just issued some guidelines for "season passes" we need more of that for EA, that way the reviews would be based on games that were not so wildly different in where they are in development.
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.
People don't typically buy cars before they are built, but with early access many buy games before they are finished. As such a review of how things currently are would be helpful in deciding to do so or not. That has worth.
Taking a better analogy. I've watched 3 episodes of the 2nd Season of Arcane: LOL.
Is it appropriate to score the series as 9/10 even though I have no idea how the rest of the story will play out?
After episode 5 of the Sandman I was ready to shut the series off and would have called it a 3/10.
My daughter convinced me to press on at least one more episode....and I ended up loving the rest of the episodes and would call it a 9/10.
So back to gaming, is it fair to rate the content viewed to date, and if so, give it high or low marks on effort delivered and reviewed to date?
I think it's fair to rate the content "thus far." I've said this before but plays, musicals will sometimes go out for previews and then, if they are broadway bound (or off broadway) changes will be made before hitting their final destination.
Whole songs and scenes can be added, things deleted, etc. I saw Queen of Versailles in Boston and because of its long length they were trying to cut it down. So if I see it on Broadway it will be a very different version.
I can give a review of what I saw with the stipulation that it will be different later on. Same with early access.
An early access game is "x score" at this point. I don't see the problem.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Would you score the game at design phase? What about pre-pre-pre-pre-alpha?
What about if the devs were invited to play a demo, but they never opened it publicly yet?
The only reason these games are being reviewed is because they are open to the public and being played. This means release.
You can call it whatever you want, but they are released. They are making money charging customers and letting them play. Which is release. All the rest is just word games.
Would you score the game at design phase? What about pre-pre-pre-pre-alpha?
What about if the devs were invited to play a demo, but they never opened it publicly yet?
The only reason these games are being reviewed is because they are open to the public and being played. This means release.
You can call it whatever you want, but they are released. They are making money charging customers and letting them play. Which is release. All the rest is just word games.
This is why I don't query that a review should be done, they are taking money. But that does not stop there being huge issues with trying to do a review at such an early stage.
Would you score the game at design phase? What about pre-pre-pre-pre-alpha?
What about if the devs were invited to play a demo, but they never opened it publicly yet?
The only reason these games are being reviewed is because they are open to the public and being played. This means release.
You can call it whatever you want, but they are released. They are making money charging customers and letting them play. Which is release. All the rest is just word games.
I guess this is what bothers me. The devs want to charge full price for EA and also claim that since it is early access you shouldn't expect a finished game with all the features they advertised the game as having. And here people say we should review it as if it is released anyway.
Ok, so this is an MMORPG supposedly, but it doesn't have grouping or teams yet. No trading between players or any auction house. No guilds, no housing, and only a few of the gaming loops are playable. How in the world could a game missing all those features get an 8/10? What would the score be if the game was considered done and they weren't adding more stuff to it? Still 8/10?
Sovrath said "I've said this before but plays, musicals will sometimes go out for previews and then, if they are broadway bound (or off broadway) changes will be made before hitting their final destination."
I highlighted previews because that is what it is, not a review of a finished game or play or musical, but a preview of what is a work in progress. I guess just marking it as a review of an EA title is the best we can do.
Game A releases then spends 10 years doing major improvements after release (like No Man's Sky)?
Game B spends 10 years charging customers in early access open to public and charging money but barely making any improvements at all with no release on the horizon?
So Game B gets 10/10 rating because its still in pre-alpha early access and claims they plan to do all these cool things? Even though if was truely given a rating on what it is right now, it would be 2/10?
Where Game A gets a 5/1`0 rating because of a technical term "release" even though after 10 years they implemented all those things and is now TODAY better than game B?
At Xmas what people really want is a fair comparison of what is the best/fun/worthy game RIGHT NOW. Where do games stack up today not 20 years ago.
I suppose I could go to ranker or something for that. Although I dont even know who really does this, its all so biased compared to when it released.
But having reviews based on TODAY and have an area with only games relevant TODAY would be nice.
Even better break those overall review scores into little category review scores that it was being judged on. Not all games need to be judged with the same categories and they dont need to match the overall score. Only judge the game on what the game is trying to achieve, dont try to fit every game into the same categories.
This way people can decide what matters to them.
Like for example say you have a category dollars per hour of play time. Maybe a game is a 10/10 but only has 25 hours of content for $40. Where another game has 4k hours of content but is 8/10. Let the review determine where to put their money.
If ever anything like this is created, PLEASE PLEASE have a category for Fun/Engaged/Addicted factor. Geez this is so important.
At Xmas what people really want is a fair comparison of what is the best/fun/worthy game RIGHT NOW. Where do games stack up today not 20 years ago.
I suppose I could go to ranker or something for that. Although I dont even know who really does this, its all so biased compared to when it released.
But having reviews based on TODAY and have an area with only games relevant TODAY would be nice.
Even better break those overall review scores into little category review scores that it was being judged on. Not all games need to be judged with the same categories and they dont need to match the overall score. Only judge the game on what the game is trying to achieve, dont try to fit every game into the same categories.
This way people can decide what matters to them.
Like for example say you have a category dollars per hour of play time. Maybe a game is a 10/10 but only has 25 hours of content for $40. Where another game has 4k hours of content but is 8/10. Let the review determine where to put their money.
If ever anything like this is created, PLEASE PLEASE have a category for Fun/Engaged/Addicted factor. Geez this is so important.
Gosh, while good requests I dunno how this would be possible.
I found FO to be Fun/Engaging because I enjoyed the crafting/farming aspect whereas people interested in progression burned out in 100 hrs. of play. Some of this is so subjective.
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??
It is a review of how things stand as of now and identified as such. They can be quite helpful as early access games can range anywhere from barely conceived to well into development. Kind of handy to know.
Then the score should reflect the unfinished state it currently is at, so 8/10 just isn't appropriate, even for the intended audience.
It is labelled as an early access review. Does that not indicate the game is in an unfinished state? I'm pretty sure it does, and thus the score provided applies to the game as it is now rather than how it will be when done. It could be more blatantly highlighted so if that is felt necessary.
Whether 8/10 is appropriate is up to the reviewer. The reader is free to reject that score if it is felt improper, or even dismiss it outright if they believe games in early access shouldn't be reviewed.
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??
It is a review of how things stand as of now and identified as such. They can be quite helpful as early access games can range anywhere from barely conceived to well into development. Kind of handy to know.
Then the score should reflect the unfinished state it currently is at, so 8/10 just isn't appropriate, even for the intended audience.
It is labelled as an early access review. Does that not indicate the game is in an unfinished state? I'm pretty sure it does, and thus the score provided applies to the game as it is now rather than how it will be when done. It could be more blatantly highlighted so if that is felt necessary.
Whether 8/10 is appropriate is up to the reviewer. The reader is free to reject that score if it is felt improper, or even dismiss it outright if they believe games in early access shouldn't be reviewed.
Essentially it's a "this is how it is thus far" review. For an unfinished game, for what it offers, what is completed it's an 8/10. Now, if they released it NOW, that review might not stick because for an "unfinished" game it's an 8/10. Finished? Could be a lot lower.
I really don't see why people get so caught up in the numbers when they are so subjective anyway. It's the "what" the reviewer is saying that matters.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
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??
It is a review of how things stand as of now and identified as such. They can be quite helpful as early access games can range anywhere from barely conceived to well into development. Kind of handy to know.
Then the score should reflect the unfinished state it currently is at, so 8/10 just isn't appropriate, even for the intended audience.
It is labelled as an early access review. Does that not indicate the game is in an unfinished state? I'm pretty sure it does, and thus the score provided applies to the game as it is now rather than how it will be when done. It could be more blatantly highlighted so if that is felt necessary.
Whether 8/10 is appropriate is up to the reviewer. The reader is free to reject that score if it is felt improper, or even dismiss it outright if they believe games in early access shouldn't be reviewed.
Essentially it's a "this is how it is thus far" review. For an unfinished game, for what it offers, what is completed it's an 8/10. Now, if they released it NOW, that review might not stick because for an "unfinished" game it's an 8/10. Finished? Could be a lot lower.
I really don't see why people get so caught up in the numbers when they are so subjective anyway. It's the "what" the reviewer is saying that matters.
My point exactly, the cons were bad combat and terrible grind....so again, just can't be 8/10 by any measure, better to leave the scores off entirely seeing as they are so completely subjective to be mostly useless.
Either that or score it as available today which makes it likely at best a 4/10 or 5/10 experience..regardless whether some players enjoy it as such.
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
Effectively EA games are being given the high scores of release to retail games because reviewers are trying to factor in what the game will be like at proper launch. Even without Metacritic we all see an 8.0 as an 8.0 etc, though putting "Early Access" in the review title goes some way to mitigate that.
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??
It is a review of how things stand as of now and identified as such. They can be quite helpful as early access games can range anywhere from barely conceived to well into development. Kind of handy to know.
Then the score should reflect the unfinished state it currently is at, so 8/10 just isn't appropriate, even for the intended audience.
It is labelled as an early access review. Does that not indicate the game is in an unfinished state? I'm pretty sure it does, and thus the score provided applies to the game as it is now rather than how it will be when done. It could be more blatantly highlighted so if that is felt necessary.
Whether 8/10 is appropriate is up to the reviewer. The reader is free to reject that score if it is felt improper, or even dismiss it outright if they believe games in early access shouldn't be reviewed.
Essentially it's a "this is how it is thus far" review. For an unfinished game, for what it offers, what is completed it's an 8/10. Now, if they released it NOW, that review might not stick because for an "unfinished" game it's an 8/10. Finished? Could be a lot lower.
I really don't see why people get so caught up in the numbers when they are so subjective anyway. It's the "what" the reviewer is saying that matters.
My point exactly, the cons were bad combat and terrible grind....so again, just can't be 8/10 by any measure, better to leave the scores off entirely seeing as they are so completely subjective to be mostly useless.
Either that or score it as available today which makes it likely at best a 4/10 or 5/10 experience..regardless whether some players enjoy it as such.
That is demonstrably false. It was 8/10 by the reviewer's measure so it indeed can be.
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??
It is a review of how things stand as of now and identified as such. They can be quite helpful as early access games can range anywhere from barely conceived to well into development. Kind of handy to know.
Then the score should reflect the unfinished state it currently is at, so 8/10 just isn't appropriate, even for the intended audience.
It is labelled as an early access review. Does that not indicate the game is in an unfinished state? I'm pretty sure it does, and thus the score provided applies to the game as it is now rather than how it will be when done. It could be more blatantly highlighted so if that is felt necessary.
Whether 8/10 is appropriate is up to the reviewer. The reader is free to reject that score if it is felt improper, or even dismiss it outright if they believe games in early access shouldn't be reviewed.
Essentially it's a "this is how it is thus far" review. For an unfinished game, for what it offers, what is completed it's an 8/10. Now, if they released it NOW, that review might not stick because for an "unfinished" game it's an 8/10. Finished? Could be a lot lower.
I really don't see why people get so caught up in the numbers when they are so subjective anyway. It's the "what" the reviewer is saying that matters.
My point exactly, the cons were bad combat and terrible grind....so again, just can't be 8/10 by any measure, better to leave the scores off entirely seeing as they are so completely subjective to be mostly useless.
Either that or score it as available today which makes it likely at best a 4/10 or 5/10 experience..regardless whether some players enjoy it as such.
Well, I’m always for no scores but some people want them.
As far as this title I would off, as the reviewer said, the game offers other things to do. So those outweigh issues with combat making combat one of many important things but not primary.
If the game was solely about combat then sure, but if it’s not the main draw then not an issue for now.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
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??
It is a review of how things stand as of now and identified as such. They can be quite helpful as early access games can range anywhere from barely conceived to well into development. Kind of handy to know.
Then the score should reflect the unfinished state it currently is at, so 8/10 just isn't appropriate, even for the intended audience.
It is labelled as an early access review. Does that not indicate the game is in an unfinished state? I'm pretty sure it does, and thus the score provided applies to the game as it is now rather than how it will be when done. It could be more blatantly highlighted so if that is felt necessary.
Whether 8/10 is appropriate is up to the reviewer. The reader is free to reject that score if it is felt improper, or even dismiss it outright if they believe games in early access shouldn't be reviewed.
Essentially it's a "this is how it is thus far" review. For an unfinished game, for what it offers, what is completed it's an 8/10. Now, if they released it NOW, that review might not stick because for an "unfinished" game it's an 8/10. Finished? Could be a lot lower.
I really don't see why people get so caught up in the numbers when they are so subjective anyway. It's the "what" the reviewer is saying that matters.
My point exactly, the cons were bad combat and terrible grind....so again, just can't be 8/10 by any measure, better to leave the scores off entirely seeing as they are so completely subjective to be mostly useless.
Either that or score it as available today which makes it likely at best a 4/10 or 5/10 experience..regardless whether some players enjoy it as such.
Well, I’m always for no scores but some people want them.
As far as this title I would off, as the reviewer said, the game offers other things to do. So those outweigh issues with combat making combat one of many important things but not primary.
If the game was solely about combat then sure, but if it’s not the main draw then not an issue for now.
Except, apparently it is missing far more than just combat. As mentioned previously in this thread,
"Ok, so this is an MMORPG supposedly, but it doesn't have grouping or teams yet. No trading between players or any auction house. No guilds, no housing, and only a few of the gaming loops are playable."
So again, is there any point for scoring what appears to be a bare shell of what the game plans to be? Least of all calling it an 8/10?
Nevermind that quite a few players reportedly loath the game's unusual progression system between various zones.
Reviewer said he scored it based on the niche it was aimed for... Gamers who enjoy bugged filled, incomplete games? WTF?
Calling it early access doesn't cut it. 7D2D still calls itself in early access and it is (and has been for many years now) light years ahead of this title in terms of development.
Even though I dearly love it, I'm being generous calling it an 8/10 at this point as it's still missing significant promised content.
So how does someone unfamiliar with both early releases compare the two scores? They can't.
So based on the conversations in this thread some here would have no issue calling Star Citizen a 10 out of 10 for sure, because it's amazing on what it delivers currently.
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
To me an early access should be scoring a 6.0 if you think only three quarters of the game is there and they will put out the other quarter for release to retail when it gets an 8.0.
But that does not help with how difficult it is to even judge how much more will be put into the game before launch and it will go down very poorly with studios. Maybe "6.0 To 8.0" night work better? But like I said before I see no real solution to this, early access has handed reviewers a hot potato that is not going to be easily baked.
To me an early access should be scoring a 6.0 if you think only three quarters of the game is there and they will put out the other quarter for release to retail when it gets an 8.0.
But that does not help with how difficult it is to even judge how much more will be put into the game before launch and it will go down very poorly with studios. Maybe "6.0 To 8.0" night work better? But like I said before I see no real solution to this, early access has handed reviewers a hot potato that is not going to be easily baked.
I still think calling it a preview is the solution. If you go to a preview of a play, you may only see the first act. You can say though that it was "great" or "terrible' or "promising".
You could say "If the rest of it is as good as this part, the final play will be great."
"We only got to preview a small part of the game, that's all that is ready now. What we see so far is promising. If the rest of the game is as good as this part, it'll probably get an 8/10 in a review after release."
It's got a bit more to bake for sure, and more mechanics to should be adde, small things that annoy me, but I've seen worse though, (cough, ship of heroes). The dev has been stomping out bugs within days and really taking in
feedback so unlike a lot of games out there as long as it doesn't get abandoned I see great potential in the future for this niche game tbh.
I have played enough myself for now without subbing, and I refuse to pay to test, so I'll wait till it's out of EA.
To me an early access should be scoring a 6.0 if you think only three quarters of the game is there and they will put out the other quarter for release to retail when it gets an 8.0.
But that does not help with how difficult it is to even judge how much more will be put into the game before launch and it will go down very poorly with studios. Maybe "6.0 To 8.0" night work better? But like I said before I see no real solution to this, early access has handed reviewers a hot potato that is not going to be easily baked.
I still think calling it a preview is the solution. If you go to a preview of a play, you may only see the first act. You can say though that it was "great" or "terrible' or "promising".
You could say "If the rest of it is as good as this part, the final play will be great."
"We only got to preview a small part of the game, that's all that is ready now. What we see so far is promising. If the rest of the game is as good as this part, it'll probably get an 8/10 in a review after release."
There was a time sites like this rated the various elements which made up the gameplay, which were then averaged into a score. Would go like this for EA maybe.
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
To me an early access should be scoring a 6.0 if you think only three quarters of the game is there and they will put out the other quarter for release to retail when it gets an 8.0.
But that does not help with how difficult it is to even judge how much more will be put into the game before launch and it will go down very poorly with studios. Maybe "6.0 To 8.0" night work better? But like I said before I see no real solution to this, early access has handed reviewers a hot potato that is not going to be easily baked.
I still think calling it a preview is the solution. If you go to a preview of a play, you may only see the first act. You can say though that it was "great" or "terrible' or "promising".
You could say "If the rest of it is as good as this part, the final play will be great."
"We only got to preview a small part of the game, that's all that is ready now. What we see so far is promising. If the rest of the game is as good as this part, it'll probably get an 8/10 in a review after release."
There was a time sites like this rated the various elements which made up the gameplay, which were then averaged into a score. Would go like this for EA maybe.
Long story short, score the pros / cons, but leave off the useless overall score.
Yes I agree thats the way to do it. But I dont think this applies to just EA games, it should be all games.
All games should show the rating of categories you are rating it against. This way the user can determine which parts are important to them.
I also think EA games should be rated exactly like released games, or even games 20 years after release. Regardless of when the review is done, the review should be based on the state of the game at the time of the review judged against all similar games at the time of review.
Comments
It is a review of how things stand as of now and identified as such. They can be quite helpful as early access games can range anywhere from barely conceived to well into development. Kind of handy to know.
People don't typically buy cars before they are built, but with early access many buy games before they are finished. As such a review of how things currently are would be helpful in deciding to do so or not. That has worth.
"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
Is it appropriate to score the series as 9/10 even though I have no idea how the rest of the story will play out?
After episode 5 of the Sandman I was ready to shut the series off and would have called it a 3/10.
My daughter convinced me to press on at least one more episode....and I ended up loving the rest of the episodes and would call it a 9/10.
So back to gaming, is it fair to rate the content viewed to date, and if so, give it high or low marks on effort delivered and reviewed to date?
"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
I note Steam has just issued some guidelines for "season passes" we need more of that for EA, that way the reviews would be based on games that were not so wildly different in where they are in development.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Would you score the game at design phase?
What about pre-pre-pre-pre-alpha?
What about if the devs were invited to play a demo, but they never opened it publicly yet?
The only reason these games are being reviewed is because they are open to the public and being played. This means release.
You can call it whatever you want, but they are released. They are making money charging customers and letting them play. Which is release. All the rest is just word games.
Ok, so this is an MMORPG supposedly, but it doesn't have grouping or teams yet. No trading between players or any auction house. No guilds, no housing, and only a few of the gaming loops are playable. How in the world could a game missing all those features get an 8/10? What would the score be if the game was considered done and they weren't adding more stuff to it? Still 8/10?
Sovrath said "I've said this before but plays, musicals will sometimes go out for previews and then, if they are broadway bound (or off broadway) changes will be made before hitting their final destination."
I highlighted previews because that is what it is, not a review of a finished game or play or musical, but a preview of what is a work in progress. I guess just marking it as a review of an EA title is the best we can do.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
Game A releases then spends 10 years doing major improvements after release (like No Man's Sky)?
Game B spends 10 years charging customers in early access open to public and charging money but barely making any improvements at all with no release on the horizon?
So Game B gets 10/10 rating because its still in pre-alpha early access and claims they plan to do all these cool things? Even though if was truely given a rating on what it is right now, it would be 2/10?
Where Game A gets a 5/1`0 rating because of a technical term "release" even though after 10 years they implemented all those things and is now TODAY better than game B?
What a dumb system.
I suppose I could go to ranker or something for that. Although I dont even know who really does this, its all so biased compared to when it released.
But having reviews based on TODAY and have an area with only games relevant TODAY would be nice.
Even better break those overall review scores into little category review scores that it was being judged on. Not all games need to be judged with the same categories and they dont need to match the overall score. Only judge the game on what the game is trying to achieve, dont try to fit every game into the same categories.
This way people can decide what matters to them.
Like for example say you have a category dollars per hour of play time. Maybe a game is a 10/10 but only has 25 hours of content for $40. Where another game has 4k hours of content but is 8/10. Let the review determine where to put their money.
If ever anything like this is created, PLEASE PLEASE have a category for Fun/Engaged/Addicted factor. Geez this is so important.
I found FO to be Fun/Engaging because I enjoyed the crafting/farming aspect whereas people interested in progression burned out in 100 hrs. of play. Some of this is so subjective.
It is labelled as an early access review. Does that not indicate the game is in an unfinished state? I'm pretty sure it does, and thus the score provided applies to the game as it is now rather than how it will be when done. It could be more blatantly highlighted so if that is felt necessary.
Whether 8/10 is appropriate is up to the reviewer. The reader is free to reject that score if it is felt improper, or even dismiss it outright if they believe games in early access shouldn't be reviewed.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Either that or score it as available today which makes it likely at best a 4/10 or 5/10 experience..regardless whether some players enjoy it as such.
"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
That is demonstrably false. It was 8/10 by the reviewer's measure so it indeed can be.
As far as this title I would off, as the reviewer said, the game offers other things to do. So those outweigh issues with combat making combat one of many important things but not primary.
If the game was solely about combat then sure, but if it’s not the main draw then not an issue for now.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
"Ok, so this is an MMORPG supposedly, but it doesn't have grouping or teams yet. No trading between players or any auction house. No guilds, no housing, and only a few of the gaming loops are playable."
So again, is there any point for scoring what appears to be a bare shell of what the game plans to be? Least of all calling it an 8/10?
Nevermind that quite a few players reportedly loath the game's unusual progression system between various zones.
Reviewer said he scored it based on the niche it was aimed for... Gamers who enjoy bugged filled, incomplete games? WTF?
Calling it early access doesn't cut it. 7D2D still calls itself in early access and it is (and has been for many years now) light years ahead of this title in terms of development.
Even though I dearly love it, I'm being generous calling it an 8/10 at this point as it's still missing significant promised content.
So how does someone unfamiliar with both early releases compare the two scores? They can't.
So based on the conversations in this thread some here would have no issue calling Star Citizen a 10 out of 10 for sure, because it's amazing on what it delivers currently.
Yeah, can't even write that with a straight face.
"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
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
But that does not help with how difficult it is to even judge how much more will be put into the game before launch and it will go down very poorly with studios. Maybe "6.0 To 8.0" night work better? But like I said before I see no real solution to this, early access has handed reviewers a hot potato that is not going to be easily baked.
You could say "If the rest of it is as good as this part, the final play will be great."
"We only got to preview a small part of the game, that's all that is ready now. What we see so far is promising. If the rest of the game is as good as this part, it'll probably get an 8/10 in a review after release."
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
Graphics 7
Combat 4
Grind 6
Playable Gameplay loops 3
Bugs / polish 5
Developer interaction 8
Potential - 9
Long story short, score the pros / cons, but leave off the useless overall score.
"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
All games should show the rating of categories you are rating it against. This way the user can determine which parts are important to them.
I also think EA games should be rated exactly like released games, or even games 20 years after release. Regardless of when the review is done, the review should be based on the state of the game at the time of the review judged against all similar games at the time of review.