Must be getting nose bleeds from your elitist pedistal.
Since when is intellectual honesty elitism; maybe when the dishonest are found out?
Dishonesty is calling this a Corpg.
i think it's just realistic.
To be massive a player shoul interact with the whole community, like shaping the global economy or politics. That's the meaning of massive, to interact with everyone. But in this game you just exploit a bunch of ppl who pass by, and i say exploit because you don't really care about 'em, just that they push their buttons. They're like bots.
Must be getting nose bleeds from your elitist pedistal.
Since when is intellectual honesty elitism; maybe when the dishonest are found out?
Dishonesty is calling this a Corpg.
To be fair... it can be played as a Corpg. You won't be able to experience everything the game has to offer, like warzones, flashpoints, operations, or most heroic questing, but it does leave a fair amount of game left for people who just want to co op.
But you definitely wouldn't be able to define it as such with a straight face and keep any posting integrity.
Getting ripped apart on metacritic by 200 people that made their accounts yesterday and only have one vote in--for SWTOR; I'm calling it a load of bull. I understand why people wouldn't like the game, but when I start looking into the haters on metacritic and see most of accounts were made on 12-20-201; the ones that weren't were accounts that only had 4 votes of ratings 0-3 for ME2 and DA2 on all 3 platforms, then I must claim that this hate is fake. : /
To be massive a player shoul interact with the whole community, like shaping the global economy or politics. That's the meaning of massive, to interact with everyone.
By this definition only Eve would be considered an MMO. Try again.
Must be getting nose bleeds from your elitist pedistal.
Since when is intellectual honesty elitism; maybe when the dishonest are found out?
Dishonesty is calling this a Corpg.
i think it's just realistic.
To be massive a player shoul interact with the whole community, like shaping the global economy or politics. That's the meaning of massive, to interact with everyone. But in this game you just exploit a bunch of ppl who pass by, and i say exploit because you don't really care about 'em, just that they push their buttons. They're like bots.
You cannot deny all this, it's just real.
What you are describing is a sandbox MMORPG, not MMORPGs in general.
As in all RPGs, players assume the role of a character (often in a fantasy world) and take control over many of that character's actions. MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player RPGs by the number of players, and by the game's persistent world (usually hosted by the game's publisher), which continues to exist and evolve while the player is offline and away from the game.
Sorry, but SWTOR is an MMORPG. It is just foolish to say otherwise. Maybe you don't like the game. That's fine. Don't play it. But don't try to argue symantics when you are clearly wrong.
Must be getting nose bleeds from your elitist pedistal.
Since when is intellectual honesty elitism; maybe when the dishonest are found out?
Dishonesty is calling this a Corpg.
To be fair... it can be played as a Corpg. You won't be able to experience everything the game has to offer, like warzones, flashpoints, operations, or most heroic questing, but it does leave a fair amount of game left for people who just want to co op.
But you definitely wouldn't be able to define it as such with a straight face and keep any posting integrity.
Erm...if you're playing coop, couldn't you do all of the above except operations? Coop is by definition with one or more other players. That's 4 bodies in your group counting your companions. Couldn't you do heroic questing and flashpoints with that? Also, warzones can be queued for completely solo.
Now if you want to play completely SOLO, you won't be able to do flashpoints, operations, or heroic questing.
Must be getting nose bleeds from your elitist pedistal.
Since when is intellectual honesty elitism; maybe when the dishonest are found out?
Dishonesty is calling this a Corpg.
To be fair... it can be played as a Corpg. You won't be able to experience everything the game has to offer, like warzones, flashpoints, operations, or most heroic questing, but it does leave a fair amount of game left for people who just want to co op.
But you definitely wouldn't be able to define it as such with a straight face and keep any posting integrity.
Erm...if you're playing coop, couldn't you do all of the above except operations? Coop is by definition with one or more other players. That's 4 bodies in your group counting your companions. Couldn't you do heroic questing and flashpoints with that? Also, warzones can be queued for completely solo.
Now if you want to play completely SOLO, you won't be able to do flashpoints, operations, or heroic questing.
Well you're right. When I think co-op, I automatically assume just two players. That's a side effect of playing too many console FPS games with my buddy.
But thank you for correcting me, I was wrong there.
Just like the polar opposite "reviews" of the users on this site? Reviews that are entirely based on opinions that are turned into false facts, or heavy assumptions. What about the bottomless fan praises filled with air? You seem to be new to internet, and I'm not saying it's wrong to listen to that, I'm just saying I'm not stupid enough to buy any of that mindless crap without making my own mind
Must be getting nose bleeds from your elitist pedistal.
Since when is intellectual honesty elitism; maybe when the dishonest are found out?
Dishonesty is calling this a Corpg.
To be fair... it can be played as a Corpg. You won't be able to experience everything the game has to offer, like warzones, flashpoints, operations, or most heroic questing, but it does leave a fair amount of game left for people who just want to co op.
But you definitely wouldn't be able to define it as such with a straight face and keep any posting integrity.
Erm...if you're playing coop, couldn't you do all of the above except operations? Coop is by definition with one or more other players. That's 4 bodies in your group counting your companions. Couldn't you do heroic questing and flashpoints with that? Also, warzones can be queued for completely solo.
Now if you want to play completely SOLO, you won't be able to do flashpoints, operations, or heroic questing.
Well you're right. When I think co-op, I automatically assume just two players. That's a side effect of playing too many console FPS games with my buddy.
But thank you for correcting me, I was wrong there.
Must be getting nose bleeds from your elitist pedistal.
Since when is intellectual honesty elitism; maybe when the dishonest are found out?
Dishonesty is calling this a Corpg.
it is a CORPG with a pvp component. everything revolves around your personal story, and most of the content was created for soloing. in fact, the game's mechanics discourage grouping.
Nothing discourages grouping provided you are willing to interact with others. Having no random lfg mechanic is MUCH better than those games with one for building community.
Must be getting nose bleeds from your elitist pedistal.
Since when is intellectual honesty elitism; maybe when the dishonest are found out?
Dishonesty is calling this a Corpg.
it is a CORPG with a pvp component. everything revolves around your personal story, and most of the content was created for soloing. in fact, the game's mechanics discourage grouping.
Okay, that last statement is flat out WRONG. There are plenty of 'heroic' quests which require grouping, you have plenty of flashpoints, plus an entire 'social points' system which rewards people for participating in group conversations. Oh, and also the group EXP bonus. I'd hardly say those mechanics 'discourage grouping', as you put it.
Please do some research on the game before spouting lies and bullsh*t. Thanks.
Originally posted by MisterSr Getting ripped apart on metacritic by 200 people that made their accounts yesterday and only have one vote in--for SWTOR; I'm calling it a load of bull. I understand why people wouldn't like the game, but when I start looking into the haters on metacritic and see most of accounts were made on 12-20-201; the ones that weren't were accounts that only had 4 votes of ratings 0-3 for ME2 and DA2 on all 3 platforms, then I must claim that this hate is fake. : /
The hate isn't fake. The negative reviews are just as real as the positive reviews. People aren't lying. The really don't like the game (or Bioware or Theme Park mmorpg or WoW...).
See where it is in a week. The rating will be higher. The people who hate the game got in first because they aren't playing the game. The people who like the game will get in later. You can watch it happening now...the overage rating is going up as more people get in to rate the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Must be getting nose bleeds from your elitist pedistal.
Since when is intellectual honesty elitism; maybe when the dishonest are found out?
Dishonesty is calling this a Corpg.
it is a CORPG with a pvp component. everything revolves around your personal story, and most of the content was created for soloing. in fact, the game's mechanics discourage grouping.
This is just blatantly inaccurate. I have literally played the entire game so far in groups. The social point system, frequent heroic quests and flashpoints have actually caused me to group MORE OFTEN than I do in other games. SWTOR very much encourages grouping...
I agree with the poster above me, I have grouped more in the first 20 levels of this game than any other MMO I've played (played every mainstream MMO since SWG launched)
Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by MisterSr Getting ripped apart on metacritic by 200 people that made their accounts yesterday and only have one vote in--for SWTOR; I'm calling it a load of bull. I understand why people wouldn't like the game, but when I start looking into the haters on metacritic and see most of accounts were made on 12-20-201; the ones that weren't were accounts that only had 4 votes of ratings 0-3 for ME2 and DA2 on all 3 platforms, then I must claim that this hate is fake. : /
The hate isn't fake. The negative reviews are just as real as the positive reviews. People aren't lying. The really don't like the game (or Bioware or Theme Park mmorpg or WoW...).
See where it is in a week. The rating will be higher. The people who hate the game got in first because they aren't playing the game. The people who like the game will get in later. You can watch it happening now...the overage rating is going up as more people get in to rate the game.
It's up another tenth of a rating point.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Must be getting nose bleeds from your elitist pedistal.
Since when is intellectual honesty elitism; maybe when the dishonest are found out?
Dishonesty is calling this a Corpg.
i think it's just realistic.
To be massive a player shoul interact with the whole community, like shaping the global economy or politics. That's the meaning of massive, to interact with everyone. But in this game you just exploit a bunch of ppl who pass by, and i say exploit because you don't really care about 'em, just that they push their buttons. They're like bots.
You cannot deny all this, it's just real.
What you are describing is a sandbox MMORPG, not MMORPGs in general.
As in all RPGs, players assume the role of a character (often in a fantasy world) and take control over many of that character's actions. MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player RPGs by the number of players, and by the game's persistent world (usually hosted by the game's publisher), which continues to exist and evolve while the player is offline and away from the game.
Sorry, but SWTOR is an MMORPG. It is just foolish to say otherwise. Maybe you don't like the game. That's fine. Don't play it. But don't try to argue symantics when you are clearly wrong.
A very large number of players interact with each other!! Isn't the average group formed of only 4 players who do little quests and most of the times they don't even say hi? How is that massive and interacting??? You're implying thousands of people interacting with each other, as if a group would interact with another group and so on, but in truth it's just 4 persons hardly chatting until quest is done.
And i believe that too, there's no MMO if there's no sandbox MMO.
Let's face it, these games have nothing to do with massiveness. They feature 1000 players in one server, yet they're divided in 10 instances, the average player WILL deactivate the channel, and when grouping, they will just exploit the other guys as damage accumulation. They're massive only on paper, just accept it, the idea of massive virtual reality, the idea of a live universe, if not dead, is barely able to breathe.
I remember the feel of a world without boundaries in Ultima, i remember meeting a philippino on one side, and a canadian if i turned the corner. Where is all that gone?
Getting ripped apart on metacritic by 200 people that made their accounts yesterday and only have one vote in--for SWTOR; I'm calling it a load of bull. I understand why people wouldn't like the game, but when I start looking into the haters on metacritic and see most of accounts were made on 12-20-201; the ones that weren't were accounts that only had 4 votes of ratings 0-3 for ME2 and DA2 on all 3 platforms, then I must claim that this hate is fake. : /
The hate isn't fake. The negative reviews are just as real as the positive reviews. People aren't lying. The really don't like the game (or Bioware or Theme Park mmorpg or WoW...).
See where it is in a week. The rating will be higher. The people who hate the game got in first because they aren't playing the game. The people who like the game will get in later. You can watch it happening now...the overage rating is going up as more people get in to rate the game.
Yup it is now rated better than SWG pre-NGE by users.
I think there has been a fanboi rally - the newer reviews are almost all 10 after 10 after 10 after 10.
Sorry, but seeing a 10 vote on this game is just as ridiculous as the 1-3 votes in my opinion.
Frankly a 0 or 10 for anything seems asinine to me. Unless they make one hell of a case for that high or low of a grade. Which I don't believe I have ever encountered.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Hmm, so people are basically still attempting to counter dishonest scores with dishonest scores... and wow, 56 pages. I don't think one site's scores warrant 56 pages.
Originally posted by Eir_S Hmm, so people are basically still attempting to counter dishonest scores with dishonest scores... and wow, 56 pages. I don't think one site's scores warrant 56 pages.
That's just it. The scores aren't dishonest. They aren't objective, but that doesn't make them dishonest.
** edit ** Also, the discussion isn't really about Metacritic's rating. It's more about people proving that their opinion of SWToR is the right one. Metacritic is just sort of a side show.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Must be getting nose bleeds from your elitist pedistal.
Since when is intellectual honesty elitism; maybe when the dishonest are found out?
Dishonesty is calling this a Corpg.
it is a CORPG with a pvp component. everything revolves around your personal story, and most of the content was created for soloing. in fact, the game's mechanics discourage grouping.
This is just blatantly inaccurate. I have literally played the entire game so far in groups. The social point system, frequent heroic quests and flashpoints have actually caused me to group MORE OFTEN than I do in other games. SWTOR very much encourages grouping...
So very true and one of the biggest lies being spread by the haters. Even on the starter worlds I have had to group up to complete some of the missions. So far the majority I run of people I come across have been very friendly, unlike some of the other supposed "great" community games that get trumpeted around here.
The thing you need to do with Metacritic to use it and use it well is use it as a resource to find reviews that make sense. Find some great ones, some middling ones, and some bad ones.
READ THE TEXT.
Then decide if you feel like it's worthwhile to pick up a copy for yourself. The reading is the important part; I've seen plenty of reviews that were at a 3 or something and the person admitted, in the text, that they hadn't played the game. I've seen 10 reviews that hadn't played the game. I've seen reviews that sounded generally quite positive and then ended with a numerical score of 5 or 6 for some reason I could not understand.
Read about it. Find consistent up-and-down points. Lots of good reviews say combat is a little stale but the story is great. Lots of bad reviews really rail on the combat but grudgingly admit that the story is great. Lots of middling reviews say meh, the game is fine, but the emphasis on story isn't right for the genre.
You can make a real opinion of a game by using the reviews on Metacritic to find out what people like and don't, and get a good feeling for the game by doing so. The numerical scores are nearly worthless; you have to read if you want to gain the kind of real value that Metacritic is good for.
And Metacritic -is- good. Just don't read the numbers and pass judgement based entirely on them.
Serious personal bias is a -huge deal- in reviews in general. I've heard folks talk about The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo that abhorred the book because it has some very bizarre sexual abuse situations in it; the book is good, I had a great read and am reading the second, but people discount the entire book based on the fact that it contains some very uncomfortable material. I like uncomfortable, personally, but a lot of the bad reviews aren't bad at all; some folks don't have the stomach for Lisbeth's past and it shows in reviews that call it pornographic or disgusting or rate it as low as they can.
This stuff is all over the place in every kind of review out there. Judge by the reviewer's words, not by the number they slap on the end. Numerical scores are arbitrary and silly and often inaccurate, but what the body of the reviews -says- has real value, and allows you to pass a much more reasonable judgement.
TL;DR: Learn to use Metacritic for what it's good for, not for what is most obvious.
Comments
i think it's just realistic.
To be massive a player shoul interact with the whole community, like shaping the global economy or politics. That's the meaning of massive, to interact with everyone. But in this game you just exploit a bunch of ppl who pass by, and i say exploit because you don't really care about 'em, just that they push their buttons. They're like bots.
You cannot deny all this, it's just real.
the best blog of the net
To be fair... it can be played as a Corpg. You won't be able to experience everything the game has to offer, like warzones, flashpoints, operations, or most heroic questing, but it does leave a fair amount of game left for people who just want to co op.
But you definitely wouldn't be able to define it as such with a straight face and keep any posting integrity.
Getting ripped apart on metacritic by 200 people that made their accounts yesterday and only have one vote in--for SWTOR; I'm calling it a load of bull. I understand why people wouldn't like the game, but when I start looking into the haters on metacritic and see most of accounts were made on 12-20-201; the ones that weren't were accounts that only had 4 votes of ratings 0-3 for ME2 and DA2 on all 3 platforms, then I must claim that this hate is fake. : /
By this definition only Eve would be considered an MMO. Try again.
What you are describing is a sandbox MMORPG, not MMORPGs in general.
Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of role-playing video games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.
As in all RPGs, players assume the role of a character (often in a fantasy world) and take control over many of that character's actions. MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player RPGs by the number of players, and by the game's persistent world (usually hosted by the game's publisher), which continues to exist and evolve while the player is offline and away from the game.
Sorry, but SWTOR is an MMORPG. It is just foolish to say otherwise. Maybe you don't like the game. That's fine. Don't play it. But don't try to argue symantics when you are clearly wrong.
Erm...if you're playing coop, couldn't you do all of the above except operations? Coop is by definition with one or more other players. That's 4 bodies in your group counting your companions. Couldn't you do heroic questing and flashpoints with that? Also, warzones can be queued for completely solo.
Now if you want to play completely SOLO, you won't be able to do flashpoints, operations, or heroic questing.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Well you're right. When I think co-op, I automatically assume just two players. That's a side effect of playing too many console FPS games with my buddy.
But thank you for correcting me, I was wrong there.
Just like the polar opposite "reviews" of the users on this site? Reviews that are entirely based on opinions that are turned into false facts, or heavy assumptions. What about the bottomless fan praises filled with air? You seem to be new to internet, and I'm not saying it's wrong to listen to that, I'm just saying I'm not stupid enough to buy any of that mindless crap without making my own mind
Ah I see, no prob
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Guys, please cool it on the personal attacks and insults. Even this far in the thread, please keep things on topic.
To give feedback on moderation, contact mikeb@mmorpg.com
it is a CORPG with a pvp component. everything revolves around your personal story, and most of the content was created for soloing. in fact, the game's mechanics discourage grouping.
Okay, that last statement is flat out WRONG. There are plenty of 'heroic' quests which require grouping, you have plenty of flashpoints, plus an entire 'social points' system which rewards people for participating in group conversations. Oh, and also the group EXP bonus. I'd hardly say those mechanics 'discourage grouping', as you put it.
Please do some research on the game before spouting lies and bullsh*t. Thanks.
The hate isn't fake. The negative reviews are just as real as the positive reviews. People aren't lying. The really don't like the game (or Bioware or Theme Park mmorpg or WoW...).
See where it is in a week. The rating will be higher. The people who hate the game got in first because they aren't playing the game. The people who like the game will get in later. You can watch it happening now...the overage rating is going up as more people get in to rate the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This is just blatantly inaccurate. I have literally played the entire game so far in groups. The social point system, frequent heroic quests and flashpoints have actually caused me to group MORE OFTEN than I do in other games. SWTOR very much encourages grouping...
I agree with the poster above me, I have grouped more in the first 20 levels of this game than any other MMO I've played (played every mainstream MMO since SWG launched)
The hate isn't fake. The negative reviews are just as real as the positive reviews. People aren't lying. The really don't like the game (or Bioware or Theme Park mmorpg or WoW...).
See where it is in a week. The rating will be higher. The people who hate the game got in first because they aren't playing the game. The people who like the game will get in later. You can watch it happening now...the overage rating is going up as more people get in to rate the game.
It's up another tenth of a rating point.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
A very large number of players interact with each other!! Isn't the average group formed of only 4 players who do little quests and most of the times they don't even say hi? How is that massive and interacting??? You're implying thousands of people interacting with each other, as if a group would interact with another group and so on, but in truth it's just 4 persons hardly chatting until quest is done.
And i believe that too, there's no MMO if there's no sandbox MMO.
Let's face it, these games have nothing to do with massiveness. They feature 1000 players in one server, yet they're divided in 10 instances, the average player WILL deactivate the channel, and when grouping, they will just exploit the other guys as damage accumulation. They're massive only on paper, just accept it, the idea of massive virtual reality, the idea of a live universe, if not dead, is barely able to breathe.
I remember the feel of a world without boundaries in Ultima, i remember meeting a philippino on one side, and a canadian if i turned the corner. Where is all that gone?
Yup it is now rated better than SWG pre-NGE by users.
I think there has been a fanboi rally - the newer reviews are almost all 10 after 10 after 10 after 10.
Sorry, but seeing a 10 vote on this game is just as ridiculous as the 1-3 votes in my opinion.
Frankly a 0 or 10 for anything seems asinine to me. Unless they make one hell of a case for that high or low of a grade. Which I don't believe I have ever encountered.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Hmm, so people are basically still attempting to counter dishonest scores with dishonest scores... and wow, 56 pages. I don't think one site's scores warrant 56 pages.
That's just it. The scores aren't dishonest. They aren't objective, but that doesn't make them dishonest.
** edit **
Also, the discussion isn't really about Metacritic's rating. It's more about people proving that their opinion of SWToR is the right one. Metacritic is just sort of a side show.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
So very true and one of the biggest lies being spread by the haters. Even on the starter worlds I have had to group up to complete some of the missions. So far the majority I run of people I come across have been very friendly, unlike some of the other supposed "great" community games that get trumpeted around here.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
The thing you need to do with Metacritic to use it and use it well is use it as a resource to find reviews that make sense. Find some great ones, some middling ones, and some bad ones.
READ THE TEXT.
Then decide if you feel like it's worthwhile to pick up a copy for yourself. The reading is the important part; I've seen plenty of reviews that were at a 3 or something and the person admitted, in the text, that they hadn't played the game. I've seen 10 reviews that hadn't played the game. I've seen reviews that sounded generally quite positive and then ended with a numerical score of 5 or 6 for some reason I could not understand.
Read about it. Find consistent up-and-down points. Lots of good reviews say combat is a little stale but the story is great. Lots of bad reviews really rail on the combat but grudgingly admit that the story is great. Lots of middling reviews say meh, the game is fine, but the emphasis on story isn't right for the genre.
You can make a real opinion of a game by using the reviews on Metacritic to find out what people like and don't, and get a good feeling for the game by doing so. The numerical scores are nearly worthless; you have to read if you want to gain the kind of real value that Metacritic is good for.
And Metacritic -is- good. Just don't read the numbers and pass judgement based entirely on them.
Serious personal bias is a -huge deal- in reviews in general. I've heard folks talk about The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo that abhorred the book because it has some very bizarre sexual abuse situations in it; the book is good, I had a great read and am reading the second, but people discount the entire book based on the fact that it contains some very uncomfortable material. I like uncomfortable, personally, but a lot of the bad reviews aren't bad at all; some folks don't have the stomach for Lisbeth's past and it shows in reviews that call it pornographic or disgusting or rate it as low as they can.
This stuff is all over the place in every kind of review out there. Judge by the reviewer's words, not by the number they slap on the end. Numerical scores are arbitrary and silly and often inaccurate, but what the body of the reviews -says- has real value, and allows you to pass a much more reasonable judgement.
TL;DR: Learn to use Metacritic for what it's good for, not for what is most obvious.