I'm not a huge fan of SWTOR...but it's better than WAR. Come on.
It seems like all professional reviews do is get a good "first impression" of an MMORPG and roll with it. There seems to be hardly any correlation between an MMORPGs metascore and its ultimate success.
WoW = 93
SWTOR= 86
WAR = 86
LOTRO = 86
CoH = 85
Rift = 84
EQ2 = 83
AoC = 80
DCUO = 72
FFXIV = 49 (lol)
To be fair, I think if you remove WAR thats a pretty fair ranking of the games at release. I would bump CoH below both rift and EQ2, but otherwise Id agree.
Really? You consider all these MMOs to be about equal? It's almost like an 8 to 9 scale, with worse scores only if the game is practically worthless.
That's the problem, a two percentage point difference on an average scale is basically insignificant. It could have easily gone the other way if one or two reviewers were in a better mood when they did their review and gave the game an 8.7 instead of an 8.2. So anything from 84-86 is pretty much the same score.
It's like saying Rift, SWTOR, LOTRO, WAR, and CoH are all equal, with EQ2 just slightly slightly behind them.
Those reviews are actually from UO's release. The reviewers trashed it just because they couldn't get into right away...lag, bugs, whatever. This was 1997, a lot of folks still had modems and lag was a MAJOR problem.
I still think it's a failing on the part of the reviewers. They just didn't understand the genre.
When UO launched, it was nearly unplayable, the lag was so bad. I remember literally waiting a minute or two, just to move an inch, or perform an action. In all fairness, the genre was in its infancy, but it was pretty awful.
Haha yeah, I had a 56K back then so I thought it was all on my side .
Those reviews are actually from UO's release. The reviewers trashed it just because they couldn't get into right away...lag, bugs, whatever. This was 1997, a lot of folks still had modems and lag was a MAJOR problem.
I still think it's a failing on the part of the reviewers. They just didn't understand the genre.
6 reviews is just too small of a sample size. And yes, when lag causes the game to be unplayable it has to factor into the review. Vanguard got a 68, reviewing a game based on its potential while ignoring its performance is silly.
It's like saying Rift, SWTOR, LOTRO, WAR, and CoH are all equal, with EQ2 just slightly slightly behind them.
Is there really this big gap in quality between them though? I think SWTOR and LOTRO were both better than Rift at launch, but not in a seperate league of their own like WoW. They are all B games.
Its the way the scale works. you really are only working with 25 points or so for most games, because it has to suck for it to be considered below a 75. Because below a 75 is below a C, and if you got a C- you were a very bad student. All these games are basically average for games that dont suck.
Those reviews are actually from UO's release. The reviewers trashed it just because they couldn't get into right away...lag, bugs, whatever. This was 1997, a lot of folks still had modems and lag was a MAJOR problem.
I still think it's a failing on the part of the reviewers. They just didn't understand the genre.
When UO launched, it was nearly unplayable, the lag was so bad. I remember literally waiting a minute or two, just to move an inch, or perform an action. In all fairness, the genre was in its infancy, but it was pretty awful.
Remember how long it would take to find something to kill. I would roam around the country side for 45 minutes to find an animal to take down. The first 3 months of UO were brutal, it was a terrible game. But I could see the potential and it did improve over time. The game itself was very bland, it was player's that made it incredibly fun, there were great rp's playing that made the game very entertaining, something you dont see today. I can totally understand the poor review at the time and I loved the game. My gaming freinds thought it was boring as hell and went back to playing Diablo.
I'm not a huge fan of SWTOR...but it's better than WAR. Come on.
It seems like all professional reviews do is get a good "first impression" of an MMORPG and roll with it. There seems to be hardly any correlation between an MMORPGs metascore and its ultimate success.
The war review was written using the old review system and swtor is from the new scoring system so that might play into it.
It's like saying Rift, SWTOR, LOTRO, WAR, and CoH are all equal, with EQ2 just slightly slightly behind them.
Is there really this big gap in quality between them though? I think SWTOR and LOTRO were both better than Rift at launch, but not in a seperate league of their own like WoW. They are all B games.
Its the way the scale works. you really are only working with 25 points or so for most games, because it has to suck for it to be considered below a 75. Because below a 75 is below a C, and if you got a C- you were a very bad student. All these games are basically average for games that dont suck.
That's the problem. Such a narrow scale is too lmiting for reviewers. They have to rate well, or be accused of trashing games unfairly. Regular players, OTOH, have no qualms giving a game a zero if they hate it, and I think that's how it should be. Use the whole scale, so you have a much broader base for comparison. Then average it out, and the numbers actually mean something.
I'd say that no, those games weren't all equal. They might look like they're all "ok" from an objective standpoint, but to people actually playing them, and comparing them? Some had a lot more to them than others. I want to know more than just, is the game broken, passable, or WoW?
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
The real problem with reviews, and comparing reviews is what exactly do we use as a baseline for each of the areas being examined? Take the criteria used by MikeB in his review. By what do we judge them against?
Assuming there has never been a 10.0 in any game, anywhere, in any of these categories (because that implies perfection and no one is walking on water around here) how does one compare them?
One way would be for the reviewer to list another MMORPG that they feel was the 'Best" in a particular category and it might go something like this. (for simplicity's sake, I gave the best game a 9.5 rating)
Aesthetics: LOTRO 9.5
Gameplay: EVE 9.5
Innovation: EQ1 9.5
Polish: Rift 9.5
Longevity: WOW 9.5
Value: WOW 9.5
Social: DAOC 9.5
Then you could compare a game like SWTOR against these absolute values, (for me) how well does it stack up against each of these titles.
Of course, all of us would place different titles in these categories (the above don't necessarily reflect my own choices btw, I just swagged something) but at least by doing so, If I rated Gameplay of SWTOR at 6.5, you might be able to draw the conclusion that perhaps as an EVE /sandbox player, my viewpoint might be a bit slanted.
Of course, one trick is to decide, do you compare it to how each game was at launch, or how they are today? I'd actually favor comparing them against today's versions, because that's what you are really trying to beat here, but that is something I'd probably want to think about some more.
I'm sure I could refine this system more, and who knows, when I finally get around to playing SWTOR I might just do a review on this site along the lines I've suggested above so I can see how well it plays out.
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 want to know more than just, is the game broken, passable, or WoW?
But most games are 6 of one, half dozen of another. Rift has rifts, invasions and the soul system. EQ2 has tons of fantastic races and the best housing system ever, and fantastic non instanced dungeons. How do you differentiate which is truly better?
I want to know more than just, is the game broken, passable, or WoW?
But most games are 6 of one, half dozen of another. Rift has rifts, invasions and the soul system. EQ2 has tons of fantastic races and the best housing system ever, and fantastic non instanced dungeons. How do you differentiate which is truly better?
By which you personally enjoyed more. If 3 out of 4 people enjoyed Rift more than EQ2, let the aggregate reflect that. I guess part of what I'm saying is that objectivity has no place in entertainment reviews.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
I'm not a huge fan of SWTOR...but it's better than WAR. Come on.
It seems like all professional reviews do is get a good "first impression" of an MMORPG and roll with it. There seems to be hardly any correlation between an MMORPGs metascore and its ultimate success.
WoW = 93
SWTOR= 86
WAR = 86
LOTRO = 86
CoH = 85
Rift = 84
EQ2 = 83
AoC = 80
DCUO = 72
FFXIV = 49 (lol)
To be fair, I think if you remove WAR thats a pretty fair ranking of the games at release. I would bump CoH below both rift and EQ2, but otherwise Id agree.
Really? You consider all these MMOs to be about equal? It's almost like an 8 to 9 scale, with worse scores only if the game is practically worthless.
That's the problem, a two percentage point difference on an average scale is basically insignificant. It could have easily gone the other way if one or two reviewers were in a better mood when they did their review and gave the game an 8.7 instead of an 8.2. So anything from 84-86 is pretty much the same score.
It's like saying Rift, SWTOR, LOTRO, WAR, and CoH are all equal, with EQ2 just slightly slightly behind them.
They ARE all pretty much equal.. at their respective times. Its like saying the old Mario Brothers game is equal to Mass Effect 2, even if they have the same scores, its a different time when they were being scored.
You can only review what you have at the time.. and scores can't dictate what comes out in the future, just a basis for comparison.
You can't say "I'm going to score this a 5 because there could be a better game in the future" thats just stupid. In that case no game would ever score well, because there will always be better games in the future.
That's the problem, a two percentage point difference on an average scale is basically insignificant. It could have easily gone the other way if one or two reviewers were in a better mood when they did their review and gave the game an 8.7 instead of an 8.2. So anything from 84-86 is pretty much the same score.
It's like saying Rift, SWTOR, LOTRO, WAR, and CoH are all equal, with EQ2 just slightly slightly behind them.
They ARE all pretty much equal.. at their respective times. Its like saying the old Mario Brothers game is equal to Mass Effect 2, even if they have the same scores, its a different time when they were being scored.
You can only review what you have at the time.. and scores can't dictate what comes out in the future, just a basis for comparison.
You can't say "I'm going to score this a 5 because there could be a better game in the future" thats just stupid. In that case no game would ever score well, because there will always be better games in the future.
Can't comment on EQ2, because I didn't play it, but the others.. I'd personally rate more like
Rift 7.5, LOTRO 7.0, WAR 4.0, CoH 6.5, TOR 6.0
Obviously not everyone would agree with those scores, but just to show, I definately wouldn't rate them all an 8.5.. That is taking their age into consideration, remembering how much I enjoyed them, when they were new games, compared to other new games. I'd rate DAOC a 9.0, and that game is crap by modern standards.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Critic reviews on sites, magazines and many blogs are very good almost always because:
a) they are paid
b) if they are not paid - you don't want to bash big AAA production cause you can say eventual ads or future paid review money good bye
Nowadays when sites like this and many others have all content 'free' they depend on game's / game companies marketting and advertisement money entirelly.
If sites don't get money from game creators they don't have money to operate, pay their investors or pay to employers. Similar with many bloggers.
Remember before internet you had to PAY for game magazine and even then only some reviews were honest. Well at least much more than now where everything is sugar coated and worse cr*p is getting 7
It is that simple. Who's singing check make decisions.
Am I the only one that is seeing something very interesting about the posts and discriptions lol.
I don't even know what it is but it's in a way showing some reality with all these MMOs so far.
Crazy indeed.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Originally posted by fenistilWell at least much more than now where everything is sugar coated and worse cr*p is getting 7
gaming now is 100 times better than it was before, you can walk into pretty much any game store and pick up a random game and it will be better than at least 75% of the crap that used to come out.
I suppose I was probably justy paid off to say that though.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling" Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
Originally posted by fenistilWell at least much more than now where everything is sugar coated and worse cr*p is getting 7
gaming now is 100 times better than it was before, you can walk into pretty much any game store and pick up a random game and it will be better than at least 75% of the crap that used to come out.
I suppose I was probably justy paid off to say that though.
Now we just disagree, cause I don't see games beign overall better now than for example 8 years ago.
I think the American grading system that puts F to - what, below 70? - plays a big part into these game ratings getting really crammed into the 70 - 90 segment.
Really, if 60 means an F, you pretty much leave a huge part of the rating scale to the "failing games" and little space for all the games that are supposed to be "better than a failure" but still nothing close to perfection (let's assume 90+ means close to perfection).
This stuff's always been a bit funny to me, because I'm used to a grading system from 1-10 in which a 5 is a passing grade. Really, we even "round up" a 4.5 to a 5 and pass that too!
So, me, when I see a 70, just out of habit I still think "Hey, so they found it good!". On the scale I'm used to, a "better than average" game would be getting a 6 - or rather, 60. A 70 would be good and solid, not average. An 80 exceptional. And a 90+ absolute brilliance.
The point is, when you first try a game and make that numeric judgement on it, its based solely around your enjoyment at that time, and not anything that happens or changes 6 months or a year down the road. To that, and that alone, a good score is worthy of your enjoyment for that time spent.
For me, its also based on how likely I am to be enjoying the game in 6 months or a year, because I know that is a huge part of why I liked my favorite MMOs as much as I did. In this genre, longevity is vital to me, and very much does play into how highly I rate a game.
(mod edit)
You folks complain that MMORPG is biased....yes it is. You sandbox gamers get away with a bunch of BS. Any respectable board, on the net, would of perma banned you guys long ago. What is even sadder, is a number of ya bait, then report when folks tell ya to "Fuck off".
The reviews I keep seeing match up with what I am experiencing in game. I got my 3rd character their ship tonight. Hopefully when BW switches the UI up, they also add something in to change font size. TOR hasnt given me that "first" feeling like I got in EQ back in 01, but that doesnt mean I am not enjoying the shit out of it.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Comments
That's the problem, a two percentage point difference on an average scale is basically insignificant. It could have easily gone the other way if one or two reviewers were in a better mood when they did their review and gave the game an 8.7 instead of an 8.2. So anything from 84-86 is pretty much the same score.
It's like saying Rift, SWTOR, LOTRO, WAR, and CoH are all equal, with EQ2 just slightly slightly behind them.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Haha yeah, I had a 56K back then so I thought it was all on my side
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
6 reviews is just too small of a sample size. And yes, when lag causes the game to be unplayable it has to factor into the review. Vanguard got a 68, reviewing a game based on its potential while ignoring its performance is silly.
Is there really this big gap in quality between them though? I think SWTOR and LOTRO were both better than Rift at launch, but not in a seperate league of their own like WoW. They are all B games.
Its the way the scale works. you really are only working with 25 points or so for most games, because it has to suck for it to be considered below a 75. Because below a 75 is below a C, and if you got a C- you were a very bad student. All these games are basically average for games that dont suck.
Remember how long it would take to find something to kill. I would roam around the country side for 45 minutes to find an animal to take down. The first 3 months of UO were brutal, it was a terrible game. But I could see the potential and it did improve over time. The game itself was very bland, it was player's that made it incredibly fun, there were great rp's playing that made the game very entertaining, something you dont see today. I can totally understand the poor review at the time and I loved the game. My gaming freinds thought it was boring as hell and went back to playing Diablo.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The war review was written using the old review system and swtor is from the new scoring system so that might play into it.
That's the problem. Such a narrow scale is too lmiting for reviewers. They have to rate well, or be accused of trashing games unfairly. Regular players, OTOH, have no qualms giving a game a zero if they hate it, and I think that's how it should be. Use the whole scale, so you have a much broader base for comparison. Then average it out, and the numbers actually mean something.
I'd say that no, those games weren't all equal. They might look like they're all "ok" from an objective standpoint, but to people actually playing them, and comparing them? Some had a lot more to them than others. I want to know more than just, is the game broken, passable, or WoW?
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
The real problem with reviews, and comparing reviews is what exactly do we use as a baseline for each of the areas being examined? Take the criteria used by MikeB in his review. By what do we judge them against?
Assuming there has never been a 10.0 in any game, anywhere, in any of these categories (because that implies perfection and no one is walking on water around here)
how does one compare them?
One way would be for the reviewer to list another MMORPG that they feel was the 'Best" in a particular category and it might go something like this. (for simplicity's sake, I gave the best game a 9.5 rating)
Aesthetics: LOTRO 9.5
Gameplay: EVE 9.5
Innovation: EQ1 9.5
Polish: Rift 9.5
Longevity: WOW 9.5
Value: WOW 9.5
Social: DAOC 9.5
Then you could compare a game like SWTOR against these absolute values, (for me) how well does it stack up against each of these titles.
Of course, all of us would place different titles in these categories (the above don't necessarily reflect my own choices btw, I just swagged something) but at least by doing so, If I rated Gameplay of SWTOR at 6.5, you might be able to draw the conclusion that perhaps as an EVE /sandbox player, my viewpoint might be a bit slanted.
Of course, one trick is to decide, do you compare it to how each game was at launch, or how they are today? I'd actually favor comparing them against today's versions, because that's what you are really trying to beat here, but that is something I'd probably want to think about some more.
I'm sure I could refine this system more, and who knows, when I finally get around to playing SWTOR I might just do a review on this site along the lines I've suggested above so I can see how well it plays out.
"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
But most games are 6 of one, half dozen of another. Rift has rifts, invasions and the soul system. EQ2 has tons of fantastic races and the best housing system ever, and fantastic non instanced dungeons. How do you differentiate which is truly better?
By which you personally enjoyed more. If 3 out of 4 people enjoyed Rift more than EQ2, let the aggregate reflect that. I guess part of what I'm saying is that objectivity has no place in entertainment reviews.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Why are TOR better than WAR, what aspect of TOR is better?
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
Arkinia's summation is all anyone should ever need
They ARE all pretty much equal.. at their respective times. Its like saying the old Mario Brothers game is equal to Mass Effect 2, even if they have the same scores, its a different time when they were being scored.
You can only review what you have at the time.. and scores can't dictate what comes out in the future, just a basis for comparison.
You can't say "I'm going to score this a 5 because there could be a better game in the future" thats just stupid. In that case no game would ever score well, because there will always be better games in the future.
Can't comment on EQ2, because I didn't play it, but the others.. I'd personally rate more like
Rift 7.5, LOTRO 7.0, WAR 4.0, CoH 6.5, TOR 6.0
Obviously not everyone would agree with those scores, but just to show, I definately wouldn't rate them all an 8.5.. That is taking their age into consideration, remembering how much I enjoyed them, when they were new games, compared to other new games. I'd rate DAOC a 9.0, and that game is crap by modern standards.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Critic reviews on sites, magazines and many blogs are very good almost always because:
a) they are paid
b) if they are not paid - you don't want to bash big AAA production cause you can say eventual ads or future paid review money good bye
Nowadays when sites like this and many others have all content 'free' they depend on game's / game companies marketting and advertisement money entirelly.
If sites don't get money from game creators they don't have money to operate, pay their investors or pay to employers. Similar with many bloggers.
Remember before internet you had to PAY for game magazine and even then only some reviews were honest. Well at least much more than now where everything is sugar coated and worse cr*p is getting 7
It is that simple. Who's singing check make decisions.
Am I the only one that is seeing something very interesting about the posts and discriptions lol.
I don't even know what it is but it's in a way showing some reality with all these MMOs so far.
Crazy indeed.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
gaming now is 100 times better than it was before, you can walk into pretty much any game store and pick up a random game and it will be better than at least 75% of the crap that used to come out.
I suppose I was probably justy paid off to say that though.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
The fact that they score ToR higher than Rift makes me think theyre a load of dung...lol
Now we just disagree, cause I don't see games beign overall better now than for example 8 years ago.
Simple as that.
I think the American grading system that puts F to - what, below 70? - plays a big part into these game ratings getting really crammed into the 70 - 90 segment.
Really, if 60 means an F, you pretty much leave a huge part of the rating scale to the "failing games" and little space for all the games that are supposed to be "better than a failure" but still nothing close to perfection (let's assume 90+ means close to perfection).
This stuff's always been a bit funny to me, because I'm used to a grading system from 1-10 in which a 5 is a passing grade. Really, we even "round up" a 4.5 to a 5 and pass that too!
So, me, when I see a 70, just out of habit I still think "Hey, so they found it good!". On the scale I'm used to, a "better than average" game would be getting a 6 - or rather, 60. A 70 would be good and solid, not average. An 80 exceptional. And a 90+ absolute brilliance.
I recommend it. It's much more usable.
I think more people that played both games would say SWTOR > Rift than the other way around.
I disagree.
I think Rift is a more well oiled machine than ToR.Even when Rift first launched.
(mod edit)
You folks complain that MMORPG is biased....yes it is. You sandbox gamers get away with a bunch of BS. Any respectable board, on the net, would of perma banned you guys long ago. What is even sadder, is a number of ya bait, then report when folks tell ya to "Fuck off".
The reviews I keep seeing match up with what I am experiencing in game. I got my 3rd character their ship tonight. Hopefully when BW switches the UI up, they also add something in to change font size. TOR hasnt given me that "first" feeling like I got in EQ back in 01, but that doesnt mean I am not enjoying the shit out of it.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Professional reviewers are either sold or have an agenda making it impossible for them to be impartial.
The only trustworthy reviews out there are the ones made by amateur gamers.
Id rather have the better machine than the better oiled one. Easier to add oil than to upgrade the machine.