Yet gamespot readers gave it an 8.8, and isn't that what really matters?
And metacritic averages it out at 87... hmmm... sounds like IGN is a lot closer to the average, indicating their review is more accurage compared to IGN. (See, this doesn't involve me calling it more accurate just because it's closer to my PERSONAL opinion. Try thinking outside the box a little!)
Gamespy have given 150 games 100/100....
The metacritic user reviews are generally the best way to guage a game potentially. The reviews themselves aren't as in depth obviously but due to the large number of people rating the game the average tends to be closer to reality. And there is less reason for the users to be bias in their rating also.
Yet gamespot readers gave it an 8.8, and isn't that what really matters?
And metacritic averages it out at 87... hmmm... sounds like IGN is a lot closer to the average, indicating their review is more accurage compared to IGN. (See, this doesn't involve me calling it more accurate just because it's closer to my PERSONAL opinion. Try thinking outside the box a little!)
Gamespy have given 150 games 100/100....
The metacritic user reviews are generally the best way to guage a game potentially. The reviews themselves aren't as in depth obviously but due to the large number of people rating the game the average tends to be closer to reality. And there is less reason for the users to be bias in their rating also.
That's a wonderful theory, but perhaps you missed the immediate onslaught of "0" scores the day the game released from people who a) just signed up to metacritic and have never rated a game before, and b) never even played SWTOR.
They reviewed all aspects of the game individually but they didn't put a score on them. This is their overall score for the game.
Wierd, I see a 9 on Presentation, 8.5 on Graphics, 10 on Sound, 9 on Gameplay and 9.5 on lasting appeal. Overall score 9/10 (amazing) on Page 2, maybe you don't get to the second page?
Yet gamespot readers gave it an 8.8, and isn't that what really matters?
And metacritic averages it out at 87... hmmm... sounds like IGN is a lot closer to the average, indicating their review is more accurage compared to IGN. (See, this doesn't involve me calling it more accurate just because it's closer to my PERSONAL opinion. Try thinking outside the box a little!)
It's really sad that reviews have become more about the score and less about the actual content of the review. So I agree with TotalBiscuit in that review score should be abolished, then maybe people will becgin to care about what the reviewer actually has to say.
The metacritic user reviews are generally the best way to guage a game potentially. The reviews themselves aren't as in depth obviously but due to the large number of people rating the game the average tends to be closer to reality. And there is less reason for the users to be bias in their rating also.
I laughed
then I cried a bit because you are serious
edit: how I use reviews
1. professional reviews are great to figure out the content of the game, major bugs (not the 1 in a billion bugs most user reviews are full off) the general diffuculty and mechanics of the game, scores are meaningless, I hated 10/10 games and enjoyed 5/10 games
2. on top of that I watch some quick looks/let's plays to get a general feel of the gameplay, the UI etc
those two together are more than enough for me to decide if a game is worth my money or not, user reviews are the cespoll of the internet, especialy the metacritic ones and I have no faith whatsoever in them
I wouldn't read too much into these "professional" reviews, particularly when it comes to MMO's (I'd argue the same for FPS' as well, but that's for another thread).
To many for the first couple of months, the game was a 9, it just got tired fast. At release, this was some of the most fun I had in years. Whats your point? Also, why do you think you are the judge of what ratings games do and dont deserve and how they should rate against each other? I bet you money if the review was a 2, you'd be like "FINALLY AN HONEST REVIEW". When some of you don't get what you want, then its lets find a comparison they did that I don't agree with to discredit them..or...they were paid...or zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..same old tired argument we have seen in countless threads.
The point of my post is really simple: Warhammer Online, one of the biggest flops in MMO history with a ton of poorly implented features and design flaws as well as a crapload of bugs and stability issues that lasted months after launch was given a 9 and praised for having "one of the smoothest and most effortless MMO launches to date" and displaying "careful thought in almost every aspect." Many other sites gave WAR high review scores and a ton of awards as well.
And WAR is just one example of many. Sites like IGN have proven again and again that their MMO reviews simply have no weight.
This, of course, says nothing about the ACTUAL quality of the game itself, only that using a high (or low) review score from a site like IGN to argue in favor of an MMO's excellent (or poor) quality, as the OP is doing, is pointless.
I think these reviewers are coo coo for coco puffs..
I dont think ToR, in any way,should get a higher mark than Rift.Rift started off with a much better,less static,more action packed world.Flora and Fuana,world events,scattered battles throughout,hell even mobs that actually MOVED AROUND.There is just much more fun and appeal in Rift than ToR.
Rift has more of an 'alive' feeling and is much more well developed out of the gate than ToR
ToR,in no way,gets no higher than a 7....._certainly NOT_ a 9...
Much of what you wrote is YOUR opinion, I just happen to disagree with it. I found Rift to be a "soulless" game. The story wasn't good, some areas were just packed to capacity with mobs (read too many), the feature highlight "rifts" got to be aggravating and annoying when questing, the quests were horrible (even the quest givers seemed bored giving them).
I had to force myself to log in because I just didn't enjoy it. Of course, this is all just my opinion. I think a 7 for Rift is way too generous.
Having said that, I'm enjoying my time in SWTOR. I haven't felt this connected to a character in quite a while and usually never in an MMO. The immersion is what keeps drawing me back. There are issues with the game, not game breaking issues, but issues none the less.
To be honest, I think a 9 is a bit high, but hey, I'm not the one doing the review. Kudos to IGN for liking the game, though.
Yes,it always comes down to ones opinion..
Its the writers of these reviews opinion that the game should get high marks all around.(which I personally think is swayed by money anyway)
which i completely disagree with,Ive never seen such a lifeless MMO in.....forever..
I wasnt even a huge fan of Rift...I thought it was OK.But I can still see that it is a better,well rounded game than ToR is.
Everyone has their opinions, it does not make one person better than another.
I have play alot of games, probably not as much as some, or as Hardcore as most. But I have played many games, some I liked, and some I don't.
I have played WOW, RIFT, FFXI, EQ, Loved all the games, played to the max level, some only by quests, some by PVPing to the top, some was only viable through grouping, and have joined different Guilds for Raids.
Swtor is the only game currently on the market that I actually wanted to create alts, not for extra bank space, not for crafting materials. This is the only game which my Alts aren't simply Mules, because as I play through their class quests, or through simple quests, my character acts and speaks differently than all other characters that I have.
PVP contents is currently broken and lacking, Although the 3 warfronts they have are fun, and extremely competitive when you get a great team. there are problems, like the weird RNG Champion bags, Illium's lack of actual PVP and Outlaws den being deserted, PVP wins not registering for your dailies, Empire outnumbering Republics and Warfront Afkers and Bots. IF it gets fixed, and more Warfronts are added, then the PVP will be a great selling point. But as it stands its rating isn't more than a 5/10 Mediocre.
PVE is really where this game shines, not only do you have unique dialogues for each character class, when you partner with another player, the roll of dice for choices are just unique in this current MMO market. I have played through Flash Points with different players, and each time, people make different choices. You also get social points for partnering up through Heroics. 9/10
You might ask is it the same as all other games, I would answer yes but it never forces you to kill X numbers of mobs. Quests are made so that it shows you the whole map, its your decision to either do them or not. You are only forced to complete your class quests. You can even skip all the side quests in each planet without any problems. But when you don't complete the side quests, you also gets another different dialogue during your class quests. And miss out on the stories provided. Its your choice.
Crafting is my favorite in SWTOR because you can only have one Companion out with you, therefore, those other companions I am not using, is always crafting, gathering, and making gear for me to Re Engineer. Not only do i feel like I am using my time well, I also feel like I am progressing faster than when I play other games. Should they make the skill level higher? I would say YES, 400 is too easy to get, if they set it higher and let the progressing bar move slower, then maybe more people wouldn't Critize it as much. Because you will reach 400 without even knowing it, if you always send your companions out to gather for you. Therefore I also give high Marks for this Aspect. 7.5/10
I haven't tried the Raiding Aspects of this game yet, therefore I will not give my opinion on it, but from what I have seen, there has been alot of bugs in OPERATIONS, and before they are fixed, I don't think anyone can properly give them a score.
Is the game fun, is it worth subscribing, its really up to you to determine that for yourself. I had doubts before joining the Stress test, but afterwards, and now, I am really enjoying it. The one thing that really frustrates me is the fact that Others that dinged 50, days behind me, is getting so lucky with their Champion bags. I really hope they fix that.
Make your own judgements, don't let others persuade you to or away from a game that you might find joy in.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
350K was concurrent users, at least quote an accurate arguement when you flame a game.
Last time i checked 1:1 ratio for sub/user existed unless you know of a space/time warp that doubles each user.
Suggest you look up "concurrent".
just did, argument still stands, it takes 1 sub to allow 1 person to play. 350k is 350k.
It means that they have 350k people logged in at one time.
Or
Every single person that owns the game is logged in at the exact same moment.
Yeah...... I think I'll go with the first choice.
Lol, well said.
I like this topic. In a games first weeks, it's likely that people are so excited to play that as many as 80% of the entire playerbase might be logged in at once. Later this likely drops to something like 20 or 30%.
350k is actually low for this stage. I think either a lot of boxes have not been activated or people are getting burned out faster than even I would have anticipated. My own personal experience is not being able to stay interested more than an hour or two a day.
Yet gamespot readers gave it an 8.8, and isn't that what really matters?
And metacritic averages it out at 87... hmmm... sounds like IGN is a lot closer to the average, indicating their review is more accurage compared to IGN. (See, this doesn't involve me calling it more accurate just because it's closer to my PERSONAL opinion. Try thinking outside the box a little!)
I don't care that much about readers opinions because they are way too biased. From reading two user reviews I might get a 2 from one and 10 from another. Simply put there isn't any objectivity.
Metacritic is full of hippies so I don't think that's reliable.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
I like this topic. In a games first weeks, it's likely that people are so excited to play that as many as 80% of the entire playerbase might be logged in at once. Later this likely drops to something like 20 or 30%.
you might want to look up this whole "timezones" thing, the idea that 80% of the playerbase is online at the same time is laughable beyond belive, people have lives beyond games
350K was concurrent users, at least quote an accurate arguement when you flame a game.
Last time i checked 1:1 ratio for sub/user existed unless you know of a space/time warp that doubles each user.
Suggest you look up "concurrent".
just did, argument still stands, it takes 1 sub to allow 1 person to play. 350k is 350k.
It means that they have 350k people logged in at one time.
Or
Every single person that owns the game is logged in at the exact same moment.
Yeah...... I think I'll go with the first choice.
Lol, well said.
I like this topic. In a games first weeks, it's likely that people are so excited to play that as many as 80% of the entire playerbase might be logged in at once. Later this likely drops to something like 20 or 30%.
350k is actually low for this stage. I think either a lot of boxes have not been activated or people are getting burned out faster than even I would have anticipated. My own personal experience is not being able to stay interested more than an hour or two a day.
{mod edit}
BW announced within the first 2 days that they had already registered over 1M game accounts. The firm that made te 350k concurrent players was only making an estimation, and even if 2M boxes were sold, having 15 to 20% of your playerbase on for that prime time slot is pretty good.
If they did only sell 1M boxes, then you are looking at a third of the entire playerbase on during a small time frame, which is outstanding.
There simply is no way to spin it as negative, and yet a few of ya wont STFU. In some cases, such as yours, it is a case of practice what ya preach.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Ok first of all, im passionate about reviews in general. If any people tell you reviews dont mean squat and are a useless tool, I will tell you why there silly. To give an example, its simply put, it would be like telling all the NCAA football fans that the AP polls and USA today polls and coaches polls along with BCS standings that there system is useless and has no merrit to it. We gamers live to see the rankings at least I do, Its nice to read what others think about the game as well as offical reviews. So when you see gamers, god bless them, not being so smart about things like when they say Reviews mean nothing, there not in the right simply put, there in the wrong IMO.
I read every review for every game almost, its a habbit of myn, its like when a football fan looks at the rankings in the newspaper. Its all part of being a gamer, theres no point in dumping down on everyones fun being a smart gamer who reads reviews telling them there wasting there time doing so, thats plain naive. Also saying that review sites are payed off by the rating of which review they give is so asinine, so very very asinine. There job is to let us know how the game is, its not to give us false information, there not there to make us belive we live in backwards land or something that up is down and the sun is dark. Also IGN is a top tier review site, there scores are going to be critically sought after so its not going to be as close to the truth as some rankings site that is devoted to a niche group of people.
IGN rates Warhammer as 9.0. Are they using a 20 point scale or something?
Why would anyone take their reviews seriously?
You exagerate far too much. I do not agree that Warhammer deserves a 9 out of 10, but it most definitely is a very entertaining game, regardless of its issues.
Yet gamespot readers gave it an 8.8, and isn't that what really matters?
And metacritic averages it out at 87... hmmm... sounds like IGN is a lot closer to the average, indicating their review is more accurage compared to IGN. (See, this doesn't involve me calling it more accurate just because it's closer to my PERSONAL opinion. Try thinking outside the box a little!)
Gamespy have given 150 games 100/100....
The metacritic user reviews are generally the best way to guage a game potentially. The reviews themselves aren't as in depth obviously but due to the large number of people rating the game the average tends to be closer to reality. And there is less reason for the users to be bias in their rating also.
That's a wonderful theory, but perhaps you missed the immediate onslaught of "0" scores the day the game released from people who a) just signed up to metacritic and have never rated a game before, and b) never even played SWTOR.
And what about all the people who rate it higher than it should get just because it's Star Wars, hmmm?
Like i said, over time it should average out. And I will tell you right now it is certainly a better indicator of actual game quality than most 'professional' reviews. Especially considering that the games expand and improve over time whereas it is rare that a game gets re-reviewed by most sites.
When you look back at previous games you can see that the user score has a trend to be more in line with what the game really merits score-wise. Especially for some of the older games and can also show that even a low start (Eve Online) can change and turn into a well respected score.
and then we have games that were massively over rated/lacked features that were promised at launch or just plain bored people due to the fact that they are carbon copies of previous games. And the user score reflects the lower quality or shows that it isn't what the users were wanting at the end of the day. You'll also notice a trend in that the smaller the game, or less known publisher the lower the critics reviewed it, possibly with the exception of FF XIV.
Still, at the end of the day it is still only an indicator. But I believe it to be far more reliable an indicator of current game state for an MMO than so called 'reviews' from professional publications.
350K was concurrent users, at least quote an accurate arguement when you flame a game.
Last time i checked 1:1 ratio for sub/user existed unless you know of a space/time warp that doubles each user.
Suggest you look up "concurrent".
just did, argument still stands, it takes 1 sub to allow 1 person to play. 350k is 350k.
It means that they have 350k people logged in at one time.
Or
Every single person that owns the game is logged in at the exact same moment.
Yeah...... I think I'll go with the first choice.
Lol, well said.
I like this topic. In a games first weeks, it's likely that people are so excited to play that as many as 80% of the entire playerbase might be logged in at once. Later this likely drops to something like 20 or 30%.
350k is actually low for this stage. I think either a lot of boxes have not been activated or people are getting burned out faster than even I would have anticipated. My own personal experience is not being able to stay interested more than an hour or two a day.
What's your source?
If you don't like a game don't play it, and quit running to MMORPG.com to trash it.
I payed alot i mean alot for this MMO , and it was a big risk tbh , but now am very happy with the game it's been really long since i played a good game like this , i hope this will keep up and we see more games walk these steps and give us fun and good time.
The game is growing on me. I must admit. I'm enjoying it. More than I thought I would actually.
Having said that there's no fucking way this game deserves a 9.0 or higher. That is simply ridiculous.
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.
IGN rates Warhammer as 9.0. Are they using a 20 point scale or something?
Why would anyone take their reviews seriously?
You exagerate far too much. I do not agree that Warhammer deserves a 9 out of 10, but it most definitely is a very entertaining game, regardless of its issues.
Not really. That game went to shit past the first two tiers and besides pqs PvE in the game was about as generic as you can get. I could see maybe giving Warhammer around an 8.0 if you only played to level 20 or so. I cannot see anyone giving that game higher than a 7.0 (that would be reaching) if they actually played the game for any length of time at the higher end of the game.
Least when the review was done. Game could be a lot different now. Somehow I doubt it though.
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.
Comments
Gamespy have given 150 games 100/100....
The metacritic user reviews are generally the best way to guage a game potentially. The reviews themselves aren't as in depth obviously but due to the large number of people rating the game the average tends to be closer to reality. And there is less reason for the users to be bias in their rating also.
That's a wonderful theory, but perhaps you missed the immediate onslaught of "0" scores the day the game released from people who a) just signed up to metacritic and have never rated a game before, and b) never even played SWTOR.
Wierd, I see a 9 on Presentation, 8.5 on Graphics, 10 on Sound, 9 on Gameplay and 9.5 on lasting appeal. Overall score 9/10 (amazing) on Page 2, maybe you don't get to the second page?
It's really sad that reviews have become more about the score and less about the actual content of the review. So I agree with TotalBiscuit in that review score should be abolished, then maybe people will becgin to care about what the reviewer actually has to say.
I called out this score 2 weeks ago
Nice review though.
You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty -- Mahatma Gandhi
Another premature review.....
...if the game has those hundreds of gameplay hours, how can we be siting on a review already?
And yet the puzzle goes on... "same mmo traditional elements" and gets an average score of 9?
Am im missing something here??
I laughed
then I cried a bit because you are serious
edit: how I use reviews
1. professional reviews are great to figure out the content of the game, major bugs (not the 1 in a billion bugs most user reviews are full off) the general diffuculty and mechanics of the game, scores are meaningless, I hated 10/10 games and enjoyed 5/10 games
2. on top of that I watch some quick looks/let's plays to get a general feel of the gameplay, the UI etc
those two together are more than enough for me to decide if a game is worth my money or not, user reviews are the cespoll of the internet, especialy the metacritic ones and I have no faith whatsoever in them
You missed the part where the storytelling and VO's ARE NOT the same as every traditional MMO.
If you don't like a game don't play it, and quit running to MMORPG.com to trash it.
The point of my post is really simple: Warhammer Online, one of the biggest flops in MMO history with a ton of poorly implented features and design flaws as well as a crapload of bugs and stability issues that lasted months after launch was given a 9 and praised for having "one of the smoothest and most effortless MMO launches to date" and displaying "careful thought in almost every aspect." Many other sites gave WAR high review scores and a ton of awards as well.
And WAR is just one example of many. Sites like IGN have proven again and again that their MMO reviews simply have no weight.
This, of course, says nothing about the ACTUAL quality of the game itself, only that using a high (or low) review score from a site like IGN to argue in favor of an MMO's excellent (or poor) quality, as the OP is doing, is pointless.
Yes,it always comes down to ones opinion..
Its the writers of these reviews opinion that the game should get high marks all around.(which I personally think is swayed by money anyway)
which i completely disagree with,Ive never seen such a lifeless MMO in.....forever..
I wasnt even a huge fan of Rift...I thought it was OK.But I can still see that it is a better,well rounded game than ToR is.
Everyone has their opinions, it does not make one person better than another.
I have play alot of games, probably not as much as some, or as Hardcore as most. But I have played many games, some I liked, and some I don't.
I have played WOW, RIFT, FFXI, EQ, Loved all the games, played to the max level, some only by quests, some by PVPing to the top, some was only viable through grouping, and have joined different Guilds for Raids.
Swtor is the only game currently on the market that I actually wanted to create alts, not for extra bank space, not for crafting materials. This is the only game which my Alts aren't simply Mules, because as I play through their class quests, or through simple quests, my character acts and speaks differently than all other characters that I have.
PVP contents is currently broken and lacking, Although the 3 warfronts they have are fun, and extremely competitive when you get a great team. there are problems, like the weird RNG Champion bags, Illium's lack of actual PVP and Outlaws den being deserted, PVP wins not registering for your dailies, Empire outnumbering Republics and Warfront Afkers and Bots. IF it gets fixed, and more Warfronts are added, then the PVP will be a great selling point. But as it stands its rating isn't more than a 5/10 Mediocre.
PVE is really where this game shines, not only do you have unique dialogues for each character class, when you partner with another player, the roll of dice for choices are just unique in this current MMO market. I have played through Flash Points with different players, and each time, people make different choices. You also get social points for partnering up through Heroics. 9/10
You might ask is it the same as all other games, I would answer yes but it never forces you to kill X numbers of mobs. Quests are made so that it shows you the whole map, its your decision to either do them or not. You are only forced to complete your class quests. You can even skip all the side quests in each planet without any problems. But when you don't complete the side quests, you also gets another different dialogue during your class quests. And miss out on the stories provided. Its your choice.
Crafting is my favorite in SWTOR because you can only have one Companion out with you, therefore, those other companions I am not using, is always crafting, gathering, and making gear for me to Re Engineer. Not only do i feel like I am using my time well, I also feel like I am progressing faster than when I play other games. Should they make the skill level higher? I would say YES, 400 is too easy to get, if they set it higher and let the progressing bar move slower, then maybe more people wouldn't Critize it as much. Because you will reach 400 without even knowing it, if you always send your companions out to gather for you. Therefore I also give high Marks for this Aspect. 7.5/10
I haven't tried the Raiding Aspects of this game yet, therefore I will not give my opinion on it, but from what I have seen, there has been alot of bugs in OPERATIONS, and before they are fixed, I don't think anyone can properly give them a score.
Is the game fun, is it worth subscribing, its really up to you to determine that for yourself. I had doubts before joining the Stress test, but afterwards, and now, I am really enjoying it. The one thing that really frustrates me is the fact that Others that dinged 50, days behind me, is getting so lucky with their Champion bags. I really hope they fix that.
Make your own judgements, don't let others persuade you to or away from a game that you might find joy in.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
I like this topic. In a games first weeks, it's likely that people are so excited to play that as many as 80% of the entire playerbase might be logged in at once. Later this likely drops to something like 20 or 30%.
350k is actually low for this stage. I think either a lot of boxes have not been activated or people are getting burned out faster than even I would have anticipated. My own personal experience is not being able to stay interested more than an hour or two a day.
I don't care that much about readers opinions because they are way too biased. From reading two user reviews I might get a 2 from one and 10 from another. Simply put there isn't any objectivity.
Metacritic is full of hippies so I don't think that's reliable.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
you might want to look up this whole "timezones" thing, the idea that 80% of the playerbase is online at the same time is laughable beyond belive, people have lives beyond games
{mod edit}
BW announced within the first 2 days that they had already registered over 1M game accounts. The firm that made te 350k concurrent players was only making an estimation, and even if 2M boxes were sold, having 15 to 20% of your playerbase on for that prime time slot is pretty good.
If they did only sell 1M boxes, then you are looking at a third of the entire playerbase on during a small time frame, which is outstanding.
There simply is no way to spin it as negative, and yet a few of ya wont STFU. In some cases, such as yours, it is a case of practice what ya preach.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Ok first of all, im passionate about reviews in general. If any people tell you reviews dont mean squat and are a useless tool, I will tell you why there silly. To give an example, its simply put, it would be like telling all the NCAA football fans that the AP polls and USA today polls and coaches polls along with BCS standings that there system is useless and has no merrit to it. We gamers live to see the rankings at least I do, Its nice to read what others think about the game as well as offical reviews. So when you see gamers, god bless them, not being so smart about things like when they say Reviews mean nothing, there not in the right simply put, there in the wrong IMO.
I read every review for every game almost, its a habbit of myn, its like when a football fan looks at the rankings in the newspaper. Its all part of being a gamer, theres no point in dumping down on everyones fun being a smart gamer who reads reviews telling them there wasting there time doing so, thats plain naive. Also saying that review sites are payed off by the rating of which review they give is so asinine, so very very asinine. There job is to let us know how the game is, its not to give us false information, there not there to make us belive we live in backwards land or something that up is down and the sun is dark. Also IGN is a top tier review site, there scores are going to be critically sought after so its not going to be as close to the truth as some rankings site that is devoted to a niche group of people.
IGN rates Warhammer as 9.0. Are they using a 20 point scale or something?
Why would anyone take their reviews seriously?
You exagerate far too much. I do not agree that Warhammer deserves a 9 out of 10, but it most definitely is a very entertaining game, regardless of its issues.
And what about all the people who rate it higher than it should get just because it's Star Wars, hmmm?
Like i said, over time it should average out. And I will tell you right now it is certainly a better indicator of actual game quality than most 'professional' reviews. Especially considering that the games expand and improve over time whereas it is rare that a game gets re-reviewed by most sites.
When you look back at previous games you can see that the user score has a trend to be more in line with what the game really merits score-wise. Especially for some of the older games and can also show that even a low start (Eve Online) can change and turn into a well respected score.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dark-age-of-camelot
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/eve-online
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-lord-of-the-rings-online-shadows-of-angmar
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/darkfall-online
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/guild-wars
and then we have games that were massively over rated/lacked features that were promised at launch or just plain bored people due to the fact that they are carbon copies of previous games. And the user score reflects the lower quality or shows that it isn't what the users were wanting at the end of the day. You'll also notice a trend in that the smaller the game, or less known publisher the lower the critics reviewed it, possibly with the exception of FF XIV.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/age-of-conan-hyborian-adventures
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/aion
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/rift
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/final-fantasy-xiv-online
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/star-trek-online
Still, at the end of the day it is still only an indicator. But I believe it to be far more reliable an indicator of current game state for an MMO than so called 'reviews' from professional publications.
What's your source?
If you don't like a game don't play it, and quit running to MMORPG.com to trash it.
I payed alot i mean alot for this MMO , and it was a big risk tbh , but now am very happy with the game it's been really long since i played a good game like this , i hope this will keep up and we see more games walk these steps and give us fun and good time.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
The game is growing on me. I must admit. I'm enjoying it. More than I thought I would actually.
Having said that there's no fucking way this game deserves a 9.0 or higher. That is simply ridiculous.
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.
Not really. That game went to shit past the first two tiers and besides pqs PvE in the game was about as generic as you can get. I could see maybe giving Warhammer around an 8.0 if you only played to level 20 or so. I cannot see anyone giving that game higher than a 7.0 (that would be reaching) if they actually played the game for any length of time at the higher end of the game.
Least when the review was done. Game could be a lot different now. Somehow I doubt it though.
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.