GW2 has a great first experience which lasts about 10-20 hours.
Then you simply get bored to the constant faceroll zerging and the ridicilous gem-trade system.
Most of the reviewers don't put enough hours to GW2 to actually realize it's flaws. Pretty much the same reason why SWTOR scored suprisingly high.
GW2 is a casual game and reviewers play games casually. Thus the ratings are bound to be high, even if the game has a lot of flaws.
I tend to agree. Majority of ratings started coming in after a day or two game play. Even two weeks isn't enough to rate GW2 given the scope and amount of content it has to offer.
However i rated GW2 8 because i already played GW2 for a month in beta.
MMOs are long term games. Any review of an MMO presented within the first month of release are next to useless for anything outside of simple impressions about graphics, sound, etc.
I have absolutely zero respect for an MMO view that doesn't look at (and have experience with) long term viability, whether that review is positive or negative. Reviewers who review them under the same criteria as single player games are just wasting my time.
With GW2, MMO are not long term games anymore. I have more than 100h of game in GW2 and I still enjoy it. I don't know the end game yet. If I stopped for some reason to play GW2 right now, I would had much more value from my 55€ than most of the other games I've played. So what's the point of the "endgame" in a review, in the experience you have from a game ?
The fact is that GW2 gives you immediate fun starting from L1, this is new in the MMO world and you should rethink your way of scoring a game. Many people will have to rethink MMO.
over 90% score by all but one professional reviewer
some of the highest user score in gaming history
leaves other AAA MMO's in the dust when it comes to user score, professional review score, or both. study scores of Cataclysm, TSW, TERA, TOR, whatever. you will notice them all failing in either user review, or critic review categories (i.e. 50% of reviews are mixed or bad, which is a big failure)
most importantly, my gf who has despised PC games all her life is now exploring Tyria with me every day.
i encourage everyone to study the trends before bashing the game as sucky or whatever. you can, but your reasons will be very private and within a tiny minority. i think Metacritic trends speak volumes.
After playing the game nearly 2 weeks non stop about 15-17 hours a day i can say that the game is amazing but there are a lot of things that are missing or done badly.
It's a game that has great potential to become the best themepark on the market if developers keep adding stuff like group finder etc.
If developers stop by saying ok we released now we are done...this game probably will end as a good game that worths the 60 bucks but nothing more.If this is their target they will fail hard.
MMOs are long term games. Any review of an MMO presented within the first month of release are next to useless for anything outside of simple impressions about graphics, sound, etc.
I have absolutely zero respect for an MMO view that doesn't look at (and have experience with) long term viability, whether that review is positive or negative. Reviewers who review them under the same criteria as single player games are just wasting my time.
With GW2, MMO are not long term games anymore. I have more than 100h of game in GW2 and I still enjoy it. I don't know the end game yet. If I stopped for some reason to play GW2 right now, I would had much more value from my 55 than most of the other games I've played. So what's the point of the "endgame" in a review, in the experience you have from a game ?
The fact is that GW2 gives you immediate fun starting from L1, this is new in the MMO world and you should rethink your way of scoring a game. Many people will have to rethink MMO.
Fun is a subjective thing. I had fun in lot of MMOS from starting level 1 but i surely didn't go ahead and rated it 9 or 10 after couple of days. A MMO is rated not only on basis of value for your money though.
So if i had to rate GW2 purely on basis of B2P model i would have given it 10 but that is not a fair way to rate any game. B2P should be a factor while rating GW2 but surely not the primary one.
I'm not saying the game is bad, but don't trust professional reviewers. Video game companies figured out how to rig the reviews a long time ago, they simply don't send free copies to reviewers who give bad reviews, and eventually they lose their jobs because they can't review anything.
So far, I think the game is a definite step in the right direction. There are things I wish were there that aren't, but nothing's perfect and I'm definitely having fun.
MMOs are long term games. Any review of an MMO presented within the first month of release are next to useless for anything outside of simple impressions about graphics, sound, etc.
I have absolutely zero respect for an MMO view that doesn't look at (and have experience with) long term viability, whether that review is positive or negative. Reviewers who review them under the same criteria as single player games are just wasting my time.
With GW2, MMO are not long term games anymore. I have more than 100h of game in GW2 and I still enjoy it. I don't know the end game yet. If I stopped for some reason to play GW2 right now, I would had much more value from my 55€ than most of the other games I've played. So what's the point of the "endgame" in a review, in the experience you have from a game ?
The fact is that GW2 gives you immediate fun starting from L1, this is new in the MMO world and you should rethink your way of scoring a game. Many people will have to rethink MMO.
I think that MMORPG sites and reviews should sort/be sorted into different categories based on time invested in MMORPGs. Such as 10 hours, 100 hours, 500 hours and 1000 hours reviews. Game A may be better than Game B in the 100-hour department, while the opposite may be true in the 500-hour one.
I have to seriously laugh at this. Metacritic? WOW.
Ok, first off, the professional score is usually pointless. I don't play Diablo 3, but most people seem to hate it, but it as 88. SWTOR, as 85 total.
Now, of course these scores are indeed lower, but it just goes to show that most of these reviewers can be a big hit and miss. I remember how pcgamer gave TOR 93, and now gave GW2 a 94. TTH gave GW2 94, but gave RIFT 95.
And don't get me started on those like G4 TV giving 100.
Now, to the user score, i trust it quite abit more than normal ones.
However, if you look closely at, well, any game on metacritic, most of the positive reviews are 9 and 10, and negative ones are between 0 and 3. Most are over inflated fanboy and hater scores. Which is why it's not a good idea to trust it either.
BTW OP, if you do your reserch right, TSW as only 0.1 points less than GW2 on user score with 8.3, 8.4, respectively.
Using metacritic as proof of a game's quality, specially the overall number, is not a good idea at all.
Edit: I'm not saying the game sucks or anything, since i do like it from beta, but, trying to use this site as indicator is laughable. Sorry.
Must be nice to have such a simplistic view of the world, black/white, haters/lovers... God forbid there might be people who just think that the game is just OK.
over 90% score by all but one professional reviewer
some of the highest user score in gaming history
leaves other AAA MMO's in the dust when it comes to user score, professional review score, or both. study scores of Cataclysm, TSW, TERA, TOR, whatever. you will notice them all failing in either user review, or critic review categories (i.e. 50% of reviews are mixed or bad, which is a big failure)
most importantly, my gf who has despised PC games all her life is now exploring Tyria with me every day.
i encourage everyone to study the trends before bashing the game as sucky or whatever. you can, but your reasons will be very private and within a tiny minority. i think Metacritic trends speak volumes.
Why do people even talk about metacritic? It's full of paid critic reviews and fanboys/anti fanboys who give games either 1 or 10.
Most pathetic way to determine if a game is good or not.
GW2 is probably one of the best MMO, but compared to some single player games its not special at all. It deserves a 7 or 8 out of 10 for being a good MMO, but probably only a 6 or 7 for being a good game in general. Imo.
over 90% score by all but one professional reviewer
some of the highest user score in gaming history
leaves other AAA MMO's in the dust when it comes to user score, professional review score, or both. study scores of Cataclysm, TSW, TERA, TOR, whatever. you will notice them all failing in either user review, or critic review categories (i.e. 50% of reviews are mixed or bad, which is a big failure)
most importantly, my gf who has despised PC games all her life is now exploring Tyria with me every day.
i encourage everyone to study the trends before bashing the game as sucky or whatever. you can, but your reasons will be very private and within a tiny minority. i think Metacritic trends speak volumes.
Rift had the same high score after it launched both players and critics were above 90. Now its in 80s for both I think.
Give gw2 more time - it will be in the 80s for both after several months when people reach end game.
I agree. People are voting with their emotions right now. After a couple of months when they realised that there isn't much to do at lvl 80 they will come to their senses.
The user reviews are extremely biased, and yes it is a popularity contest. That's the point. Critic reviews can be short sighted, but you'll notice a few reviewers (like PC gamer) power leveled to see what the game is like near endgame.
The issue with TOR is that nobody really made it to endgame to talk about how unfinished and messy it was, as opposed to gw2 which has repeatable content and the needed variation and grind fully in place. Not to mention wvw, the other endgame.
And no, TOR user reviews were not favorable. The critic reviews were, but I'm not talking just about that. Metacritic gives a fairly accurate prediction on how the game will do BECAUSE it includes the popularity contest. Those of you looking for a detailed, objective review can look at PC gamer's, and likely this site's. But to most people, objective means "overly critical and picky to validate their hateful opinion".
And the majority of the population consists of idiots. I'm glad at least this crap statistic study can capture that.
Sorry, had to get that out of my system because I HATE ARENANET SUPPORT. 10 days without my account, and they just send us automated messages. SOO UPSET.
holy shit 10 days..i thought i was doin bad at 4..just goes to show Anet dont give a fuck once they got your money..i have stuck up for them on numerous occasions even with my account hacked but holy fuck 10 days man,i feel so sorry for you.looks like i can kiss goodbye to my account afterall..fuckin amateurs..i am an amateur when it comes to pc's and i do take resposibility for what happened..what the fuck is Anets excuse?
Not sure how she can quest with you when there's no quests.
Pretty much every major mmo release has had favorable reviews. Having the bestest doesn't really mean much.
completely untrue. every major release has failed either the users, or the critics.
lol where were you abou 10 months ago? SWTOR launched with critical acclaim, rabid fanboyism, and a generally optimistic attitude about the game. It wasn't until people started reaching endgame that people realized all the fun is in the levelling, and has no lasting value outside of pvp.... Kind of like GW2
...Was that neccesary? Not only is that completely untrue, with places like Orr, PvP, WvWvW, map completions, awards, hidden areas, exploring in general, and you dare come up with that baseless statement? Now, seeing that this thread is not on GW2 endgame, I will not argue here about whether Gw2 has an endgame (which it obviously does...) here. Also, is this not a troll post devs? You know, posting things like that with no facts? Mod Edit please?
[mod edit]
He made my argument easy, didn't he?
[mod edit]
The formulation was " It wasn't until people started reaching endgame that people realized all the fun is in the levelling, and has no lasting value outside of pvp.... Kind of like GW2 " and there are at least following problems with the reply from KingJiggly:
KingJiggly names "PvP" and "WvWvW" as things that have a lasting value and implies Izik is wrong, but Izik already said in his post that he considers "PvP" to possibly have a lasting value and by extension also "WvWvW".
KingJiggly says that Guild Wars 2 has an endgame and implies Izik doesn't acknowledge it, but Izik already said that earlier too.
My point was that he was comparing swtor, a game well known for lack of... Well everything except story, and then saying gw2 is the same. He contradicted himself multiple times, and yes I am a fanboy of a good game. Surprise? :P
Further proof that those rating the game as 0 on Metacritic are the poor souls who were careless enough with their spyware and passwords to get haxed. Just submit your ticket PROPERLY and you will get served.
Yeah as much as I love GW2, Metacritic holds very little useful information due to the unreliability of the input.
Critics' opinion depend much too greatly on their employer's whims, leading every game to have an inflated Critic Score. Unfortunately, the User Score is just as unreliable since gamers (especially MMO gamers) tend to be zealous in which games they play and how they view others.
Overall, Metacritic only provides a very vague rating that can't really be used to compare games or most other things directly which each other.
Originally posted by sonoggi Maybe I'm not communicating my thoughts properly. I'm trying to say that Metacritic shows TRENDS
Did this secretly become an XFire thread and I missed it?
The only significant thing I see about GW2 on Metacritic is that both the critical reviews and the user reviews give GW2 a high rating. This is really good for the game itself. The critical reviews will get people to buy it, and a large percentage of the people who play the game will enjoy it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
When a user review starts with "An average rift clone with unoriginal soundtrack" I stop reading. I'm glad the majority are liking it.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
Comments
If we accept metacritic scores for one game, we'll have to accept metacritic scores for all games.
Not sure how that'll go with some of the posters around here.
Game reviews are 'validation' tools not 'I think this is a good game so you SHOULD buy it'
Think the GiantBomb crew had a discussion panel at PAX 2012 about it.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
You didn't think enough. That statement is encouraging people to reconsider their opinions before bashing the game.
GW2 has a great first experience which lasts about 10-20 hours.
Then you simply get bored to the constant faceroll zerging and the ridicilous gem-trade system.
Most of the reviewers don't put enough hours to GW2 to actually realize it's flaws. Pretty much the same reason why SWTOR scored suprisingly high.
GW2 is a casual game and reviewers play games casually. Thus the ratings are bound to be high, even if the game has a lot of flaws.
I tend to agree. Majority of ratings started coming in after a day or two game play. Even two weeks isn't enough to rate GW2 given the scope and amount of content it has to offer.
However i rated GW2 8 because i already played GW2 for a month in beta.
Bite Me
With GW2, MMO are not long term games anymore. I have more than 100h of game in GW2 and I still enjoy it. I don't know the end game yet. If I stopped for some reason to play GW2 right now, I would had much more value from my 55€ than most of the other games I've played. So what's the point of the "endgame" in a review, in the experience you have from a game ?
The fact is that GW2 gives you immediate fun starting from L1, this is new in the MMO world and you should rethink your way of scoring a game. Many people will have to rethink MMO.
After playing the game nearly 2 weeks non stop about 15-17 hours a day i can say that the game is amazing but there are a lot of things that are missing or done badly.
It's a game that has great potential to become the best themepark on the market if developers keep adding stuff like group finder etc.
If developers stop by saying ok we released now we are done...this game probably will end as a good game that worths the 60 bucks but nothing more.If this is their target they will fail hard.
This completely misses the point that the majority of MMOs are casual games now.
RIFT, WoW, Aion, SWTOR, DDO etc are all 'casual' that appeals to the majority of MMO players.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Fun is a subjective thing. I had fun in lot of MMOS from starting level 1 but i surely didn't go ahead and rated it 9 or 10 after couple of days. A MMO is rated not only on basis of value for your money though.
So if i had to rate GW2 purely on basis of B2P model i would have given it 10 but that is not a fair way to rate any game. B2P should be a factor while rating GW2 but surely not the primary one.
Bite Me
I'm not saying the game is bad, but don't trust professional reviewers. Video game companies figured out how to rig the reviews a long time ago, they simply don't send free copies to reviewers who give bad reviews, and eventually they lose their jobs because they can't review anything.
So far, I think the game is a definite step in the right direction. There are things I wish were there that aren't, but nothing's perfect and I'm definitely having fun.
I think that MMORPG sites and reviews should sort/be sorted into different categories based on time invested in MMORPGs. Such as 10 hours, 100 hours, 500 hours and 1000 hours reviews. Game A may be better than Game B in the 100-hour department, while the opposite may be true in the 500-hour one.
it does for gw2 buddy sry
like it or not admit it or not gw2 is the best themepark mmo to date
reviews well deserved,waiting for gamespot and ign
pvp simply owns,no more stupid nerds elitist with end game gear showing their ego,everything fair for everybody
this game simply owns glad i left pokeworld after 5 years for this masterpiece
Subjective, it's for you... not for me, not for others.
I have to seriously laugh at this. Metacritic? WOW.
Ok, first off, the professional score is usually pointless. I don't play Diablo 3, but most people seem to hate it, but it as 88. SWTOR, as 85 total.
Now, of course these scores are indeed lower, but it just goes to show that most of these reviewers can be a big hit and miss. I remember how pcgamer gave TOR 93, and now gave GW2 a 94. TTH gave GW2 94, but gave RIFT 95.
And don't get me started on those like G4 TV giving 100.
Now, to the user score, i trust it quite abit more than normal ones.
However, if you look closely at, well, any game on metacritic, most of the positive reviews are 9 and 10, and negative ones are between 0 and 3. Most are over inflated fanboy and hater scores. Which is why it's not a good idea to trust it either.
BTW OP, if you do your reserch right, TSW as only 0.1 points less than GW2 on user score with 8.3, 8.4, respectively.
Using metacritic as proof of a game's quality, specially the overall number, is not a good idea at all.
Edit: I'm not saying the game sucks or anything, since i do like it from beta, but, trying to use this site as indicator is laughable. Sorry.
My gaming blog
Why do people even talk about metacritic? It's full of paid critic reviews and fanboys/anti fanboys who give games either 1 or 10.
Most pathetic way to determine if a game is good or not.
GW2 is probably one of the best MMO, but compared to some single player games its not special at all. It deserves a 7 or 8 out of 10 for being a good MMO, but probably only a 6 or 7 for being a good game in general. Imo.
I agree. People are voting with their emotions right now. After a couple of months when they realised that there isn't much to do at lvl 80 they will come to their senses.
My gaming blog
The issue with TOR is that nobody really made it to endgame to talk about how unfinished and messy it was, as opposed to gw2 which has repeatable content and the needed variation and grind fully in place. Not to mention wvw, the other endgame.
And no, TOR user reviews were not favorable. The critic reviews were, but I'm not talking just about that. Metacritic gives a fairly accurate prediction on how the game will do BECAUSE it includes the popularity contest. Those of you looking for a detailed, objective review can look at PC gamer's, and likely this site's. But to most people, objective means "overly critical and picky to validate their hateful opinion".
holy shit 10 days..i thought i was doin bad at 4..just goes to show Anet dont give a fuck once they got your money..i have stuck up for them on numerous occasions even with my account hacked but holy fuck 10 days man,i feel so sorry for you.looks like i can kiss goodbye to my account afterall..fuckin amateurs..i am an amateur when it comes to pc's and i do take resposibility for what happened..what the fuck is Anets excuse?
My point was that he was comparing swtor, a game well known for lack of... Well everything except story, and then saying gw2 is the same. He contradicted himself multiple times, and yes I am a fanboy of a good game. Surprise? :P
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation
Yeah as much as I love GW2, Metacritic holds very little useful information due to the unreliability of the input.
Critics' opinion depend much too greatly on their employer's whims, leading every game to have an inflated Critic Score. Unfortunately, the User Score is just as unreliable since gamers (especially MMO gamers) tend to be zealous in which games they play and how they view others.
Overall, Metacritic only provides a very vague rating that can't really be used to compare games or most other things directly which each other.
Did this secretly become an XFire thread and I missed it?
The only significant thing I see about GW2 on Metacritic is that both the critical reviews and the user reviews give GW2 a high rating. This is really good for the game itself. The critical reviews will get people to buy it, and a large percentage of the people who play the game will enjoy it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
