Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
[Column] General: A Different Standard
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
Independency, as the name implies, is about all things indie in MMO development. Should independently developed MMOs be held to a different standard than "big house" games? We take a look in our latest column. See what you think before heading to the comments to leave us your thoughts.
Thinking and talking about it, the idea did occur that those review criteria, while completely valid in most situations, might not necessarily cut it when it comes to independently made MMOs. After all, what indie house is going to have the budget for graphics on par with Blizzard, or Warner Brothers? What indie house can possibly hope to compete with the sheer volume of coding one might find in a corporately funded game?
Read more of Lisa Jonte's Independency: A Different Standard.
)
Comments
A reviewer is a stand-in for their audience, a trusted (or untrusted) extension of the audience's eyes and ears that helps them search the space of all possible games entering the market.
So the real question is "does the reviewer know what their audience is using them for?"
Sometimes the audience is looking for help making a decision on whether to spend time and money on game A or game B. For these people, the source of the game doesn't matter, just the end product.
Sometimes the audience is just looking for news about new or rarely-implemented mechanics and ideas. For these people, it doesn't matter if the reviewer themselves thinks game A is better or worse than game B overall - they're more interested in the parts than the whole.
And sometimes the audience is just looking for a new team to cheer for.
Personally, I think MMO developers are given far too much slack when it comes to the level of polish in their games. This is true for both big companies and small.
I used to be the one defending them. But now I'm realizing there's no excuse for releasing a game unfinished.
Now, I'm not talking about some server hiccups or some random exploits that pop up. I'm talking about things like falling through the world, broken textures, ridiculous clipping issues things that just make you say "did anyone even play or look at this stuff as they were making it?" Or did they just not give a crap?
Seems like a trend for companies both big and small to bite off more than they can chew when it comes to MMOs and we get products that look and feel like !@#$. And then the fans defend it saying "give it a few months it just came out" then it's a year, then its give it two years. I think GW2 and WoW are the only two MMOs I feel have an acceptable level of polish that matches with what we expect from non MMO titles. We are far to easy on MMOs.
how long has Vanguard been out and the water still looks like crap
I agree with this, as long as consumers put up with companies making the same shit over and over and over again. No innovation will happen and the mmo scene will go downhill into the toilet.
I'm not even talking about innovation though. I'm just referring to basic polish that in most other genres is considered a standard requirement for a game to even get a 5/10. Just a simple level of smoothness to the gameplay and attention to detail. MMOs overlook these things and get away with it way to easy.
If the "standard" doesn't work universally then the standard is broken.
Let's be honest, the second most fun thing to complain about here is reviews and how they are done. But hey, there's no GMs around so it looks like we're corpse camping this pony again.
Aesthetics- Honestly a poor choice in terminology as the word itself is too strongly tied to visuals. An Immersion category would still allow the visual component to be discussed, but more for its contribution to drawing us in. Seriously, every review includes pics and it isn't that hard to find video captures for most games.
Innovation- do away with it. Any innovation will already be included under an appropriate heading, most likely gameplay.
Longevity- I'm not sure I'd keep this, it's too subjective.
All that said, Value is really the great equalizer. With 2 fewer categories and the shift in focus on "aesthetics", IMO the standard would be far more universal.
I've never felt that MMO deserve leniency but I have had issue with reviews that have come out entirely too soon. With most MMOs you cannot give a quality review if all you did was play the game for a week or even two. MMOs are long term. You play them day in and day out for months at a time if they're good or even an entire month if they're bad.
I say instead of giving different standards on the review give different standards on the play time. You wouldn't review Bioshock infinite without completing it let alone only play 5% of it so don't review an MMO with only play less than 5% of the game. I get that you don't have all the time but if you don't have the time maybe stick to reviewing weekend beatable games and leave the MMO reviewing to those with the time and energy to do it right.
hmm subjectively I can see the argument for giving an "Indi" title the benefit of the doubt, however for me it comes down to 'price point'. If a game is priced at current industry levels in either box sales, subscription, or micro transaction; then it should be reviewed by the same critera as the "big boys" regardless if it's an independent development house or two guys in a garage. Consider this sites own take on the whole Neverwinter (beta-not beta) stance.
As someone stated above a standard ceases to be a standard if it can't be applied standardly
IMHO the only "benefit of the doubt" applied should directly scale with how much the product ultimately asks consumers to spend vs the amount/type of content offered for that price point. Ascetics, sound, game play ect are too subjective in and of themselves to be the meter stick. tastes differ