Swedish Game Magazine (Super Play) Gave this a 2/10

DuraheLL · April 2006

The Swedish Gaming magazine "Super Play" gave Auto Assault 2/10 for score. Here are some comments:

(And all you other Swedish people who read this article have mercy upon my English)

"Dusty warmachines in a future after the disaster. A successful theme on a movie but a really worthless computer game - Auto Assault"

<< Introduced by some background story upon post-acopalypse themed movies>>

The massive multiplayer game Auto Assault, the game is set in a "after the disaster" enviourment as since 1981 has been well known and needs no explanation.

The player can chose from the ordinary avatars and then you can start with the just as ordinary questing-leveling-item gathering-crafting. But in a dusty warmachine of a futuristic model.

Out in the wastelands there are many mutated badguys to blast into pieces with a roof montered machine gun

In 7 words: Auto Assault is a very bad game. First of all. Massive multiplayer games has to be inviting. The enviourments can be scary, but you really need to feel an urge to explore them.For hours, for days and months (and years?). That's not the case with Auto Assault poorly made exteriors.Even more important is the UI. A really good UI is not even noticed by the player, which instead can spend the time enjoying the game.

Auto Assault has a completely horrible UI. Small and ugly buttons and a workflow which gets in your way all the time. The creators have not realized that the task is hard. Cars which drives around at lightspeed doesn't create the same good social feeling as EQ or WoW. Then it takes something else. And that they have not cared less about.

Now you might say that MMORPG's constantly developes and are made better. That is true. But we played (towards the end anyway) no Beta for Auto Assault. We played the final product that you are supposed to pay for. And without any defence upon a future development.

Let me whine a little about a MMORPG phenomena as WoW released and which also could be seen in Auto Assault. The hectic questing! You were sent out on quest after quest after quest after ... There is never time for planless discovering in Auto Assault (you cannot switch off a fat arrow that points towards the target for your quests).

In my sentence WoW (and Auto Assault) have ruined a valuable and nice part about massive online games. That together with a group of friends planless drift around in new enviourments. But in Auto Assault this is the least of the games problems. DONT BUY IT!

By Henrik Arnstad.

Graphics 4/10; Saved partly because you can destroy houses, it's fun.

Sound 5/10; It's there and it works.

Control 5/10; W-A-S-D and "i" for inventory, any questions?

Durability 2/10; You don't want to be here.

Total 2/10; Nice cars anyway ...

PS: Just me or did this review really suck? I've heard alot of unfair and bad reviews from this magazine but yet, is it really THAT bad?

gmmonkey · April 2006

The guy has a biased opinion and has his own vision on what mmorpgs should be. You can tell it's biased, by the fact, that he gives it 2/10 and the other marks add up to the total. He doesn't mark it on what it is, he marks it on what he thinks it should be. Quite simply, what it is, is a casual game and not eve online or everquest. At the end he bitches about the 'WoW' 'phenomena' ruining mmorpgs, cutting out the social aspect. It's quite transparent really, hes marking it down because he doesn't like the direction the online gaming industry is taking, by dumbing down for the casual gamer. While I agree with him on that point (I played SWG up until the nge), I dont think it was a particularly professional critique. I felt a bit embarassed for him, when I was reading it.

Danjak · April 2006

Time for me to unsubscribe from that Swedish game magazine.

It sounsd to me like this just isn't his game. He wants the "sandbox" play of pure open-ended gaming similar to SWG or UO over the more structured mission-based gaming offered by games like WoW. That's personal preference. And, he's also wrong on at least one point: you *can* turn off the mission arrow.

As for the rest, well, I've been grouping a lot and enjoying the community. I wish we had more people, but I think that will come in time because the game is solid. There are a lot of variations in the zones and exploring is, of course, fun. He may not think so, but I do. I can tell exactly where I am in a zone just by looking around. It's not like SWG, where all of Tattooine looks alike. But whatever. Like I said, that was his personal preference. I like the UI, I don't find it gets in the way of anything, I have no problem communicating and playing at the same time - especially not when I use the built-in voice chat, and the game is fun.

That's my two cents. I'm just a gamer though, not a writer for a Swedish magazine, so take it for what it's worth.

dr_przekora · April 2006

Yeah... I'm a journalist myself, not Swedish, a Polish one(don't bother about my English:) I don't write game reviews(yet - of course:), but reviewing(politicians mainly) is my job. Here's what I think: - sorry if it is too obvious: You can always write two reviews of the same product that completely counter each other. I'm sure this Swedish guy is able to write a enthusiastic review of AA in couple of hours. It all depends on his attitude, not the facts! Apocaliptic landscape? Deserted and boring? No - original and misterious! Time-consuming UI? No - it lets gamers catch their breath between fast-action and settle the story in their minds! Mindless killing? Of course not - it's the fastest mmorpg of 2006, you silly!

I've got to admit I'm a reviews junkie. I visit metacritic.com five or four times a day(BTW, AA has got a decent 80 average so far, but waiting for Gamespots', IGN's and PC Gamer's) and monitor the voice of the business. But hey, these guys(reviewers) sometimes eg in Swedish game mag have their bad day(when everything sucks) or try to fight the norm and get the Unofficial Monthly Most Non-Conformistic Reviewer Award, no matter the cost. That's why I read and like reviews, but often randomly trust my own "feeling about this" and try the products myself.

2/10 overall? I understand the Swedish gamers mustn't give the game a try? Come on! It is so human.

That's why I chose mutant:D

Gameloading · April 2006

Originally posted by DuraheLL

The Swedish Gaming magazine "Super Play" gave Auto Assault 2/10 for score. Here are some comments:
(And all you other Swedish people who read this article have mercy upon my English)
"Dusty warmachines in a future after the disaster. A successful theme on a movie but a really worthless computer game - Auto Assault"
<< Introduced by some background story upon post-acopalypse themed movies>>
The massive multiplayer game Auto Assault, the game is set in a "after the disaster" enviourment as since 1981 has been well known and needs no explanation.
The player can chose from the ordinary avatars and then you can start with the just as ordinary questing-leveling-item gathering-crafting. But in a dusty warmachine of a futuristic model.
Out in the wastelands there are many mutated badguys to blast into pieces with a roof montered machine gun
In 7 words: Auto Assault is a very bad game. First of all. Massive multiplayer games has to be inviting. The enviourments can be scary, but you really need to feel an urge to explore them.For hours, for days and months (and years?). That's not the case with Auto Assault poorly made exteriors.Even more important is the UI. A really good UI is not even noticed by the player, which instead can spend the time enjoying the game.
Auto Assault has a completely horrible UI. Small and ugly buttons and a workflow which gets in your way all the time. The creators have not realized that the task is hard. Cars which drives around at lightspeed doesn't create the same good social feeling as EQ or WoW. Then it takes something else. And that they have not cared less about.
Now you might say that MMORPG's constantly developes and are made better. That is true. But we played (towards the end anyway) no Beta for Auto Assault. We played the final product that you are supposed to pay for. And without any defence upon a future development.
Let me whine a little about a MMORPG phenomena as WoW released and which also could be seen in Auto Assault. The hectic questing! You were sent out on quest after quest after quest after ... There is never time for planless discovering in Auto Assault (you cannot switch off a fat arrow that points towards the target for your quests).
In my sentence WoW (and Auto Assault) have ruined a valuable and nice part about massive online games. That together with a group of friends planless drift around in new enviourments. But in Auto Assault this is the least of the games problems. DONT BUY IT!
By Henrik Arnstad.
Graphics 4/10; Saved partly because you can destroy houses, it's fun.
Sound 5/10; It's there and it works.
Control 5/10; W-A-S-D and "i" for inventory, any questions?
Durability 2/10; You don't want to be here.
Total 2/10; Nice cars anyway ...
PS: Just me or did this review really suck? I've heard alot of unfair and bad reviews from this magazine but yet, is it really THAT bad?

Is that review written by a journalist or the janitor? the control section proved to me how biased and rediculous this review is. "control 5/10". its W A S D movement and I works for inventory, like many other MMORPG's and it works JUST FINE. Its obvious he gave it only a 5 because its the same controll like any mmo, which is absolutely rediculous. thats like saying the playstation 2 controller sucks big time because its the same like the playstation 1. "graphics bad" give me a break...compare AA's to other MMO's graphics. the total clueless "journalist" opened the package with only one thing in mind: this game is going to suck. Auto Assault has plenty of positive features that he "forgot" to mention.
"hectic questing" yeah, like running around clueless around a world beating up mobs for no reason, now thats fun. at least quests give your combat a little purpose.

Krytycal · April 2006

Giving AA a 4/10 in graphics is insulting. If this game gets a 4 on graphics then I assume he rated WoW in a negative scale. I don't even feel like going over his crappy personal review, people like him are the reason why I don't read megazines and would rather read player-made reviews in websites like mmorpg.com

Don't believe anything that this moron said, he knows as much about AA as those who think that the game is all about "blowing shit up".

DuraheLL · April 2006

Hehe yea I believe this person had alot of weed or something like that before writing this review, but it's just to tell you all how much people who get PAID for doing stuff like this, can stink!

Funniest must have been the graphics comment, that it is partly saved because you can ruin houses... wait a minute, it that not something which should have been mentioned in the review? It's the GRAPHICS not "what you can blow up" part ^^ Haha yes.

M1sf1t · April 2006

This just proves to me that any idiot can write garbage and get paid for it. As someone else stated rather then reviewing the game for what it is this guy reviewed it for what he wants it to be. If you are looking for EQ1 clone look elsewhere or better yet go back to playing EQ1. Even Vangaurd ( a game produced by the same people who made EQ1 ) will not be like EQ1, yet I am sure some guy will write a rather long post about how that game sucks because it doesn't have EQ1's XYZ feature or that said feature was altered.

Clever_Glove · April 2006

Game magazines need to give bad reviews once in awhile, or they don't seem creditable. You can't give everything a good review.

But could they give something like WoW or EQ2 a bad review, even if the author thought it needed one? Nope, they'd lose to much advertising dollars.

I guess AA was small enough and different enough. You can tell right away it's going to be a niche game, that the majority won't like so it become a good candidate to bash to make yourself look fair when giving high dollar games a overly positive review.

Never believe anything unless you already know it to be true, or are willing to do the foot work to find out for yourself.

Lowdos · April 2006

Originally posted by Clever_Glove

Game magazines need to give bad reviews once in awhile, or they don't seem creditable. You can't give everything a good review.
But could they give something like WoW or EQ2 a bad review, even if the author thought it needed one? Nope, they'd lose to much advertising dollars.
I guess AA was small enough and different enough. You can tell right away it's going to be a niche game, that the majority won't like so it become a good candidate to bash to make yourself look fair when giving high dollar games a overly positive review.
Never believe anything unless you already know it to be true, or are willing to do the foot work to find out for yourself.

Damn, thats the truth.

StrongHammer · April 2006

this stupid jerk that is keeping our community from growing and probably didnt even make it past the tutorial should go to the mental hospital; im serious

Howdy, Stranger!

Swedish Game Magazine (Super Play) Gave this a 2/10

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Swedish Game Magazine (Super Play) Gave this a 2/10

Comments