And on top of all that it's a soulless mmo, no feeling of being part of the world.
This is quite interesting, because it's the MMO which makes me feel "part of the world" the most since way before WoW (and clones). You're not the ultimate hero. you're just a settler making your way through a new world. Like it was in Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, Everquest, Dark Ages of Camelot, Anarchy Online, Star Wars Galaxies. This "single big hero among other single big heroes" cult only began with WoW in 2004.
Respect, walk, what did you say? Respect, walk Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? - PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
No mention of Invasions nor of Expeditions? Not to mention no real discussion on crafting or the "HWMS" when you reach level 60? Additionally, new content in incoming including new enemies and events. This review is really incomplete in my opinion.
This is a review, not a fanboy "It's gonna get so much better!" preach to the choir. I like New World too, but his points are salient and fair.
The game is client side authoritive. Nothing else really needs to be said. It's like letting my mobile banking app control how much money I have in my account.
That was said by a bunch of wanna-be "developers" (aka Youtubers chasing views) and has been disproven, try to keep up.
a giant playerbase in a b2p game is a liability especially when the cash shop isnt fully developed.
Okay, but how is the speed of player decline to be assessed (considering NW is an MMORPG)?
i guess you need to wait a few more weeks to see where the bottom is. If its under 100k( i.e 90%+loss) I would imagine we could call that a critical failure to deliver. For a regular game thats nothing, for a b2P mmo it matters a bit more and for a subscription game its the end of the world.
For a buy to play game, what matters to the developers is how many people buy it, not how long they play it. Developers do care if you like the game enough to buy the next one they launch, or perhaps expansions or whatever, and they also care if you like it enough to recommend it to others, as that can encourage others to buy it. So it's not like buy to play means developers don't care if the game is garbage.
If you buy a game, play it for two weeks, then quit, but tell your friends that it was fun, and plan to buy the next expansion, then developers of a buy to play game are happy. That's actually better for the developers than if you hang around for a year while constantly complaining about how awful it is.
The game is client side authoritive. Nothing else really needs to be said. It's like letting my mobile banking app control how much money I have in my account.
This is plain wrong. Research before you tell lies. Read up the dev trackers, there are more than one dev posts on this.
Good review though! It is just like I had told it but with more words
Um there are points where the server won't do anything until it hears from the client so it's complicated.
Can't recommend it in it's current state but it does have the start of something good. You get 10-15 hours give or take before you realize about all the bugs and stuff.
Additionally, new content in incoming including new enemies and events. This review is really incomplete in my opinion.
That incoming shouldn't be included in a review of what can be experienced and thus evaluated. With the coverage NW gets I'm sure anything added will be fully covered in related articles, and likely then some.
It is nice (and rare) to see a professional game journalist spend 120 hours on a game, so he can do a proper in depth review. Kudos.
Appreciate this. MMOs are such beasts that I think throughout the industry you will find the vast majority of MMO reviewers out there take this approach. Amazon themselves recommended at least 40 hours, but even that felt too low. I know the reviewer at IGN spent about 180 hours on his review. Us MMORPG reviewers have this in common I think, but of course not every site or reviewer is going to spend that much time on a game, especially when it may not be the most profitable to both.
I think there is a curve for game reviews. 5 isn't average, even though it is the median.
The curve:
9-10 -- fantastic game
8 -- good game
7 - decent game
6 - not that good game
5 and below - trash
Based on this, a 6 is about right for where NW is now.
So you're not wrong, since scales work differently for each site (not every 10 point scale means the same since there is not standardized system) it's always best to take scores for what they are: a quick, numerical snapshot. We use a 100 point scale in our reviews, and on MMORPG 5 does actually mean average. But that doesn't mean it's an average across the industry. Just with us. More info (since we recently updated this page) can be found here if anyone is interested in seeing exactly how our scale shakes out.
I think it is admirable that the site uses its own rating system, but how does Metacritic handle that? If the scales work differently for each site do Metacritic make an adjustment?
Six seems generous, but that's just me. If the game was working perfectly, I'd say it's a six. Tons of copy pasta, tons poorly designed systems, great visual and audio though. This is a fully released game, that actually has uncraftable items, copy pasted towns, a fundamentally flawed crafting progression, an awful gear progression system.
Too many core features of this game are objectively bad to give anything higher than a 6.0 in perfect working condition. Unfortunately this game is not in perfect working condition.
Way too generous, the fact that the PvP is essentially locked to the vast majority of players means that it is in effect worthless and the other part of the game, PvE is garbage too.
I stopped playing. I don’t like the combat and the skills. You don’t feel like you are progressing. Just not enough skills. And I don’t like this obligatory weapon changing. It works much better in elder scrolls, but I hate it though.
6 is a very generous score. The game should still be in beta and probably needs another year or more of development. Their mistake was changing the focus of the game late in development. PvE feels slapped on and not well thought out. You don't decide months before release that you want to appeal to the PvE crowd and then take a year to throw together a questing system and a few dungeons and call it good.
I hope the game succeeds but AGS have dug themselves a hole and it doesn't help that the game is making the news because of the game-breaking exploits. First impressions are everything and can make or break your game and the dropoff in players over the past couple weeks is not a good sign.
Bad Performance, and looks terrible if you ramp the graphics settings down.
Weapons ahve few skills, and not enough skills on the bar. Leads to boring, repetitive gameplay loop during combat.
The worst character creator I've ever seen in an MMORPG, with the worst looking characters. Bad armor models too, at least for anything that doesn't come from the store.
I got to like level 20 and then I uninstalled. I think I'm done with MMORPGs. Developers don't understand the priorities for this genre. They all want to develop like a AAA game studio, but don't understand that immersion goes out of the window when someone with a decent gaming PC has to ramp the settings down the game starts looking like a bad oil painting.
So many games release half baked these days. Amazon could afford to let it cook longer and release with a bang rather than a whimper in terms of content.
Letting it cook means they're spending more money on it, and bringing none in. Amazon Games studios is a subsidiary, basically, so they have to justify their existence to the mothership, otherwise it may be more worth it for Amazon to completely kill the game than continue to invest in more development.
What you're aking for, is charity. Amazon is a business. Businesses don't exist to throw money away. No company wants an EQNext situation on their hands.
It is nice (and rare) to see a professional game journalist spend 120 hours on a game, so he can do a proper in depth review. Kudos.
Appreciate this. MMOs are such beasts that I think throughout the industry you will find the vast majority of MMO reviewers out there take this approach. Amazon themselves recommended at least 40 hours, but even that felt too low. I know the reviewer at IGN spent about 180 hours on his review. Us MMORPG reviewers have this in common I think, but of course not every site or reviewer is going to spend that much time on a game, especially when it may not be the most profitable to both.
I think there is a curve for game reviews. 5 isn't average, even though it is the median.
The curve:
9-10 -- fantastic game
8 -- good game
7 - decent game
6 - not that good game
5 and below - trash
Based on this, a 6 is about right for where NW is now.
So you're not wrong, since scales work differently for each site (not every 10 point scale means the same since there is not standardized system) it's always best to take scores for what they are: a quick, numerical snapshot. We use a 100 point scale in our reviews, and on MMORPG 5 does actually mean average. But that doesn't mean it's an average across the industry. Just with us. More info (since we recently updated this page) can be found here if anyone is interested in seeing exactly how our scale shakes out.
I think it is admirable that the site uses its own rating system, but how does Metacritic handle that? If the scales work differently for each site do Metacritic make an adjustment?
Well, every site uses their own scale. This is where Metacritic and Open Critic don't paint the full picture as they take the scores, regardless of what the individual numbers mean on a site by site basis, and average them out across the industry. This is where the lack of a standardized system hurts (though myself and many in the industry don't think scores should exist anymore, but Google/SEO is King).
As I will always preach, the content of the review should be what matters, not the numerical score. But we also understand people want that easy snapshot to describe a game. But the lack of a standard system across the industry, shifting scores, and the fact that every single review is a subjective opinion of myriad writers causes scores to vary wildly. A 5 on our site doesn't mean the same as a 5 on others. For us, a 5 is a thoroughly average game. Not terrible, something you'd grab in a Steam sale or something. For others, 5 is the beginning of a "bad" game. But even then, the way we describe things within scoring is subjective - what is average to one person is downright horrible to another, and is great to another person.
My recommendation always is for the sites you frequent, familiarize yourself with their scales if they use one. But always take the content of the review as the end all, be all. That should inform the opinion and drive the discussion, not the number at the bottom.
This really deserves an editorial of its own, as review scores can be horrifically divisive, as well as the idea that a review is subjective (they all are, they are all opinion pieces. There is no such thing as an objective review). But it's something that will continue to be discussed. It's why I felt the need to put our scale in my response, so that people reading can refamiliarize how we approach reviews on our site. But as always, read as many opinions as you can and come to your own informed decision. Don't just read us - in fact, I recommend reading everything you can, especially when it comes down to spending your hard earned money on a game.
Thank you for coming to my TedTalk, I'll get off my soapbox now. Truly appreciate every one of you reading!
Comments
This is quite interesting, because it's the MMO which makes me feel "part of the world" the most since way before WoW (and clones). You're not the ultimate hero. you're just a settler making your way through a new world. Like it was in Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, Everquest, Dark Ages of Camelot, Anarchy Online, Star Wars Galaxies. This "single big hero among other single big heroes" cult only began with WoW in 2004.
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
This is a review, not a fanboy "It's gonna get so much better!" preach to the choir. I like New World too, but his points are salient and fair.
That was said by a bunch of wanna-be "developers" (aka Youtubers chasing views) and has been disproven, try to keep up.
If you buy a game, play it for two weeks, then quit, but tell your friends that it was fun, and plan to buy the next expansion, then developers of a buy to play game are happy. That's actually better for the developers than if you hang around for a year while constantly complaining about how awful it is.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
That incoming shouldn't be included in a review of what can be experienced and thus evaluated. With the coverage NW gets I'm sure anything added will be fully covered in related articles, and likely then some.
but I give it a 4.
Too many core features of this game are objectively bad to give anything higher than a 6.0 in perfect working condition. Unfortunately this game is not in perfect working condition.
4 is more like it for the actual gameplay.
1 for the developers.
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
Weapons ahve few skills, and not enough skills on the bar. Leads to boring, repetitive gameplay loop during combat.
The worst character creator I've ever seen in an MMORPG, with the worst looking characters. Bad armor models too, at least for anything that doesn't come from the store.
I got to like level 20 and then I uninstalled. I think I'm done with MMORPGs. Developers don't understand the priorities for this genre. They all want to develop like a AAA game studio, but don't understand that immersion goes out of the window when someone with a decent gaming PC has to ramp the settings down the game starts looking like a bad oil painting.
I'm done with these games.
Letting it cook means they're spending more money on it, and bringing none in. Amazon Games studios is a subsidiary, basically, so they have to justify their existence to the mothership, otherwise it may be more worth it for Amazon to completely kill the game than continue to invest in more development.
What you're aking for, is charity. Amazon is a business. Businesses don't exist to throw money away. No company wants an EQNext situation on their hands.
Well, every site uses their own scale. This is where Metacritic and Open Critic don't paint the full picture as they take the scores, regardless of what the individual numbers mean on a site by site basis, and average them out across the industry. This is where the lack of a standardized system hurts (though myself and many in the industry don't think scores should exist anymore, but Google/SEO is King).
As I will always preach, the content of the review should be what matters, not the numerical score. But we also understand people want that easy snapshot to describe a game. But the lack of a standard system across the industry, shifting scores, and the fact that every single review is a subjective opinion of myriad writers causes scores to vary wildly. A 5 on our site doesn't mean the same as a 5 on others. For us, a 5 is a thoroughly average game. Not terrible, something you'd grab in a Steam sale or something. For others, 5 is the beginning of a "bad" game. But even then, the way we describe things within scoring is subjective - what is average to one person is downright horrible to another, and is great to another person.
My recommendation always is for the sites you frequent, familiarize yourself with their scales if they use one. But always take the content of the review as the end all, be all. That should inform the opinion and drive the discussion, not the number at the bottom.
This really deserves an editorial of its own, as review scores can be horrifically divisive, as well as the idea that a review is subjective (they all are, they are all opinion pieces. There is no such thing as an objective review). But it's something that will continue to be discussed. It's why I felt the need to put our scale in my response, so that people reading can refamiliarize how we approach reviews on our site. But as always, read as many opinions as you can and come to your own informed decision. Don't just read us - in fact, I recommend reading everything you can, especially when it comes down to spending your hard earned money on a game.
Thank you for coming to my TedTalk, I'll get off my soapbox now. Truly appreciate every one of you reading!
you dont say Jean:)