Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

TenTonHammer post "joke review" *sigh* I should have guessed!!! OMG 94%

123457

Comments

  • TomBaker_fanTomBaker_fan Elmhurst, ILPosts: 131Member
    Originally posted by Thillian
    Overhyped and overrated. SWTOR, Rift, WAR had the same extremely positive feedback on forums and reviews first weeks after release. It will wear off by the end of September.

    That's what you hope happens. This game is going to be strong for a long time, 

    Why are people rooting against the game so hard?

    image

  • TomBaker_fanTomBaker_fan Elmhurst, ILPosts: 131Member
    Originally posted by Creslin321
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by Creslin321
    Originally posted by Yamota
     

    Ok fine, for you it is, but dont go around and saying we dont think GW 2 is good because that is not what this discussion is about. It is if this game is good/great or it is one of the best MMO's ever created. For me it is simply the former.

    Now I have clocked over 500 hours in League of Legends and I am still not done. I clocked 400+ hours into Warhammer Online and I dont consider either of those games more than great. So for me a great game is just that, great so I dont see why you fanboys are all up in arms for people not thinking this game is the best thing since sliced bread.

    Could we please not resort to the disregarding everyone's opinion vis a vis the ad hominem "yer a fanboi" attack?

    Anytime I read an argument that calls the opposition a fanboi or a hater, this is how I, and I'm sure many others interpret it:

    "I don't care what you say because you are a fanboi/hater and thus your opinion is worthless."

    Ok fair enough, so replace fanboy with you-people-who-get-upset-if-someone-does-not-think-a-near-perfect-score-is-what-gw2-deserves.

    For me you have to be really emotionally invested into the game to think GW 2 is that good and you should be playing this game one year from now but somehow I doubt most of you will because it isn't that perfect of a game. It just feels like that because the game is new and shiny.

    Eh, I wouldn't say that I'm upset that someone thinks that GW2 didn't deserve a 94%, I would just say that i disagree, and I expressed that :).

    I think I'm a fairly good judge of MMORPGs when they come out..before SWTOR was even released, I said that it would burn brightly for a few months and then fizzle, and that it did.  GW2, I think will stay strong for longer.

    In the end, only time will tell, but my prediction is that GW2 will likely rival WoW.

    Dude, this is not SWTOR. The cities in GW2 are huge and alive. The cities in SWTOR were a joke and dead. The things to do in GW2 is limitless.

    WvW is a huge hit and I am seeing tons of player on the battlefield with no lag.

    IMO, this is by far the best MMO release in a long long time.

    Reviews are subjective, all that matters is what you like, people getting angry because they don't agree is comical.

     

    edit: Nevermind, I thought you were comparing swtor to gw2, you weren't my bad.

    image

  • Creslin321Creslin321 Baltimore, MDPosts: 5,359Member
    Originally posted by TomBaker_fan
    Originally posted by Thillian
    Overhyped and overrated. SWTOR, Rift, WAR had the same extremely positive feedback on forums and reviews first weeks after release. It will wear off by the end of September.

    That's what you hope happens. This game is going to be strong for a long time, 

    Why are people rooting against the game so hard?

    I think a lot of folks are just so jaded by the long string of crash-and-burn MMORPG releases that they can't accept that one may actually be different.  But I really think that assuming future failure based on the past results of completely different games is just as "blind" as anything else.

    Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?

  • ktanner3ktanner3 lakeland, FLPosts: 4,074Member Common
    Originally posted by teakbois
    Originally posted by Yamota

    Well I am looking at GW 2 from a stricly factual point of view and based on the fact which I have experienced so far, it is a great MMORPG but not the best ever nor is it groundbreaking or revolutionary. I have even made a blog saying why it is not so based on the features in game.

    For me statements like: "..,design philosophy is amazing" are, without support of facts, just groundless statements. What exactly is so amazing? The Dynamic Events? The combat? The classes? The gfx?

    They are all good solid features but I fail to see what is so absolutely amazing about them. But then again I take a critical apporach to most things in life, not just MMORPGs.

    The word you are looking for is opinionated.

    There are no facts here, only opinions.  You don't think its groundbreaking.  You don't think it's the best ever MMORPG.  Guess what?  You are right, because you are only speaking about your personal views and there is nothing factual at all about it.  Opinions can't be wrong, although a lot of people (not saying you) state falsified opinions (for instance I don't see how anyone can legitimately claim GW2 had had either a terrible launch or a best ever launch, yet Ive seen both).

     

    But you rather blatantly are trying to pass your opinions off as facts.

    Stating opinion as fact does seem to be a problem on these boards.  Mine is this...if you're having fun, why care about the small stuff? And why care if others find this or that feature amazing? Some people just love to argue I guess.

    Currently Playing: Star Wars The Old Republic

  • VhalnVhaln Chicago, ILPosts: 3,159Member
    Originally posted by Aerowyn
    Originally posted by Yamota

    They are all good solid features but I fail to see what is so absolutely amazing about them. But then again I take a critical apporach to most things in life, not just MMORPGs.

    as do I and you can look at my post history prior to playing the first BWE to see this.. but every now and then a game comes around for people that just clicks in all the right places.. for you and others it may not but for me and others it does.. not really hard thing to understand. 

     

    Same here.  Ask anyone who knows me, I'm one of the most critical discriminating people you'll meet.. Thing is, I'm not the idealist I was when I was younger.  I judge things compared to what's already out there, not some imagined perfection.  GW2 is a far cry from my perfect game, but compared to every other MMO released?  It's a 10/10, and I almost never say that about games - or anything else.

     

    When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.

  • BadSpockBadSpock Somewhere, MIPosts: 7,974Member

    There are, in fact, such things as concrete "good" design and concrete "bad" design.

    This applies to many things, cars, buildings, and yes even games.

    I'm sure we've all seen or experienced/used etc. poorly designed cars, buildings (layout, functionality, etc.) and those objective measures are undeniable - we may still "like" it for whatever reason, it may be artistically brilliant, but in the world of design function > form for ANYTHING that is meant to be more than something pretty to look at.

    A car has to be drivable, a building functional and sturdy, etc. We may subjectively like the car or the buildings layout, but again the idea that such conventions exist to quantify a "right" and "wrong" way to do it are not a myth - they are fact.

    In the gaming world, something like clunky controls and confusing/misleading tooltips are examples of concrete "bad" designs - it cannot be argued as to whether or not it is a good or bad design, it is simple BAD and proven BAD.

    There is a reason there are things called "standards" and "conventions" that just about everyone follows to some extent if they want to be successful - it's simply idiodic to make something that works and proven works different for the sake of being different IF the new design is poor.

    Design is a science as much as it is an art.

    The art can and is in all cases subjective - this is the flavor and feel and all other opinion based measures of design - things like open world FFA PvP with full looting or instanced deathmatch type PvP - no right or wrong simply preference.

    Yet each can be done well or done poorly - the scientific the objective the measurable.

    For example open world FFA PvP w/ full loot can only work, can only be "good" design if the crafting and economy game is as featured and important as the act of PvP itself - if the crafting is bad and useless and the in-game economy is worthless than all loot/gear is based off of drops and spawns which is a TERRIBLE design for a game with open world ffa full loot pvp.

    Both have their concrete good and bad design facets in the purely objective scientific aspect of design, it is quantifiable- but the artistic subjective measure of the design cannot quantified in the same way.

    Is this making sense?

    GW2 appeals to many on the artistic (and thus subjective) level of "good" design, but not to all people which is not only expected but garaunteed - you will never please everyone with a single game no matter how good it is.

    However GW2 also is incredibly well designed from the scientific, measurable, objective basis of what is statistically and critically and functionally proven as "good" design - and they even got it "right" enough to take established standards and conventions and do them differently WITHOUT alienating too many people because they didn't do it poorly - the changed many things for the better.

    Things like removing Trinity and removing competition for mobs/spawns and resources nodes and eliminating the need to be actually grouped for cross-profession combos to work.. and of course no instanced raids and a very soft gear "cap" in terms of stats at max level - these things are all pretty drastic departures from the established conventions and standards of the MMO genre since the days of EQ.

    They'd be viewed as terrible, bad designs - if it didn't work. But it does, players are accepting it.

    It is "good" design - objective and un-opinion/emotion based - it works.

    I could go on and on and on for a long while, but I'll leave with a simple analogy -

    Your house is on fire. In the street there is a clown car full of rodeo clowns as well as a fire truck from your local station full of experienced, veteran fire fighters.

    Both might have an opinion, a design plan for how they'd tackle your "house on fire" problem - both are entitled to their opinions - but who SHOULD you listen to? Who is actually going to be right, and in this example, MORE right?

    *PS it's Friday and I'm really, really bored.*

  • MephsterMephster Tyria, NJPosts: 1,188Member
    It is an easy 6.5-7/10. Too many launch issues and long term playability is a problem here. I'm starting to even wonder if this game can even count as being a mmo because it is so single player driven with option multiplayer.

    Grim Dawn, the next great action rpg!

    http://www.grimdawn.com/

  • AerowynAerowyn BUZZARDS BAY, MAPosts: 7,928Member
    Originally posted by Mephster
    It is an easy 6.5-7/10. Too many launch issues and long term playability is a problem here. I'm starting to even wonder if this game can even count as being a mmo because it is so single player driven with option multiplayer.

    honestly think you are not even playing the game.. just sayin...

    I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg

  • MephsterMephster Tyria, NJPosts: 1,188Member
    Originally posted by Aerowyn
    Originally posted by Mephster
    It is an easy 6.5-7/10. Too many launch issues and long term playability is a problem here. I'm starting to even wonder if this game can even count as being a mmo because it is so single player driven with option multiplayer.

    honestly think you are not even playing the game.. just sayin...

    Really ? The only time you need to group is for dungeons that is it. It is the same way The Old Republic was. The only time you needed to group was for missions. That is it. Ninety percent of GW2 is soloable.  Technically you don't even need other people to finish a dynamic event because it scales to your level.

    Grim Dawn, the next great action rpg!

    http://www.grimdawn.com/

  • MardukkMardukk Posts: 1,556Member Uncommon
    Review isnt too far off imo. Although graphics at 97 may have been a missed key stroke or something unless you love cartoons. Also long term playability I suspect will be a slight issue.
  • Kuro1nKuro1n GothenburgPosts: 771Member

    From what I've experienced so far it feels like 7/10 not more.

    Quite wellmade but feels way way way too much like wow thus I can't really stand it. On the other hand all mmos feels like wow to me these days and I never really enjoyed or played for a long time.

  • AerowynAerowyn BUZZARDS BAY, MAPosts: 7,928Member
    Originally posted by Mephster
    Originally posted by Aerowyn
    Originally posted by Mephster
    It is an easy 6.5-7/10. Too many launch issues and long term playability is a problem here. I'm starting to even wonder if this game can even count as being a mmo because it is so single player driven with option multiplayer.

    honestly think you are not even playing the game.. just sayin...

    Really ? The only time you need to group is for dungeons that is it. It is the same way The Old Republic was. The only time you needed to group was for missions. That is it. Ninety percent of GW2 is soloable.  Technically you don't even need other people to finish a dynamic event because it scales to your level.

    so i'm sure you have been soloing all those events in the 15+ zones then huh.. i'd also love to see you solo the frozen maw event or any of the other meta events from the starter zones.. DE's are scalable to a point but many are very very hard if not impossible to solo. Game is more of an MMO than any other MMORPG i have played in the last decade imho..

    I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg

  • BarCrowBarCrow Tampa, FLPosts: 2,212Member
    If you look at it like a grading system then the game got a "B". Which is fine. Whenever I got "B"s in education I never told people I got a "near perfect" score . Personally..I think the game rates an "A" (in the range of 95%-97%)...which actually surprises myself.
  • rygard49rygard49 Huntington Beach, CAPosts: 975Member

    I'm immediately suspect when a review comes out on launch day or the day after. I know the first person to the story gets the most attention, but a review with integrity would wait at least a couple of weeks into release before giving any scores. The TTH review was clearly written prior to the game even launching.

    I know, I know... they all played beta and are basing their reviews off of the beta test. That doesn't make it any better.

  • BarCrowBarCrow Tampa, FLPosts: 2,212Member
    Originally posted by Aerowyn
    Originally posted by Mephster
    Originally posted by Aerowyn
    Originally posted by Mephster
    It is an easy 6.5-7/10. Too many launch issues and long term playability is a problem here. I'm starting to even wonder if this game can even count as being a mmo because it is so single player driven with option multiplayer.

    honestly think you are not even playing the game.. just sayin...

    Really ? The only time you need to group is for dungeons that is it. It is the same way The Old Republic was. The only time you needed to group was for missions. That is it. Ninety percent of GW2 is soloable.  Technically you don't even need other people to finish a dynamic event because it scales to your level.

    so i'm sure you have been soloing all those events in the 15+ zones then huh.. i'd also love to see you solo the frozen maw event or any of the other meta events from the starter zones.. DE's are scalable to a point but many are very very hard if not impossible to solo. Game is more of an MMO than any other MMORPG i have played in the last decade imho..

    So true. If anyone has claims that they soloed that megaton, shadow-clawed, avatar-raping, wraith-thing in the Godlost Swamp..then I'd love to see the video.

                                              ...that thing drops a ginormous chest with a shite-load of stuff.

  • fiontarfiontar Dana, MAPosts: 3,719Member

    If you assume that the current capacity related issues will be fixed in a fairly timely manner and put those aside to give the game itself a review, 94 sounds about right for me as well.

    I'm just about to hit the 80 hour mark since headstart began, level 49, and the game continues to get better for me. After a couple days, I could say it was the best MMO I've played since WoW. Now I can say it seems to be the best MMO I've played in almost 14 years of playing them.

    The only damper has been the lack of Trading Post access. This has caused hassles, money woes and left me pining for participation in a live MMO economy. If this isn't fixed with in a week from tomorrow, then I'd have to lower the score a bit with the understanding that once fixed, the over all score would still be in the mid 90s.

    As I've progressed, I've become overwhelmed by how massive the world is and how much there is to do at any time.

    Level scaling works. If I play very smart, I can push content a couple levels above me and even take down veterans and some champions solo, but I still occassionally die, or get downed, participating in events much lower than my true level. Leveling up does indeed just open up more and more viable content.

    This is the first MMO in a long time that has enough world space and content to be viable as a long term game. The more I play, the more the game beats my already lofty expectations. It's very well designed. It's immersive and very beautiful. When not encountering the infrequent server lag, combat is about the smoothest, most fun combat I have experienced in an MMO.

    Technically, it does everything right design wise to earn a mid 90s score and the massive amounts of content and the massive world to play in definitely cement a 94.

    Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
    image

  • Requiem1066Requiem1066 londonPosts: 274Member

    Question :)

     

    How much do people think views and opinions about the game ( both good and bad ) are clouded by it being B2P ?

     

    Personally I don't think it would have got as many sales as it has if it was a subbed game , and people might have been a bit more unforgivin on it's flaws 

    image

  • Creslin321Creslin321 Baltimore, MDPosts: 5,359Member
    Originally posted by Requiem1066

    Question :)

     

    How much do people think views and opinions about the game ( both good and bad ) are clouded by it being B2P ?

     

    Personally I don't think it would have got as many sales as it has if it was a subbed game , and people might have been a bit more unforgivin on it's flaws 

    I completely agree that it would have got less sales as a sub game.  The GW crowd would have been pretty mad because they were used to B2P already, and there are a lot of players that would simply not play P2P games.

    That said, I still think it would have done quite well as a P2P game...but if it was P2P it should not have bene called GW2, because that creates an implicit assumption that it will be B2P just like its predecessor...maybe calling it Tyria would have been better if it were P2P.

    Anyway, I also think this goes the other way like you say...I am primarily a P2P player, and I always felt like GW1 was a "budget" experience while games like WoW were "premium" experiences.  I mean in GW1 you couldn't even jump :)!  So I was a bit concerned when I heard GW2 would be P2P.  I had questions like...would it be as good as the P2P games?  would the cash shop ruin or tarnish the experience?

    But by and large, those concerns have been rendered invalid.

    Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?

  • thunderCthunderC miami flPosts: 470Member Uncommon
    I blows my mind that this is the best MMO to come along in a very long time and its F2P. If any MMO desrved a sub fee it would be this one. After playing GW2 i look back at SWTOR-TERA-AION-and allllll the rest and just think, Man they had balls to charge 15 bucks a month for that garbage....
  • Eir_SEir_S Argyle, NYPosts: 4,623Member
    Originally posted by Mephster
    It is an easy 6.5-7/10. Too many launch issues and long term playability is a problem here. I'm starting to even wonder if this game can even count as being a mmo because it is so single player driven with option multiplayer.

    Good luck selling that one.  Not only do the enemies hit hard, but if no one's around when you stumble on a group of dredge for example, you're up shit creek... and solo'ing a Champion mob is really unlikely.  Regardless, good luck also in finding areas where there aren't many people to even solo in the first place.  Even when I start fighting a mob by myself, it doesn't take long before someone hears the ruckus or sees the particle effects and joins in.  I don't even know what you're talking about, honestly.  I know you're a huge detractor of the game, but try to make sense.

  • crewthiefcrewthief Fayetteville, NCPosts: 235Member
    Originally posted by Mephster
    Originally posted by Aerowyn
    Originally posted by Mephster
    It is an easy 6.5-7/10. Too many launch issues and long term playability is a problem here. I'm starting to even wonder if this game can even count as being a mmo because it is so single player driven with option multiplayer.

    honestly think you are not even playing the game.. just sayin...

    Really ? The only time you need to group is for dungeons that is it. It is the same way The Old Republic was. The only time you needed to group was for missions. That is it. Ninety percent of GW2 is soloable.  Technically you don't even need other people to finish a dynamic event because it scales to your level.

    So...you're level 80 then? Because that's the only way on Earth you'd know that 90% of it is soloable. Pretty sure you're just making up numbers to justify your position. 

    Sorroe, Human Mesmer
    Jade Quarry Server

  • Eir_SEir_S Argyle, NYPosts: 4,623Member
    Originally posted by crewthief
    Originally posted by Mephster
    Originally posted by Aerowyn
    Originally posted by Mephster
    It is an easy 6.5-7/10. Too many launch issues and long term playability is a problem here. I'm starting to even wonder if this game can even count as being a mmo because it is so single player driven with option multiplayer.

    honestly think you are not even playing the game.. just sayin...

    Really ? The only time you need to group is for dungeons that is it. It is the same way The Old Republic was. The only time you needed to group was for missions. That is it. Ninety percent of GW2 is soloable.  Technically you don't even need other people to finish a dynamic event because it scales to your level.

    So...you're level 80 then? Because that's the only way on Earth you'd know that 90% of it is soloable. Pretty sure you're just making up numbers to justify your position. 

    Yeah they do that... then when someone corrects them or challenges their claim, they scream FANBOI.  It's win/win in their eyes.  I guess I'm glad not to be a winner in this case.

  • crewthiefcrewthief Fayetteville, NCPosts: 235Member
    Originally posted by Eir_S
    Originally posted by crewthief
    Originally posted by Mephster
    Originally posted by Aerowyn
    Originally posted by Mephster
    It is an easy 6.5-7/10. Too many launch issues and long term playability is a problem here. I'm starting to even wonder if this game can even count as being a mmo because it is so single player driven with option multiplayer.

    honestly think you are not even playing the game.. just sayin...

    Really ? The only time you need to group is for dungeons that is it. It is the same way The Old Republic was. The only time you needed to group was for missions. That is it. Ninety percent of GW2 is soloable.  Technically you don't even need other people to finish a dynamic event because it scales to your level.

    So...you're level 80 then? Because that's the only way on Earth you'd know that 90% of it is soloable. Pretty sure you're just making up numbers to justify your position. 

    Yeah they do that... then when someone corrects them or challenges their claim, they scream FANBOI.  It's win/win in their eyes.  I guess I'm glad not to be a winner in this case.

    Considering the sheer amount of gamers playing and enjoying GW2 at the moment, i'd say it's their loss.

    Sorroe, Human Mesmer
    Jade Quarry Server

  • DrachasorDrachasor Columbus, OHPosts: 2,678Member
    What bothers me about this thread is that the OP gives the game an 85%, but acts like someone giving it just 9% more means that other review is a joke.  Seriously?  That seems well within the margin of personal taste to me.  If the OP thought the game was a 75% or less, then his position would make a bit more sense.
  • xalvixalvi brooklyn, NYPosts: 329Member

    lol tentonhammer.....is just a fail. I lost interest on what they have to say after they announced LOTRO the best expansion/game of 2012. Seems to me they write reviews based on which companies are giving them the $$. However, GW2 is pretty awesome....stil tentonhammer is a joke.

     

    Tentonhammer = False.

Sign In or Register to comment.