It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Lasting appeal 95%
that is the only thing i disagree with.
maybe you could score it that way compared to single player games but not mmo's
Originally posted by Requiem1066 How much do people think views and opinions about the game ( both good and bad ) are clouded by it being B2P ?
Makes zero difference to me, personally. If a game is mediocre, I might be more forgiving if it's a budget indie title, or f2p, but if a game is as good as GW2, no. The price has nothing to do with it.
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.
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
How is that clouding anything? Shouldn't a company be given extra points for making a quality MMO without a subscription or a F2P setup?
Originally posted by BadSpock Lasting Appeal 95% is questionable - but only because this is SUCH a personal / subjective measure. You cannot objectively judge lasting appeal - you can only comment on the amount and variety of content in the game and whether or not it can be predicted that said amount and variety of content will continue to expand post release - and everyone is confident in ArenaNet to do just that.
Originally posted by Purgatus 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
Not in my opinion, it's the game-play and longevity of that game-play that matters most in an MMORPG. I'm not going to judge the cheaper one as better only due to being cheaper. This is why I dislike critic reviews of MMO's in general, they hardly ever focus on the staying power of a title, instead they focus solely on the journey, which is never as good as SP games which is where the journey matters most.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It is a sign of a defeated man, to attack at one's character in the face of logic and reason- Me
Solo music https://www.reverbnation.com/Cineris_md
Originally posted by Distopia Not in my opinion, it's the game-play and longevity of that game-play that matters most in an MMORPG. I'm not going to judge the cheaper one as better only due to being cheaper. This is why I dislike critic reviews of MMO's in general, they hardly ever focus on the staying power of a title, instead they focus solely on the journey, which is never as good as SP games which is where the journey matters most.
To be fair, staying power is difficult to judge so soon. They should just leave that out of the review altogether, IMHO.
I'm curious if review scoring will be more focused eg:
1. PvP: combat balancing, modes, potential for esports, longevity etc?
2. PvE: how it compares to the next/current best in the market what's better what's not?
I'd give TTH the benefit of the doubt on the presentation and audio: Kinda amazing art in a game.
I have doubts about the endgame.
Too soon for a fair review, the game has a nice levelling experience though.
I think you answer the clouding question yourself when you say " shouldn't a company be given extra points for making a quality MMO without a sub or F2P set up ".
A game Imo should only be given points and judged on its gameplay and technical side .. not on it's payment method
Originally posted by Requiem1066 Originally posted by Purgatus 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
very much agree.. like the game or not i cannot think of another MMO to ever release with this amount of content ever.. even games that have been out for years don't have the amount of content this game has. I have never played a MMO with towns you can explore for hours and this game doesn't have 1 but 5 of them. The PVE side of this game is huge and not even the main selling point for many people. Game is well worth a sub fee if you compare it to most all the other sub based MMOs out there
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
Entertainment/dollar matters. So payment method matters. Being massively cheaper than other MMOs and still a AAA title is a big deal.
Originally posted by Purgatus Except that its not just the title. The whole OP reads the same. Its sentimet is clear: GW2 is a good game (I know he said great game, but with an 8.5 its just good unless he is use the Special Snowflake grading scale) but it does not deserve the 9.4 it got from TTH. Thats just crazy. Everyone deserves his or her own opinion. But this is not a crazy review. It was quite clear as to why the game got the score it did. Further, we are going to see more 9+ reviews for it. Count on it. If these are offensve to some posters, I suggest just not reading them. You can make the assumtion that Im just another blind fanbnoi (and you may even be right!) but this is clearly an aversarial post.
No...I don't think it is a fair review.
...and no, I don't think you're a fanboi. Getting really tired of this being brought up every time you disagree with someone. Think I found it more amusing when they just accused me of being a fanboy or hater pending on the subject.
I think it is ridiculous to give this high a score based on the criteria, the obvious limited time the person had playing the game, and the fact tht frankly part of the reason it will score so high is because in general mmos across the board have been overrated. So what do they do? Give the game the same score they gave SWTOR? War? AoC? How can they? So in comes another excessive review to justify it is better than the other comedic dribble they wrote that is supposed to be deemed as a game review. It isn't the fault of the game. This is a great game. Not one at this point in time that deserves a 94 or 100. It simply doesn't. But here we are with sites that hallowed many other mmos that fell way short of the score they gave it. So here we go with the 90 to 100s.
My problem is with the sites...not the game, not the fans, and not the haters. This is nothing new from me. I have been complaining about overinflated reviews when it comes to mmos for some time now. Three to six months from from now when the game is reviewed or re-reviewed would I balk at a score like that? Probably not pending on what has transpired and the overall sentiment towards the game. At this point how the hell do you even remark on it improving or refining itself even more? Give it a 99.99? What about the site that gave it a 100? Give it a 100 with two snaps in a circle?
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
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.
I love how you and the TTH reviewer are so knowledgeable about the long term playability of the game.
There is plenty of group content in this game. This game is no more solo driven than other games. In fact, less so than some recent titles.
Originally posted by GoldenArrow I have doubts about the endgame. Too soon for a fair review, the game has a nice levelling experience though.
The WvW is enough endgame to satisfy people for a long time. the battles are epic in size, with no lag. Can't wait to see what else is available at 80.
In this economy price is always a factor. Oddly enough though..this is one of the few newer MMOs released for which i would gladly pay a monthly fee. IMO..the quality and quantity is to my satisfaction. This is from someone who had no intention of even buying the game. Never followed beta news...convention info or much of anything for GW2. I honestly couldn't tell you why i did..was at Walmart and had an impulse I guess. Now....I am pleasantly surprised and plan to play it consistently as long as content remains at least as full as it is now until max level. Then I'll see how end-game pans out . (not really a priority for me)
Originally posted by BadSpock Originally posted by colddog04 Originally posted by The_Korrigan Originally posted by BadSpock 4. You and I disagree fully on how much Art style and theme play into the graphics score, which is fine - I think Art style and theme is everything - without it even the most graphically impressive game on a technical level is "souless" and bland.
THIS. For instance, I found TSW having a nice graphic engine, but the world was (to me) souless and bland. Where I give TSW a 8/10 for the technical aspect and the engine features, I give GW2 a 10/10 because an engine is just that... an engine, a tool for the art team. The most expensive showel won't turn a mediocre gardener into a good one.
I disagree with you. I thought the world in TSW was freaking awesome to behold and there was an attention to detail that is rarely seen. But then, so is GW2 in my opinion. The attention to detail and the overall design of both games is pretty amazing IMO.
For me, the theme of TSW was supposed to be one of its strengths, but to me it was a weakness. The "modern" setting just doesn't appeal to me in a video game - I want high fantasy / sci-fi and such because if I want to see realistic graphics and modern settings - I go outside.
Which is kind of odd because I generally prefer the modern setting for FPS games - but I like military tech and accuracy in shooter games so maybe that is why?
But, yet again, this stuff is all subjective and arguing it is fruitless - I just think anyone who thinks GW2 has "bad" graphics or "2004" graphics is just... simple?!
Never saw this ^ in 2004 people.
I can show you conan pictures of even Lotro if you never seen this
Originally posted by bluefunk Well TTH have a review up for GW2. Final score 94%, while I feel GW2 is a great game well worth £40 I paid no way is it a near perfect score.
You have to consider that all these preview sites has given something like 7-8,5 / 10 for very mediocre or even bad games, GW2 certainly is above mediocre, and even very great in the eyes of many, so the score is what it is and cant be anything less.
Originally posted by bluefunk Well TTH have a review up for GW2. Final score 94%, while I feel GW2 is a great game well worth £40 I paid no way is it a near perfect score. I guess I shouldn't have expected much for TTH. Gamesplay 90% Graphics 97% (You got to be kidding nearly the best GFX ever.... jokers) Sound 97% Multiplayer 95% Value 95% Lasting appeal 95% No mention of the various issues plaguing GW2 game itself or Anet I guess I shouldn't expect more from them tbh. My review 85% - great mmo/action game, awesome value.
yea right, throwing out a random number without any reason for YOUR review is so much better than what they did. oh wait. it's not, sorry my bad. guess i shouldnt have expected much from a troll
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
Originally posted by KonyakZero I never believed a review should ever come out in the first week, second week, or even the third week. I absolutely HATE that some reviews come out after a few days. Especially when it comes to MMOs. Developers spend a lot of time creating this huge fantastic worlds for us to enjoy. Worlds that there's no way we could experience in full after a few days. It's an insult to the developer for you to think that you have a credible opinion afer such a short time. A month at the least is when a review should come out for an MMO. Simple as that. Regardless of what score they give it.
Reviewers who get out reviews this soon after release just want to do it so they can say they are first.
Originally posted by thunderC 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....
I would'ntpay $15 a month for this game, simply because it would be no different from the other high fantasy MMO's that ask for a monthly fee unless I was really into this game and offered no restrictions to deserve $15 a month. It's a themepark mmo which will have a same ending no matter how you try to spin it. I would rather spend $15 a month on WoW simply because I got over 8 years vested in the game. But that is just me.
On another note.
$15 dollars a month pays for future content and maintenance on subbed games, look what just happened to CoX even as a F2P MMO from NCSoft. If a mmorpg is going to survive, it does have to have money support someway or another.
I agree with the people who say it's too soon to give the game a rating. Being fresh and new to me, I know that I would be tempted to rate it very high, but after some time has passed....I might rate it lower. We'll just have to wait and see (is kind of my motto on game reviews).
So I'm going to resist the temptation to toss out a rating and just say that I'm presently having a delicious time.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Can't believe they didn't give 100% for sound and graphics, the game looks like a living painting and sound plays such an important part in this game, not only for Jeremy Soule's awesome BGM but in how information is also delivered by sound, you can find out about nearby DE's (nearby but out of the radar for listing it) and soon to be starting DE's. They just won't give 100% I guess.
Also this combat feels like 95% for me, and the lasting appeal and value feel like an obvious 100% - no monthly fees and at least 200 hours of content are a definite 100 to me in these two categories.
See? Numbers are just an opinion, and this was mine.
It's an amazingly gorgeous game, definitely the best MMO I've ever seen. But so far it's not really living up to the hype, at least not for me.
I think Rift's dynamic events are more impressive and done better. And I also think Rift's combat feels and flows better (at least based on the one race in GW2 I've played thus far).
And frankly I kind of find myself wishing there were quest hubs. It's like I'm either traveling around to do my storyline quest, or occasionally encountering dynamic public events, which are too busy and too chaotic to be really enjoyable. I kind of like (and miss) the occasional distraction of mindless, unrelated "busy" quests.
The story is definitely well done. It's probably the first time I've really read/listened to dialog. But people who say that it completely breaks the mold because it doesn't have fetch quests or kill 10 of x quests are being a tad disingenuous. Because whether the dialog says 'kill 10 of x' or it shows a bar that fills up ater you kill 10 of x, well, it's pretty much just two ways of saying the same thing.
I've only got about 8 hours played, so I'm not trashing the game. I'm just saying that it's not really proving to be as revolutionary or amazing as I'd hoped.