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!

3.3 / 10 on Metacritic.

245678

Comments

  • YaevinduskYaevindusk Ul''dah, CAPosts: 1,540Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Demandman
    In before 8.5-9 average score from integrity stripped game reviewers.

     

    Genuinely liking a game and reviewing it as it should be reviewed does not make for a poor professional critic.  Though the one critic that already posted is just as bad as all the "zeros" who haven't even bought the game or are giving it reviews because they have networking problems.

    When faced with strife or discontent, the true nature of a man is brought forth. It is then when we see the character of the individual. It is then we are able to tell if he is mature enough to grin and bare it, or subject his fellow man to his complaints and woes.

  • DemandmanDemandman BergenPosts: 57Member
    Originally posted by Yaevindusk
    Originally posted by Demandman
    In before 8.5-9 average score from integrity stripped game reviewers.

     

    Genuinely liking a game and reviewing it as it should be reviewed does not make for a poor professional critic.  Though the one critic that already posted is just as bad as all the "zeros" who haven't even bought the game or are giving it reviews because they have networking problems.

    Every single AAA game receives conveniently positive ratings.

  • kaliniskalinis Dexter, MEPosts: 1,428Member

    Ill admit people just bash wow on here and metacrit who never play the game, There is a reason wows meta crit score is low but it has way mroe subs then any other game out there, 

    Its not because its mainstream or any of that, I have fun in it, its why i play if i dont have fun im not gonna play a game period. 

    That said the one issue i did have was the gyrocopter that is the dumbest opening quest ever, Really they should of thought that one out more, i couldnt see anything except other copters, 

    So i logged for 30 mins got a panda to level 5 came back and everyone had cleared out enough to do the quest, 

    Mop at least on my server bt is duing just as well as cata, People even who didn't buy mop are loving playing the panda and the players in game seem generally happy so far so take that for what it is, 

    In the us i have had 0 issues, I got booted once but its cause my net went out not because of wow. 

  • FrodoFraginsFrodoFragins Manchester, NHPosts: 2,931Member Uncommon

    It seems metacritic attracts a lot of angry people.  D3 being online only and having a RMAH doomed the scores of anything else Blizzard releases after.  I have no interes tin MoP, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go and post a low score in a review for it.

     

    It's also another example of how metacritic has zero affect on sales and neither does it reflect true consumer reactions.

  • AoriAori Carbondale, ILPosts: 1,886Member Uncommon

    So quick to hate on WoW.. funny thing is alot of people say EVERYONE is upset or the MAJORITY of the players have problems.. yet the game still has millions of players figure that out for me.

    Sorry if EVERYONE or even the MAJORITY had issues as much as these sites claim.. well WoW would be every other MMO.

  • SuprGamerXSuprGamerX Montreal, QCPosts: 531Member
       Those that judge a game by ratings and such , are idiots and know nothing and will never know anything about gaming. And that goes for any game.  One game might be trash for you but will be liked by thousands.   Anyways, keep looking at those meaningless ratings.  This is even worst then graphics being important in a MMO.
  • YaevinduskYaevindusk Ul''dah, CAPosts: 1,540Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Demandman
    Originally posted by Yaevindusk
    Originally posted by Demandman
    In before 8.5-9 average score from integrity stripped game reviewers.

     

    Genuinely liking a game and reviewing it as it should be reviewed does not make for a poor professional critic.  Though the one critic that already posted is just as bad as all the "zeros" who haven't even bought the game or are giving it reviews because they have networking problems.

    Every single AAA game receives conveniently positive ratings.

     

    Most reviews that appear on the same day (when it's strictly an online game) are subject to us quirking our eyebrows.  Though I must ask, do you even read in full all the reviews that professional critics write?  If I write a scholarly paper about a theory I have in the scientific community, would you take me for my word or read what I have to say before forming your own opinion?  An article that is written well, has shown ample indication that they have played the game, and detailed positives and negatives along with their rating certainly do so in a matter most befitting their station.

    Bad games get bad reviews, and more often than not "AAA" titles have the budget to make good games.  This is always subject to one's own opinions.  The scrutiny that MMOs get in general is not in particular about it being a bad game, but being worth a monthly fee.  Thus, these games typically get hundreds of thousands of people subscribed who view it is worth it.  Those games which are truly bad?  FFXIV -- Which was also a AAA release and got horrible reviews (because it -was- a bad game) -- did not manage to reach those levels.  In fact it is restructuring its entire game based on bad reviews given by critics.

    When faced with strife or discontent, the true nature of a man is brought forth. It is then when we see the character of the individual. It is then we are able to tell if he is mature enough to grin and bare it, or subject his fellow man to his complaints and woes.

  • MiklosanMiklosan turkuPosts: 176Member
    Originally posted by Foomerang

    Gw2 fanboys making alt accounts and bash wow. Then proclaim on their main account that they "never troll other game forums". Happened yesterday a couple times and at least once again today...

    Haha, true!!!

     

    Wonder how many "alts" that Miss Aero. has btw.....image

     

    Actually, put up your computer at Ultra settings and go into to Pandaria with a positive attitude and you'll be truly amazed!! And this comes from a person who was tired of WoW and looked forward to WAR, LOTRO, Vanguard, SWTOR and.... yes, gw2 aswell but......

    ......but almost like U2 once sang; I still haven't found what I'm looking for  (though, my re-subscription to WoW is NOT a dissapointment so far, not at all)

     

     

  • OurielOuriel SkopjePosts: 72Member


    Originally posted by Karteli
    Blizzard pissed all over it's loyal fanbase when it merged with Activision sometime ago.

    Cataclysm was just a cheap expansion aimed at attracting younger players, while somehow trying retaining older veterans. It really missed the mark with retaining veterans, and the end result is mostly people that play WoW but don't really want to get involved too much. Some veterans + new younger gamers. EPIX EVERYWHERE YAY FOR WOW!

    Losing a slew of hardcore + addicts cost this game dearly with the lackluster expansion known as Cataclysm. Want a dungeon like BRS, LBRS/UBRS? Want a raid locale like MC, Karazan, Ulduarr? Keep looking, the original devs for these places either quit or are working on Titan, leaving the "B" team to do WoW (since mid WotLK).



    You do realise that Activision has nothing to do with Blizzard, but rather with Vivendi? You do know that both Activision and Blizzard are publishers(also their own game developers) that share the revenue for Vivendi? The Activision-Blizzard is just showing off the numbers of the revenue they make in the quartals and has nothing to do with Activision interfering into Blizzard's work right?

    For more detailed explanation read this article: http://wow.joystiq.com/2009/04/12/activision-blizzard-is-not-blizzard/

     

    And to your second passage, yes, it's their B team working on WoW now, not their main team, because the main team was transfered to work on the project code named "Titan".

     

    OT; Even tho I have no right to give a criticism for their expansion to the game, but most of the user reviews tend to be very biased, written in anger because of server instabillity which will be fix and some for the hate, but there are other factor I can't even point out, or I don't know them.

    However, I did enjoy through all their expansions and I find WotLK to be the best to my liking. Also, mosst of the people who complain about difficulty, don't you think you've learned or mastered the game and that back in that vanilla/tbc WoW time you were still new to the concept of the raiding and such things?


    Originally posted by drakes821
    Originally posted by AdamTM Originally posted by drakes821 Almost any big mainstream AAA game that is released will get panned on Metacritic on the first couple of days for some reason. My theory is all the people who actually bought the game are playing it while only childish trolls pop on there and post their horrible scores for something they don't play. Give it a month and the score will more acurately represent the quality of the game. And I don't like or dislike WoW, I've never really played it, this opinion is just based off of watching mulitple metacritic scores at launch.
    Actually thats something I never observed. What I observed is a lot of low scores if the game has game-breaking or technical flaws at launch. The last AAA games released in the last two months had green user reviews from the go, even the MMOs.
    I suppose it's hard to communicate but I was refering to AAA games that have a lot of hate centered around them.

    For example CoD was smashed on metecritic at launch just because so many people seem to hate the series, WoW is the same way in the MMO world to an extent, a lot of haters for no real reason.

    I do agree though games with glitches at launch do get panned as well, at least that's what happened to Diablo 3 at launch.



    I must agree with Drakes821, not only we can see hate towards AAA games, we can also see this kind of hate for no obvious reason in the movie, music and mobile industry. The fans and haters look really childlish and I barely see a point in what's there to argue, do they feel superior or inferior; or they just want be in the "cool" crowd that hates that one(or more) thing(s) and feel like they are not alone? I really don't see a point for that kind of behaviours, it even leads me to the Thomas Hobbes experiment, where people are put in a state of nature.

    Also, as I said in my first passage, most of those critics tend to be very, very biased with closed mind and neglect or just don't want to point out the good things, or just make a two-part review where they can cover the good and bad things about that game.
    In the part 1 review they will review the good things and point what they find interesting, innovative, changing or such things, while in their part 2 review what they don't like, what should be changed or improved and etc; just don't be biased and try to write a review with open mind, not closed one, that is the most important thing.

    However, judged on those reviews, barely any of them had constructive criticism and those numbers were give just because there are pandas, pet battles and server issues which will be resolved.

    EDIT; I'd kindly ask if some of the forum mods can delete my post, because 'twas a mistake. I tried to edit this one and somehow reposted what I wanted to say in this post, so please delete my post below this one.
    Thanks in advance! :)

  • OurielOuriel SkopjePosts: 72Member

    -snip-
    Double post, delete this one please.

  • KarteliKarteli Providence, PAPosts: 2,646Member
    Originally posted by Ouriel

     


    Originally posted by Karteli
    Blizzard pissed all over it's loyal fanbase when it merged with Activision sometime ago.

     

    Cataclysm was just a cheap expansion aimed at attracting younger players, while somehow trying retaining older veterans. It really missed the mark with retaining veterans, and the end result is mostly people that play WoW but don't really want to get involved too much. Some veterans + new younger gamers. EPIX EVERYWHERE YAY FOR WOW!

    Losing a slew of hardcore + addicts cost this game dearly with the lackluster expansion known as Cataclysm. Want a dungeon like BRS, LBRS/UBRS? Want a raid locale like MC, Karazan, Ulduarr? Keep looking, the original devs for these places either quit or are working on Titan, leaving the "B" team to do WoW (since mid WotLK).



    You do realise that Activision has nothing to do with Blizzard, but rather with Vivendi? You do know that both Activision and Blizzard are publishers(also their own game developers) that share the revenue for Vivendi? The Activision-Blizzard is just showing off the numbers of the revenue they make in the quartals and has nothing to do with Activision interfering into Blizzard's work right?

    For more detailed explanation read this article: http://wow.joystiq.com/2009/04/12/activision-blizzard-is-not-blizzard/

     

    And to your second passage, yes, it's their B team working on WoW now, not their main team, because the main team was transfered to work on the project code named "Titan".

    What I do realize is that you are just repeating what you have read and not what you have felt.  Gather your inner emotions and tell me that there has been no change in game quality since Activision got involved.  IF you were a WoW player 2004-2009, tell me this.  Vivendi was always around, they are not part of the equation in the quality degredation we've seen.

    But since Vivendi's main source of income is WoW, adding Activision only added more mouths to feed.  Quality went down, and cash shop items went in.  All around 2009.  Zing!

     

    Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8NNHmV3QPw&feature=plcp
    Recognize the voice? Yep sounds like Penny Arcade's Extra Credits.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,672Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ren128

    Seems like most scores are either very low (0-2) or very high (8-10) with hardly anything in-between, meaning MoP polarised people. 

    MoP didn't polarize people. Gamer's in general are very polarized in their views. Everything is either the next [game] killer or "FAIL"

    It's been really noticable the past year or so, and I don't think that most gamers realize the more they do that the more they genuinely make their feedback useless and, as such, irrelevant.

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • neorandomneorandom bev hills, CAPosts: 1,681Member
    Originally posted by Panther2103
    Metacritic user scores are garbage. No way does a game deserve a 0. Which if you look, you see a majority of the negative reviews are 0. Most of them are saying it's a kids game and are mad about some change they made to the game. Which even then a change to a system that they didn't like doesn't auto make a score 0. It isn't worth it to even look at this, considering trolls and people who are upset about a gameplay change are going to just try to lower the score by any means possible.

    trolls are countered by fanboys, so if the game has alot of scored reviews on meta, you can figure the liars cancle each other out, and then the game still scores 3/10, sounds about right considering the plot of MoP follows the kung fu panda movies word for word..... and they werent that good.

  • YaevinduskYaevindusk Ul''dah, CAPosts: 1,540Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by neorandom
    Originally posted by Panther2103
    Metacritic user scores are garbage. No way does a game deserve a 0. Which if you look, you see a majority of the negative reviews are 0. Most of them are saying it's a kids game and are mad about some change they made to the game. Which even then a change to a system that they didn't like doesn't auto make a score 0. It isn't worth it to even look at this, considering trolls and people who are upset about a gameplay change are going to just try to lower the score by any means possible.

    trolls are countered by fanboys, so if the game has alot of scored reviews on meta, you can figure the liars cancle each other out, and then the game still scores 3/10, sounds about right considering the plot of MoP follows the kung fu panda movies word for word..... and they werent that good.

     

    Which one do you fall under?  The "liar" or "The Judge by what others tell you without playing it" category?

    Either way, you have my pity good sir.

    When faced with strife or discontent, the true nature of a man is brought forth. It is then when we see the character of the individual. It is then we are able to tell if he is mature enough to grin and bare it, or subject his fellow man to his complaints and woes.

  • PsychowPsychow SF Giants Territory, CAPosts: 1,784Member

    Metacritic is becomming less and less usefull as it's users abuse the ratings.

     

    Why is it so hard for people to just "play fair" and rate the game like a normal, unbiased, human being instead of a rabid fanboi or hater?

     

    I don't think I even look at ratings anymore unless is some obscure indi game on Steam.

  • BadaboomBadaboom Moose Jaw, SKPosts: 2,380Member
    Originally posted by Psychow

    Metacritic is becomming less and less usefull as it's users abuse the ratings.

     

    Why is it so hard for people to just "play fair" and rate the game like a normal, unbiased, human being instead of a rabid fanboi or hater?

     

    I don't think I even look at ratings anymore unless is some obscure indi game on Steam.

    I completely agree. 

  • SicaeSicae LulePosts: 110Member
    Originally posted by neobahamut20
    1. Paid work (EA pays people to do that crap & to censor boards like this one too - BUT, I am not saying they did anything in this case, just stating a known, proven example)

    Sorry, but this one is not true. You don't have to pay people to write crap on forums, they do it when they are supposed to be working.

  • nationalcitynationalcity Decatur, MIPosts: 330Member Uncommon

    Really, I mean a post like this already the game has barely been out 24 hours and yet its a fail, sure whatever......

     

    I'm not a fanboy but come on...

     

    Like people are not getting on there just to down vote it, because WOW eats babies and kicks kittens....

     

    Just look at the reviews on there everything is 0 or 10....

     

    The reviews on these sites are so biased that it just can't be belived I mean there never is a middle ground its always the same thing people either gave it a 10 or a 0......

  • VolenibbletsVolenibblets London, LAPosts: 212Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Foomerang

    Gw2 fanboys making alt accounts and bash wow. Then proclaim on their main account that they "never troll other game forums". Happened yesterday a couple times and at least once again today...

    This is one of the weirdest comment I have ever seen on a forum. What possible kind of motivation would someone who's enjoying GW2 have to go to the bother of creating an alt account just for the purpose of bashing wow? Does it sound logical or even likely?  This is the kind of comment that would make a science fiction robot from the 60s rock back and forth stammering 'illogical, illogical does...not...compute' before falling over making 'bzzt bzzt' noises. 

  • neobahamut20neobahamut20 ste-julie, QCPosts: 336Member
    Originally posted by Psychow

    Metacritic is becomming less and less usefull as it's users abuse the ratings.

     

    Why is it so hard for people to just "play fair" and rate the game like a normal, unbiased, human being instead of a rabid fanboi or hater?

     

    I don't think I even look at ratings anymore unless is some obscure indi game on Steam.

    This is filled with flaws and unfortunately for you, I like to point out bullshitters.

     

    First, Metacrititc is not less useful nor more useful. It is a popular marketting tool. You seem to not be able to make the difference between a metacritic score and a user score. The metacritic scores are taken from actual critics and averaged out from there. Sure each critic can be bought off to give a high score SW:TOR   but it remains widely used as a first glance reference, even appearing on Steam. As Steam is still gaining in popularity, so is the "usefulness" of metacritic. Many will simply not look at a game with a metacritic score under 50. 

    The user score is where users rate a game. That score, as all user scores has always and will always be completely worthless. Humans will always rate emotionally and bitter users are far more tempted to write off their emotions on a game than happy users are. (The why is explained in a previous post of mine in this thread)

     

    Then you seem to seriously question why people can't play fair. A valid question with a stupid assumption. The assumption that normal humans are unbiased. Everyone is emotional, even those who do this daily and have their perception included in the actual metacritic score. Life is not fair, humans are not machines. In fact, humans are emotional meatbags with an ego. So the question you are really asking is, why can't humans be objective?

    Well objectivity is actually a concept taught along with critical thought. A society able to function with a majority of critical thinkers is unknown to mankind. It is far more efficient for those in charge (corporations, not your Dear Government) to keep people emotional. So from day one, you are taught to live an emotional life. As such, you are sold happiness, along with the concept that money does buy happiness, if only for a little while. However, as true as it might be, it remains an excuse, an excuse fabricated through fear. The only ones to blame are your parents as they have failed you. So why aren't people objective? Because they were let down, by parenting failures and so, they never learned it.

     

    Lastly, your nonsensical rambling makes sense, you make a perceptual judgment of Metacritic's usefulness, as it relates to you alone and emotionally state that you dont look at them.... EXCEPT if its an indie game on Steam. So you go asking why people can't be objective and your very next statement is one that relates and is affected by your own personal perception. Well, the answers you seek fellow human, you stare at them in the mirror and yet remain too blind to notice them.

    Boycotting EA. Why? They suck, even moreso since 2008.

  • nationalcitynationalcity Decatur, MIPosts: 330Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by neobahamut20
    Originally posted by Psychow

    Metacritic is becomming less and less usefull as it's users abuse the ratings.

     

    Why is it so hard for people to just "play fair" and rate the game like a normal, unbiased, human being instead of a rabid fanboi or hater?

     

    I don't think I even look at ratings anymore unless is some obscure indi game on Steam.

    This is filled with flaws and unfortunately for you, I like to point out bullshitters.

     

    First, Metacrititc is not less useful nor more useful. It is a popular marketting tool. You seem to not be able to make the difference between a metacritic score and a user score. The metacritic scores are taken from actual critics and averaged out from there. Sure each critic can be bought off to give a high score SW:TOR   but it remains widely used as a first glance reference, even appearing on Steam. As Steam is still gaining in popularity, so is the "usefulness" of metacritic. Many will simply not look at a game with a metacritic score under 50. 

    The user score is where users rate a game. That score, as all user scores has always and will always be completely worthless. Humans will always rate emotionally and bitter users are far more tempted to write off their emotions on a game than happy users are. (The why is explained in a previous post of mine in this thread)

     

    Then you seem to seriously question why people can't play fair. A valid question with a stupid assumption. The assumption that normal humans are unbiased. Everyone is emotional, even those who do this daily and have their perception included in the actual metacritic score. Life is not fair, humans are not machines. In fact, humans are emotional meatbags with an ego. So the question you are really asking is, why can't humans be objective?

    Well objectivity is actually a concept taught along with critical thought. A society able to function with a majority of critical thinkers is unknown to mankind. It is far more efficient for those in charge (corporations, not your Dear Government) to keep people emotional. So from day one, you are taught to live an emotional life. As such, you are sold happiness, along with the concept that money does buy happiness, if only for a little while. However, as true as it might be, it remains an excuse, an excuse fabricated through fear. The only ones to blame are your parents as they have failed you. So why aren't people objective? Because they were let down, by parenting failures and so, they never learned it.

     

    Lastly, your nonsensical rambling makes sense, you make a perceptual judgment of Metacritic's usefulness, as it relates to you alone and emotionally state that you dont look at them.... EXCEPT if its an indie game on Steam. So you go asking why people can't be objective and your very next statement is one that relates and is affected by your own personal perception. Well, the answers you seek fellow human, you stare at them in the mirror and yet remain too blind to notice them.

    Sure buddy you keep telling yourself that...

    No one is stopping you from using it but don't try and say that this site is useful when its filled with hate rants for reviews I mean gimme a break....

     

    Someone seems a little angry, I mean its a review site it can't possibly invoke this kind of passion from you to defend it.....

    Especially when the site is so biased.... It always goes by the FOTM game and if you can't see it, then there is not much anyone can say.....

     

  • VolenibbletsVolenibblets London, LAPosts: 212Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nationalcity

    Someone seems a little angry, I mean its a review site it can't possibly invoke this kind of passion from you to defend it.....

    I don't believe he is defending it per se, he's pointing out the flaws in the posters reasoning. 

  • neobahamut20neobahamut20 ste-julie, QCPosts: 336Member
    Originally posted by nationalcity
    Originally posted by neobahamut20
    Originally posted by Psychow

    Metacritic is becomming less and less usefull as it's users abuse the ratings.

     

    Why is it so hard for people to just "play fair" and rate the game like a normal, unbiased, human being instead of a rabid fanboi or hater?

     

    I don't think I even look at ratings anymore unless is some obscure indi game on Steam.

    This is filled with flaws and unfortunately for you, I like to point out bullshitters.

     

    First, Metacrititc is not less useful nor more useful. It is a popular marketting tool. You seem to not be able to make the difference between a metacritic score and a user score. The metacritic scores are taken from actual critics and averaged out from there. Sure each critic can be bought off to give a high score SW:TOR   but it remains widely used as a first glance reference, even appearing on Steam. As Steam is still gaining in popularity, so is the "usefulness" of metacritic. Many will simply not look at a game with a metacritic score under 50. 

    The user score is where users rate a game. That score, as all user scores has always and will always be completely worthless. Humans will always rate emotionally and bitter users are far more tempted to write off their emotions on a game than happy users are. (The why is explained in a previous post of mine in this thread)

     

    Then you seem to seriously question why people can't play fair. A valid question with a stupid assumption. The assumption that normal humans are unbiased. Everyone is emotional, even those who do this daily and have their perception included in the actual metacritic score. Life is not fair, humans are not machines. In fact, humans are emotional meatbags with an ego. So the question you are really asking is, why can't humans be objective?

    Well objectivity is actually a concept taught along with critical thought. A society able to function with a majority of critical thinkers is unknown to mankind. It is far more efficient for those in charge (corporations, not your Dear Government) to keep people emotional. So from day one, you are taught to live an emotional life. As such, you are sold happiness, along with the concept that money does buy happiness, if only for a little while. However, as true as it might be, it remains an excuse, an excuse fabricated through fear. The only ones to blame are your parents as they have failed you. So why aren't people objective? Because they were let down, by parenting failures and so, they never learned it.

     

    Lastly, your nonsensical rambling makes sense, you make a perceptual judgment of Metacritic's usefulness, as it relates to you alone and emotionally state that you dont look at them.... EXCEPT if its an indie game on Steam. So you go asking why people can't be objective and your very next statement is one that relates and is affected by your own personal perception. Well, the answers you seek fellow human, you stare at them in the mirror and yet remain too blind to notice them.

    Sure buddy you keep telling yourself that...

    No one is stopping you from using it but don't try and say that this site is useful when its filled with hate rants for reviews I mean gimme a break....

     

    Someone seems a little angry, I mean its a review site it can't possibly invoke this kind of passion from you to defend it.....

     

     

    Another statement based on emotions. That's weak.

     

    I do not defend it, I'm just being objective about it. From my eyes, the universe doesn't revolve around me. You should really work on your reading comprehension, it is lacking.

     

    [edit: removed what could have been read as an ad hominem  attack]

    Boycotting EA. Why? They suck, even moreso since 2008.

  • expressoexpresso mePosts: 2,183Member Uncommon
    Ah nothing like waking up to metacritic in the morning for your daily dose on nonsense.
  • UkiahUkiah Austin, TXPosts: 273Member
    Originally posted by Ren128
    Originally posted by Eazydzzz

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/world-of-warcraft-mists-of-pandaria/user-reviews?sort-by=date&num_items=100

     

    Just thought I would share.

     

    A 3.3 seems a little high.  I am pretty angry about spending $40 on MoP!

     

    Seems like most scores are either very low (0-2) or very high (8-10) with hardly anything in-between, meaning MoP polarised people. 

    Which WoW has ALWAYS done.

This discussion has been closed.