It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by Scot Just shows you how obsessed the industry has become with a polished launch. If you can launch with no issues and look graphically good you are looking at 9 out of 10. You may have no mid level gameplay (AoC) or have serious endgameplay issues (WH) but as long as there are no bugs and it looks pretty you are looking at a great score.
SWTOR was very polished game but it still flopped hard. Bad game is bad game, thers no escaping form that. Its just that in some cases its not apparent form mere launch. And in some cases it is.
Originally posted by GoldenArrow Originally posted by BMBender I don't have a stake in the game for or against, but I can't say I'm overly surprised by the mixed reception the game gets. From the outset I figured the mixed messaging of Elder scrolls and Online was going to create "drama" so I stayed away. No way around it with that IP and that team and that broad a market spectrum targeting. Daoc style pvpers, TES fans, mmo neck beards. JC himself couldn't make a game to fit that market mix.
It will be interesting to see which direction they'll take with the updates.
They can't please everyone :j
Originally posted by sapphen Originally posted by bcbully Strange, all I can assume is that scores like this come from non pvprs. edit - Just read it. Yep pve guy here. "you can't limit a group search to your own campaign is a drag" lmao. All you do is type LFG you have a group of 20+ in a couple minutes if not instant.
Keep in mind that ESO only caters to one type of PvP (DAoC RvR), they don't do open world PvP (as in a mixed faction flag system), battleground PvP (larger teams), or arena PvP (smaller teams). I'm not saying this is good or bad, just that not all PvP players are going to find ESO appealing.
Can we stop with this nonsense please? ESO is nothing like DAoC. It has no competitive group vs group, very weak PvP progression, the combat is completely different, the CC system is completely different, no viable PvP soloing of any kind, no RvR dungeon etc. It's much closer to WoW Wintergrasp or GW2 WvW.
DAoC - Excalibur & Camlann
Originally posted by GoldenArrow Suprisingly the "Elder Scrolls" in the title of this game is hurting the "professional" reviews a lot. A lot of the reviewers are stumbling on the predjudice that this game is a sequel to Skyrim. THIS GAME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SINGLE PLAYER SERIES. However I do think that 6/10 is quite accurate because of the design flaws, bugs, non-existing endgame and the soft-content gate on veteran ranks accompanied by lack of communication from ZOS. But in all honestly giving static reviews on evolving online games is a big nono.
The game would have been a ton better if they actually. It's like Bethesda didn't even bother lending out their core writers to Zenimax to make the main story line and quests a little more interesting.
I loved the main story line in Oblivion. I loved the main story line in Skyrim and a lot of fantastic quest lines like the Companions.
I miss all that in ESO. The main story line so far and most of the questlines feel just very generic run of the mill.
There are a few decent ones, but they are far and few between.
I would say that review is pretty accurate . I'm enjoying the game though so far . I'm not finding it any more buggy that many of the other mmo launches I have seen but the thing I can't over look is the poor design choices .
The public dungeons are horrible there are far too many people in them and what would have been fun and engaging if they have been limited to 5-10 people are just awful . Lots of public dungeons have bots camping the bosses for loot . You can view the problem for yourself here at 23.00 . I have heard people doing it are getting instant bans now though but its things like this show just how sloppy they have been in the design . It really should have been identified and fixed in the beta stage .
Also bots are camping the vampire and werewolf respawn points and killing them instantly so no one can get bitten unless they pay a scammer . I have seen gold sellers advertising bites for real money .
There is enough I enjoy to keep me subscribed for a second month so i get to level 50 . After that its a matter of whether they resolve the problems with the bots ,scammers and sort out the public dungeons .
At the moment I'm on the fence whether or not its worth a monthly subscription long term. I think I would be better disposed to it and its flaws if Zenimax wasn't so greedy by doing things like locking off imperials to the delux edition and releasing with a cash shop. Its so obvious they have placed the price of a horse quite highly so people go an buy one from the in game store .
I suspect it would do much better in the long term if it was buy to play and charged for DLCs . I would far prefer that to a free to play model .
Originally posted by Knotwood Never knew hand holding was a requirement in a game. I think Zenimax is starting to find this out with all these reviewers.
You really gotta explain to me how expecting to group with your friends without the game mechanics refusing to allow it IN AN MMO, equals hand holding now.
It never seizes to amaze me how posters from any side of a discussion can twist and turn the significance of inflammatory terms to their own needs, seriously.
Anyway, I thought the review was actually a very balanced one, more so than the others I saw. Touching on both positives and negatives.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
Originally posted by DMKano Clickable link for those on tablets (my pet peeve) http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/the-elder-scrolls-online-review/1900-6415741/
People who own tablets (my pet peeve)
Thanks for the link though
"Winning" at EVE Online since May, 2007!
In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™ "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I think mmorpg.com's little by little review is the best and most balanced , Bill Murphy at least hasn't jumped on the lets all hate on ESO for more views wave of hysteria.
I know the game isn't perfect but it does not deserve the shitstorm of hate for more views and ad clicks its getting.
Originally posted by summitus I know the game isn't perfect but it does not deserve the shitstorm of hate for more views and ad clicks its getting.
Don't you think that charging premium price for a product mediocre at best deserves this kind of negative publicity that ESO is getting?
Besides grouping bugs where I agree with the review, the reviewer sounds to me like someone who had a predefined expection how an elsder scrolls MMO should have been.
If you play with this predefined expection you will probably not like the game. If you just take the game as what it is is, it is a good game beside the bugs which will get fixed sometime. Not great of course, could have been better.
And arguments like repeated voice overs or bad combat animations are not really important to me. I rarely listen to voice overs as I already have read the text by then and I started my MMO career with EQ combat animations. Nuff said.
P.S. Are the combat animations really that bad ? I honestly never recognized it.
Originally posted by DeniZg Originally posted by summitus I know the game isn't perfect but it does not deserve the shitstorm of hate for more views and ad clicks its getting.
No actually I don't , the game is much better ( though not perfect by any means ) than these reviewers are making out , I have been playing since launch and find the game rather good ,I have not personally had any of the problems they are so keen to point out, and I don't really care what anyone says but these so called famous youtubers with their little armies of 12 year old subscribers are doing it for more views , not so sure about other review sites , though IGN 's review was the fairest. I may be feeling a little cynical at the moment , but there also seems quite a lot of evidence that this is the case.
And as I said Bill Murphy has been the most balanced and fair of them all so far.
Professional review...that's funny
"I", feel like this about something. Since I am paid to tell you what I think makes it professional!
Originally posted by Boldyn Professional review...that's funny "I", feel like this about something. Since I am paid to tell you what I think makes it professional!
If you're paid to do something on a regular basis then it makes it a profession and there for you are a professional .
Originally posted by Anthur If you just take the game as what it is is
It started. Sooner than expected
Site gives a a not so positive review:
- Fanboys: OMG. Who cares? They gave COD a 9.
- Haters: Pretty accurate review. Just goes to show how crap the game is.
Site gives a glowing review:
- Fanboys: Pretty accurate. Just goes to show how awesome the game is.
- Haters: OMG. Who cares? They gave COD a 9
Sites gives a review:
- Me: Hey look, GS gave their review. Let's see what they have to saw (watches review) OK, cool. Now, to the comments.
Originally posted by summitus
You have got to be kidding...
In the face of all other review sites' scores and criticisms, what stands out is that MMORPG.com's review was bought and paid for... like all of their reviews. Bill and company should be professionally embarrassed at how they helped bilk players out of their money by promoting the game with false rhetoric. Staff at MMORPG.com ought to work for the Obama administration.
This is why this site has no credibility anymore. It used to, but that was years ago.
Money corrupts. This is the last place I'd ever go for a formal, fair, and unbiased review. On the plus side, however, the forums aren't over-moderated and players can call a turd a turd.
Originally posted by DEAD.line Site gives a a not so positive review: - Fanboys: OMG. Who cares? They gave COD a 9. - Haters: Pretty accurate review. Just goes to show how crap the game is. Site gives a glowing review: - Fanboys: Pretty accurate. Just goes to show how awesome the game is. - Haters: OMG. Who cares? They gave COD a 9 Sites gives a review: - Me: Hey look, GS gave their review. Let's see what they have to saw (whatches review) OK, cool. Now, to the comments.
Well one thing we can all agree on, COD is a 9/10 game. lol
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
Originally posted by CowboyHat The game does not deserve a sub. That is the bottom line. All of the problems it has would be acceptable in a B2P or F2P title. You can't charge a box price + sub for something that does not feel finished.
I think people would still be calling them out on the state of the game if it was F2P or B2P, though i do agree that in its present state the game is not worth a sub, whether it will be worth one in the future really depends on how well they fix things, and whether any improvements are made to the PvE side of the game, especially all these grouping issues, one thing for sure though, if the game went F2P then the current problems with bots etc, would only get worse.
Funny thing, I enjoy playing ESO, yet I couldn't really find fault with most of his points. I guess the question for the player isn't whether the designs are good or bad, but whether you like the more solo nature of the game, vs the challenges for grouping.
I find it's the usual case of being only average at everything. I mean, they have a lot of great stories that I solo, but then there's all these other people around me, visiting the same Npc's, killing the same bosses, If it's solo oriented, let me kill the targets solo, heck, I frequently get credit running up on a fight and not actually even attacking, but just by being there.
Grouping does have it's problems as he said, I don't do it, but several friends and their wives have hilarious conversations on voice chat when one of them picks a different story option than the other and they find each other unable to continue forward together in the story line.
I can't say he's wrong by giving it a 6, I was thinking more like 6.5 but can't really call it a great game.
I haven't done any PVP to speak of, might be the redeeming part of it, but I'll eventually get around to it.
Too busy questing atm.
Originally posted by Panzerbase Gamespot offers a 6 for ESO, in line with the latest professional reviews. The momentum is hard to stop once it gets rolling http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/the-elder-scrolls-online-review/1900-6415741/
Okay, will be interesting to see what new wave of dismissive remarks, ad-hominems and excuses we get for this round...
There have been a spectrum of reviews fpr this game, and yet somehow it's always the most negative ones that deserve to be promoted here in general discussion. Every single time the recent post list is not dominated by something negative one of the usual crowd seems to be motivated to come in and add a little more doom and gloom. Go to metacritic, look at the list of reviews, and notice that it's only the most hostile that get "promoted" here. And, more to the point, isn't there in theory a separate reviews sub-forum?
If it's not reviews in magazines it's youtube ones (hostile, naturally). Or some other cause of the day - gloating over bugs, or inventing problems with the payment model.
I'd suggest that the relevant people get another hobby.
Originally posted by GoldenArrow THIS GAME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SINGLE PLAYER SERIES.
I agree, I mean beside de name, the lore, the races, the game world, the class.....ESO has nothing to do with the other Elder scroll games.....=P
Originally posted by TangentPoint Originally posted by Panzerbase Gamespot offers a 6 for ESO, in line with the latest professional reviews. The momentum is hard to stop once it gets rolling http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/the-elder-scrolls-online-review/1900-6415741/
You could start by explaining why, in the metacritic list, only the most hostile reviews are worth talking about.