But most review sites use this idiot 'school-grading' system when reviewing, rather than the far simpler and more intuitive 0= bloody awful 5= average 10= near perfection. Why people have to make simple things unnecessarily complex I will never know.
I've been thinking about this, and I think I disagree. In a perfect world, yes, the 5 = average system would be the best, but in our world I don't think it works. And here is why: It's easy to be objective about terrible things, but it's hard to be objective about good things. Now the remainder of my post will be a tad light, so please take it as such.
Consider this: If I had a pie rating website, and on this site, I was reviewing a pie with a soft and delectable crust, but it was literally filled with dog poop... it would be easy for me to objectively say "This pie is awful, I give it a 1 out of 10, you will certainly hate it", knowing that most sane people hate dog poop pies.
But, if I had a pie on this site that was filled with sweet apples, slightly crisp, with a sweet aroma, I could say for me that I would give this pie a 9/10, citing that the pie is precisely what I like about apple pies. However, someone else might give it a 6/10, saying it is too sweet, and they prefer something more tart, and overall it is only a slightly above average pie. Same pie, different rating because of preference. Preference is a highly variable thing on the good end of the spectrum.
Preference is what the 8 = average rating system generally removes. If it's a good game, it gets 8+, and anything below is most certainly not great and we can all agree on it because it has some dog poop in there somewhere. If the reviewers could be more objective, then the 5 = average system would most surely be better, but unfortunately I doubt they ever can.
This is why SWTOR got 8/10 on gamespot, and Wildstar got 7/10, while MoP got 7.5/10... preference. Those rankings could easily be reordered in all sorts of manners based on what the individual likes, because none of those games have any real dog poop in there.
Instead of relying on a single columnist and his staff to predict the potential of a game, I like to see what players actually feel. One of my favorite places to go is IGN. Here, you can get an idea of what players feel.
Indeed
All Time Favorites: EQ1, WoW, EvE, GW1 Playing Now: WoW, ESO, GW2
But most review sites use this idiot 'school-grading' system when reviewing, rather than the far simpler and more intuitive 0= bloody awful 5= average 10= near perfection. Why people have to make simple things unnecessarily complex I will never know.
I've been thinking about this, and I think I disagree. In a perfect world, yes, the 5 = average system would be the best, but in our world I don't think it works. And here is why: It's easy to be objective about terrible things, but it's hard to be objective about good things. Now the remainder of my post will be a tad light, so please take it as such.
Consider this: If I had a pie rating website, and on this site, I was reviewing a pie with a soft and delectable crust, but it was literally filled with dog poop... it would be easy for me to objectively say "This pie is awful, I give it a 1 out of 10, you will certainly hate it", knowing that most sane people hate dog poop pies.
But, if I had a pie on this site that was filled with sweet apples, slightly crisp, with a sweet aroma, I could say for me that I would give this pie a 9/10, citing that the pie is precisely what I like about apple pies. However, someone else might give it a 6/10, saying it is too sweet, and they prefer something more tart, and overall it is only a slightly above average pie. Same pie, different rating because of preference. Preference is a highly variable thing on the good end of the spectrum.
Preference is what the 8 = average rating system generally removes. If it's a good game, it gets 8+, and anything below is most certainly not great and we can all agree on it because it has some dog poop in there somewhere. If the reviewers could be more objective, then the 5 = average system would most surely be better, but unfortunately I doubt they ever can.
This is why SWTOR got 8/10 on gamespot, and Wildstar got 7/10, while MoP got 7.5/10... preference. Those rankings could easily be reordered in all sorts of manners based on what the individual likes, because none of those games have any real dog poop in there.
But the lack of objectivity is a problem across the board.
I see people saying that they prefer to rely on user reviews. The problem with user reviews is that in order to review a product you generally have to feel strongly about it one way or another. Those people who feel largely indifferent to something are unlikely to go to the trouble of writing a review. This generally skews these reviews towards 1- it is the worst game ever, and 10- it is the bestest game ever.
With regard to the system used by 'professional' reviewers, my main issue is the general score escalation. You can only really undertake a review in comparison to the alternative products available and this has a tendency to lead to an upward score creep.
Having an average set (absurdly) at 7.5-8/10 only serves to provide a narrower gauge for games that are generally on the positive end of the scale.
But the lack of objectivity is a problem across the board.
I see people saying that they prefer to rely on user reviews. The problem with user reviews is that in order to review a product you generally have to feel strongly about it one way or another. Those people who feel largely indifferent to something are unlikely to go to the trouble of writing a review. This generally skews these reviews towards 1- it is the worst game ever, and 10- it is the bestest game ever.
With regard to the system used by 'professional' reviewers, my main issue is the general score escalation. You can only really undertake a review in comparison to the alternative products available and this has a tendency to lead to an upward score creep.
Having an average set (absurdly) at 7.5-8/10 only serves to provide a narrower gauge for games that are generally on the positive end of the scale.
Maybe the narrower scale is good, because we can't truly know if we like something because of a review, all we can really find out is if it's good, great, or bad, the fidelity of the details can only be truly discovered by playing it yourself.
What I'm saying is, how much of how good a game is past a certain point is preference, and how much is actual quality? Surely a game rated 10 would be basically perfect, but below that, a lot of preference is included and the wider the gap, the more preference is influencing it.
As for a user rating... I think that is better, because if the game is good, more people will give it a 10 than a 1, and the rating will balance itself somewhat naturally. If more people are giving it a 1 (the only score people give it if they don't like everything about it), then the rating will organically go down, perhaps even providing a more natural score.
Instead of relying on a single columnist and his staff to predict the potential of a game, I like to see what players actually feel. One of my favorite places to go is IGN. Here, you can get an idea of what players feel.
Indeed
Don't care about the score, but after deleting my account here I spent more time over there, my gawd that place is full of trolls and superfans, that's the last place I'd take a meaningful community score from. It's hard to find a single post there with any hint of middle-ground to it. I'd sooner trust the overall view here on MMORPG.com for any given game, and that's saying a lot.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I can't say much for the score, though I wouldn't say its an awful one. I think a lot of MMO reviews these days are based off of accessibility, and wildstar definitely seems accessible to a large crowd if you're just starting out, but that curves dramatically as you progress.
For example I've been on quests that were meant for level 23, with a dense population of mobs that range anywhere from 23 to 26, not to mention the more dangerous red enemies that are placed pretty much everywhere. I've died more times soloing than pretty much any other game where I wasn't on a PvP server.
I like the combat too, and while it isn't as in depth and reactive as DCUO its the next best thing.
I feel like optimization is still kind of poor, I get lag -- mostly in instances, and I've had dungeons bug out on me. I've had plenty of mobs bug out on me too... but the game DID just come out, and all of these things are a work in progress.
I mean, this isn't a game I rush home to play everyday, but its more engrossing to me than ESO was, mostly because I felt like the classes were more diverse, and while I think holding on to your 8th abilityh slot until level 30 is ridiculous, I find myself retooling my abilities often based on what I'm fighting.
The humor... I don't hate it... but it isn't particularly funny... I skip most of it anyways, aside from the jabs I get after I die.. sometimes when I have a particularly frustrating death, those remind me that its really just a game, and I can just try again.
I don't know how balanced things are, though my esper has won a few duels against warriors, stalkers and medics, but I've lost a good share too. Overall I like it... and if I can work up enough cred, I'd continue playing ..especially if I don't have to pay.
Instead of relying on a single columnist and his staff to predict the potential of a game, I like to see what players actually feel. One of my favorite places to go is IGN. Here, you can get an idea of what players feel.
Indeed
Don't care about the score, but after deleting my account here I spent more time over there, my gawd that place is full of trolls and superfans, that's the last place I'd take a meaningful community score from. It's hard to find a single post there with any hint of middle-ground to it. I'd sooner trust the overall view here on MMORPG.com for any given game, and that's saying a lot.
Trolls are everywhere
All Time Favorites: EQ1, WoW, EvE, GW1 Playing Now: WoW, ESO, GW2
Originally posted by Torvaldr Originally posted by FoomerangOriginally posted by DistopiaDon't care about the score, but after deleting my account here I spent more time over there, my gawd that place is full of trolls and superfans, that's the last place I'd take a meaningful community score from. It's hard to find a single post there with any hint of middle-ground to it. I'd sooner trust the overall view here on MMORPG.com for any given game, and that's saying a lot.
HEY! Welcome Back Welcome back indeed. I'm glad you changed your mind Distopia.
So at the end of my month I decided not to subscribe. I like the game a lot and I would rate it at a 7.5 right now and an 8.0 once they get a few of the quest bugs and performance improvements in place. The game just has a lot to do and the classes are pretty fun. I didn't feel like subbing, but I still think it's a good game. Ironically I'm going to spend some time in Middle-earth again which is about as 180 as you can get from Wildstar in many ways.
Funny. I wont be subscribing next month either. But I will be spending a month in Nexus from time to time. I think it is a very fun and well made game. Id give it a solid 7.
FFXIV just really brings it home for me though, even though I don't like the combat and prefer Wildstar's by a wide margin.
Fair review. I find myself in agreement with it, actually. I loved the game, it's fun - but it lacks optimization and it's very distracting at times. I find myself having to juggle many things while I'm playing and that diminished the fun. I will probably revisit the game later in the future, once I've upgraded my machine and they've fleshed things out. I realize the game is *hardcore* but there needs to be more casual content. If they can't make that, I'll happily stay in WoW with a casual foray into Guild Wars 2.
Originally posted by Distopia Don't care about the score, but after deleting my account here I spent more time over there, my gawd that place is full of trolls and superfans, that's the last place I'd take a meaningful community score from. It's hard to find a single post there with any hint of middle-ground to it. I'd sooner trust the overall view here on MMORPG.com for any given game, and that's saying a lot.
HEY! Welcome Back
Welcome back indeed. I'm glad you changed your mind Distopia.
So at the end of my month I decided not to subscribe. I like the game a lot and I would rate it at a 7.5 right now and an 8.0 once they get a few of the quest bugs and performance improvements in place. The game just has a lot to do and the classes are pretty fun. I didn't feel like subbing, but I still think it's a good game. Ironically I'm going to spend some time in Middle-earth again which is about as 180 as you can get from Wildstar in many ways.
Thanks!
@Kiks I realize that, but there are different degrees to which that they inhabit a community. It's bad over there, like really bad . Like I said it's hard to find much middle ground over there, even the mods partake in the trolling at times.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Instead of relying on a single columnist and his staff to predict the potential of a game, I like to see what players actually feel. One of my favorite places to go is IGN. Here, you can get an idea of what players feel.
Indeed
Don't care about the score, but after deleting my account here I spent more time over there, my gawd that place is full of trolls and superfans, that's the last place I'd take a meaningful community score from. It's hard to find a single post there with any hint of middle-ground to it. I'd sooner trust the overall view here on MMORPG.com for any given game, and that's saying a lot.
Well, I wouldn't read into much of what folks say on any forum. However, I could get a fair assessment of a game by a collective score given by what players think of a game. It's simple and fairly accurate, and the current community score of 9.4 is what I was referring to in my previous post.
I don't take much stock in what columnist and game sites scores. A team on the site scores the game and they can be influenced one way or another by a single person in that group. Imagine four or five people working on this Gamespot review and 3 love the game, 1 couldn't care less, and the lead columnist hates it. Which way is the score going to go? Plus there are other influences with advertisement that can force a column to be written one way or another.
The score that matters most is the one you give it. If I get up in the middle of the night to check my mail in a game, and it takes me 3 hours, then that is the game I like.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
It does a little better then ESO, which is just a bust, but it cannot beat WoW which it tried to copy. The fate of WoW clones.
At this point I don't think any AAA company is trying to beat WoW, they are only offering something a bit different to entertain people that will pay for it.
The industry isn't any different than the movie or television industry. Internet entertainment is taking over and WoW is equal to classics like The God Father or Gone With the Wind, but when new movies come out they don't say it was good, but it will never beat Shawshank Redempiton, they just take it as another movie. We should think of game genres in the same way.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
It does a little better then ESO, which is just a bust, but it cannot beat WoW which it tried to copy. The fate of WoW clones.
At this point I don't think any AAA company is trying to beat WoW, they are only offering something a bit different to entertain people that will pay for it.
The industry isn't any different than the movie or television industry. Internet entertainment is taking over and WoW is equal to classics like The God Father or Gone With the Wind, but when new movies come out they don't say it was good, but it will never beat Shawshank Redempiton, they just take it as another movie. We should think of game genres in the same way.
^that
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm having a blast, would sub on 3.7. and would give at least 8. There are problems, but so far minor one. However can't speak about endgame, not yet there and as altholic will not be so soon, so far have 6 alts between 16 and 23. Game is great, fun with a lot of things to do.
Only thing that bothers me a lot, can't stress enough this, is terrible decision to have only 1 toolbar. Hate this. Forget about "more planning necessary" crap. I have i.e. good build for my solo play, ... then suddenly 2 players are on last drops of blood because of to strong mob ... with healing spells somewhere on 2nd or 3rd toolbar i could help and feel happy, .. not I can only try to kill that boss and ressurect them later. This is just an example how silly that decision was. In world you find different kind of mobs, situation changes a lot, is again very silly expect one will go in setup to change constantly and adjust spells. If I will leave (and I'm already feeling heavy annoyance because of this limit while playing) this for sure will be for 1 toolbar limit. Period.
It does a little better then ESO, which is just a bust, but it cannot beat WoW which it tried to copy. The fate of WoW clones.
Statements like this makes me shake my head. Every MMO that comes out is somehow considered a "WoW Clone" in the eyes of all WoW fanboys. I myself have nothing against WoW, in fact I played it for eight years and had so much fun back in TBC and WoTLK raiding, but WoW has been on the decline ever since.
Just because it's an MMO with catoonie graphics doesn't make it a WoW "clone", this game does everything better than WoW does... combat, dungeons, adventures, PvP, etc. So if anything it should be called a WoW "upgrade", not a "clone" or it could just be called a new game.
It does a little better then ESO, which is just a bust, but it cannot beat WoW which it tried to copy. The fate of WoW clones.
Statements like this makes me shake my head. Every MMO that comes out is somehow considered a "WoW Clone" in the eyes of all WoW fanboys. I myself have nothing against WoW, in fact I played it for eight years and had so much fun back in TBC and WoTLK raiding, but WoW has been on the decline ever since.
Just because it's an MMO with catoonie graphics doesn't make it a WoW "clone", this game does everything better than WoW does... combat, dungeons, adventures, PvP, etc. So if anything it should be called a WoW "upgrade", not a "clone" or it could just be called a new game.
It is a WoW clone. The developers have mentioned multiple times that they are trying to make WoW 2.0 and they are proud of it.
It is a WoW clone. The developers have mentioned multiple times that they are trying to make WoW 2.0 and they are proud of it.
Wouldn't that technically make it a WoW descendant or a WoW successor since it is a generation later, and designed to improve on WoW (to be 2.0)?
A clone implies it is exactly the same in every regard possible, not designed to improve on it, just to be the same (like those hearthstone clones from China that literally are exactly hearthstone).
It is a WoW clone. The developers have mentioned multiple times that they are trying to make WoW 2.0 and they are proud of it.
Wouldn't that technically make it a WoW descendant or a WoW successor since it is a generation later, and designed to improve on WoW (to be 2.0)?
A clone implies it is exactly the same in every regard possible, not designed to improve on it, just to be the same (like those hearthstone clones from China that literally are exactly hearthstone).
There are some clones out there that are exact copies but it is not the norm.
Almost all game clones have the same characteristics. They take a core system and try to "improve" on a specific few elements of that system. Same cow, different spots.
The problem is that people (mostly in forums like this it has to be said) use the term clone as a form of insult. Wildstar was simply an attempt to improve on an earlier version of Wow then improve on it. Happens in every single game genre. Blizzard do it as well, gw2 comes out and lo we start to see events, wildstar announce housing and lo suddenly after 9 years, amazingly blizzard find the will and money to create housing. all games benefit from pushing each other in this fashion do its a good thing.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
There are some clones out there that are exact copies but it is not the norm.
Almost all game clones have the same characteristics. They take a core system and try to "improve" on a specific few elements of that system. Same cow, different spots.
Since WoW is a good cow, I can see why people might want to build off that. We don't always have to re-invent the wheel when it works just fine.
I think it was a fair review and he established his points clearly me thinks. Basically, WildStar is a blast to play but its longevity/long term enjoyment can be hampered by the fact that it relies on the same old, same old.
For many, I think their take on combat and the relatively solid platforming elements will be more than enough to keep many MMOgamers happy.
However, for those looking for something "else", the overall appeal won't last long.
I love the Art style and the games character, but at the end it's the same old thing; themepark MMO to its very core. And for me I just can't do that anymore.
Comments
I've been thinking about this, and I think I disagree. In a perfect world, yes, the 5 = average system would be the best, but in our world I don't think it works. And here is why: It's easy to be objective about terrible things, but it's hard to be objective about good things. Now the remainder of my post will be a tad light, so please take it as such.
Consider this: If I had a pie rating website, and on this site, I was reviewing a pie with a soft and delectable crust, but it was literally filled with dog poop... it would be easy for me to objectively say "This pie is awful, I give it a 1 out of 10, you will certainly hate it", knowing that most sane people hate dog poop pies.
But, if I had a pie on this site that was filled with sweet apples, slightly crisp, with a sweet aroma, I could say for me that I would give this pie a 9/10, citing that the pie is precisely what I like about apple pies. However, someone else might give it a 6/10, saying it is too sweet, and they prefer something more tart, and overall it is only a slightly above average pie. Same pie, different rating because of preference. Preference is a highly variable thing on the good end of the spectrum.
Preference is what the 8 = average rating system generally removes. If it's a good game, it gets 8+, and anything below is most certainly not great and we can all agree on it because it has some dog poop in there somewhere. If the reviewers could be more objective, then the 5 = average system would most surely be better, but unfortunately I doubt they ever can.
This is why SWTOR got 8/10 on gamespot, and Wildstar got 7/10, while MoP got 7.5/10... preference. Those rankings could easily be reordered in all sorts of manners based on what the individual likes, because none of those games have any real dog poop in there.
Indeed
All Time Favorites: EQ1, WoW, EvE, GW1
Playing Now: WoW, ESO, GW2
But the lack of objectivity is a problem across the board.
I see people saying that they prefer to rely on user reviews. The problem with user reviews is that in order to review a product you generally have to feel strongly about it one way or another. Those people who feel largely indifferent to something are unlikely to go to the trouble of writing a review. This generally skews these reviews towards 1- it is the worst game ever, and 10- it is the bestest game ever.
With regard to the system used by 'professional' reviewers, my main issue is the general score escalation. You can only really undertake a review in comparison to the alternative products available and this has a tendency to lead to an upward score creep.
Having an average set (absurdly) at 7.5-8/10 only serves to provide a narrower gauge for games that are generally on the positive end of the scale.
Maybe the narrower scale is good, because we can't truly know if we like something because of a review, all we can really find out is if it's good, great, or bad, the fidelity of the details can only be truly discovered by playing it yourself.
What I'm saying is, how much of how good a game is past a certain point is preference, and how much is actual quality? Surely a game rated 10 would be basically perfect, but below that, a lot of preference is included and the wider the gap, the more preference is influencing it.
As for a user rating... I think that is better, because if the game is good, more people will give it a 10 than a 1, and the rating will balance itself somewhat naturally. If more people are giving it a 1 (the only score people give it if they don't like everything about it), then the rating will organically go down, perhaps even providing a more natural score.
Don't care about the score, but after deleting my account here I spent more time over there, my gawd that place is full of trolls and superfans, that's the last place I'd take a meaningful community score from. It's hard to find a single post there with any hint of middle-ground to it. I'd sooner trust the overall view here on MMORPG.com for any given game, and that's saying a lot.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Instead of relying on a single columnist and his staff to predict the potential of a game, I like to see what players actually feel. One of my favorite places to go is IGN. Here, you can get an idea of what players feel.
Indeed
Don't care about the score, but after deleting my account here I spent more time over there, my gawd that place is full of trolls and superfans, that's the last place I'd take a meaningful community score from. It's hard to find a single post there with any hint of middle-ground to it. I'd sooner trust the overall view here on MMORPG.com for any given game, and that's saying a lot.
HEY!
Welcome Back
I can't say much for the score, though I wouldn't say its an awful one. I think a lot of MMO reviews these days are based off of accessibility, and wildstar definitely seems accessible to a large crowd if you're just starting out, but that curves dramatically as you progress.
For example I've been on quests that were meant for level 23, with a dense population of mobs that range anywhere from 23 to 26, not to mention the more dangerous red enemies that are placed pretty much everywhere. I've died more times soloing than pretty much any other game where I wasn't on a PvP server.
I like the combat too, and while it isn't as in depth and reactive as DCUO its the next best thing.
I feel like optimization is still kind of poor, I get lag -- mostly in instances, and I've had dungeons bug out on me. I've had plenty of mobs bug out on me too... but the game DID just come out, and all of these things are a work in progress.
I mean, this isn't a game I rush home to play everyday, but its more engrossing to me than ESO was, mostly because I felt like the classes were more diverse, and while I think holding on to your 8th abilityh slot until level 30 is ridiculous, I find myself retooling my abilities often based on what I'm fighting.
The humor... I don't hate it... but it isn't particularly funny... I skip most of it anyways, aside from the jabs I get after I die.. sometimes when I have a particularly frustrating death, those remind me that its really just a game, and I can just try again.
I don't know how balanced things are, though my esper has won a few duels against warriors, stalkers and medics, but I've lost a good share too. Overall I like it... and if I can work up enough cred, I'd continue playing ..especially if I don't have to pay.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Trolls are everywhere
All Time Favorites: EQ1, WoW, EvE, GW1
Playing Now: WoW, ESO, GW2
Welcome back indeed. I'm glad you changed your mind Distopia.
So at the end of my month I decided not to subscribe. I like the game a lot and I would rate it at a 7.5 right now and an 8.0 once they get a few of the quest bugs and performance improvements in place. The game just has a lot to do and the classes are pretty fun. I didn't feel like subbing, but I still think it's a good game. Ironically I'm going to spend some time in Middle-earth again which is about as 180 as you can get from Wildstar in many ways.
Funny. I wont be subscribing next month either. But I will be spending a month in Nexus from time to time. I think it is a very fun and well made game. Id give it a solid 7.
FFXIV just really brings it home for me though, even though I don't like the combat and prefer Wildstar's by a wide margin.
Fair review. I find myself in agreement with it, actually. I loved the game, it's fun - but it lacks optimization and it's very distracting at times. I find myself having to juggle many things while I'm playing and that diminished the fun. I will probably revisit the game later in the future, once I've upgraded my machine and they've fleshed things out. I realize the game is *hardcore* but there needs to be more casual content. If they can't make that, I'll happily stay in WoW with a casual foray into Guild Wars 2.
Thanks!
@Kiks I realize that, but there are different degrees to which that they inhabit a community. It's bad over there, like really bad
. Like I said it's hard to find much middle ground over there, even the mods partake in the trolling at times.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Well, I wouldn't read into much of what folks say on any forum. However, I could get a fair assessment of a game by a collective score given by what players think of a game. It's simple and fairly accurate, and the current community score of 9.4 is what I was referring to in my previous post.
I don't take much stock in what columnist and game sites scores. A team on the site scores the game and they can be influenced one way or another by a single person in that group. Imagine four or five people working on this Gamespot review and 3 love the game, 1 couldn't care less, and the lead columnist hates it. Which way is the score going to go? Plus there are other influences with advertisement that can force a column to be written one way or another.
The score that matters most is the one you give it. If I get up in the middle of the night to check my mail in a game, and it takes me 3 hours, then that is the game I like.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Sounds like a fair and valid review.
It does a little better then ESO, which is just a bust, but it cannot beat WoW which it tried to copy. The fate of WoW clones.
At this point I don't think any AAA company is trying to beat WoW, they are only offering something a bit different to entertain people that will pay for it.
The industry isn't any different than the movie or television industry. Internet entertainment is taking over and WoW is equal to classics like The God Father or Gone With the Wind, but when new movies come out they don't say it was good, but it will never beat Shawshank Redempiton, they just take it as another movie. We should think of game genres in the same way.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
^that
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm having a blast, would sub on 3.7. and would give at least 8. There are problems, but so far minor one. However can't speak about endgame, not yet there and as altholic will not be so soon, so far have 6 alts between 16 and 23. Game is great, fun with a lot of things to do.
Only thing that bothers me a lot, can't stress enough this, is terrible decision to have only 1 toolbar. Hate this. Forget about "more planning necessary" crap. I have i.e. good build for my solo play, ... then suddenly 2 players are on last drops of blood because of to strong mob ... with healing spells somewhere on 2nd or 3rd toolbar i could help and feel happy, .. not I can only try to kill that boss and ressurect them later. This is just an example how silly that decision was. In world you find different kind of mobs, situation changes a lot, is again very silly expect one will go in setup to change constantly and adjust spells. If I will leave (and I'm already feeling heavy annoyance because of this limit while playing) this for sure will be for 1 toolbar limit. Period.
Statements like this makes me shake my head. Every MMO that comes out is somehow considered a "WoW Clone" in the eyes of all WoW fanboys. I myself have nothing against WoW, in fact I played it for eight years and had so much fun back in TBC and WoTLK raiding, but WoW has been on the decline ever since.
Just because it's an MMO with catoonie graphics doesn't make it a WoW "clone", this game does everything better than WoW does... combat, dungeons, adventures, PvP, etc. So if anything it should be called a WoW "upgrade", not a "clone" or it could just be called a new game.
It is a WoW clone. The developers have mentioned multiple times that they are trying to make WoW 2.0 and they are proud of it.
Wouldn't that technically make it a WoW descendant or a WoW successor since it is a generation later, and designed to improve on WoW (to be 2.0)?
A clone implies it is exactly the same in every regard possible, not designed to improve on it, just to be the same (like those hearthstone clones from China that literally are exactly hearthstone).
There are some clones out there that are exact copies but it is not the norm.
Almost all game clones have the same characteristics. They take a core system and try to "improve" on a specific few elements of that system. Same cow, different spots.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Since WoW is a good cow, I can see why people might want to build off that. We don't always have to re-invent the wheel when it works just fine.
I think it was a fair review and he established his points clearly me thinks. Basically, WildStar is a blast to play but its longevity/long term enjoyment can be hampered by the fact that it relies on the same old, same old.
For many, I think their take on combat and the relatively solid platforming elements will be more than enough to keep many MMOgamers happy.
However, for those looking for something "else", the overall appeal won't last long.
I love the Art style and the games character, but at the end it's the same old thing; themepark MMO to its very core. And for me I just can't do that anymore.
Wish Carbine all the luck though.