Howdy, Stranger!

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

[Review] The Secret World: Funcom's Magnum Opus

1456810

Comments

  • RoxtarrRoxtarr Member CommonPosts: 1,122
    I would have bought this if it wasn't for the subscription fee.  I just won't do subs anymore.

    If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
    image

  • possessed1possessed1 Member UncommonPosts: 36
    Agreed. PC gamer gave 69; they gave SWTOR a 93. Riiiiiiiiiiight. I believe what PC Gamer says <sarcasm>. I'm thinking that with PC Gamer,  the bigger boys get a positive review because of ad money, exclusive interviews, etc. Truth has nothing to do with PC Gamer any more. So sad. I used to really like them, but their reviews have been more and more skewed and I find myself at exact opposites with them.
  • AstraeisAstraeis Member UncommonPosts: 378
    Originally posted by BillMurphy
    @Toddze: This reviewer, Suzie Ford is a she, and is not Mike Bitton (who reviewed SWTOR). Additionally, the reviews levies the good and the bad. Don't mistake disagreement with a score as "right" or "wrong". It's merely opinion and you're welcome to yours.


    It is a bad review when it is just an opinion. Downsizing the bad points because of what the reviewer is expecting Funcom is going to do to improve, and for that reason giving it a higher rating, should be frowned upon.

    It takes one to know one.

  • nate1980nate1980 Member UncommonPosts: 1,993

    The game wasn't bad at all. I didn't sub past the first month for several reasons.

    1. The game was one of the buggiest I've played at release, although I've only played maybe around 5 releases.

    2. Subscription-based models are hard to justify with some pretty good AAA games offering hybrid subscription models, and of course GW2 having no subscription at all.

    3. Subscription + Cash Shop seems just kind of wrong. I remember in the days of SWG that any developed clothing item looks were put in the game as a part of your subscription. The community would of went up in an uproar in those days if you had to pay for "cosmetic items," while also paying a sub fee. Anything developed, aside from expansions, while paying a subscription fee should be included in the game as patches, not sold on the store. Seems like double dipping to me.

  • KalkinKalkin Member UncommonPosts: 5

    While I find the review not bad in general, the score is quite strange.

    Really reading the review it seems like for an average feature you give 8.0 and more if you really like it. So that would make 8.8/16 for the game which I could understand, but shouldn't the cale be /10 ?

    It is really not that complicated, it really is mostly average MMO, with special 'mystic' aestethics (which are original, bur graphics are not really special compared to recent production with some aspect like character really subpar). Striking feature is bland gameplay or rather precisely combat. MMO lives from good combat and this one fails. It just feels very bad, character sliding around spamming bland skills. For me just this killed all interest in this game.

     

  • MisarisMisaris Member Posts: 140

    if you don't like the combat you are either really, really bad at it or have not reached the higher abilities yet. 

    also the quests are everything but average, every single one was a surprise and there are endless numbers of new quest mechanics, puzzles and a certain easteregg feeling to many quests. 

    It's super fun, people complain before they even try it. Scared about your precious GW2 hype I reckon

  • TellusMarsTellusMars Member Posts: 4

    TROLL :D

    Originally posted by Fadedbomb

    None of your scores make sense.

    Aesthetics – 9.5??

     

    How in the bloody hell did you find it "ok" to take what essentially boils down to "Graphics" and turn it into a major scoring point for TSW? Graphics =/= a game. This shouldn't be a scoring point!

    Game Play – 8.5??

    This is a highly opinion based score area given the fact that people whom like WoW will like TSW's gameplay, but generally speaking people whom like DAOC, EQ, SWG, or even Age of Conan's combat system will dislike it immensely. You should put near the beginning of your article which game you mostly relate to for your scores. Obviously I don't agree at all with an "8.5" given TSW's horribly clunky & non-intuitive combat system. Not to mention the horrible animations.

    Value & Longevity – 8.0??

    Your primary reason, as stated, for this scoring point was based on SWTOR's recent announcement about F2P and that since TSW already has a cash-shop it'll make a clean transition to F2P should subs prove to dip too low?!

    Value & Longevity is a scoring point, in most reviews, that dictate replayability & end-game enjoyment. At the VERY LEAST it has nothing to do with the payment model associated with the game.

    NONE OF THE POINTS YOU RAISED FOR SCORING MAKE ANY SENSE AS A PRIMARY REVIEWBASE!

    Next, we look at your overall Pros/Cons that have zero connection to any of your previous scoring points:

     

    Pros    Deep skill system - Just a facade, not actually "deep"  GREAT story - Agreed, but so did SWTOR  Meaningful dungeons - How exactly are they "meaningful", they have no impact at all on the world outside those instances?!  Tiered and unique questing - Same quest system used by WoW. Go to point A get quests 1 - 9, do quests, go to Point B for higher tiered/chained quests. Nothing unique here other than the occassional "gem" with a half-decent story behind it. Cons    Lack of initial character customization - Yup  Lackluster PvP - Yup  Repetitive trash mobs - Yup



    [mod edited - removed some spacing]

     


     

     

     

  • Dahkot72Dahkot72 Member Posts: 261
    While a good game overall and worth a box fee for the month of play , the longevity score is downright silly.
  • Binny45Binny45 Member UncommonPosts: 522

    Originally posted by zigmund

    I wish reviewers actually played games for a month before reviewing.

    The BAD...

    Crafting and inventory management - terrible - hate it.

    Banking / AH only in London - terrible idea - hate it.

    Building 5 resource counters for combat - terrible - hate it.

    Gear manager doesn't work, forgets settings.

    Open skill sytem - not really - very disappointed.

    Interesting skills? - no very disappointed.

    PVP sucks.

    No lfg tool. LFG Spam is brutal

    The Good...

    5 mans are awesome!

    Quests are awesome!

    Skill deck although bland and fairly restrictive, is deep and really makes you think to put together a build with synergy.

    Mobs have great AI.

    Death system handled well.

    Great story.

    Verdict - I'll be playing GW2

     

     

     

     

     




     

    Then go play GW2, you're obviously looking for more of the same.  Personally I can't stand GW2.  I'm bloody well tired of run of the mill fantasy games.  TSW proved me wrong in more ways than one, and as a solo player I find plenty to do without "grinding for purples". 

    image

  • SkuzSkuz Member UncommonPosts: 1,018
    Originally posted by LachyFTW

    8.5? Sure bob.

    Posted by Bill Murray

    Read more of Suzie Ford's The Secret World: Funcom's Magnum Opus.

    You fail at reading, back to primary school with you.

  • SkuzSkuz Member UncommonPosts: 1,018
    Originally posted by Astraeis
    Originally posted by BillMurphy
    @Toddze: This reviewer, Suzie Ford is a she, and is not Mike Bitton (who reviewed SWTOR). Additionally, the reviews levies the good and the bad. Don't mistake disagreement with a score as "right" or "wrong". It's merely opinion and you're welcome to yours.


    It is a bad review when it is just an opinion. Downsizing the bad points because of what the reviewer is expecting Funcom is going to do to improve, and for that reason giving it a higher rating, should be frowned upon.

    Exactly what else can a review be but someone's opinion?

    You have strange expectations, perhaps you assume that machine intelligence has already taken over the Earth so all things can be quantified as raw numbers now?

    Serious wtf moment.

    On a lighter note, find a reviewer whose opinion most closely matches your own & ask them what they think of the title you are interested in.

  • ste2000ste2000 Member EpicPosts: 6,194

    Longevity 8?

    C'mon are we sure at MMORPG.com you guys know what Longevity means?

    MikeB did the same with SWTOR, he gave it a 9 in Longevity.

    TSW and SWTOR are the last MMOs you can associate Longevity with.

    Longevity in Single Player Games (couple of months) have a different meaning than Longevity in a MMO (couple of years).

    You are reviewing a MMO, not a Single Player game.

    Get your act together guys please.

  • SenanSenan Member UncommonPosts: 788

    Originally posted by Vhaln



    Originally posted by niceguy3978





    600-1000 isn't a poor sample size for anything.  Most political polling doesn't go over 1500 and that is for 100 million voters.  Many state polls don't go over 1k and that is for millions of voters.  1k for polling purposes will get you within +/- 3%  95% of the time.  5% of the time something will have been off and give you the something outside of +/- 3%.  The real problem is that these are self selected reviews and not a random sample, so their representation of the mmo market cannot be known.






     

     

    Yeah, but you've got to consider that its a sample size made up entirely of people motivated for one reason or another to rate the game.

     

    For more popular games, people often feel the need to express disapproval, but when a game is less popular and drops off the mainstream radar, you get a higher percentage of votes in favor, because people who don't like it, forgot all about it, and don't care enough to vote it down.

     

    I can't be the only to have noticed that this game hasn't exactly been flying off the digital shelves, right?




     

    How could you possibly know how well (or not) this game is selling digitally? That makes no sense.

    image
  • LucasWSLucasWS Member Posts: 4

    I give it a 5.5:

    PROS:

    The Skill Tree is fun. I like coming up with different builds and finding the synergies. (9)

    The questing is fun, GTA-style with some variety and purpose. Fun stories and some minor innovations. (8)

    Atmosphere is wonderful, alive, well-planned with the quests and environments. Good immersion. (9)

    CONS:

    Crafting here is pointless, over-complicated for the sake of complication. Just sell all the pieces. (1)

    Replayability: Unless you are the type of person that can re-read books over and over again, I doubt you'll play through the quests more than once. If the updates are steady and offer new quest innovations it could be extend the playability. (3)

    PVP feels more like running a 5K than playing a team sport. There is no point to defending anything and most fights will come down to 1 thing, who has more players. boring but fixable. (3)

    Fiinal thoughts:

    Mostly a single-player game that offers quite a lot of content that you WILL enjoy but probably not enough to justify the sub after a month or two.

    Still this may be a title that you check on for a month every now and then and have some fun with the new content. The way you can constantly edit your "class" with new skills and the new quests they'll add all the time. I'm also excited for the types of world events and new locations they could add as playing in a modern fantasy setting is really refreshing.

  • OlgarkOlgark Member UncommonPosts: 342

    Well I am loving the game. I think the way the missions are handed out/ done is refreshing as well as the ability wheel and skills. It makes the game more free-form over other MMO's. The sandbox game play set in a gothic punk world is a great idea and works well.

    Its far better than any other land based MMO on the market at present in my eyes. I will be playing this game for a very long time and up till CCP release WoD MMO.

    image

  • ConnmacartConnmacart Member UncommonPosts: 722
    Looking objectively this game should never score above 8. It simply is lacking to much in a lot of areas. The fact it got an 8.5 from MMORPG.com is simply because Funcom stroked their egos by giving them their own tshirt. Nothing else.
  • PitlaPitla Member Posts: 3
    So after a few hours in beta you can judge the whole game....?
  • VhalnVhaln Member Posts: 3,159
    Originally posted by alacres

    Originally posted by Vhaln

    I can't be the only to have noticed that this game hasn't exactly been flying off the digital shelves, right?

     

    How could you possibly know how well (or not) this game is selling digitally? That makes no sense.

     

    You're right, I don't know.  I'm just going by the available evidence.  If the evidence you've seen indicates otherwise, eh, that's fine.  I'm not going to argue the point.  Was just curious if others have noticed the same thing.  The popularity of this game outside the mmorpg forum community seems to be extremely low.

     

    (edit: even for an MMO, I mean...)

    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.

  • nate1980nate1980 Member UncommonPosts: 1,993
    Originally posted by thark
    Originally posted by toddze

    Well I am of the biggest funcom critics out there but in 1 aspect it time to give credit where credit is due. I will admitt Funcom did a good job with the launch, much better than their other 2 games. So basiacally I was wrong folks. It happens every once in a while.

    I had 2 major concerns about this game, Launch being one of my main concers (which I already addressed), longevity was the other.

    However, this game has no real longevity 8.0 is a joke.  Just another classic example of a honeymoon write up. Its just another 60-90 day mmo.

    I am not even going to address the other points, because basically this author is the same one who gave SWTOR insane high marks in every category. He/She has no business writting up reviews, has absolutly 0 credability. When I read a review I do not want to read a mother %^&*$%^ sales pitch! I want to know good points of a game and bad points of a game. Once upon a time this site did a decent job on its reviews, gave you the good and the bad, and not lie to you saying everything was great.

    I think the DAYS are over where a newly released MMO's will last for a year  on content that is in at release..Don't blame FUNCOM blame the market.

    As the new standard format for MMO's the longevity has to be measured compared to other modern MMO's not Everquest at release..those days are gone ..Even if you and I dislikes it or not.

     

    Realistically, we'll never see another game like the ones made pre-WoW, however, you can't say those days are gone. All of those games still exist, even if only as shadows of their former selves. Hell, all of them still have subscription fees, unlike many modern MMO's that started out with one.

    MMORPG's, since the start of the genre, were supposed to be games that could last you years. That was the whole point in me picking up DAoC in 2002, that and getting to play with others, which was a new feature in RPG's back then. It took me a few years to reach lvl cap in DAoC, and I teamed up with people daily for most of the day. There were also very little quests.

    The way MMORPG's are made now, to be consumed in a matter of 3 months, they are not worth subscription fees, which is why I refuse to pay them anymore. The old MMORPG's were worth subscription fees. Modern MMO's are only worth the box price, and at most a cash shop like GW2.

  • ZooceZooce Member Posts: 586
    Originally posted by nate1980

    Realistically, we'll never see another game like the ones made pre-WoW, however, you can't say those days are gone. All of those games still exist, even if only as shadows of their former selves. Hell, all of them still have subscription fees, unlike many modern MMO's that started out with one.

    MMORPG's, since the start of the genre, were supposed to be games that could last you years. That was the whole point in me picking up DAoC in 2002, that and getting to play with others, which was a new feature in RPG's back then. It took me a few years to reach lvl cap in DAoC, and I teamed up with people daily for most of the day. There were also very little quests.

    The way MMORPG's are made now, to be consumed in a matter of 3 months, they are not worth subscription fees, which is why I refuse to pay them anymore. The old MMORPG's were worth subscription fees. Modern MMO's are only worth the box price, and at most a cash shop like GW2.

    Some very good points highlighted that I fully agree with.  I would gladly pay a sub and still be playing TSW if it was released in a sustainable condition.  The longevity score is what I find most bothersome and misleading with this 'official review'.

  • difancerdifancer Member Posts: 18

     

    i never saw that much bug in an mmo release in my whole life. and i played them all since Meridian 59.

     

    last patch was the worst, we cant advance to nightmare dificulty in dungeon thanks to a lot of bosses being broken. imagine yourself doing a run in the fourth dungeon. to get wiped on a boss that got the nightmare dificuly which is harder than elite instance... they made a quick patch yesterday... but it wasnt to fix all the new bugs lol

     

    so now im stuck... paying my subscription... and not being able to advance further...You wont see much about it on the forums...is everything being deleted ? lol

  • Bonez005Bonez005 Member UncommonPosts: 38

    Sir, I think this is where "the facade" comes in to play. In fact, you could choose either of those and have the exact same outcome. You spam "1" 4-5 times then hit "2". All DPS seems to play the same with the exception of distance between you and your target. All tanking specs so far feel the same, just different words in the ability bar. Not all of the heals play the same, however if you want to keep your tank up, its pretty cookie cutter.

     

    All in all I think the only arguement here thats material is there are disgruntled people that have been coming to this site for years to research MMORPGs or to find out whats hot and whats not... for many reasons but in this case, to save the money. Like myself, they may not be avid forum posters as there is more to this site than trolls and fanbois (we all get enough of them in game) but they still deserve an honest review and feel they were lied to. I agree that its up to the individual to find a like minded critic for reviews, but a general review should be somewhat in the ball-park.

  • Bonez005Bonez005 Member UncommonPosts: 38
    Originally posted by P4YB4CK
    Originally posted by Daedrick

    *braindead drooling*

    Will they ever learn? that game will be empty (read go free to play) in six months just like all the other MMOs that are so called ''almost perfect'' (read 8.5).

    Misleading score, as always, one day, MMORPG.com will FINALLY learn and make their rating a minimum realistic.

    Suzie ford answer this one and only question. I also invite you to share it to your fellow reviewer, here is the question; How come the majority of the game you (MMORPG crew) review so highly never flourish but instead fall, sink and dwelve into the ''free to play'' in a desesperate attempt at trying to gain back their lost player base?

    They ''fail'' for a reason. You people are suposed to be professionnals about MMORPG and we should be looking here for guidance, instead, we get this.

    Here you go Daedrick on your F2P model for TSW

    http://www.shacknews.com/article/74704/the-secret-world-committed-to-subscriptions-for-now

    Just wanted to point it out that 6 months is a little to soon for F2P as you stated for TSW. Just keep the facts straight here.

    I just wanted to point out that the information in the provided link is mere intent and not fact. They could in fact intend to charge people a recurring monthly fee along with an item mall for the next 5-10 years, but if the population drops to a dangerous number after 6 months, they will have no choice but to go free to play or shut the doors, as Daedrick seemed, to me anyway, to be referring to.

  • aesperusaesperus Member UncommonPosts: 5,135

    Seeing this review up just... wow.

    I mean, TSW isn't a bad game, but this is the same crap we saw with SWTOR. I don't see how this site can keep claiming to be 'unbiased', when every major MMO company basically gets a '10/10' review for their game. I didn't see reference to any of the significant issues with the game. Hell, the large drop in subs this month I guess didn't count, because according to the article this game has a winning longevity score! It makes me wonder how far the reviewer even got with the game.

    Well written, but holy crap is it rosed over.

  • Ambros123Ambros123 Member Posts: 877
    Originally posted by Misaris

    if you don't like the combat you are either really, really bad at it or have not reached the higher abilities yet. 

    also the quests are everything but average, every single one was a surprise and there are endless numbers of new quest mechanics, puzzles and a certain easteregg feeling to many quests. 

    It's super fun, people complain before they even try it. Scared about your precious GW2 hype I reckon

    And this is the same crap that SWTOR defenders spewed about their game that is now going F2P.

Sign In or Register to comment.