Any software will work better if it is released later after more testing. I doubt you are going to get issues for consoles, some of the UI issues PC owners have are due to consoles being too looked after if anything.
Not sure how well TESO will go down with the console crowd, it will appeal to those who want more depth for sure.
Is Cheat Code Central a reputable reviewer? i wouldnt trust a reviewer with that name.
But i only trust a reviewer's word when it matches my experience with the game. So far Angry Joe described my exact experience with the game in his entire review (not including cyrodiil) although i clearly enjoyed pve a bit more than him. Personal preference. But yeah....... Cant justify the sub right now.
It is actually the least important part of the review.
A game having 70 or 90 or 100 tells me nothing if I will like or not a game.
Unfortunately it seems to be the only part talked about.
Not only that, for a while, the written magazines were the only source of information for many consumers.
That meant the score and a positive review was all that mattered.
Magazines that gave bad reviews were pressured, they would be left out of events and cut off of betas of other games from the same publisher.
That created a vision that any score below 85 or even 90 is a fail game that one shouldn't buy or play.
That is crazy and, even though I know it is crazy, a part of my brain says that it is the truth.
These days, with blogs, youtube, twitch and whatnot, things are slowly changing.
People can see gameplay. People can see the bugs, can see the fun, can see the frustration.
And as the traditional "gaming press" lose ground for the so called youtube celebs and bloggers, maybe ratings of games will go down and maybe a 60-75 becomes a game that someone interested in the genre will have fun playing it.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
The problem with review scores in MMORPGs is, that the final score implies universal validity. Everything below 80% automatically becomes a bad game, while everything above 80% becomes a good game. But they do not and can not count in the very subjective needs and interests of individual players which can differ a lot. This and the fact that TESO is an extraordinary polarizing title makes it very difficult to write an objective review.
My advice is to not take the score. Instead, find out what the reviewer experienced. Take Bill Murphys review in progress articles for example. He seems to have loads of fun but already announced that the final score will receive a big hit for the lack of polish. In the end this means to me that the game is a lot of fun and that future updates will make it even better.
One of the biggest problems with reviews (esp for MMOs) is that they give too much weight to bugs. A lot of the negative reviews have only a few negative points, but bugs are discussed at length. What happens to that review when the bugs are gone or greatly reduced?
Since last week the game is much more stable, even weapon swap is smooth now (I don't even know when they did this, I'm thinking Friday cause I had a good time with it all weekend). Many quests are no longer bugged, everything is just better. But those reviews were made with great concern to bugs.
Should reviewers give two scores? One for "the game itself" and one for "the game + outstanding technical issues"?
The problem with review scores in MMORPGs is, that the final score implies universal validity. Everything below 80% automatically becomes a bad game, while everything above 80% becomes a good game. But they do not and can not count in the very subjective needs and interests of individual players which can differ a lot. This and the fact that TESO is an extraordinary polarizing title makes it very difficult to write an objective review.
My advice is to not take the score. Instead, find out what the reviewer experienced. Take Bill Murphys review in progress articles for example. He seems to have loads of fun but already announced that the final score will receive a big hit for the lack of polish. In the end this means to me that the game is a lot of fun and that future updates will make it even better.
I agree mostly. The best reviewer for any game is going to be oneself. However, some of the reviewers like Angry Joe show hard video proof on exactly the points he is talking about. Though you don't have to agree with their scores, you can't deny what they are showing you. For the record, Angry Joe tore apart Rome 2: Total War as well while showing video proof of various issues. He was right about every issue. However they have been patching the game since it's September launch and it's almost right where it needs to be and I also still play it regularly. Maybe they will get ESO patched to where it needs to be for the masses. However, keep in mind that ZOS design choices such as phasing and player filled "solo" dungeons are not bugs but just some of the design issues that a lot of people are having problems with. The bugs are only a small part of the big picture.
One of the biggest problems with reviews (esp for MMOs) is that they give too much weight to bugs. A lot of the negative reviews have only a few negative points, but bugs are discussed at length. What happens to that review when the bugs are gone or greatly reduced?
Since last week the game is much more stable, even weapon swap is smooth now (I don't even know when they did this, I'm thinking Friday cause I had a good time with it all weekend). Many quests are no longer bugged, everything is just better. But those reviews were made with great concern to bugs.
Should reviewers give two scores? One for "the game itself" and one for "the game + outstanding technical issues"?
The reviewer exists to tell potential customers what they think about the game. If they get annoyed by things, its their job to mention it in their review and to add those frustrations in their overall score. They don't exist to be best buddies with the developer/publisher and make excuses on their behalf.
The solution is releasing the game in better shape so that your product gets more positive reviews instead of treating the first month as an extended beta. There shouldn't be need for a second score for technical issues.
The important aspect of the review are the words, and metacritic is an awful way to measure games because the aggregated score is nothing but a selection of arbitrary numbers that doesn't tell you much of anything, in that you are correct to argue about the numbers, but its really a useless discussion. Play the game and have fun instead of worrying what others think.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
One of the biggest problems with reviews (esp for MMOs) is that they give too much weight to bugs. A lot of the negative reviews have only a few negative points, but bugs are discussed at length. What happens to that review when the bugs are gone or greatly reduced?
Since last week the game is much more stable, even weapon swap is smooth now (I don't even know when they did this, I'm thinking Friday cause I had a good time with it all weekend). Many quests are no longer bugged, everything is just better. But those reviews were made with great concern to bugs.
Should reviewers give two scores? One for "the game itself" and one for "the game + outstanding technical issues"?
Actually, I don't think that the bugs should be a consideration at all. Today, bugs can be fixed. We're not writing to flash like the NES or something. Even console games can be fixed following release. The only exception, IMO, is if you literally had a review category dedicated to Technical Execution. You might be able to get away with tossing these into Gameplay, since it can interrupt the experience.
I love Metacritic for the ability to get an at-a-glance idea for how a game is, but stuff like bugs muddy the water. Also, I used to look, specifically, for user reviews because I was more interested in hearing what people were saying. These days, though, it's a horrid mess. Not only with paid user reviews, but with the "Zero Crowd". There are almost 100 reviews of 0/10 from users. Skimming through them, it's comical to see some of the comments. Lots of talk about price, lots of talk about it being a clone, lots of talk about linear gameplay. It's basically useless garbage and this is what users "contribute". I guess it's good for reviewers though. They're actually starting to (or should be starting to) get their cred back since users log this type of crap. It's not much better around these parts, though, so I guess it's just the way it is.
Originally posted by Scot Perhaps PvP is not full of players because not everyone is racing to top level? I have had a look at PvP, done the tutorial and a handful of quests, but that's all. When I was in DAOC I did not really start faction play until about level 30 to 35 and I only really got into it at 45+. Here with levelling being so fast (yes fast) I doubt I will look at PvP again until 40+.
Your in for a major shock, level to 50 is a cakewalk. V1+ is where it becomes a totaly diffrent game....no other way to level then grinding quests 12 hours non stop to gain a level. And that is hardcore questing skipping everything in between.
At this point many people will bail the game as there is nothing but quest after quest after quest, it is at this point ESO realy show its color and if you dont like to quest then /quit for many people. There is so much hate flying around and i can understand why. Even tough i love ESO i sometimes just cant stand anymore quests and when doing pvp your just gimping yourself as the longer you wait the more V10 is going to kick your ass making you just a pion instead of an oponent.
This game is going to get curbstomped and i hate the reasons why but totaly understand it. Zenimax should have offered multipleways to gain exp and level on a normal pace, this this would be an almost perfect mmo. But at this point of writing and currently eing V3 and having a V1 i can safely say that its going to murder the casuals.
Originally posted by Scot Perhaps PvP is not full of players because not everyone is racing to top level? I have had a look at PvP, done the tutorial and a handful of quests, but that's all. When I was in DAOC I did not really start faction play until about level 30 to 35 and I only really got into it at 45+. Here with levelling being so fast (yes fast) I doubt I will look at PvP again until 40+.
Your in for a major shock, level to 50 is a cakewalk. V1+ is where it becomes a totaly diffrent game....no other way to level then grinding quests 12 hours non stop to gain a level. And that is hardcore questing skipping everything in between.
At this point many people will bail the game as there is nothing but quest after quest after quest, it is at this point ESO realy show its color and if you dont like to quest then /quit for many people. There is so much hate flying around and i can understand why. Even tough i love ESO i sometimes just cant stand anymore quests and when doing pvp your just gimping yourself as the longer you wait the more V10 is going to kick your ass making you just a pion instead of an oponent.
This game is going to get curbstomped and i hate the reasons why but totaly understand it. Zenimax should have offered multipleways to gain exp and level on a normal pace, this this would be an almost perfect mmo. But at this point of writing and currently eing V3 and having a V1 i can safely say that its going to murder the casuals.
I always wonder why people like you make use of the term "grind" in such an inflationary manner. You should be found guilty for pussying, sentenced to leveling a character to max level in Vanilla Lineage 2.
Originally posted by Scot Perhaps PvP is not full of players because not everyone is racing to top level? I have had a look at PvP, done the tutorial and a handful of quests, but that's all. When I was in DAOC I did not really start faction play until about level 30 to 35 and I only really got into it at 45+. Here with levelling being so fast (yes fast) I doubt I will look at PvP again until 40+.
Your in for a major shock, level to 50 is a cakewalk. V1+ is where it becomes a totaly diffrent game....no other way to level then grinding quests 12 hours non stop to gain a level. And that is hardcore questing skipping everything in between.
At this point many people will bail the game as there is nothing but quest after quest after quest, it is at this point ESO realy show its color and if you dont like to quest then /quit for many people. There is so much hate flying around and i can understand why. Even tough i love ESO i sometimes just cant stand anymore quests and when doing pvp your just gimping yourself as the longer you wait the more V10 is going to kick your ass making you just a pion instead of an oponent.
This game is going to get curbstomped and i hate the reasons why but totaly understand it. Zenimax should have offered multipleways to gain exp and level on a normal pace, this this would be an almost perfect mmo. But at this point of writing and currently eing V3 and having a V1 i can safely say that its going to murder the casuals.
I always wonder why people like you make use of the term "grind" in such an inflationary manner. You should be found guilty for pussying, sentenced to leveling a character to max level in Vanilla Lineage 2.
Lineage 2, that was a game where you had to put some effort it. What makes me laugh is players telling me how difficult the veteran ranks are when they already have a high veteran rank. That guy who did the video review and was a V8(?) telling us it was too much of a grind. V8 in about 22 days.
Even tough i love ESO i sometimes just cant stand anymore quests and when doing pvp your just gimping yourself as the longer you wait the more V10 is going to kick your ass making you just a pion instead of an oponent.
Same here. Sometimes i'm bored of pve and feel like doing some pvp. But i would just get rolled over by VRs and waste more time stuck on lower levels. So im forced to PVE to pvp. If ESO has battlegrounds like DAOC to let ppl enjoy some pvp before hitting lvl50, it would be more fun. Right now, it feels horrible.
The metacritic average sits at 72 right now, user score 6.2. So for all the 8/10 or 9/10 reviews coming in, there are more than enough scoring them lower.
Comments
Any software will work better if it is released later after more testing. I doubt you are going to get issues for consoles, some of the UI issues PC owners have are due to consoles being too looked after if anything.
Not sure how well TESO will go down with the console crowd, it will appeal to those who want more depth for sure.
Is Cheat Code Central a reputable reviewer? i wouldnt trust a reviewer with that name.
But i only trust a reviewer's word when it matches my experience with the game. So far Angry Joe described my exact experience with the game in his entire review (not including cyrodiil) although i clearly enjoyed pve a bit more than him. Personal preference. But yeah....... Cant justify the sub right now.
The game has been generally received poorly by those that matter - the players.
To selectively quote positive reviews, regardless of how contrived they may or may not be, is disingenuous.
The score of reviews is a plague.
It is actually the least important part of the review.
A game having 70 or 90 or 100 tells me nothing if I will like or not a game.
Unfortunately it seems to be the only part talked about.
Not only that, for a while, the written magazines were the only source of information for many consumers.
That meant the score and a positive review was all that mattered.
Magazines that gave bad reviews were pressured, they would be left out of events and cut off of betas of other games from the same publisher.
That created a vision that any score below 85 or even 90 is a fail game that one shouldn't buy or play.
That is crazy and, even though I know it is crazy, a part of my brain says that it is the truth.
These days, with blogs, youtube, twitch and whatnot, things are slowly changing.
People can see gameplay. People can see the bugs, can see the fun, can see the frustration.
And as the traditional "gaming press" lose ground for the so called youtube celebs and bloggers, maybe ratings of games will go down and maybe a 60-75 becomes a game that someone interested in the genre will have fun playing it.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
The problem with review scores in MMORPGs is, that the final score implies universal validity. Everything below 80% automatically becomes a bad game, while everything above 80% becomes a good game. But they do not and can not count in the very subjective needs and interests of individual players which can differ a lot. This and the fact that TESO is an extraordinary polarizing title makes it very difficult to write an objective review.
My advice is to not take the score. Instead, find out what the reviewer experienced. Take Bill Murphys review in progress articles for example. He seems to have loads of fun but already announced that the final score will receive a big hit for the lack of polish. In the end this means to me that the game is a lot of fun and that future updates will make it even better.
One of the biggest problems with reviews (esp for MMOs) is that they give too much weight to bugs. A lot of the negative reviews have only a few negative points, but bugs are discussed at length. What happens to that review when the bugs are gone or greatly reduced?
Since last week the game is much more stable, even weapon swap is smooth now (I don't even know when they did this, I'm thinking Friday cause I had a good time with it all weekend). Many quests are no longer bugged, everything is just better. But those reviews were made with great concern to bugs.
Should reviewers give two scores? One for "the game itself" and one for "the game + outstanding technical issues"?
I agree mostly. The best reviewer for any game is going to be oneself. However, some of the reviewers like Angry Joe show hard video proof on exactly the points he is talking about. Though you don't have to agree with their scores, you can't deny what they are showing you. For the record, Angry Joe tore apart Rome 2: Total War as well while showing video proof of various issues. He was right about every issue. However they have been patching the game since it's September launch and it's almost right where it needs to be and I also still play it regularly. Maybe they will get ESO patched to where it needs to be for the masses. However, keep in mind that ZOS design choices such as phasing and player filled "solo" dungeons are not bugs but just some of the design issues that a lot of people are having problems with. The bugs are only a small part of the big picture.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
The reviewer exists to tell potential customers what they think about the game. If they get annoyed by things, its their job to mention it in their review and to add those frustrations in their overall score. They don't exist to be best buddies with the developer/publisher and make excuses on their behalf.
The solution is releasing the game in better shape so that your product gets more positive reviews instead of treating the first month as an extended beta. There shouldn't be need for a second score for technical issues.
The important aspect of the review are the words, and metacritic is an awful way to measure games because the aggregated score is nothing but a selection of arbitrary numbers that doesn't tell you much of anything, in that you are correct to argue about the numbers, but its really a useless discussion. Play the game and have fun instead of worrying what others think.
Actually, I don't think that the bugs should be a consideration at all. Today, bugs can be fixed. We're not writing to flash like the NES or something. Even console games can be fixed following release. The only exception, IMO, is if you literally had a review category dedicated to Technical Execution. You might be able to get away with tossing these into Gameplay, since it can interrupt the experience.
I love Metacritic for the ability to get an at-a-glance idea for how a game is, but stuff like bugs muddy the water. Also, I used to look, specifically, for user reviews because I was more interested in hearing what people were saying. These days, though, it's a horrid mess. Not only with paid user reviews, but with the "Zero Crowd". There are almost 100 reviews of 0/10 from users. Skimming through them, it's comical to see some of the comments. Lots of talk about price, lots of talk about it being a clone, lots of talk about linear gameplay. It's basically useless garbage and this is what users "contribute". I guess it's good for reviewers though. They're actually starting to (or should be starting to) get their cred back since users log this type of crap. It's not much better around these parts, though, so I guess it's just the way it is.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Your in for a major shock, level to 50 is a cakewalk.
V1+ is where it becomes a totaly diffrent game....no other way to level then grinding quests 12 hours non stop to gain a level.
And that is hardcore questing skipping everything in between.
At this point many people will bail the game as there is nothing but quest after quest after quest, it is at this point ESO realy show its color and if you dont like to quest then /quit for many people.
There is so much hate flying around and i can understand why.
Even tough i love ESO i sometimes just cant stand anymore quests and when doing pvp your just gimping yourself as the longer you wait the more V10 is going to kick your ass making you just a pion instead of an oponent.
This game is going to get curbstomped and i hate the reasons why but totaly understand it.
Zenimax should have offered multipleways to gain exp and level on a normal pace, this this would be an almost perfect mmo.
But at this point of writing and currently eing V3 and having a V1 i can safely say that its going to murder the casuals.
I havent played ESO but the reviews seem favorable enough
EQ2 fan sites
I always wonder why people like you make use of the term "grind" in such an inflationary manner. You should be found guilty for pussying, sentenced to leveling a character to max level in Vanilla Lineage 2.
Lineage 2, that was a game where you had to put some effort it. What makes me laugh is players telling me how difficult the veteran ranks are when they already have a high veteran rank. That guy who did the video review and was a V8(?) telling us it was too much of a grind. V8 in about 22 days.
Same here. Sometimes i'm bored of pve and feel like doing some pvp. But i would just get rolled over by VRs and waste more time stuck on lower levels. So im forced to PVE to pvp. If ESO has battlegrounds like DAOC to let ppl enjoy some pvp before hitting lvl50, it would be more fun. Right now, it feels horrible.