Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 1 mmo review in context
02-23-2010, 09:54 AM
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/age-of-cona.../878139p1.html
rating 8.2 painfully omits the gender discriminating bug in which female melee toons attacked slower, fixed by lowering attack speed for all genders.

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/warhammer-online/914059p1.html
WAR got an amazing 8.4 with little mention of it's failings

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/pirates-of-.../849204p1.html
POTBS gets 8.1 and is praised for it's learning curve.


http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/world-of-wa.../571585p1.html
wow vanilla gets a 9.1 and is praised for it's lack of standard at the time harsh DP
Quote:
Even death becomes only a minor issue as there's no penalty beyond the few minutes it takes for your ghosts to run back to your corpse after dying -- and even that can be avoided at the very slight cost of some money via item decay for an instant resurrection. Players with only a half-hour to play on a weeknight can actually log on and get something accomplished.
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/eve-online/5888p1.html
while EVE vanilla gets a 6.5

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/****/1046013p1.html
**** gets a 7.5 talks about how other reviewers could play long enough to get to teh end game, but doesn't talk about how bad that endgame really is, a year and 3 "major" patches after it's release in korea.

these are a few examples i can think of off the top of my head. all from gamespy. read them if you want to take their scathing review of STO into context. and then ask yourself if you can take any of them seriously.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
02-23-2010, 09:56 AM
Seems pretty on the money, imo.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
02-23-2010, 09:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex1939 View Post
Seems pretty on the money, imo.
you think *** or warhammer really were that good?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
02-23-2010, 10:06 AM
As a Collectors edition owner of WAR I can tell you that its biggest failing was launching so close to WotLK.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
02-23-2010, 10:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandius View Post
As a Collectors edition owner of WAR I can tell you that its biggest failing was launching so close to WotLK.
i tried war too.

it had crappy gameplay. input lag, took a second or two to go from pressing the button to seeing the action on screen and the skill on your bar lighting up.

you could grind scenarios in a couple hours up to 10, then it took several hour sper level after 12 in scenarios.

my toon felt weak compared to mobs.

quests were walls of text with little relevant information in them. questing areas were compacted as much as possible

rvr lakes were large and empty, including of players.

forts were so buggy they eventually took them out.

class balance was terrible. even counterparts on the factions were imbalanced between each other.

the only thing i disliked about WAR which was touched on by the review i linked was the faction imbalance. everyone rolled destro or tried for the first week or so, at least until it was discovered how OP BWs were before.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
02-23-2010, 10:32 AM
WAR is a decent game if you are into that sort of thing. I can forgive initial class balance issues. They just suffered from bored WoW players going back to WoW with the new expansion, which pretty much killed the whole premise of the game due to lack of players.

*** was a good idea, and is a better game now, but no where near an 8.2 at launch.

I honestly don't get why WoW is so popular. They took a bunch of good things from everywhere and copypasted them into the game with big money and a big name. WoW is average at best in all aspects. It does cater pretty well to the casual market, and that is a rather big market.

I can't really comment on the rest listed. I didn't get past 20 in the US beta with ****, but it was fairly meh.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
02-23-2010, 10:40 AM
Also looking at the other reviews it does show that the gamespy review was on the harsh side...

it does not copy and paste over well so here is also a link
http://www.gamestats.com/objects/142/14270158/

Spaziogames [Italy] 02/22/2010 6.5 /10 6.5
IGN.com 02/17/2010 6.8 /10 6.8
GameSpy.com 02/17/2010 2 /5 4.0
GameSpot 02/17/2010 5.5 /10 5.5
Game Observer 02/16/2010 60 /100 6.0
1UP.com 02/12/2010 C+ /A+ 7.0
Inc Gamers 02/12/2010 6.8 /10 6.8
MeriStation [Spain] 02/11/2010 6 /10 6.0
Bright Hub 02/10/2010 4 /5 8.0
G4 / Tech TV 02/10/2010 3 /5 6.0

Click here to see all reviews
Average Press Score:
based on 19 reviews 7.0


Even gamespot that was very critical of the game gave it 5.5.

It almost seemed like the gamespy review was a rant and not a review.

I also looked up the scores it gave other game's and although not by the same reviewer it is still the same site,to say I was surprised to see the like's of Warhammer etc getting so very high marks compared to STO would be an understatement.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
02-23-2010, 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtyklingon
you think *** or warhammer really were that good?
Never played ***, but a friend of mine really enjoyed it although he only played it for a month.

Warhammer was incredible. T1 and T2 were some of the most fun I've ever had in a mmo. The problem was in the endgame and that's why they are where they are today. (That and class balance problems which they would always over or under adjust)


The review for Warhammer would be about the early awesome beginning of the game. The review of STO is about the beginning. There are a few things to complement, like graphics, sound effects, and space combat. But then there's a ton to slam it for including repetitive content, lack of polish, lack of risk/reward, on and on and on....
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
02-23-2010, 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex1939 View Post
Never played ***, but a friend of mine really enjoyed it although he only played it for a month.

Warhammer was incredible. T1 and T2 were some of the most fun I've ever had in a mmo. The problem was in the endgame and that's why they are where they are today. (That and class balance problems which they would always over or under adjust)
i found t1 so fast i didn't have tim to enjoy it, and t2 was so boring and repetitious that i didn't bother to stay around long enough for t3, despite trying 5 different classes.

warhammer was like playing a warsong gulch match in wow at 19 with no one capping flags and just fighting in the middle of the map, except it takes 4x as long to kill anyone and your have to spam the buttons to get a response.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
02-23-2010, 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtyklingon
i found t1 so fast i didn't have tim to enjoy it, and t2 was so boring and repetitious that i didn't bother to stay around long enough for t3, despite trying 5 different classes.
What was so repetitive? You had public quests, normal quests, you could pvp in open area, or you could choose between 3 scenarios to play. There was nothing repetitive about it.

In STO, you fly and blow up ships. You beam down and either click f on a few objects or blow through badguys. There is nothing else aside the occasional fleet mission or a few well done story missions.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:07 AM.