So? The side missions are garbage and the campaign is weak with the same objectives over and over. 100 hours of crap is still crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dixa
Printable View
So? The side missions are garbage and the campaign is weak with the same objectives over and over. 100 hours of crap is still crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dixa
Because he is actively trying to derail the thread since his beloved ultimate best game ever is being trashed by most critics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohlar
the review wasnt bad. Anthony plays all the MMOs and expects certain thing to fall along those lines. i dont entirely agree with it but he makes valid points.
As much fun as I have had so far it is getting tedious....and the hacks keep rolling in. Why is nothing being done about hackers? I seriously watched a guy fly by me, while I was in a roller, while he was on foot speed hacking. Bugs keep piling up, quests are getting tiresome, Story is short(and over for now). Side missions are snoresvill, no one in their right mind enjoys all the retrieve missions...get your own crap people. Co-op is interesting but quickly fades, multiplayer is fun but only if you use certain weapons. Meh i'll keep killin crap in hopes it gets better, and if it dosent i will still watch the show....The show is actually awesome dispite what the critics say.
age of conan was pay to play remember that, this game has no sub fee, i feel this game is a solid 8 i would have been happy with anything over a 7 and yes that review will hurt sales lets be honest here if i tell my buddy about this game and he sees that review it would turn anyone away, if this review was before launch i would have passed this up in a heartbeat, i bought it but this game is great and easily got my moneys worth so i dont regret it at all.
It was beautiful for me. Don't get me wrong it wasn't a great game but it looked good. To be fair Conan did push the envelope for graphics in an mmo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beats
You mean like Defiance?Quote:
How about the fact that even though there was massive amounts of content, there was no reason to do almost any of it?.
Im simply stating that in terms of a gaming whole, bioshock was cheaper and will last more in my memory than what this garbage has presented thus far. The only memorable thing if I walked away from this game would be utter frustration...not worth the price tag for this half baked mess. It should retail around £ 15Quote:
Originally Posted by Dixa
brink had no single player content - at all - and multiplayer was a laggy mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by ten4
however (i worked at gamestop at the time) that company was quick to throw a lot of money at reviewers and gamestop managers alike to push that piece of crap.
age of conan tanked because all voice over stopped after tortage, which was a jarring change. it tanked because gear had zero stats on it. it tanked for a LOT of reasons. it had very little content at launch.
however today it has a ton of content. it has some of the best raiding content you can get in an mmorpg with the best class balance for it. the rise of teh godslayer expansion was fantastic and when they put in the destiny quest line they did a brilliant job with it. but this was all stuff that came WELL after launch.
just like star trek online. it was not ready when it launched. not by a long shot. not by any shot really. but go play it now - there is a lot to do although it's still tactical captains online imo.
it's not a mediocre game, and is in a better place than sto and aoc were at launch. it's in a better place than the secret world was at launch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohlar
Context.
Now I truly know you are full of shtako. Thanks for confirming it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dixa
Wait the same IGN that says pokemon is repetitive but every CoD is a must have?
dooooom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by gohlar
In all fairness, metacritic score is 6.3 so 5.9 isn't that far off.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/de...critic-reviews
Metacritic score is a consolidated score from all the reviewers so it isn't usually biased. For example, rift earned a respectable 8.4
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/rift
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beats
Whether or not people take reviews with a grain of salt , bad review is a bad review, and it will, however minimal, impact sales. You know this as financial officer of any company that bad review is the last thing you want. 1% drop is 1% drop which in the grand scheme is significant.
You may say IGN is not credible but it is still a strong voice in the gaming industry. Maybe in 5 years they become obsolete but not yet. Still many people go by its reviews. Also, metacritic is at 63. Not too far different. Metacritic we have to agree is significant because many gaming company's financial earning reports always mention metacritic as primary reason why so and so game isn't doing well.
I disagree, AoC and TSW, despite their problems, were much more complete games than Defiance. No comparison. I don't think anybody liked STO on release. I know I didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dixa
But again, none of this changes the fact that Defiance is the very definition of mediocre. It does nothing to stand out. Mission structure is insanely uninspired.
What does Defiance do that is so great?
For your last question, nothing. It does everything well and is better than any single piece compared to another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohlar
Second, AoC was garbage at launch. I played it and a ton of the playerbase had so many problems, gear was itemized wrong and in general the "complete" game you speak, was there. It's just none of it had any purpose.
It does everything well? Seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beats
Come on please be reasonable...
if you are console player i can understand the frustration especially for those console players who have never really bothered to game on pc and don't understand not only how mmo's work, but that their expectations for their severely underpowered system were far too high. dice had the same issues with that console and battlefield 3 and it's why the console versions got smaller maps. the ps3 could handle it as evidenced by MAG, but the 360 simply could not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonnina
if you are a pc player i'm not sure what the frustration could be unless you blew through the main story in 11 hours and ignored all the side content, treating it like...oh i dunno, bioshock infinite?
now don't get me wrong - i'm bored to tears of defiance right now. im neither a fanboy nor a cynic when it comes to this game however. in my mind mmorpg's peaked with the Naxx 40 and it's been a casual friendly mess ever since but instead of sitting on forums and insisting that my way is the best way for everyone and you all are wrong headed for thinking otherwise i've accepted the fact that the genre has changed over the years to meet the demands of an overworked, underpaid western workforce taht no longer has the time nor inclination to farm for alchemy mats 3 hours a day and raid 4 more hours a day 7 days a week.
NONE of that excuses a half-arsed review from a dumb-arsed reviewer who doesn't even fully play games before giving a published opinion on them (diablo 3) or even take 5 minutes to read the official wiki on the backstory of a new title he's doing first impression videos of.
Everyone's mileage will definitely vary on this... Agree or disagree with the review, we all have some gripes about the game. But, over the years, the trick I've found is finding reviewers who seem to mesh pretty well with your opinions - whether it be for games, movies, books or anything else. Which is why, for me, IGN reviews mean squat - I generally don't agree with their reviews (good or bad). Personally, over the last 20 years, I've found that the reviews in PC gamer tend to fall in line with my tastes...
Minus some gripes about UI and other things, the mechanics as far as the game goes, the story, etc are all pretty spot on. Like I said, it's probably a 7/10 or so. It doesn't excel in any area, but it does everything well enough to be good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohlar
Like many mentioned already, I think IGN was fair. It touched upon many of people's issues. It definitely covered mine about the lack of city hub and therefore lack of social and community building interactions.
While I like Defiance, and do play it.
It seems clear to me that this game wasn't finished. And unlike most MMOs that do have deadlines, this game REALLY had a deadline.
I feel it was a rushed.
However, personally, my experience with MMOs make me give an MMO a good month before I really judge it, BUT, I can see how other people don't have that kind of patience, and while I completely disagree with IGNs review, it's their opinion.
Though... Personally.. This reviewer giving Diablo 3 a 9.5 when it has FAAAAAR more problems than this game, as well as, what I think, far worse design problems.... Makes me...Question the quality of this persons opinion.
If he gave Diablo 3 a 9... he's as trustworthy as a bankster telling you that "this is a really good investment". That was shtako. But yes, Defiance is a shooter. Mediocre in its contents, but it's the limits its pushing with the tv-show and what a mmo can be which are the really interesting parts. Now, enjoy running over hellbugs with your atv, you know you love the crunchy sound and remember not to play on the road in Shadow War, the funniest and most messed up pvp i've tried in years, or you'll be roadkill on the scoreboard!
The story is terrible. Yeah it's subjective but honestly...you really think this game has a good story? You don't think the mission structure leaves a lot to be desired? You think the social aspects are done well? I love the broken clan chat personally...Quote:
Originally Posted by Beats
To each his own I suppose.
funny part about the rift review is people forget that game was a ghost town across nearly all servers after the first month. the lack of a lfd tool in a game with content-gated dungeons and hardmodes was a very, VERY bad idea. they forgot or ignored the lessons blizzard learned in the previous 7 years when it came to tiers of pvp gear and pvp rankings as well. and lastly they totally ignored the mistake that warhammer made by doubling the number of servers on launch day just because a couple of people had a 10 minute queue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wtflag
the game had promise and came at the perfect time since cataclysm had made a lot of guilds implode and demotivated a lot of wow raiders/players in general, but they failed to deliver on what had become mmorpg staples at launch and those disillusioned wow players were not happy seeing them make the same mistakes that blizzard made then rectified many years before.
Pushing the limits of cross media? You call adding 6 crappy contracts every few weeks as ground breaking and innovative? LOL!
/falls over laughing
yeah well..pr is pr. google aliens colonial marines.Quote:
Originally Posted by ten4
i'm reserving my opinion on all of it until i see the DLC
It really was too. I remember thinking how stupid it was to not have that option in a game where everyone could either tank or heal. The expert dungeons weren't bad too. They did shoot themselves in the foot there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dixa
Totally! This is nothing compared to what that other game and TV show are doing!Quote:
Originally Posted by ten4
Lol hat dude doing the scoring said the Ai are a bunch of idiots unless they come at you in groups lol tell him to fight dark matter with the bulwarks and snipers and see how he fails
I DO think the game has a good story, BUT, a big but. It unfortunately requires some outside reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohlar
http://www.defiance.com/en/series/wo...asion-timeline
http://en.defiance-wiki.com/wiki/Defiance_News
Reading both the timeline as well as the fake newspaper editions REALLY sheds light on both the world of Defiance, the game and the show.
It's a shame this information isn't easily available in-game.
However I find a lot of games suffer from this, especially Guild Wars 2. If you look into the actual lore of GW, it's actually really interesting, but the games seems to show otherwise as you barely learn anything about the world.
Well, I lumped chat issues into UI, since its part of the UI. The story is fine, it isn't Pulitzer material but I would say its far from terrible. The mission structure is the same as most any mmo ever made. Lots to be desired but it wasn't disappointing to me either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohlar
I'll be honest.. I saw the link and purposefully avoided it like a stale lunch room donut with my mouse. It's IGN, that's all I need to see for a permanent "I Got Nothin!", because frankly, IGN's reviews have been askew for YEARS now. They even rated the Pandaria Expansion for WoW as if it was a whole new game? Seriously? Seriously? Really? OH MY GAWD!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hycinthus
Now.. that out of the way, the real MAJOR problem in the "finish" of this game is the social interaction. It's an MMO, we should be able to be all sorts of social, but in reality.. we're not. Part of the problem is the text chat system, another part is the inability to reliably text your friends (whispers may or may not work at times). An MMO is supposed to be social, and this game suffers for that. Part of the problem that I'm seeing with it is simple (after talking to some PS3 gaming friends of mine at the cigar shop..)
For you console players.. you don't have a keyboard. Your chat is VOIP based, and that's what your used to. For us PC types.. well that keyboard is our voice. So when the keyboard aspect is.. meh.. yeah, we're going to notice instantly. When the friend options are.. meh.. we're going to notice instantly. It's a different type of community chatter we're used to, and what we expect. This game being so much of a console port to PC, the text chat and friend options being missing or lacking are going to really bother us.
Now that being said, I still wouldn't have given Defiance a score like a 5.9.. especially if I gave Diablo 3 a 9. Sounds to me like someone *had* an issue with a mystery white substance before.. and still may.
I also think defiance is being judged in line with other mmorpg, which may have brought its score down. For example, the lack of crafting, gathering, mining, fishing, auction house, mail system, housing system, gear progression, may have influenced the review. But in fact, maybe Trion never wanted defiance to be any of that. Instead it just wanted it to be a multiplayer shooter.
The problem is defiance carries around the tag MMO. And MMO has standards. Defiance is missing those standards.
You should actually read the review, and not just comment on the score.
In all honesty, he is right with what he´s writing about.
I am sure they actually plan on adding more than a handful of contracts every few weeks, especially with DLC's.Quote:
Originally Posted by ten4
Take it from me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ten4
If ANY product or service is using a word you've never heard of. Look it up and see if it actually exists. If it doesn't, the term means nothing.
If ANY product or service is using common words that are overused like innovative, unique, fastest, etc. Don't believe those words to be accurate.
If ANY product or service is saying something they are offering is "free", then immediately assume there's a catch where you either have to pay money, or sign something that makes you pay money down the road.
Interesting. I did find GW2's story very forgettable as well and I really enjoyed the 1st game. I guess I'll take a look at your links.Quote:
Originally Posted by hardy83
Defiance is a solid 7.
holy shtako, this thread will blow up lol