ign gives the game a 5.9? are you kidding me...

[EdgeTW]

just to put that review into perspective - anthony gallegos is the same guy that gave diablo 3 a 9.5 after only doing 3 acts of normal.

This is a common mistake players make when judging a review. How a reviewer feels about one game has absolutely nothing to do with how he or she feels about another. Everyone has different tastes, and what appeals to them or not may or may not appeal to you. How another game was reviewed is not important, what's important is the review of this game and his reasons behind his review (which are clearly laid out). If you disagree with those reasons, then you disagree with them. However, if you find his statements for this review to have merit, they aren't suddenly any less valid because another game received a score you disagree with.

I can usually predict a review semi-accuratly from just a gameplay trailer, but this time I was way off, I think IGN has completly lost sight of what is most important in a game, and that is how that game makes you feel, and just how many hours can go by without you noticing.

In otherwords the fun factor.

While other criteria should most definatly factor in, there fun-factor should always be 50%+ of the grade. if not more.

Personally I have not played a mmo that keept me this engaged since eq, and that really sais alot.

Not aimed at Munx specifically, but I think the problem some of you are having is not with the statements in his review but in the numeric score. Not all scoring systems are the same and it's up to the reader to make sure they understand what the numbers mean to the reviewer. IGN explains their scoring system clearly, and in this case a 5.9 sits here:

5.0-5.9 - Mediocre

This game is on the cusp of being bad. That means that there are a few good things about it, but an equal if not greater number of issues present. If the game sounds interesting, you might want to give it a try, but don't expect to be wowed.

"a few good things about it, but an equal if not greater number of issues present. If the game sounds interesting, you might want to give it a try, but don't expect to be wowed." - that pretty much sums up his written review, so the score he assigned it fits with his statements. Some of you are saying it deserves "a solid 8". On their scoring system an 8 means a must-play title that's a no-brainer purchase - which clearly does not fit with the review he's written.

Adjust your expectations on the score to the reviewer's scoring system. You want reviewers to be thorough in their understanding of the game but it's up to the reader to be thorough in their understanding of the review system. Don't just say "5? 5 sounds like a low number. This review sucks.". In this case you need to be asking "what does a 5.9 mean to IGN" and then doing the research. We're not scoring based on your gut-feeling scale here (although many of you seem to be under that false impression).

Or, you can just choose to remain ignorant about it and end up looking a little silly on the forums while making a pointless rant.

[Jack Johnson]

Final Fantasy XIV was so bad they decided to scrap the whole thing and remake it. And that falls into their 5-5.9 range. I reject the notion that Defiance is on par with a game that cost millions of dollars that was flushed down the toilet by the devs because it was so damaging to the Final Fantasy brand. No.

Their description of a 7-7.9 fits FOR ME -

"Sure, there are some issues, but the overall experience is still good enough to recommend. Maybe it lacks ambition or it's repetitive or has too many technical glitches, but we had fun playing it nonetheless and think you will too. "

Repetitive with technical glitches, but I still have fun blasting the heck out of enemies time and again and I've told my friends who are fans of SHOOTERS to play it. It definitely isn't a game where I'd tell someone who doesn't play shooters to try it out though.

[Rhorge]

IGN rated Duke Nukem Forever higher than Defiance. Need I comment on their credibility?

[Warkaiser]

This is a common mistake players make when judging a review. How a reviewer feels about one game has absolutely nothing to do with how he or she feels about another. Everyone has different tastes, and what appeals to them or not may or may not appeal to you. How another game was reviewed is not important, what's important is the review of this game and his reasons behind his review (which are clearly laid out). If you disagree with those reasons, then you disagree with them. However, if you find his statements for this review to have merit, they aren't suddenly any less valid because another game received a score you disagree with.



Not aimed at Munx specifically, but I think the problem some of you are having is not with the statements in his review but in the numeric score. Not all scoring systems are the same and it's up to the reader to make sure they understand what the numbers mean to the reviewer. IGN explains their scoring system clearly, and in this case a 5.9 sits here:

5.0-5.9 - Mediocre

This game is on the cusp of being bad. That means that there are a few good things about it, but an equal if not greater number of issues present. If the game sounds interesting, you might want to give it a try, but don't expect to be wowed.

"a few good things about it, but an equal if not greater number of issues present. If the game sounds interesting, you might want to give it a try, but don't expect to be wowed." - that pretty much sums up his written review, so the score he assigned it fits with his statements. Some of you are saying it deserves "a solid 8". On their scoring system an 8 means a must-play title that's a no-brainer purchase - which clearly does not fit with the review he's written.

Adjust your expectations on the score to the reviewer's scoring system. You want reviewers to be thorough in their understanding of the game but it's up to the reader to be thorough in their understanding of the review system. Don't just say "5? 5 sounds like a low number. This review sucks.". In this case you need to be asking "what does a 5.9 mean to IGN" and then doing the research. We're not scoring based on your gut-feeling scale here (although many of you seem to be under that false impression).

Or, you can just choose to remain ignorant about it and end up looking a little silly on the forums while making a pointless rant.

That makes sense to some extent, but Id like you to explain something:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/04/...nce-review-ps3

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/04/...ance-review-pc

Notice anything?

Same EXACT review by the same person. Word for word.

PS3 version:

5.2

+Fun deathmatch

– Performance issues
– Lackluster graphics
– Poor AI

PC version:

5.9

+Fun multiplayer

– Bad quest design
– Polish issues
– Poor AI

Again, it is the same review article posted for both versions. yet somehow.... 2 different scores and 2 different lists of pros & cons for the same game...

[IGears]

That makes sense to some extent, but Id like you to explain something:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/04/...nce-review-ps3

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/04/...ance-review-pc

Notice anything?

Same EXACT review by the same person. Word for word.

PS3 version:

5.2

+Fun deathmatch

– Performance issues
– Lackluster graphics
– Poor AI

PC version:

5.9

+Fun multiplayer

– Bad quest design
– Polish issues
– Poor AI

Again, it is the same review article posted for both versions. yet somehow.... 2 different scores and 2 different lists of pros & cons for the same game...

makes you wonder how far they really went into reviewing it.

[EdgeTW]

Their description of a 7-7.9 fits FOR ME -

For you, yes. For the reviewer writing the review and then applying the score to his review, no. A 7-7.9 does not fit his written comments. That score would contradict his statements and make the review confusing.

[Technodude]

IGN rated Duke Nukem Forever higher than Defiance. Need I comment on their credibility?

Duke Nukem is a MMO now? i don't even understand why are you comparing a single player game with MMO.

[EdgeTW]

That makes sense to some extent, but Id like you to explain something:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/04/...nce-review-ps3

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/04/...ance-review-pc

Notice anything?

Same EXACT review by the same person. Word for word.

PS3 version:

5.2

+Fun deathmatch

– Performance issues
– Lackluster graphics
– Poor AI

PC version:

5.9

+Fun multiplayer

– Bad quest design
– Polish issues
– Poor AI

Again, it is the same review article posted for both versions. yet somehow.... 2 different scores and 2 different lists of pros & cons for the same game...

Seems pretty straightforward. He thinks the PC version is superior to the PS3 version, citing performance issues and lackluster graphics. I haven't played it on the PS3, so I can't comment on either of those. Does the game look worse on the PS3 than the PC? Are their performance issues on the PS3 that don't exist on the PC? I find neither of those difficult to believe, honestly, and obviously that will impact the final score.

The decimal portion of that score is supposed to represent where in a particular range a game falls. Is it a solid 5? Barely a 5? A really good 5? That kind of thing.

makes you wonder how far they really went into reviewing it.

LoL.. I'm not sure I understand this statement. It doesn't make me wonder that at all. It makes me think they went as far as reviewing a PC version AND a PS3 version. Why, what more are you reading into it?

Edit: By the way, his review is not completely the same for both platforms. At the end he cites some differences:

PC:

At least, it's reasonably fun when it works smoothly. With rare exception, performance on PC has been pretty great since launch, largely due to the fact that the graphics don't really seem to be trying to do anything fancy. But there have been occasional lag spikes, which are more annoying than in a typical MMO because of the fact that this is a shooter, and I’ve had an annoying recurring issue where my shotgun fails to reload correctly. Plus whenever lots of players gather, half of them appear as the default male player model until eventually popping in their actual customized character. Shadow War typically has long queue times, too. Every MMO I’ve ever played has issues at launch, but Defiance would be just okay even if it were working perfectly. It can't afford hiccups like these.

...

Respectable PvP combat goes a long way, but not far enough to make Defiance a recommendable experience.

PS3:

Lag has also been an issue. Plus whenever lots of players gather, half of them appear as the default male player model until eventually popping in their actual customized character. The Shadow War queue is considerably shorter here than on PC, but gameplay wise it’s performed poorly enough that it’s hard to play. Other issues like bugged quests screwed up sessions on PC, though it’s hard to say if they’ll also occur on the other versions since they’re seemingly random. Every MMO I’ve ever played has issues at launch, but Defiance would be just okay even if it were working perfectly. It can't afford hiccups like these.

...

Respectable PvP combat goes a long way, but especially when the major performance issues rear their ugly head, it's not far enough to make Defiance a recommendable experience.

Apparently the PS3 has performance issues. You'd have to ask a PS3 user about that (or just drop by the PS3 forum, I suppose). Outside of lag spikes and odd reload issues like that shotgun he was talking about (I've personally seen that a number of times), performance is one of the main things going for this game on the PC. Shame if it loses that on the PS3.

[Remag Div]

Not reading this entire thread but I mean the dude wasn't THAT far off...

Rare well-designed quests are overshadowed by a host of others that feel phoned in, and though the fundamentals of shooting are competent, weak enemy AI makes the PvE combat a bore.

I honestly can't say this isn't true. Main missions and Episode missions are better, but the side missions are soulless. Gameplay is good and different but the enemy AI in this game is pretty stupid and feel more like bullet sponges standing there for the most part. Couple this with really bad bugs and glitches still present and I don't see how a 6/10 rating is bad or biased. I'd probably rate this a 6/10 too, maybe a 7/10 at max.

It's tough to review an MMO early on because it's constantly evolving and getting better, though.

[Technodude]

Maybe you haven't noticed this, but I havent exactly been complaining about the scores that have been given to defiance. Personally, I rate it around a 7, potential 7.5 - 8 with some improvements. Its not like I am going around claiming it's the best game ever or anything. I know it has it's issues, and I am waiting to see where it goes ove rthe next few months.

What I really have an issue with is the absurdity of some of the things said in some of the reviews.

Just speaking of the IGN review in particular, they knock the game for having repetitious kill / fetch quests. Yet in most other games, including the 2 he mentioned (WoW and SWTOR), kill / fetch quests are somehow magically transformed into this unique and exciting thing that make up 75% of the game and get them very high scores.

It's like watching one of those taste test commercials or something. Where someone says they prefer 1 brand over another. Then the taste test shows they actually liked the 2nd brand better when they didnt know which was which. Like, if they reskinned and renamed Defiance as something else, like a new World of Warcraft spinoff or something, suddenly they would enjoy the taste of Defiance much more.

I also have an issue with the preconceived notions many of the reviewers have. Basically an expectation that "this game should be this way because other games do it this way" rather than accepting that it is intentionally different in some aspects and not meant to cater to the same crowd of players as those other games. Trion already has Rift... why would they make a competitor to their own game?

Defiance is released in 2013. Only because games like WOW and SWTOR had fetch and kill quests means in 2013 critics and players do not expect something better?

TSW and GW2 have raised the bar and even though basic principle of fetch and kill tasks is same atleast these games made them interesting whether it is with help of DE's, Heart Events or puzzles and investigation.

Trion didn't even try here and just piled up one fetch and kill mission over the other. Maybe you should get angry at everyone who expect something different then because that is the main issue here. People are just fed up of typical fetch X and kill X tasks which have been circulating since 2005.

So your comparison with WOW and SWTOR is pointless because the score those games got might be relevant with their time of release but surely the same sh*t is not going to pass in 2013.

As far as catering to different type of crowd..if you mean shooter fans..even they are complaining so it is not just your traditional MMO players who have issues with the game.