Page 2 of 34 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
12
... LastLast
  1. #21
    Epic! Detheavn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    The Nether .... lands
    Posts
    1,549
    I like how we judge an entire expansion by the first month played and having no idea how the story ends.

  2. #22
    Mechagnome Jataai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom, Devon.
    Posts
    513
    hahaha, reading the user reviews is a joke, basically people are pissed and it has gotten loads of 0's which is hardly fair considering no game ever created deserves a 0.

  3. #23
    people on meta-critic, for the most part, only go on there to whine and bitch, rarely praise.... unless it's a bandwagon thing.
    1) Load the amount of weight I would deadlift onto the bench
    2) Unrack
    3) Crank out 15 reps
    4) Be ashamed of constantly skipping leg day

  4. #24
    Considering 2.7 million people bought it week one and that "fact" you posted is a review based on 21 people, I'll safely conclude that your "fact" is a lot closer to crap. If I go logged into WoW right now and asked 21 random people what they would rate WoW, you'd laugh at me for trying to give my test as proof of fact.

    The only thing that will tell are the sub numbers, period. If sub numbers plummet, you can call MoP a failure. If they remain the same or raise, I'd call that a success.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Anarchor View Post
    The main reason why WoW is getting bad reviews is because game reviewers have an egg to peel with Blizzard about how horribly bad the rest of Cataclysm was after the reviewers had been so "kind" to give great reviews and publicity for Cataclysm at launch.

    The few reviews I had to write for different magazines gave Mists of Pandaria an ~82, mostly because we had given them a 95 for Cataclysm, which they then took for granted and took a run with to deliver absolutely crap content for the remainder of the expansion. Reviewers aren't trusting Blizzard anymore since Diablo 3 and Cataclysm. Before Blizzard might've gotten great scores because the professional critics knew that Blizzard was a reliable quality delivering company, those days are over and it's up to Blizzard to proove their worth again instead of us nearly blindly believing that they'll deliver good quality.
    If yall are handing out current scores based on how a company acted and not the actual content your playing you are doing it so unbelievably wrong.

  6. #26
    Herald of the Titans Bathory's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,680
    You say factual data then link to metacritic. /headinhands
    You now stand before the Countess.
    A story of Firsts from around the world:
    http://thingsihaveneverdone.wordpress.com/

  7. #27
    Stood in the Fire Edx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Flanders, Belgium
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by Vinni View Post
    Some people will have down-voted it just because they could. Some of the players won't even have actuall experienced the content yet and some probably down-voted it just because they were cry babies who couldn't stand server queues
    This. Take a look at the user reviews, first page is all 0 ratings when the game was out for less than 24 hours...

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by thekrik View Post
    I'm not trying to start a war of words here, I'm pointed out factual data we now have regarding the quality of the expansion.

    EDIT: We're not talking about the USER SUBMITTED REVIEWS on metacritic here (which can be ignored), we're talking about the actual CRITIC Reviews from people like IGN, eurogamer and gamespot.
    Really? Just an innocent attempt at providing useful data huh? Man, if you're going to come on the forums trying to bait people at least own up to it. The problem with your numbers is they don't compare the opinions of the same people in both situations. The only way those numbers could hold any true significance would be if you had asked 100 people (arbitrary number) what they expected MoP to be and then asked those *same* 100 people what they thought after playing it for a month. The fact that some random people expected it to be good and then another (seperate) random group of people aren't rating it highly means nothing.

    In addition... none of it truely matters. At the end of the day all that matters is whether you like it or not. The same applies to a band's new album, or a new movie, or a book. Good luck finding anything that gets 100% positive reviews because the world is full of cynical people that like to hate things just for the sake of hating on them. I don't care if the rating is 22%... if I'm enjoying the game... and I am by the way... then I just don't care.

  9. #29
    Legendary! True Anarch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Shadowlag Valley
    Posts
    6,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Mcshiz View Post
    Listen to most videogame podcasts, read reviews, hell just listen to a general consensus of people around and you'll find that alot of people are just done with MMO's in their current capacity. This has nothing to do with the quality of the content they consume and everything to with the fact that some people really just don't want to play wow anymore. Also, reviews for an MMO expansion that has been out for a little over 2 weeks? C'mon internet....
    Reviewers are often asked to write "reviews" several days before the games actually become available to the public. Same happened with MoP and reviewers had been given beta access accounts to write their reviews. When a new game is about to release people want to know if the game will be good in the same week (and preferably before) the game is released.
    "Civilized men and bloody giants."

  10. #30
    I thought the relation of
    metacritic -> useful critical reviews
    was the same relation as
    McDonalds -> tasty and healthy food

    honestly, metacritic is just haters and their sockpuppets

  11. #31
    Legendary! True Anarch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Shadowlag Valley
    Posts
    6,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Mcshiz View Post
    If yall are handing out current scores based on how a company acted and not the actual content your playing you are doing it so unbelievably wrong.
    Sorry no. It's a system of reliability and consistency. Like you say you can't possibly have a comprehensible review of an mmo 2 weeks after it's released, but reviewers often get asked to write their reviews days before the actual release by playing pre-release versions (or beta access versions) that are given to them. Part of the score of games will always depend on the reliability of a company to deliver content, customer service and product updates, but also price.

    And mainly the latter "price" is currently causing reviewers to give WoW lower scores than before. Critics aren't gullible idiots who belief everything companies tell them, they're usually very well aware of how the resource management of a games developer work. Compared to other games WoW is being very greedy and stingy with putting their resources to actual use. A lot of this has to do with the new 'work ethos' that Kotick has forced down the throats of Blizzard though.
    "Civilized men and bloody giants."

  12. #32
    'Factual data' and 'Metacritic' do not go together.

    You want to know why its scored low? Because people who don't even own the game are able to vote.

    People who are so childish they have a crying fit over the concept of Pandaren being in the game, or the fact WoW isn't dead yet. People who are still butthurt over the fact Diablo had a rough launch for a day or two (seriously, get over it crybabies, every launch for every game has issues), people who are butthurt that GW2 didn't kill WoW, and general morons who think its funny to downrate games.

    Here's some 'factual data' for you. Most people I know consider this to be a good expansion, nearly everyone considered it to be better then Cataclysm, and some people even think its the best ever.

    So shut up please. You're entitled to your opinion (which should be based off your own experiences, not what you've been told by others), but you're not entitled to state that MoP is 'the worst expansion ever' based off Metacritic.

    'L.O.L'.

  13. #33
    IGN = give cash for a good review

  14. #34
    Elemental Lord Arbs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Draenor
    Posts
    8,949
    I know of alot of games & movies that got bad reviews, but were actually amazing. I never listen to critics as I know what fun to me, if I wanna know about a game I will just call up someone I know has the game or seen the movie & I just ask them about it instead.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Anarchor View Post
    Reviewers are often asked to write "reviews" several days before the games actually become available to the public. Same happened with MoP and reviewers had been given beta access accounts to write their reviews. When a new game is about to release people want to know if the game will be good in the same week (and preferably before) the game is released.
    I'm well aware, as i'm sure everyone else is, how the reviews process works. You have to put your review out day 1 for the clicks, I get that. Does not make the fact that it's not even remotely enough time to review the product less factual. Reviewing expansions until you have all the content is dumb. Simple as that. Would you judge a season of a t.v show based on 2 episodes?

  16. #36
    You asked every person playing MoP for their opinion? Wow nice!

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Anarchor View Post
    Sorry no. It's a system of reliability and consistency. Like you say you can't possibly have a comprehensible review of an mmo 2 weeks after it's released, but reviewers often get asked to write their reviews days before the actual release by playing pre-release versions (or beta access versions) that are given to them. Part of the score of games will always depend on the reliability of a company to deliver content, customer service and product updates, but also price.

    And mainly the latter "price" is currently causing reviewers to give WoW lower scores than before. Critics aren't gullible idiots who belief everything companies tell them, they're usually very well aware of how the resource management of a games developer work. Compared to other games WoW is being very greedy and stingy with putting their resources to actual use. A lot of this has to do with the new 'work ethos' that Kotick has forced down the throats of Blizzard though.
    Sorry, yes. I'm not reading your review or looking at your score based off of how the last expansion pissed you(the reviewer off). If i wanted to know about the other expansion I'd go look there. I got to your review on MoP to read about the stuff in MoP.

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by thekrik View Post
    It was downvoted by expert critics e.g. IGN, eurogamer etc.
    And they are totally trustworthy these days, aren't they?

    Professional reviewers have a bias. Its called 'ad revenue'. They are paid to give good reviews, and if they don't get paid then they trash the game. Anyone who takes IGN in particular seriously needs to take a long hard look in the mirror.

  19. #39
    Yeah and Ebert gives every movie I like a bad review too.
    "There is good and evil in this world; we must find the black and white in the gray."

  20. #40
    Rate it however you want. Its still a better expac than Cataclysm.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •