A few months ago I posted a thread asking people to predict review scores for MoP:
The results were indisputable, most people predicted MoP would score 90-94%.
Now look at the score on metacritic: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/wo...ts-of-pandaria
It is around 83%. This is the worst score a WoW expansion has ever had, and way below the expectations of what people predicted.
I'm not trying to start a war of words here, I'm pointing out factual data we now have regarding the quality of the expansion.
EDIT1: 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 respected people like IGN, eurogamer and gamespot.
Some points people have raised and my response:
- "It's impossible to judge this expansion until it's near the end, so the reviews don't matter"
- My response: You still have to pay full price for the expansion now, regardless of whether it's patch 5.3 or not, so reviews are valid.
- "Metacritic/IGN/gamespot suck(s), therefore you are wrong."
- My response: The theme of this post is the critics judgement of MoP. Also, if these reviewers had given extremely positive reviews of MoP, then I think a lot of people in this thread would have been defending them rather than attacking them.
- "MoP got 83%, why do you say MoP sucks?"
- My response: I'm not saying MoP sucks, I'm saying critical reception of MoP is far worse than previous expansions.
- "MoP is based on a 8 year old engine, ofc it's gonna be worse!"
- My response: Cataclysm was for a 6 year old game and it got rave reviews, do you really think 2 years should make such a drastic impact?
- "All my friends think MoP is awesome, therefore it is awesome."
- My response: This is anecdotal evidence and as such invalid in the larger context.