Last edited by Destil; 2012-10-14 at 07:01 PM.
My response to the OP is ahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha and have you played mop yet? I'm yet to hear anyone with any credibility rate it poorly, most these posts are made by people who have quit wow so have no credibility!
If you think pandas are like the second coming of Jesus or the new wonder of the world and you love it sooo much then just go play it. Why is this frantic effort to justify MoP receiving lower ratings and selling less ?? The numbers are what they are, your excuses will not change them.
And metacritic was the same metacritic when it was giving previous expansions much higher ratings.
Metascore 93, Player score 7.1
The Burning Crusade:
Metascore 91, Player score 7.1
Wrath of the Lich King:
Metascore 91, Player score 6.7
Metascore 91, Player score 5.1
Mists of Pandaria:
Metascore 83, Player score 4.4
If it was OK then, it is OK now too.
Last edited by bigbadworgen; 2012-10-14 at 07:38 PM.
Metacritic has never been OK and, as people have repeatedly pointed out, the numbers are irrelevant if you're enjoying the expansion.
The verdict is in. Less than 3 weeks after launch. A whopping 21 reviews. Some of them from online organizations I wouldn't trust with a rubber band. With a user score system that has become notorious for abuse by horribly immature idiots. Instead of actually reading the reviews we're going to focus on useless numbers. Because surely these numbers are of a divine nature. I should truly enjoy Forza Motorsport more than Mists of Pandaria because its score is higher. Perhaps I should now struggle between playing The Old Republic again or sticking with something that is far more enjoyable to me. Surely I should overlook the fact that these reviews for each organization are very often done by a different person.
Look, the only thing Metacritic is showing at this point is that the critical reception of Mists of Pandaria's launch has not been as well received by "professional reviewers" as other expansions in the past for various reasons. If to you that automatically means Mists of Pandaria is the worst expansion yet then I will say that you have no capacity to think for yourself and I wish you removed from society because people like you are a hazard. Cataclysm CLEARLY showed us that an expansion is more than just its launch. That its post-launch content can make or break the expansion. I think that if anything you could say at this point "the verdict is in for Cataclysm". For the most part it deserved the reviews it got at launch. After launch... well... those reviews should have been rewritten to reflect its later failures. You won't see those, though. So everyone will look at Cataclysm's average score and believe that's how good it was. Now, with Mists of Pandaria, everyone may look at the current scores and think that's all it will ever be when they could give us so much quality post-launch content that people will argue that the reviews should be rewritten to reflect that this expansion improved over time.
MMO reviews should be treated as nothing more than a general guidepost as to whether or not its launch was good. Especially considering that we're talking about an addition to a game that has, in the past, been consistently rated the top MMO. Even if it could be said that the current score is 100% factual to the idea that Mists of Pandaria is the worst expansion to date does that mean that the entirety of WoW is now also that bad? Was Mists of Pandaria's launch 'in the green'? According to Metacritic it is if you're still focused on scores. Considering that I already love WoW as do millions of other people, that's good enough for us. Don't worry. Once MoP is over I'm sure we'll go back to the super serious, Western focused WoW and you can lay down your 'Kung Fu Panda' pitchforks and instead of complaining about China and monochromatic ursine martial artists you can start complaining about why Blizzard gave much of the Emerald Dream a green coloration when clearly the lore says it should look no different than the natural world.
It's not clear what use Metacritic's numbers are. Does it accurately predict success of a game? No (look at SWTOR, for example). Does it dictate how one should enjoy a game? No.
At best, it might let you spot real stinkers. But in general it's going to be hopelessly compromised.
MoP is already WAY better than cataclysm, which was apparently rated a 90...? Honestly, it should have been more around the 70ish area. MoP is great and I don't honestly care what a website that I've never even heard of before says.
Wait so these are like just random people who play? I mean what verdict? Getting a lil tired of seeing titles of this type. "Verdict in", "It's official", blah blah.. If I wanted to know what others thought of a game we played, wouldn't I just ask them in game? Cause let's face it, these are random reviews from random people who play, each person if different, some will like it, some won't, simple as that.
I don't need others to tell me what I should think about something. That goes for OFFICIAL and non-official, or randoms.
It doesn't matter if others like a game that you play, as long as you like it (assuming you do since playing).. If not, then quit.
"The truth, is limitless in its range. If you drop a 'T' and look at it in reverse, it could hurt."
They have some serious first world problems, then.
I agree that the graphics could be better, but Blizzard chose a particular style and stuck with it. I'm not quitting the game just because the graphics are different than newer games. That's ridiculous.
How the fuck cares about "this" and "that" and what "someone" gave it. The final verdict just is that pandas and asian design etc. are less appealing to western players, end of discussion.
Verdict just in this post is far worse than previous ones lol grow up dude there is no way to rate the xpac til the end of the expac anyone with half a brain knows you actually have to play the content all it means is cata was more hyped and considering the flop of cata ppl are more cautious with MoP and rightly so to say the verdict is in after 3 weeks is utterly absurd and useless.
we're talking about the actual CRITIC Reviews from respected people like IGN, eurogamer and gamespot.
way to riddicule your entire post.
IGN respected ? they give the best reviews to the companies that pay the most.
Its the players that play the game on regular basis you need to listen to. Not some fifa playing nobjockey