Verdict finally in: MoP is substantially worse than previous expansions

[Deleted]

first of all the opinion of random forumers for the OP's initial question has zero value since most people are dumb
the OP is dumb for giving credibility to these opinions
as a natural consequence the op will dumbly believe the opinion of (dumb) metacritics are worth more then a penny.
short-story this entire thread is dumb

[Brytryne]

All the reviews are positive. 21 out of 21. IGN and Eurogamer both had very positive things to say about it.

What am I missing here?

They only got 8/10 and 8,7/10 or whatever.
These days, if IGN doesn't give a game 9,4 at least people instantly think it sucks ass.
This is pretty much how they rate it.

1,0 - 7,9 = bad game
8,0 - 8,9 = not that bad but not that great
9,0 - 9,3 = ok game
9,4 - 10,0 = MUST BUY AT ONCE GOTY GOTY GOTY

And all the idiots on the internets believe it and judge games accordingly.

[Deleted]

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.

[Lochton]

I don't like to listen to reviews at all, they are fun to read, but I follow my experience and wallet. And in the end that's what it comes to. And following reviews within the first week of an expansion isn't what a good player should. First week doesn't even let you scratch the content that is planned for the expansion. Already as we speak we even have 5.1 incomming on PTR.

So already there, the reviews are outdated. And "beta" experience of an expansion cannot be accounted for either, as it would be the same thing as looking at a half-painted picture. And did hear rumors that some critics are getting funds from some makers (not sure, just heard rumors), so makes it harder to follow that note.

My advice is, look at the reviews for a little chuckle, but play the game to get a feel of it and it's world. Many things can change, even friends can change how a game feel for one person.

[Repefe]

- "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.

Critics judgement of MoP and any other game really is completelly useless so why do you feel the need to bring it up.

[Eats Compost]

- "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.

Doesn't matter which side of the fence the "professional" reviewers are on, their verdicts will be pretty much worthless. Virtually every major source of game reviews is driven by advertising from the game industry (as well as voluntarily-donated resources from publishers and developers, which can be withdrawn at any time) which ends up making them completely unreliable sources. It's vested interests incarnate.

Just look at Dragon Age 2's reception. IGN gave that monstrosity an 8.5/10, just 0.2 lower than the score it gave Dragon Age: Origins.

[Einchy]

- 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.

For a normal, single player game, you'd be right but this is an MMO. You can't review an x-pac 2 weeks into it, even less so when you barely played it and wrote the review as quickly as possible so you could go on to the next review.

- 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.

Are you blind or do you just like to make things up? IGN gave it a 87, since when is an 87 bad? There are only 2 reviews there that are lower than 80.

- My response: I'm not saying MoP sucks, I'm saying critical reception of MoP is far worse than previous expansions.

No, you're saying this x-pack is worse than others based on those reviews. You can't say that's not what you said, it's in the fucking title of the thread.

- 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?

No one said what you're fake quoting, stop BSing.

- My response: This is anecdotal evidence and as such invalid in the larger context.

And reviews=facts? Either you're trolling or you might be retarded.

[Jawless Jones]

expert critics

seems like an oxymoron to me

[Ragedaug]

Some points people have raised and my response:

My thoughts on your responses.

- "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.

It's not the validity people are questioning, it's the accuracy. If they can play a game from beginning to end before the review, that goes a long way to ensuring a more accurate review. When you are reviewing any recently released MMORPG, you have to base a good portion of your review on speculation.

- "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.

Both the point and counterpoint are based on opinion and feeling, therefore neither are wrong. It's quite obvious that people will defend a review that they agree with and attack a review they disagree with. When a reviewer has a glaringly different reaction then the responder, and you have a responder who likes to be dramatic, it's natural to expect phrases like "they suck". I'm quite sure that well more then 99% of all people who have already formulated their own judgement on MoP will not be swayed by any reviewer, famed critic or otherwise.

- "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.

I would say "far worse" is also a leap. if 8 points is "far" what would you call a 20 point drop? how about a 40 point drop? 60 point drop? I hope you can see my point here, which is to say when you start using aggrandizements early on, you are stuck digging through a thesaurus in attempt to find words that are even stronger due to improper adverbs use. It also makes you look intellectually dishonest. Not trying to hate, just being real here. It's not in your best interest if you are actually going for words like 'factual' and 'truth'.

- "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?

First of all, an 8 point drop is not "drastic" (see point above). Secondly, while Cataclysm was met with better reviews, it never lived up to the hype. The reviews of MoP, believe it or not, are based to a degree on the legacy that Cataclysm left behind. I think most people will say Cataclysm deserved a greater drop than 1% from it's predecessors, which kind of points out the utter silliness to judging an MMORPG based off reviews from a brand new Xpac.

- "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.

Everything you have pointed out and everything on metacritic are anecdotal. So you shot your own point in the foot with that response.

[twinkleblur]

honestly this expansion isnt that bad..maybe if you took idk...a 9-10 month break after beating HDS the game would feel better. im 1 of the people who took a break for other mmo's..they all failed for me. wow feels good and new and has enough 90 content to keep me interested.

[Keile]

Lol...metacritic.

That is one of the most unreliable sources of a game rating you can look at.

[Deleted]

The start of an expansion is always "WOW THIS IS FANTASTIC" because usually people are starved of content and welcome any old crap to allow them to do something with their £9 / $15 subscription. You only know if an expansion is good or not a few patches down the line when you see how many philosophy changes Blizzard developers have made since launch based on how much areas failed.

[Fullgore]

83% is to high it's 75% at best

[Deleted]

Even though I agree that the expansion has a superb visual quality (given the old engine) and not sufficient gameplay value (it's repetitive from day 1), I can't really see how 83/100 is a bad score. Also, 4.4/10 user score, based on 635 reviews seems kind of low. If 10000 people wrote a review it will be far more accurate, but 635 is just a portion of a drop in the sea. Also, the critics have rated Diablo3 at 88/100 which killed a lot of my faith in metacritic.

[Tyrannica]

Its stupid to rate a mmo expansion, on initial release cause it got maybe only 1/3 of the content. Most raids were locked and quite some features will be released via patches. There is nothing to rate here as a lot of stuff will get fixed and added, making the game expierence completely different. For example grindy dailies won't last long when time passes, more raids will be availible and so on.

That said, those critics rate mmos wrong showing me their lack of expierence on this field.

[ComputerNerd]

That is the opinion of critics, just a small portion of people who delight in criticism.
Much like this community.

People who have a gripe are more vocal about something than those who are happy.
Therefore you can't take any online community or view as being representative or accurate.

Every poll on this website has demonstrated that perfectly, in that it will skew numbers because of a lack of reasons for those who are happy to say anything.

YOU have a dislike of the expansion, but instead of providing real evidence you simply hop on the bandwagon and use someone else's "results" instead which have no basis to them.

[Deleted]

Their opinion, YOUR opinion.

[Astray]

"Clearly, worst ______* ever!"

*Expansion
*Patch
*Hotfix

This happens every time single time anything is added or changed. And every time is much worse than before. Wow badness is like a dragonball power level, hyperexponential increase. I only ask myself why you keep playing a game that is 73.626.292.282.029.283.873% worse than something you critisized years ago.

[BreathTaker]

Yeah, MOP sux, and THAT's why i'm standing in a 3.5 k ppl queue right now and every single game.
Thanks you, critics

[Thulvaso]

People are still on this ?

The OP made a thread saying he missed Cataclysm. He has also posted this is one of the best expansions yet makes a thread about how it is the worse. He is screwing with you