The underlying problem runs much deeper in my opinion. It's not so much how Illum is badly implemented, but world pvp being restricted to a dedicated area on a dedicated world in the first place and how normal towns and hubs on all other planets are just meant to be faction restricted pve infrastructure, rather than doubling as world pvp objectives.
No open world overlap between pve and pvp content and no endgame incentives to return to the various worlds make the worlds predictable and stale, especially since open world pve content while leveling is pretty much only found in faction exclusive area's. And the great rewards for repetitive, instanced warzones only make that problem worse.
I guess they went with the Illum concept because it was a way to have open world pvp also on pve servers ...
Nobody is ever demanding perfection. A lot of us can praise things games do, even if we didn't like that game. I personally didn't like Warcraft. Yet they got the interface right, they got the LFG mechanics, and this added a lot of excellent polish as the game developed over the years.
I was simply pointing out that after the glowing initial review, they really are turning into a hard critic. Whatever one thinks of IGN, they do carry a lot of weight in the gaming community. And what they say is 100% right. It's beyond insulting the current pvp system as it exists.
Well, in all fairness you and I both know the person that initially reviewed the game never even got close to being able to see what Ilum was about. I mean we can debate whether that takes away validity from his review, but frankly it isn't surprising the initial review didn't mention or find any of these issues because we all know that dude never even made it close to ever getting there.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Originally posted by brody71 i agree with this. swtor sold 2million copies cause everyone wanted to be apart of the next big thing. which is what swtor was hyped up to be. more people than not that bought the game bought it because of that hype.
Did you know how popular KOTOR was? That was a damn good game, it's part of why SWTOR sold so many. Mass Effect series is pretty popular too and would sell many if Bioware made an MMO version.
The underlying problem runs much deeper in my opinion. It's not so much how Illum is badly implemented, but world pvp being restricted to a dedicated area on a dedicated world in the first place and how normal towns and hubs on all other planets are just meant to be faction restricted pve infrastructure, rather than doubling as world pvp objectives.
No open world overlap between pve and pvp content and no endgame incentives to return to the various worlds make the worlds predictable and stale, especially since open world pve content while leveling is pretty much only found in faction exclusive area's. And the great rewards for repetitive, instanced warzones only make that problem worse.
I guess they went with the Illum concept because it was a way to have open world pvp also on pve servers ...
I agree. If you have PvP and PvE servers, there's little reason to keep factions as reined from each other as they are on most planets. It would be a different story if there were only PvP servers, but people join PvP servers to PvP; let em go at it!
Which completely contradicts their score of "9.0," effectively outing their bipolar avarice.
"Well, this game sucks! We're giving it a 9.0! Thanks for this big sack of money, EA/Bioware! Kiss George Lucas's ass for us too!" - IGN
If you read the article, it doesn't say that the game sucks. It says that Illum sucks. That's 2 very different things.
The same person (and the IGN staff as a whole) has also criticized lack of endgame content, illum, overemphasis on storylines, etc.
Part of this just shows how damn hard MMO's are to "rate." And it is true. Yet my point was simply after being outright worshipful of this game, that obviously is the past. In what is a rarity, IGN is willing to look objectively at something.
For example, they couldn't understand what all the rage was about over DA2 on the PC. They rated it pretty damn high. Yet they took someone who was a console gamer who loved the instant gratification, and told him to rate the game. That wasn't the audience that played DA:O.
Whether DA2 sucked or not was subjective. Yet they didn't seem to understand the complaints of a lot of fans, because they basically were from two different worlds.
Same principle with TOR. They are putting people who are mainly single player afficinados review the game, and review only small parts of it. Of course they will find it better. Yet for the person experienced in the MMO world, who plays a game not to meet a review deadline, but actually plays in the world, they learned that this game was nowhere near a 9.
These articles by the original reviewer show he is awaking to that consciousness.
Which completely contradicts their score of "9.0," effectively outing their bipolar avarice.
"Well, this game sucks! We're giving it a 9.0! Thanks for this big sack of money, EA/Bioware! Kiss George Lucas's ass for us too!" - IGN
If you ask me, the problem lies in trying to review a MMO in a (+/-)month's time. (and no beta doesn't count)
If it is possible to accurately and fully review a MMO in the first few months after release then there's your problem right there, it's not a real "MMORPG".
We really need separate forums for every newly launched game. There can be the anti-<MMO> one and there can be the 'what general discussion should be' one. All the lamenting can happen together where each can find solace in like minded can't-move-on-ers leaving the rest of us to actually move forward and discuss meaningful and relevant topics.
There'll be peace in the Middle East before PVPers find a MMO they're happy with.
I was quite content with the pvp in SWG. I was quite content with the pvp in the original Guild Wars. And while I had issues, I was content enough to play POTBS for 3 years, and it still has the best pvp combat around.
A lot of PvPer's are quite content with EvE (I am one of the few who never has been it seems.)
A PvP'er is actually pretty damn easy to satisfy. Give us a relatively balanced combat system and players to fight, and we will be happy.
You're being far far FAR too complimentary. I originally went to the site because (apparently) they had a lot of good info on DAOC (back when I started in early 2002) Unfortunately, all I did find was outdated articles, and flamewars (pretty much completely uncontrolled - unless you were friends with a mod - then you pretty much had your way) on the boards. It was the biggest cesspool I've ever seen.
Okay, usual disclaimers out of the way. A lot of people have critical things to say about IGN. They live on their knees for the big companies that pay their bills. I get that, and I agree.
Which makes this editorial all the more surprising. Really no way to finesse it. Even IGN, who makes a living off of being a sycophant to big game companies (glowing review for DA2 anyone?), and they can't spin it positively.
It also helps that they are pretty much dead on. Now some people will say "who cares, this isn't a pvp game!"
I say you should care. When an approach to PvP is done so sloppily, their QA standards aren't that high. The same bad decisions could just as well effect the PvE realm of things as well.
Bioware also made a bet: we know this is unbelievably broken, but hopefully people won't hit 50 in masses. By the time they do, we will have a fix. BAD IDEA. In today's youtube age, it only takes a few people to post a video and light up the gaming world with bad mechanics on display. Much as I used to love SWG, I honestly wonder if it could have survived the social media craze was as big now as it was in 2003, back when only a few college kids used facebook, and a tweet was an annoying sound some birds made.
Not to mention, number one rule of any MMO: grind is not an effective gate towards something. People will grind, and they will make mincemeat of your content.
You know what is really strange? There are actually some people that enjoyed that game, crazy I know! I mean, you didn't like it, no one else should! Wait, does that make me a sycophant as well?
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
Okay, usual disclaimers out of the way. A lot of people have critical things to say about IGN. They live on their knees for the big companies that pay their bills. I get that, and I agree.
Which makes this editorial all the more surprising. Really no way to finesse it. Even IGN, who makes a living off of being a sycophant to big game companies (glowing review for DA2 anyone?), and they can't spin it positively.
It also helps that they are pretty much dead on. Now some people will say "who cares, this isn't a pvp game!"
I say you should care. When an approach to PvP is done so sloppily, their QA standards aren't that high. The same bad decisions could just as well effect the PvE realm of things as well.
Bioware also made a bet: we know this is unbelievably broken, but hopefully people won't hit 50 in masses. By the time they do, we will have a fix. BAD IDEA. In today's youtube age, it only takes a few people to post a video and light up the gaming world with bad mechanics on display. Much as I used to love SWG, I honestly wonder if it could have survived the social media craze was as big now as it was in 2003, back when only a few college kids used facebook, and a tweet was an annoying sound some birds made.
Not to mention, number one rule of any MMO: grind is not an effective gate towards something. People will grind, and they will make mincemeat of your content.
This post is idiotic. IGN sucks and if you play an MMO based on ANY review ur a fool. No MMO's have been reviewed based on full games content, meaning leveling,pvp & all endgame.
F***ing 4chan's /v/ is a better rating system than IGN...
MMOs played: WoW, Star Wars Galaxies, Star Wars: The Old Republic, Guild Wars, Planetside, Global Agenda, Star Trek Online, RIFT, Everquest 2, Age of Conan, Warhammer Online, EvE online, APB Best MMO Companies: Trion Worlds, ArenaNet, CCP Worst MMO Companies: Electronic Arts
F***ing 4chan's /v/ is a better rating system than IGN...
Orz
I can't believe I just read that. To each his own I suppose.
My 'own' is that 4ch's /v/ and /b/ (but not limited to) are a bunch of crud layered on the bottom of a septic tank. They acted like Darkfall was the end all be all MMO once upon a time. I could go on but I don't want to derail.
Either way I wouldn't put much stake into /v/'s collective opinion.
It is good for getting info if you can wade through the excessive excrement though.
We really need separate forums for every newly launched game. There can be the anti-<MMO> one and there can be the 'what general discussion should be' one. All the lamenting can happen together where each can find solace in like minded can't-move-on-ers leaving the rest of us to actually move forward and discuss meaningful and relevant topics.
Okay, usual disclaimers out of the way. A lot of people have critical things to say about IGN. They live on their knees for the big companies that pay their bills. I get that, and I agree.
Which makes this editorial all the more surprising. Really no way to finesse it. Even IGN, who makes a living off of being a sycophant to big game companies (glowing review for DA2 anyone?), and they can't spin it positively.
It also helps that they are pretty much dead on. Now some people will say "who cares, this isn't a pvp game!"
I say you should care. When an approach to PvP is done so sloppily, their QA standards aren't that high. The same bad decisions could just as well effect the PvE realm of things as well.
Bioware also made a bet: we know this is unbelievably broken, but hopefully people won't hit 50 in masses. By the time they do, we will have a fix. BAD IDEA. In today's youtube age, it only takes a few people to post a video and light up the gaming world with bad mechanics on display. Much as I used to love SWG, I honestly wonder if it could have survived the social media craze was as big now as it was in 2003, back when only a few college kids used facebook, and a tweet was an annoying sound some birds made.
Not to mention, number one rule of any MMO: grind is not an effective gate towards something. People will grind, and they will make mincemeat of your content.
You know what is really strange? There are actually some people that enjoyed that game, crazy I know! I mean, you didn't like it, no one else should! Wait, does that make me a sycophant as well?
Oh I'm sure there are those who like it. But even Bioware was forced to concede they really underestimated the amount of heat their changes would bring about. I'm not saying "if I don't like it, nobody should." Yet I don't think I'm breaking new ground when I say DA2 was incredibly controversial, and as time has gone on, an already mediocre reception turned into a lot more hostile one. Yet at the time, IGN, being the estbalishment bumper they are, raved about how it was "better" than Origins. In a very limited sense of some console gamers, maybe. but even most console gamers found the same 3 areas re-used a bit offensive.
Okay, usual disclaimers out of the way. A lot of people have critical things to say about IGN. They live on their knees for the big companies that pay their bills. I get that, and I agree.
Which makes this editorial all the more surprising. Really no way to finesse it. Even IGN, who makes a living off of being a sycophant to big game companies (glowing review for DA2 anyone?), and they can't spin it positively.
It also helps that they are pretty much dead on. Now some people will say "who cares, this isn't a pvp game!"
I say you should care. When an approach to PvP is done so sloppily, their QA standards aren't that high. The same bad decisions could just as well effect the PvE realm of things as well.
Bioware also made a bet: we know this is unbelievably broken, but hopefully people won't hit 50 in masses. By the time they do, we will have a fix. BAD IDEA. In today's youtube age, it only takes a few people to post a video and light up the gaming world with bad mechanics on display. Much as I used to love SWG, I honestly wonder if it could have survived the social media craze was as big now as it was in 2003, back when only a few college kids used facebook, and a tweet was an annoying sound some birds made.
Not to mention, number one rule of any MMO: grind is not an effective gate towards something. People will grind, and they will make mincemeat of your content.
You know what is really strange? There are actually some people that enjoyed that game, crazy I know! I mean, you didn't like it, no one else should! Wait, does that make me a sycophant as well?
Oh I'm sure there are those who like it. But even Bioware was forced to concede they really underestimated the amount of heat their changes would bring about. I'm not saying "if I don't like it, nobody should." Yet I don't think I'm breaking new ground when I say DA2 was incredibly controversial, and as time has gone on, an already mediocre reception turned into a lot more hostile one. Yet at the time, IGN, being the estbalishment bumper they are, raved about how it was "better" than Origins. In a very limited sense of some console gamers, maybe. but even most console gamers found the same 3 areas re-used a bit offensive.
I thought the gameplay "was" better than Dragon Age Origins; however, the sequel felt extremely rushed and less polished. The re-used areas were just the most obvious offense.
Okay, usual disclaimers out of the way. A lot of people have critical things to say about IGN. They live on their knees for the big companies that pay their bills. I get that, and I agree.
Which makes this editorial all the more surprising. Really no way to finesse it. Even IGN, who makes a living off of being a sycophant to big game companies (glowing review for DA2 anyone?), and they can't spin it positively.
It also helps that they are pretty much dead on. Now some people will say "who cares, this isn't a pvp game!"
I say you should care. When an approach to PvP is done so sloppily, their QA standards aren't that high. The same bad decisions could just as well effect the PvE realm of things as well.
Bioware also made a bet: we know this is unbelievably broken, but hopefully people won't hit 50 in masses. By the time they do, we will have a fix. BAD IDEA. In today's youtube age, it only takes a few people to post a video and light up the gaming world with bad mechanics on display. Much as I used to love SWG, I honestly wonder if it could have survived the social media craze was as big now as it was in 2003, back when only a few college kids used facebook, and a tweet was an annoying sound some birds made.
Not to mention, number one rule of any MMO: grind is not an effective gate towards something. People will grind, and they will make mincemeat of your content.
This post is idiotic. IGN sucks and if you play an MMO based on ANY review ur a fool. No MMO's have been reviewed based on full games content, meaning leveling,pvp & all endgame.
I'm sorry, was there a point underneath all the nerdrage?
I don't think anyone here said they played a game based off of what a review said, and it seems everyone so far agreed that the way companies review MMO's is a problem.
This review talks about the lvl 50 pvp experience , from the perspective of a single individual. Its hardly representative of the entire game OR the general opinion of IGN regarding the game. Its one guys opinion , concerning only one aspect of the game. Give me a break OP.
Comments
Not less than you gentleman
Like I said, point to me one bad EA review from IGN and I will make your point valid
Or maybe EA only produces masterpieces? lmao
"It has potential"
-Second most used phrase on existence
"It sucks"
-Most used phrase on existence
The underlying problem runs much deeper in my opinion. It's not so much how Illum is badly implemented, but world pvp being restricted to a dedicated area on a dedicated world in the first place and how normal towns and hubs on all other planets are just meant to be faction restricted pve infrastructure, rather than doubling as world pvp objectives.
No open world overlap between pve and pvp content and no endgame incentives to return to the various worlds make the worlds predictable and stale, especially since open world pve content while leveling is pretty much only found in faction exclusive area's. And the great rewards for repetitive, instanced warzones only make that problem worse.
I guess they went with the Illum concept because it was a way to have open world pvp also on pve servers ...
My brand new bloggity blog.
Old review, but it was indeed developed by EA:
http://psx.ign.com/articles/161/161601p1.html
It scored 5.5
.
Edit:
Another one, 6.0 from 2010:
http://ds.ign.com/articles/108/1085154p1.html
Edit2:
6.5 from 2010:
http://wii.ign.com/articles/113/1135750p1.html
You don't even have to go back far, Need For Speed: The Run, Nov 15 2011, IGN gave it a 6.5 http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/121/1212405p1.html
So you agree his point is valid?
Well, in all fairness you and I both know the person that initially reviewed the game never even got close to being able to see what Ilum was about. I mean we can debate whether that takes away validity from his review, but frankly it isn't surprising the initial review didn't mention or find any of these issues because we all know that dude never even made it close to ever getting there.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
If you read the article, it doesn't say that the game sucks. It says that Illum sucks. That's 2 very different things.
I agree. If you have PvP and PvE servers, there's little reason to keep factions as reined from each other as they are on most planets. It would be a different story if there were only PvP servers, but people join PvP servers to PvP; let em go at it!
The same person (and the IGN staff as a whole) has also criticized lack of endgame content, illum, overemphasis on storylines, etc.
Part of this just shows how damn hard MMO's are to "rate." And it is true. Yet my point was simply after being outright worshipful of this game, that obviously is the past. In what is a rarity, IGN is willing to look objectively at something.
For example, they couldn't understand what all the rage was about over DA2 on the PC. They rated it pretty damn high. Yet they took someone who was a console gamer who loved the instant gratification, and told him to rate the game. That wasn't the audience that played DA:O.
Whether DA2 sucked or not was subjective. Yet they didn't seem to understand the complaints of a lot of fans, because they basically were from two different worlds.
Same principle with TOR. They are putting people who are mainly single player afficinados review the game, and review only small parts of it. Of course they will find it better. Yet for the person experienced in the MMO world, who plays a game not to meet a review deadline, but actually plays in the world, they learned that this game was nowhere near a 9.
These articles by the original reviewer show he is awaking to that consciousness.
There'll be peace in the Middle East before PVPers find a MMO they're happy with.
My youtube MMO gaming channel
If you ask me, the problem lies in trying to review a MMO in a (+/-)month's time. (and no beta doesn't count)
If it is possible to accurately and fully review a MMO in the first few months after release then there's your problem right there, it's not a real "MMORPG".
We really need separate forums for every newly launched game. There can be the anti-<MMO> one and there can be the 'what general discussion should be' one. All the lamenting can happen together where each can find solace in like minded can't-move-on-ers leaving the rest of us to actually move forward and discuss meaningful and relevant topics.
I was quite content with the pvp in SWG. I was quite content with the pvp in the original Guild Wars. And while I had issues, I was content enough to play POTBS for 3 years, and it still has the best pvp combat around.
A lot of PvPer's are quite content with EvE (I am one of the few who never has been it seems.)
A PvP'er is actually pretty damn easy to satisfy. Give us a relatively balanced combat system and players to fight, and we will be happy.
From article,
"The rewards are really good – you get a PvP gear back for the daily quests"
Pretty sure that was "bag", and this is just the 2nd paragraph. Continuing to read...
You're being far far FAR too complimentary. I originally went to the site because (apparently) they had a lot of good info on DAOC (back when I started in early 2002) Unfortunately, all I did find was outdated articles, and flamewars (pretty much completely uncontrolled - unless you were friends with a mod - then you pretty much had your way) on the boards. It was the biggest cesspool I've ever seen.
You know what is really strange? There are actually some people that enjoyed that game, crazy I know! I mean, you didn't like it, no one else should! Wait, does that make me a sycophant as well?
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
This post is idiotic. IGN sucks and if you play an MMO based on ANY review ur a fool. No MMO's have been reviewed based on full games content, meaning leveling,pvp & all endgame.
F***ing 4chan's /v/ is a better rating system than IGN...
MMOs played: WoW, Star Wars Galaxies, Star Wars: The Old Republic, Guild Wars, Planetside, Global Agenda, Star Trek Online, RIFT, Everquest 2, Age of Conan, Warhammer Online, EvE online, APB
Best MMO Companies: Trion Worlds, ArenaNet, CCP
Worst MMO Companies: Electronic Arts
Orz
I can't believe I just read that. To each his own I suppose.
My 'own' is that 4ch's /v/ and /b/ (but not limited to) are a bunch of crud layered on the bottom of a septic tank. They acted like Darkfall was the end all be all MMO once upon a time. I could go on but I don't want to derail.
Either way I wouldn't put much stake into /v/'s collective opinion.
It is good for getting info if you can wade through the excessive excrement though.
We really need separate forums for every newly launched game. There can be the anti-<MMO> one and there can be the 'what general discussion should be' one. All the lamenting can happen together where each can find solace in like minded can't-move-on-ers leaving the rest of us to actually move forward and discuss meaningful and relevant topics.
Oh I'm sure there are those who like it. But even Bioware was forced to concede they really underestimated the amount of heat their changes would bring about. I'm not saying "if I don't like it, nobody should." Yet I don't think I'm breaking new ground when I say DA2 was incredibly controversial, and as time has gone on, an already mediocre reception turned into a lot more hostile one. Yet at the time, IGN, being the estbalishment bumper they are, raved about how it was "better" than Origins. In a very limited sense of some console gamers, maybe. but even most console gamers found the same 3 areas re-used a bit offensive.
I thought the gameplay "was" better than Dragon Age Origins; however, the sequel felt extremely rushed and less polished. The re-used areas were just the most obvious offense.
I'm sorry, was there a point underneath all the nerdrage?
I don't think anyone here said they played a game based off of what a review said, and it seems everyone so far agreed that the way companies review MMO's is a problem.
This review talks about the lvl 50 pvp experience , from the perspective of a single individual. Its hardly representative of the entire game OR the general opinion of IGN regarding the game. Its one guys opinion , concerning only one aspect of the game. Give me a break OP.