I would like to add that both Goblin Works and Paizo are so tied to Ryan's vision that both CEOs have said, "I would rather close the doors than let the game devolve into just another murder sim MMO, even if it would make money" (paraphrased). Lisa Stevens (Paizo) even said that she felt the reputation of the Pathfinder IP was more important than having a successful game that did not match their vision.
At at least both captains are willing to go down with the ship. I'll give them credit for that. But, if they think this won't taint the IP of Pathfinder or Paizo in general, they are out of their minds.
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
I'm really surprised that anyone thought this crowdforging thing would be a good idea. It's going to slowly crush the game into homogenous muck, because they're are forcing themselves to try and please everyone while also forcing themselves to go with the loudest or most common demands.. which are inevitably going to be "this game isn't like this other game. change it so it's like that game."
Additionally, they're committing themselves to a pretty horrendous idea with the sandbox approach. Other games, MMO and otherwise, have tried to sell themselves on this idea of an emergent experience like it's a gameplay feature. No Man's Sky is getting a lot of unwarranted praise because it's a game that has lots of "possibility" but possibility translates out to "sometimes stuff happens that you weren't planning on!" and that's not a feature. That's trying to sell players on stuff you have no control over.
Imagine of WoW tried to sell itself as having emergent narratives because you can run away from one mob and land right in another! Oh no! You didn't heal all the way and you had to fight all of them! How epic and unexpected! Look at the amazing narrative you've forged for your character! Heroically fighting TWO mobs!
They need a distinct and concrete set of features. "Sandbox" is not a feature. Sandboxes aren't even fun without the right toys. No water means you can't make anything solid and all you can make are mounds. No trowel means you have to dig with your hands.
You know what a huge sandbox is? It's a desert. Deserts may have some interesting stuff in them, but it's few and far between and getting to them or sifting them out is a horrendous chore that requires far more time and patience than anyone should have to ask of anyone else.
The thing is, they have had 2 successful KickStarter campaigns. The first was for a tech demo and the second for the game. Where has this money gone if they still need more money that they greedily take it from subs? 1 million in KS money and the game doesn't even show it.
I'm going to have to digest the actual review, but the score pretty much says it all. I do not EVER recall seeing a lower rating.
REALISTIC ratings should be around that area,people simply rate games way too high,likely fanbois just giving games a score of 10/10.
There is no game on this planet that can give itself even a 9/10 and really not even an 8/10.
I don't judge games solely versus another game,in other words one bad game should not determine another game as being great.
I look at what a developer CAN DO for a game even within the context of that game design.If all of their efforts are half assed ,way less than what they could have done,then imo it is a fail grade.If some areas are done with solid effort and some not ,then the score should be around 5/6.
IMO 4.5 is a fair score ,i might even give it less.A perfect example on scoring is i would say FFXIV has the best mmorpg graphics going,i would still only rate them a 7/10.Reason why is there should be more animation,more interaction with those graphics,there can be physics with the models,multi layered textures/shaders ,multiple skeletal's for damage and death animations,destructive surfaces are part of graphics with particle effects and smoke and fire etc etc.How about weather effects like rain and puddles and snow etc etc.
This is not the year 1990,almost anything you can think of developers can do it if they want to do it.There is no bar for spending,simply not having the money is not an excuse the game still warrants a low score if it cannot provide what is possible.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
REALISTIC ratings should be around that area,people simply rate games way too high,likely fanbois just giving games a score of 10/10.
There is no game on this planet that can give itself even a 9/10 and really not even an 8/10.
Yea but this is a problem everywhere. And I would argue that some games are worthy of 8-9 but not really.
Yelp for example, if you read the criteria. 5 Stars on that would be best ever ZOMG etc etc. 4 Stars is still yummy. 3 is good, etc etc but when you look down the reviews, clearly it's not handled the same way.
Sites have been the same way. Because people only really look at games 70+. And the thing that drives me nuts. The bell curve dictates that MOST games should be in the 70 range... and for everyone in college who ever had a professor that graded based on the bell curve... you hate those people who aced the test. (which tended to be me)
The thing with ratings in general are that they vary based on the individual doing the review. While one person playing an MMO can have a totally different experience based on what they like in MMOs. A person that enjoys crafting over questing and raiding will score a quest or raiding MMO lower and a raid player will score the rest lower and etc. This is why sites that review games should have more than one person reviewing an MMO. Each reviewer should enjoy different aspects of MMOs.
Have them all write individual reviews then do a piece where they each write a small section about what they liked and didn't like, then each person writes another small section and react to the other sections written by the other reviewers. This gives the readers a better picture of the game overall.
The thing with ratings in general are that they vary based on the individual doing the review. While one person playing an MMO can have a totally different experience based on what they like in MMOs. A person that enjoys crafting over questing and raiding will score a quest or raiding MMO lower and a raid player will score the rest lower and etc. This is why sites that review games should have more than one person reviewing an MMO. Each reviewer should enjoy different aspects of MMOs.
Have them all write individual reviews then do a piece where they each write a small section about what they liked and didn't like, then each person writes another small section and react to the other sections written by the other reviewers. This gives the readers a better picture of the game overall.
Have in mind that:
1) The first reviewer said that he would likely give it 4.something (or even lower).
2) The second one gave it 4.5 and
3) Third reviewer could give it even lower marks (and I believe many here would agree).
Comments
If I didn't know better I would have said that thread was trolling, but sadly it seems to be quite serious.
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
I would like to add that both Goblin Works and Paizo are so tied to Ryan's vision that both CEOs have said, "I would rather close the doors than let the game devolve into just another murder sim MMO, even if it would make money" (paraphrased). Lisa Stevens (Paizo) even said that she felt the reputation of the Pathfinder IP was more important than having a successful game that did not match their vision.
At at least both captains are willing to go down with the ship. I'll give them credit for that. But, if they think this won't taint the IP of Pathfinder or Paizo in general, they are out of their minds.
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
I'm really surprised that anyone thought this crowdforging thing would be a good idea. It's going to slowly crush the game into homogenous muck, because they're are forcing themselves to try and please everyone while also forcing themselves to go with the loudest or most common demands.. which are inevitably going to be "this game isn't like this other game. change it so it's like that game."
Additionally, they're committing themselves to a pretty horrendous idea with the sandbox approach. Other games, MMO and otherwise, have tried to sell themselves on this idea of an emergent experience like it's a gameplay feature. No Man's Sky is getting a lot of unwarranted praise because it's a game that has lots of "possibility" but possibility translates out to "sometimes stuff happens that you weren't planning on!" and that's not a feature. That's trying to sell players on stuff you have no control over.
Imagine of WoW tried to sell itself as having emergent narratives because you can run away from one mob and land right in another! Oh no! You didn't heal all the way and you had to fight all of them! How epic and unexpected! Look at the amazing narrative you've forged for your character! Heroically fighting TWO mobs!
They need a distinct and concrete set of features. "Sandbox" is not a feature. Sandboxes aren't even fun without the right toys. No water means you can't make anything solid and all you can make are mounds. No trowel means you have to dig with your hands.
You know what a huge sandbox is? It's a desert. Deserts may have some interesting stuff in them, but it's few and far between and getting to them or sifting them out is a horrendous chore that requires far more time and patience than anyone should have to ask of anyone else.
REALISTIC ratings should be around that area,people simply rate games way too high,likely fanbois just giving games a score of 10/10.
There is no game on this planet that can give itself even a 9/10 and really not even an 8/10.
I don't judge games solely versus another game,in other words one bad game should not determine another game as being great.
I look at what a developer CAN DO for a game even within the context of that game design.If all of their efforts are half assed ,way less than what they could have done,then imo it is a fail grade.If some areas are done with solid effort and some not ,then the score should be around 5/6.
IMO 4.5 is a fair score ,i might even give it less.A perfect example on scoring is i would say FFXIV has the best mmorpg graphics going,i would still only rate them a 7/10.Reason why is there should be more animation,more interaction with those graphics,there can be physics with the models,multi layered textures/shaders ,multiple skeletal's for damage and death animations,destructive surfaces are part of graphics with particle effects and smoke and fire etc etc.How about weather effects like rain and puddles and snow etc etc.
This is not the year 1990,almost anything you can think of developers can do it if they want to do it.There is no bar for spending,simply not having the money is not an excuse the game still warrants a low score if it cannot provide what is possible.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Yea but this is a problem everywhere. And I would argue that some games are worthy of 8-9 but not really.
Yelp for example, if you read the criteria. 5 Stars on that would be best ever ZOMG etc etc. 4 Stars is still yummy. 3 is good, etc etc but when you look down the reviews, clearly it's not handled the same way.
Sites have been the same way. Because people only really look at games 70+. And the thing that drives me nuts. The bell curve dictates that MOST games should be in the 70 range... and for everyone in college who ever had a professor that graded based on the bell curve... you hate those people who aced the test. (which tended to be me)
The thing with ratings in general are that they vary based on the individual doing the review. While one person playing an MMO can have a totally different experience based on what they like in MMOs. A person that enjoys crafting over questing and raiding will score a quest or raiding MMO lower and a raid player will score the rest lower and etc. This is why sites that review games should have more than one person reviewing an MMO. Each reviewer should enjoy different aspects of MMOs.
Have them all write individual reviews then do a piece where they each write a small section about what they liked and didn't like, then each person writes another small section and react to the other sections written by the other reviewers. This gives the readers a better picture of the game overall.
Have in mind that:
1) The first reviewer said that he would likely give it 4.something (or even lower).
2) The second one gave it 4.5 and
3) Third reviewer could give it even lower marks (and I believe many here would agree).
The problem is not in the reviewers...