Originally posted by Volgore In before "review is irrelevant" and "author is a hater".
Hater? Why cause he doesn't think the game is amazing or as awesome as you do? The person who wrote the article sounds like he's played the other Elder Scrolls games and enjoyed them in the past, he just doesn't care for this one and he made some interesting points. And the article didn't say the game was all bad and even that PVP was it's high point and good.. so ya.
Above quoted posting was rather directed torwards the sheep and white knights who will blindly defend this buggy piece of code to no ends and deny every criticism, no matter how rightful it may be.
It's like I've always said - the game is mediocre at best, and ZoS's inexperience is painfully clear. The game isn't completely horrible, but it's not really that great either. But we gamers only have ourselves to blame, when we keep paying for these unfinished, buggy messes that are continued to be released. Just look on the forums here , or any game site. Post after post after post defending and justifying sub par and buggy products. Because of this attitude, people now expect and have settled for a bad and mediocre product and then "hope" the developer fixes it up after release.
PC gamer isn't the only outfit to put out less that glowing reviews though. I thought the Telegraph review summed it up quite well:
The Elder Scrolls Online doesn’t just hem you in with a draw distance, but it hems you in with just the availability of places to explore. Everywhere is an island, and everywhere is small, cramped, and rammed with so many inconsequential activities that nothing feels like an adventure, or even of passing interest. From what I’ve played, it’s mediocrity distilled down into the kind of leave-your-brain-at-the-door MMO that will pass the time without giving you much more than a vague sense of accomplishment that passes like a hangover. You could lose yourself here, if you really needed something to sink your time into, but there are more engaging time sinks out there.
And most of them don’t come with a subscription fee. (X)
It's like I've always said - the game is mediocre at best, and ZoS's inexperience is painfully clear. The game isn't completely horrible, but it's not really that great either. But we gamers only have ourselves to blame, when we keep paying for these unfinished, buggy messes that are continued to be released. Just look on the forums here , or any game site. Post after post after post defending and justifying sub par and buggy products. Because of this attitude, people now expect and have settled for a bad and mediocre product and then "hope" the developer fixes it up after release.
PC gamer isn't the only outfit to put out less that glowing reviews though. I thought the Telegraph review summed it up quite well:
The Elder Scrolls Online doesn’t just hem you in with a draw distance, but it hems you in with just the availability of places to explore. Everywhere is an island, and everywhere is small, cramped, and rammed with so many inconsequential activities that nothing feels like an adventure, or even of passing interest. From what I’ve played, it’s mediocrity distilled down into the kind of leave-your-brain-at-the-door MMO that will pass the time without giving you much more than a vague sense of accomplishment that passes like a hangover. You could lose yourself here, if you really needed something to sink your time into, but there are more engaging time sinks out there.
And most of them don’t come with a subscription fee. (X)
Can someone please point me to the MMO utopia that was in which all games were released perfect and with all the content completed? Cause I sure as hell can't remember this promised land...
But seriously OP. The reason is because it is a game and we have fun playing them, bugs aside. Beauty of the free market: you as the consumer decide what you find acceptable and what you are willing to pay for. Everything else is rubish.
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
I respect PC Gamer and I quite like their magazine. I do not, however, consider their review to be of some greater significance or something. The MMO that I played the most in all my years of gaming got a 72 from them, but that didn't detract from the fun I experienced. I believe the very best review for any given person can only be formulated by, well, themselves.
I do not agree with the review as I think the Elder Scrolls Online is one of the best fantasy MMOs to date. His review is his own opinion and that is it. To really know if you are going to like a game, film or music is to actually play it, read it or watch it. If you let other people do it for you then you are never going to do anything.
Reviews should be impartial and non biased to give an honest break down of the subject in question. Reviews in PC Gamer are never like this.
Also PC Gamer is notorious for building up a game and then in the review to rip it apart. They did the same with the new Thief game. Built it up and then on release basically turned round and said they didn't like it. The only games they seem to really like are ones made by EA.
I will leave you with that one, just think about it before you reply.
I do not agree with the review as I think the Elder Scrolls Online is one of the best fantasy MMOs to date. His review is his own opinion and that is it. To really know if you are going to like a game, film or music is to actually play it, read it or watch it. If you let other people do it for you then you are never going to do anything.
Reviews should be impartial and non biased to give an honest break down of the subject in question. Reviews in PC Gamer are never like this.
Also PC Gamer is notorious for building up a game and then in the review to rip it apart. They did the same with the new Thief game. Built it up and then on release basically turned round and said they didn't like it. The only games they seem to really like are ones made by EA.
I will leave you with that one, just think about it before you reply.
Mmmm feel that fanboi hate, not attacking the review but the reviewer and even going so far as implying they are an EA shill, nice. Maybe with EA they always deliver on what you expect thus the expectations going into the review are already 0 to begin with? Maybe some EA games (Mass Effect 1 and 2 and 95% of 3) are just as good as they are made out to be? Maybe just maybe you need to look at the whole picture.
Also the next person to "suggest" buying and playing a game before taking in some reviews is more likely a shill than someone who may, or may not, have a sympathy for one game series or another, why? Because reviews still tell you when shit is downright broken and unplayable (shall I really reference TB's first impression of quite a few broken no-name games that sneaked onto steam? shall I point out how Angry Joe nailed Rome 2 Total War to the wall for the bugs it had?) and if you overlap enough reviews you can mitigate fanboism, shilling, etc, by taking a medium stance on the game and then you deciding if it is worth the bother.
Funny that you mentioned Total War Rome 2, isn't it? Here is the PC Gamer quote on the game that you (correctly) noted was slammed by objective reviewers for crippling bugs on release:
"Fight past the niggles and you'll find a truly epic grand strategy game with a tremendous sense of spectacle. Go, see, conquer."
Bugs barely merit a mention in the glowing PC gamer review:
Originally posted by CazNeerg Regardless of what score you think ESO deserves, I find it hard to take MMO reviews seriously from a publication that thinks Wildstar is going to be one of the best games of the year. PC Gamer has given the impression over time that it's staff collectively arrived at a negative impression of ESO months before it released. Personally, I think it probably does the best job of being a good RPG of any MMORPG that has ever released. Different strokes.
Don't forget, it was PC Gamer that also said SW:TOR was going to be huge and gave it a 93. I don't even read reviews anymore, half of them are dead wrong as far as I am concerned, and the other half it seems they were either paid for their favorable review or they don't play the genre of games they are reviewing and therefore have NO KNOWLEDGE of the game and only play for a couple of hours before writing.
I do not agree with the review as I think the Elder Scrolls Online is one of the best fantasy MMOs to date. His review is his own opinion and that is it. To really know if you are going to like a game, film or music is to actually play it, read it or watch it. If you let other people do it for you then you are never going to do anything.
Reviews should be impartial and non biased to give an honest break down of the subject in question. Reviews in PC Gamer are never like this.
Also PC Gamer is notorious for building up a game and then in the review to rip it apart. They did the same with the new Thief game. Built it up and then on release basically turned round and said they didn't like it. The only games they seem to really like are ones made by EA.
I will leave you with that one, just think about it before you reply.
Mmmm feel that fanboi hate, not attacking the review but the reviewer and even going so far as implying they are an EA shill, nice. Maybe with EA they always deliver on what you expect thus the expectations going into the review are already 0 to begin with? Maybe some EA games (Mass Effect 1 and 2 and 95% of 3) are just as good as they are made out to be? Maybe just maybe you need to look at the whole picture.
Also the next person to "suggest" buying and playing a game before taking in some reviews is more likely a shill than someone who may, or may not, have a sympathy for one game series or another, why? Because reviews still tell you when shit is downright broken and unplayable (shall I really reference TB's first impression of quite a few broken no-name games that sneaked onto steam? shall I point out how Angry Joe nailed Rome 2 Total War to the wall for the bugs it had?) and if you overlap enough reviews you can mitigate fanboism, shilling, etc, by taking a medium stance on the game and then you deciding if it is worth the bother.
+1 right there, this has been my approach to reviews and of course threads on this very site that I have used to make my decision to buy or not to buy TESO. And so far given what i have seen posted on these boards, removing as much of the subjectivity as I can or if I keep the subjectivity in my factorings, I at least make sure it's been presented based on something substantial.
And so far, based on the objective information as well as (IMO) well formed subjective information weighing the good and the bad here, I have decided to continue to wait on the purchase of this game. And I have seen nothing to indicate that I made a bad decision thus far.
And BTW, A 68 on a review is not exactly "hate". It's just not glowing. So when I read a 68, even if I were to sspect it's a bit lower than it should be, It still holds more weight with me than the formal review coming from MMORPG.COM. Just like I don't hate the game. I still actually want to play it. Just not in the state it's in and for the price that's being charged.
We need a Netflix style algorithm for games. Get enough actual users to rate things, and rate a large number yourself, and it's recommendations for you would almost never be wrong. Then we could do away with "professional" reviews entirely.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Funny that you mentioned Total War Rome 2, isn't it? Here is the PC Gamer quote on the game that you (correctly) noted was slammed by objective reviewers for crippling bugs on release:
"Fight past the niggles and you'll find a truly epic grand strategy game with a tremendous sense of spectacle. Go, see, conquer."
Bugs barely merit a mention in the glowing PC gamer review:
Why would you need to? IMO people put far too much thought into the subject of reviews, good or bad.
I always get a kick out of the gameinformer mail-in section, simply because it's filled with people raging about this scoring too high, that scoring too low. I love the general response the mag usually gives, "make up your own mind people, sheesh"
Using reviews for a general idea of what a game offers and doesn't? Good idea...Using any review as the gospel to judge by? bad idea..
"they didn't mention the bugs" I've played plenty of games that were good enough to not give two shits about issues here and there.. Skyrim and morrowind come to mind, pre-cu SWG comes to mind, the witcher 1 comes to mind, etc... Total war: Rome 2 to extent as well, the game was very deep IMO, the AI on the other hand...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
To be honest, I think it's kind of silly to rate an MMO this way at all. Unlike most single player games, MMO's change dramatically over time, and that includes basic systems like combat and even graphics. Most people have probably found themselves rating an MMO higher than they might have when it was released once they actually play it, but they'll never know that. PCGamer is just getting hits and sharing an opinion, that's all. Anyone who looks at a rating, much less on ONE SITE, and says "TOLD YA THE GAME WAS CRAP" is pretty one dimensional in their thinking.
What about other magazines? Or just regular people? Or maybe yourself? I've seen people agree with ratings when they never even played the game (and this goes for high ratings as well).
I couldn't disagree more with the PCGamer "reviewer" kid more. He can have his opinion of course, but the review was just terrible itself. Double fail in my eyes.
Originally posted by grimal Although I do like and read PCGamer, their MMO reviews tend to be way off. I'd really trust them for single player games and not MMOs.
You are aware that PCGamer are heavily in to MMO's right, and that they have guilds etc, in most games, from WoW, to Eve to even Planetside 2.
If your trying to intimate they don't do MMO's then you could not be more wrong, they even have a Minecraft server, their also heavily into Dayz, and since PCGaming these days increasingly is MMO's they tend to cover them pretty well
Originally posted by grimal Although I do like and read PCGamer, their MMO reviews tend to be way off. I'd really trust them for single player games and not MMOs.
You are aware that PCGamer are heavily in to MMO's right, and that they have guilds etc, in most games, from WoW, to Eve to even Planetside 2.
If your trying to intimate they don't do MMO's then you could not be more wrong, they even have a Minecraft server, their also heavily into Dayz, and since PCGaming these days increasingly is MMO's they tend to cover them pretty well
I am aware they cover them but i tend not to agree with most of their MMO reviews. Remember, this is the same magazine that ranked SWG "coaster of the year" as in the installation cd was only good for a drink coaster. They also gave Ultimate Online around a 40% score or so during its time. I can't remember the exact number but it was abysmal.
The game is average and that is fine but the real question is does it have potential to be great or is this a one and done deal where you play for 3 months and never go back.
Originally posted by grimal Although I do like and read PCGamer, their MMO reviews tend to be way off. I'd really trust them for single player games and not MMOs.
You are aware that PCGamer are heavily in to MMO's right, and that they have guilds etc, in most games, from WoW, to Eve to even Planetside 2.
If your trying to intimate they don't do MMO's then you could not be more wrong, they even have a Minecraft server, their also heavily into Dayz, and since PCGaming these days increasingly is MMO's they tend to cover them pretty well
I am aware they cover them but i tend not to agree with most of their MMO reviews. Remember, this is the same magazine that ranked SWG "coaster of the year" as in the installation cd was only good for a drink coaster. They also gave Ultimate Online around a 40% score or so during its time. I can't remember the exact number but it was abysmal.
if you mean their rating for SWG after the NGE released, then in all honesty, they weren't wrong, i remember at the time they covered the demise of SWG and quite truthfully the impact all the changes that had been made, had on the game itself and especially on the players.
I think it was AOL that first gained the 'claim to fame' that their cd's etc were only useful as drink coasters, and anything that earned that dubious title since had to work very hard to earn that claim.. SOE probably did achieve that level of notoriety with the NGE.
As for UO, it really depended on when it was reviewed, i remember trying the game myself with 2nd edition or 2nd age? discs, and it was, a bit naff. i probably got in far too late, but if it was based on anything like that version, 40 might have been a bit high
Originally posted by ThomasN7 The game is average and that is fine but the real question is does it have potential to be great or is this a one and done deal where you play for 3 months and never go back.
Once i would have said thats it, but after SE made such a comeback with FFXIV;ARR, I wouldn't be so quick to completely write off any game, it really all boils down to how well Zenimax deals with the various issues and whether the PvP becomes popular enough to give the game longevity.
In some ways, the fact that its a P2P game counts against it, as PVP games like Planetside 2 and GW2 are easy to drop in and out of, simply because there is no subscription, anyone dropping in and out of PVP in ESO, is going to have to have a sub.
Originally posted by grimal Although I do like and read PCGamer, their MMO reviews tend to be way off. I'd really trust them for single player games and not MMOs.
You are aware that PCGamer are heavily in to MMO's right, and that they have guilds etc, in most games, from WoW, to Eve to even Planetside 2.
If your trying to intimate they don't do MMO's then you could not be more wrong, they even have a Minecraft server, their also heavily into Dayz, and since PCGaming these days increasingly is MMO's they tend to cover them pretty well
I am aware they cover them but i tend not to agree with most of their MMO reviews. Remember, this is the same magazine that ranked SWG "coaster of the year" as in the installation cd was only good for a drink coaster. They also gave Ultimate Online around a 40% score or so during its time. I can't remember the exact number but it was abysmal.
if you mean their rating for SWG after the NGE released, then in all honesty, they weren't wrong, i remember at the time they covered the demise of SWG and quite truthfully the impact all the changes that had been made, had on the game itself and especially on the players.
I think it was AOL that first gained the 'claim to fame' that their cd's etc were only useful as drink coasters, and anything that earned that dubious title since had to work very hard to earn that claim.. SOE probably did achieve that level of notoriety with the NGE.
As for UO, it really depended on when it was reviewed, i remember trying the game myself with 2nd edition or 2nd age? discs, and it was, a bit naff. i probably got in far too late, but if it was based on anything like that version, 40 might have been a bit high
If I remember correctly, their reviews were given after initial launch like ESO. This was way before NGE.
Originally posted by Volgore In before "review is irrelevant" and "author is a hater".
Looks like this game has more haters than allies then.
What does this tell you ah?
It tells me we have a society of sheeple. It was on the internet by a self proclaimed expert, so it must be true. Too many people these days rely on other people opinions instead of actually forming one for themselves.
Originally posted by Volgore In before "review is irrelevant" and "author is a hater".
Looks like this game has more haters than allies then.
What does this tell you ah?
It tells me we have a society of sheeple. It was on the internet by a self proclaimed expert, so it must be true. Too many people these days rely on other people opinions instead of actually forming one for themselves.
Yeah?
Two logical faults with that:
First is that many of us, or almost anyone that wanted to play a beta, could have, and that is enough to form a "educated" opinion.
And Second, is that when free beta access is no longer available, the only way to "experience" the game is by buying it. Why buy a full priced game, "just to from an opinion", when the game in questions is getting mixed reviews, at best? That is stupid: it pays a developer for doing a bad job.
And you can't trust the reviews from anyone taking an advertising dollar, especially here.
Comments
I wouldnt even give the game 7/10, but rather 6/10. You seem to have missed that posting in this thread, it is on the same page. http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/6286538
Above quoted posting was rather directed torwards the sheep and white knights who will blindly defend this buggy piece of code to no ends and deny every criticism, no matter how rightful it may be.
It's like I've always said - the game is mediocre at best, and ZoS's inexperience is painfully clear. The game isn't completely horrible, but it's not really that great either. But we gamers only have ourselves to blame, when we keep paying for these unfinished, buggy messes that are continued to be released. Just look on the forums here , or any game site. Post after post after post defending and justifying sub par and buggy products. Because of this attitude, people now expect and have settled for a bad and mediocre product and then "hope" the developer fixes it up after release.
PC gamer isn't the only outfit to put out less that glowing reviews though. I thought the Telegraph review summed it up quite well:
The Elder Scrolls Online doesn’t just hem you in with a draw distance, but it hems you in with just the availability of places to explore. Everywhere is an island, and everywhere is small, cramped, and rammed with so many inconsequential activities that nothing feels like an adventure, or even of passing interest. From what I’ve played, it’s mediocrity distilled down into the kind of leave-your-brain-at-the-door MMO that will pass the time without giving you much more than a vague sense of accomplishment that passes like a hangover. You could lose yourself here, if you really needed something to sink your time into, but there are more engaging time sinks out there.
And most of them don’t come with a subscription fee. (X)
Can someone please point me to the MMO utopia that was in which all games were released perfect and with all the content completed? Cause I sure as hell can't remember this promised land...
But seriously OP. The reason is because it is a game and we have fun playing them, bugs aside. Beauty of the free market: you as the consumer decide what you find acceptable and what you are willing to pay for. Everything else is rubish.
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
I do not agree with the review as I think the Elder Scrolls Online is one of the best fantasy MMOs to date. His review is his own opinion and that is it. To really know if you are going to like a game, film or music is to actually play it, read it or watch it. If you let other people do it for you then you are never going to do anything.
Reviews should be impartial and non biased to give an honest break down of the subject in question. Reviews in PC Gamer are never like this.
Also PC Gamer is notorious for building up a game and then in the review to rip it apart. They did the same with the new Thief game. Built it up and then on release basically turned round and said they didn't like it. The only games they seem to really like are ones made by EA.
I will leave you with that one, just think about it before you reply.
Mmmm feel that fanboi hate, not attacking the review but the reviewer and even going so far as implying they are an EA shill, nice. Maybe with EA they always deliver on what you expect thus the expectations going into the review are already 0 to begin with? Maybe some EA games (Mass Effect 1 and 2 and 95% of 3) are just as good as they are made out to be? Maybe just maybe you need to look at the whole picture.
Also the next person to "suggest" buying and playing a game before taking in some reviews is more likely a shill than someone who may, or may not, have a sympathy for one game series or another, why? Because reviews still tell you when shit is downright broken and unplayable (shall I really reference TB's first impression of quite a few broken no-name games that sneaked onto steam? shall I point out how Angry Joe nailed Rome 2 Total War to the wall for the bugs it had?) and if you overlap enough reviews you can mitigate fanboism, shilling, etc, by taking a medium stance on the game and then you deciding if it is worth the bother.
Funny that you mentioned Total War Rome 2, isn't it? Here is the PC Gamer quote on the game that you (correctly) noted was slammed by objective reviewers for crippling bugs on release:
"Fight past the niggles and you'll find a truly epic grand strategy game with a tremendous sense of spectacle. Go, see, conquer."
Bugs barely merit a mention in the glowing PC gamer review:
http://www.pcgamer.com/review/total-war-rome-2-review/
Am I allowed to pay little regard to reviews from this outfit after this? Or should I only pay attention to ones that confirm my prejudices?
How about their Dragon Age 2 review:
http://www.pcgamer.com/review/dragon-age-2-review/
I can do this all day if I need to....
Don't forget, it was PC Gamer that also said SW:TOR was going to be huge and gave it a 93. I don't even read reviews anymore, half of them are dead wrong as far as I am concerned, and the other half it seems they were either paid for their favorable review or they don't play the genre of games they are reviewing and therefore have NO KNOWLEDGE of the game and only play for a couple of hours before writing.
+1 right there, this has been my approach to reviews and of course threads on this very site that I have used to make my decision to buy or not to buy TESO. And so far given what i have seen posted on these boards, removing as much of the subjectivity as I can or if I keep the subjectivity in my factorings, I at least make sure it's been presented based on something substantial.
And so far, based on the objective information as well as (IMO) well formed subjective information weighing the good and the bad here, I have decided to continue to wait on the purchase of this game. And I have seen nothing to indicate that I made a bad decision thus far.
And BTW, A 68 on a review is not exactly "hate". It's just not glowing. So when I read a 68, even if I were to sspect it's a bit lower than it should be, It still holds more weight with me than the formal review coming from MMORPG.COM. Just like I don't hate the game. I still actually want to play it. Just not in the state it's in and for the price that's being charged.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
SWTOR?
Why would you need to? IMO people put far too much thought into the subject of reviews, good or bad.
I always get a kick out of the gameinformer mail-in section, simply because it's filled with people raging about this scoring too high, that scoring too low. I love the general response the mag usually gives, "make up your own mind people, sheesh"
Using reviews for a general idea of what a game offers and doesn't? Good idea...Using any review as the gospel to judge by? bad idea..
"they didn't mention the bugs" I've played plenty of games that were good enough to not give two shits about issues here and there.. Skyrim and morrowind come to mind, pre-cu SWG comes to mind, the witcher 1 comes to mind, etc... Total war: Rome 2 to extent as well, the game was very deep IMO, the AI on the other hand...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
To be honest, I think it's kind of silly to rate an MMO this way at all. Unlike most single player games, MMO's change dramatically over time, and that includes basic systems like combat and even graphics. Most people have probably found themselves rating an MMO higher than they might have when it was released once they actually play it, but they'll never know that. PCGamer is just getting hits and sharing an opinion, that's all. Anyone who looks at a rating, much less on ONE SITE, and says "TOLD YA THE GAME WAS CRAP" is pretty one dimensional in their thinking.
What about other magazines? Or just regular people? Or maybe yourself? I've seen people agree with ratings when they never even played the game (and this goes for high ratings as well).
I couldn't disagree more with the PCGamer "reviewer" kid more. He can have his opinion of course, but the review was just terrible itself. Double fail in my eyes.
You are aware that PCGamer are heavily in to MMO's right, and that they have guilds etc, in most games, from WoW, to Eve to even Planetside 2.
If your trying to intimate they don't do MMO's then you could not be more wrong, they even have a Minecraft server, their also heavily into Dayz, and since PCGaming these days increasingly is MMO's they tend to cover them pretty well
I am aware they cover them but i tend not to agree with most of their MMO reviews. Remember, this is the same magazine that ranked SWG "coaster of the year" as in the installation cd was only good for a drink coaster. They also gave Ultimate Online around a 40% score or so during its time. I can't remember the exact number but it was abysmal.
if you mean their rating for SWG after the NGE released, then in all honesty, they weren't wrong, i remember at the time they covered the demise of SWG and quite truthfully the impact all the changes that had been made, had on the game itself and especially on the players.
I think it was AOL that first gained the 'claim to fame' that their cd's etc were only useful as drink coasters, and anything that earned that dubious title since had to work very hard to earn that claim.. SOE probably did achieve that level of notoriety with the NGE.
As for UO, it really depended on when it was reviewed, i remember trying the game myself with 2nd edition or 2nd age? discs, and it was, a bit naff. i probably got in far too late, but if it was based on anything like that version, 40 might have been a bit high
Once i would have said thats it, but after SE made such a comeback with FFXIV;ARR, I wouldn't be so quick to completely write off any game, it really all boils down to how well Zenimax deals with the various issues and whether the PvP becomes popular enough to give the game longevity.
In some ways, the fact that its a P2P game counts against it, as PVP games like Planetside 2 and GW2 are easy to drop in and out of, simply because there is no subscription, anyone dropping in and out of PVP in ESO, is going to have to have a sub.
Well here's my story, i have played probably every mmo in existence besides a few,
did wow for 7 years,tsw,gw2,atlantica, swtor, eq`,eq2,gw, etc when i say etc i mean
virtually every mmo going upto this day.
You know what and im telling my personal opinion here lets get this straight
there has been some times in eso that have captivated me and given me goosebumps
there is no other game in the last 10 years that even got me excited eso does
something for me!!!! it kinda gives me the buzz on some quests of remembering wow
in its hay day, sure some will agree.
And btw when i mentioned wow i meant from when i was playing it back then.
Which has no comparison to wow apart from my personal feeling and emotions
i have had recently in eso.
I want too say one last thing i was on the fence about buying eso after playing
the betas so many times, i was going in balls deeps and trust me it was worth every penny
of my money im only 35 and played the headstart and just been going at my own pace.
If I remember correctly, their reviews were given after initial launch like ESO. This was way before NGE.
It tells me we have a society of sheeple. It was on the internet by a self proclaimed expert, so it must be true. Too many people these days rely on other people opinions instead of actually forming one for themselves.
Yeah?
Two logical faults with that:
First is that many of us, or almost anyone that wanted to play a beta, could have, and that is enough to form a "educated" opinion.
And Second, is that when free beta access is no longer available, the only way to "experience" the game is by buying it. Why buy a full priced game, "just to from an opinion", when the game in questions is getting mixed reviews, at best? That is stupid: it pays a developer for doing a bad job.
And you can't trust the reviews from anyone taking an advertising dollar, especially here.
So what does that leave?
Player reviews.