Craz, those 2/10s level valid complaints about the game. Those 10/10s level valid compliments. My opinion: both probably have scored it too extremely.
The 2/10s are definitely valid complains about the game. However, it's less a matter of the validity of their argument or complaint and more about using objective measures. I haven't even played the game and I can tell you that there is no objective measure being used on a score of 0/10. Even a 2/10 score shows a level of subjectivity that is difficult to understand other than to say it's malicious. If you're able to explain how, objectively, any of the 0/10 ratings are warranted, I would probably fall over. Reason being, there simple isn't. One of the reviewers has Destiny as a 10/10 and Overwatch as a 0/10, lol. His reasoning was "Meh I give it 0/10.No story mode and that's all I really wanted. I'm not a fan of this multiplayer stuff. Gonna go get my money back and buy a better game. How hard is it to honestly add a storyline." Lol. I'm sorry, but that's the essence of subjectivity. It could be that all user reviews are non-objective, but I see much more subjective thinking when reading through the positive reviews. That's with any game, by the way. Then again, that's just my opinion, so that's very subjective. However, you talk about emotion an awful lot and how it's leading to overly negative or positive reviews, and that's essentially what I'm talking about here.
Solution? Allow people to rate the ratings and ban people from rating games who are not objective with their ratings.
Dunno what you talk about with Diablo 3, I personally never liked the top down view of Diablo games but two real life friends love the game and are still playing actively. Many confuse "in my opinion that game is bad" with "that game is bad", around here...
Definitely when it comes to DMKano's posts on games.
I think people just automatically hate anything that Blizzard makes.
Then why are the best Blizzard games not hated? (DIABLO 1,2 and Star craft 1 come to mind).
Maybe there's more to it?
Already explained but I'll explain it again. D1,D2 and Sc1 were released before it was "cool" to hate on big bad evil companies like Blizzard. Gamers back when those games came out didn't need to seek attention by jumping on hater wagons.
Btw that is your opinion that those games "were blizzards best" I would say over 30 million sales of D3 would mean a fair amount of people liked it.
Nothing is stopping the so called Blizzard haters from doing 0/10 reviews on older Blizzard games.
You can go do a 0/10 review on Diablo 1 right now.
If it werent for high quality of D1 and D2, combined with Massive marketing for D3 it would be a different story.
Massive marketing Blizzard did to push a mediocre game like D3 to sell 30min copies is EXACTLY what I am talking about.
Blizzard doesn't need to make amazing games anymore ,they can settle for good games and wth their sheer marketing power they ensure huge sales.
Thank you or proving my point with D3 sales
Haha thank you for proving my point about some like you needing attention so they jump on the hater wagon of the big bad companies.
How desperate are you to say "marketing pushed 30 MILLION SALES".
Haters like yourself don't bash the old games because dreaming of a make believe world where old games where these amazing unbelievable life changing experiences is part of your gig.
I dunno what all the hype is about this game, hell i even saw advertisement at taco bell ! I tried the beta and its pretty cheesy to be honest not a whole lot of skill involved for a so called e-sport game. yeah it takes a little team work to camp the choke points but thats all it really is.
What I'm seeing on that list are games where the critic scores match my own sense of a fair score a LOT more closely than the user scores.
That's my general perception of Metacritic, by the way. User scores tend to be extremely skewed by the many 0/10s - which, for a decent game that should be something like 7/10 - will affect it more than the skewed 10/10 scores do.
I don't know what happened with those user scores, but I started noticing it back with Dragon Age 2 - which while it was average at best (IMO) - it certainly didn't deserve all those 0/10s.
While I would never, personally, give a game 10/10 - I have a much easier time believing it's genuine for a decent game than a 0/10.
Maybe that's just me, though.
I can understand that argument. In fact, I think it holds merit. The magnitude of the effect is debatable (and, more likely than not, varies substantially between individual titles).
However, even if we include a generous margin of error for those negative user reviews, I can't imagine it's enough to make up for 2 or 3 points difference (assuming, of course, the titles even received enough critical reviews to provide any kind of stability to the average). I wouldn't submit that such an effect is completely beyond the trolls of the internet, though.
Conversely, for professional critics, we would naturally expect to see less perfect or imperfect (0/10) scores given the nature of the profession. Whereas haters give it an emotional 0, and fanboys give it an emotional 10, critics are supposedly giving reviews in order to assist users in buying decisions. Thus, I would expect their opinions to be critical in nature, rather than emotional. Does that seem like sound logic to you?
I'm not even sure where that fits into the overall argument we've been having for pages now, honestly. But at least we seem to be finding some common ground at last.
EDIT- that should read "enough user reviews" instead of "enough critical reviews."
Yes, I would agree that professional reviews should have less in the way of extreme scores on average - and I generally believe the gaming industry has matured enough to make, say, scores below 5/10 relatively rare.
As in, the industry is a business much like Hollywood is a business - and it's really bad business for an investor to finance a game that's not of, at least, average quality. I'm not talking about high art - but about sheer craftsmanship that's been bought and paid for, like Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty. As much as those games hold almost no innovation, there's no denying they're of a certain quality in terms of craftsmanship.
I personally believe the 7-9 corrupt and ultra-biased review scale is a bit of a myth. I mean, of course there's some truth to it - but I believe it's been exaggerated. There are valid reasons for giving "most" big publisher funded titles a somewhat high score, simply because they're of a higher quality in terms of craftmanship.
Now, when it comes to creative and visionary designs, that's another story entirely.
Do note, however, that there are always exceptions and amazingly bad judgement calls - especially from suits.
But I also agree that we have some common ground. Probably a lot, as we seem to enjoy the same kinds of games.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't dream of giving Overwatch 10/10 - and that's not just because it's not my style. I always strive to be objective - as much as that is possible as a subjective human being - and I think it's incredibly derivative and safe. To me, that's just too boring - no matter how well it might be executed or how polished and pretty it is.
But even so, I simply can't assume the average fan of those games are blind or corrupt. I honestly believe it's plausible that a lot of people don't particularly crave innovation or bold visions. Seems to me the majority actually turn away from it, more often than not.
Just look at Hollywood. Look at the movies making the big business and getting the largest audiences. The same old blueprint superhero dreck over and over and over. Even the reviews support their success - and we're talking critics and common movie-goers alike.
I think people just automatically hate anything that Blizzard makes.
Then why are the best Blizzard games not hated? (DIABLO 1,2 and Star craft 1 come to mind).
Maybe there's more to it?
Already explained but I'll explain it again. D1,D2 and Sc1 were released before it was "cool" to hate on big bad evil companies like Blizzard. Gamers back when those games came out didn't need to seek attention by jumping on hater wagons.
Btw that is your opinion that those games "were blizzards best" I would say over 30 million sales of D3 would mean a fair amount of people liked it.
Nothing is stopping the so called Blizzard haters from doing 0/10 reviews on older Blizzard games.
You can go do a 0/10 review on Diablo 1 right now.
If it werent for high quality of D1 and D2, combined with Massive marketing for D3 it would be a different story.
Massive marketing Blizzard did to push a mediocre game like D3 to sell 30min copies is EXACTLY what I am talking about.
Blizzard doesn't need to make amazing games anymore ,they can settle for good games and wth their sheer marketing power they ensure huge sales.
Thank you or proving my point with D3 sales
While not strictly accurate - and I don't necessarily buy into the "Blizzard haters" simplification - you're missing the point.
Blizzard haters aren't hating on "old Blizzard" - they're hating on the post-WoW Blizzard. That's why the strengths of Diablo and Diablo 2 are vastly exaggerated. While both games were fantastic - they were no less FULL of flaws than Diablo 3. Diablo 3 had significant design flaws, especially at release, but it was still a high quality title. Anything but mediocre - in my opinion.
As others have mentioned, it has become cool to hate on the big boys. Anyone with enough success in the industry is instantly perceived as money-grabbers and corrupt incompetent artists.
People pretend that games of the mid-90s were these godlike pieces of high art - and that everything coming out from publishers today is a cash-grab.
While I do think they have a point to a certain extent, there's just no way to be realistic and pretend it's the rule.
Yes, I would agree that professional reviews should have less in the way of extreme scores on average - and I generally believe the gaming industry has matured enough to make, say, scores below 5/10 relatively rare.
As in, the industry is a business much like Hollywood is a business - and it's really bad business for an investor to finance a game that's not of, at least, average quality. I'm not talking about high art - but about sheer craftsmanship that's been bought and paid for, like Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty. As much as those games hold almost no innovation, there's no denying they're of a certain quality in terms of craftsmanship.
I personally believe the 7-9 corrupt and ultra-biased review scale is a bit of a myth. I mean, of course there's some truth to it - but I believe it's been exaggerated. There are valid reasons for giving "most" big publisher funded titles a somewhat high score, simply because they're of a higher quality in terms of craftmanship.
Now, when it comes to creative and visionary designs, that's another story entirely.
Do note, however, that there are always exceptions and amazingly bad judgement calls - especially from suits.
But I also agree that we have some common ground. Probably a lot, as we seem to enjoy the same kinds of games.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't dream of giving Overwatch 10/10 - and that's not just because it's not my style. I always strive to be objective - as much as that is possible as a subjective human being - and I think it's incredibly derivative and safe. To me, that's just too boring - no matter how well it might be executed or how polished and pretty it is.
But even so, I simply can't assume the average fan of those games are blind or corrupt. I honestly believe it's plausible that a lot of people don't particularly crave innovation or bold visions. Seems to me the majority actually turn away from it, more often than not.
Just look at Hollywood. Look at the movies making the big business and getting the largest audiences. The same old blueprint superhero dreck over and over and over. Even the reviews support their success - and we're talking critics and common movie-goers alike.
Are they wrong?
Who am I to claim that. I have no right to do so.
All good points DKLond. The similarities between the movie industry and video game industry are quite astounding (I'd say Hollywood is about half a decade further gone down the rabbit hole than is the video game industry, but that's just my feeling and not really the result of any research on my part).
I, too, crave innovative and bold titles, if for nothing else than that I have been playing video games way too long and have, since I began, gradually lost free time with which to spend on a game. So, with my precious free time, I certainly don't want to spend it on a game that seems, as you said, derivative of a game I've already spent time with. I think maybe that's why I rarely finish a game these days; the few that I have finished have been in genres I never really played in the past (horror/survival, the so-called "walking simulators," and, much to my own chagrin, sports games!). However, I still spend time with good shooters and RPGs; just rarely finish them completely.
I also enjoy the occasional heated debate between myself and someone who shares in my passion for this hobby. As such, a 4 page argument with a stranger who also plays video games is enjoyable for me no matter what the specific topic. Such is my personality.. And also, why I seem to fall for even the most obvious troll attempts on these forums over and over.
What I'm seeing on that list are games where the critic scores match my own sense of a fair score a LOT more closely than the user scores.
That's my general perception of Metacritic, by the way. User scores tend to be extremely skewed by the many 0/10s - which, for a decent game that should be something like 7/10 - will affect it more than the skewed 10/10 scores do.
I don't know what happened with those user scores, but I started noticing it back with Dragon Age 2 - which while it was average at best (IMO) - it certainly didn't deserve all those 0/10s.
While I would never, personally, give a game 10/10 - I have a much easier time believing it's genuine for a decent game than a 0/10.
Maybe that's just me, though.
I can understand that argument. In fact, I think it holds merit. The magnitude of the effect is debatable (and, more likely than not, varies substantially between individual titles).
However, even if we include a generous margin of error for those negative user reviews, I can't imagine it's enough to make up for 2 or 3 points difference (assuming, of course, the titles even received enough critical reviews to provide any kind of stability to the average). I wouldn't submit that such an effect is completely beyond the trolls of the internet, though.
Conversely, for professional critics, we would naturally expect to see less perfect or imperfect (0/10) scores given the nature of the profession. Whereas haters give it an emotional 0, and fanboys give it an emotional 10, critics are supposedly giving reviews in order to assist users in buying decisions. Thus, I would expect their opinions to be critical in nature, rather than emotional. Does that seem like sound logic to you?
I'm not even sure where that fits into the overall argument we've been having for pages now, honestly. But at least we seem to be finding some common ground at last.
EDIT- that should read "enough user reviews" instead of "enough critical reviews."
Yes, I would agree that professional reviews should have less in the way of extreme scores on average - and I generally believe the gaming industry has matured enough to make, say, scores below 5/10 relatively rare.
As in, the industry is a business much like Hollywood is a business - and it's really bad business for an investor to finance a game that's not of, at least, average quality. I'm not talking about high art - but about sheer craftsmanship that's been bought and paid for, like Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty. As much as those games hold almost no innovation, there's no denying they're of a certain quality in terms of craftsmanship.
I personally believe the 7-9 corrupt and ultra-biased review scale is a bit of a myth. I mean, of course there's some truth to it - but I believe it's been exaggerated. There are valid reasons for giving "most" big publisher funded titles a somewhat high score, simply because they're of a higher quality in terms of craftmanship.
Now, when it comes to creative and visionary designs, that's another story entirely.
Do note, however, that there are always exceptions and amazingly bad judgement calls - especially from suits.
But I also agree that we have some common ground. Probably a lot, as we seem to enjoy the same kinds of games.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't dream of giving Overwatch 10/10 - and that's not just because it's not my style. I always strive to be objective - as much as that is possible as a subjective human being - and I think it's incredibly derivative and safe. To me, that's just too boring - no matter how well it might be executed or how polished and pretty it is.
But even so, I simply can't assume the average fan of those games are blind or corrupt. I honestly believe it's plausible that a lot of people don't particularly crave innovation or bold visions. Seems to me the majority actually turn away from it, more often than not.
Just look at Hollywood. Look at the movies making the big business and getting the largest audiences. The same old blueprint superhero dreck over and over and over. Even the reviews support their success - and we're talking critics and common movie-goers alike.
Are they wrong?
Who am I to claim that. I have no right to do so.
All good points DKLond. The similarities between the movie industry and video game industry are quite astounding (I'd say Hollywood is about half a decade further gone down the rabbit hole than is the video game industry, but that's just my feeling and not really the result of any research on my part).
I, too, crave innovative and bold titles, if for nothing else than that I have been playing video games way too long and have, since I began, gradually lost free time with which to spend on a game. So, with my precious free time, I certainly don't want to spend it on a game that seems, as you said, derivative of a game I've already spent time with. I think maybe that's why I rarely finish a game these days; the few that I have finished have been in genres I never really played in the past (horror/survival, the so-called "walking simulators," and l, much to my own chagrin, sports games
Well, talk about common ground.
Your last paragraph might as well be a description of myself
Oh good! I was seriously starting to believe, due to my interactions with my personal friends and their gaming habits, that something was absolutely wrong with me and the way I play video games these days! Haha, they're always super excited about the new call of duty or battlefield... And I'm just like, "eh." Even knowing they'll be solid and fun games.
Oh good! I was seriously starting to believe, due to my interactions with my personal friends and their gaming habits, that something was absolutely wrong with me and the way I play video games these days! Haha, they're always super excited about the new call of duty or battlefield... And I'm just like, "eh." Even knowing they'll be solid and fun games.
Hehe, I'm afraid there's a pretty good chance there's something wrong with the both of us.
If not, the only alternative is that there's something seriously wrong with the rest of the world
I think people just automatically hate anything that Blizzard makes.
Then why are the best Blizzard games not hated? (DIABLO 1,2 and Star craft 1 come to mind).
Maybe there's more to it?
This is your only defence when people calls you D3 , Overwatch , Blizzard bashers. You immediately name the same 3 games in your defence because somehow , you like them too or they have an oustanding score on metacritic, hence you keep throwing them to us because they are excellent from "critics" point of view and it makes you look a ... non-hater.
But, at the same time, thanks for saying that you hate other Blizzard games "Then why are the best Blizzard games not hated?" With this statement , you throw yourself in the hate train. Is *OK* to hate or bash, but stop saying you are not.
Yet, you didn't answer my question : How much "critic score" it has your beloved Archeage on metacritic.com ?!
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy? Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
This game is really fun, but it does have some problems.
My primary problem right now is that I'm playing as a filthy casual, but there's no separate solo queue. I would say that one out of three battles is against a fully pre-made team that's been playing several games together for years and the fights aren't even close. I was in a losing escort match last night where the payload never stopped once, they just walked it straight to the end.
Next match, same thing and I'm thinking "Why didn't it reshuffle the teams." By the third match I was like, are you serious? They're letting pre-made teams fight us filthy casuals like this? There's no math in the matchmaker that puts grouped teams against grouped teams? I dropped that match and no shit, the next three gruops I get dropped into are the same deal. It was a two hour, depressing losing streak.
I think people just automatically hate anything that Blizzard makes.
Then why are the best Blizzard games not hated? (DIABLO 1,2 and Star craft 1 come to mind).
Maybe there's more to it?
This is your only defence when people calls you D3 , Overwatch , Blizzard bashers. You immediately name the same 3 games in your defence because somehow , you like them too or they have an oustanding score on metacritic, hence you keep throwing them to us because they are excellent from "critics" point of view and it makes you look a ... non-hater.
But, at the same time, thanks for saying that you hate other Blizzard games "Then why are the best Blizzard games not hated?" With this statement , you throw yourself in the hate train. Is *OK* to hate or bash, but stop saying you are not.
Yet, you didn't answer my question : How much "critic score" it has your beloved Archeage on metacritic.com ?!
There is still player hate, it's just not to the same extent. Go take a look at the reviews for the original Diablo. There are still 0/10 scores going back to 2008 which are just as irrelevant as some today. The only difference is that the amount of hate today has increased by a factor of 5-10 times what it used to be. It would be interesting to map this somehow. I'll bet you could actually see the degradation and relevance of the Internet degrade over time.
.... According to early reviews. The game currently sits at a 98% average on Metacritic. That's substantially better than Baldur's Gate (1, 2 and Shadows of Amn), Planescape: Torment, Half-Life, Half-life 2, Diablo, The Witcher 3, The Last of Us and the original Unreal Tournament.
4 out of the 5 reviews listed on Metacritic (as of this post) gave the game a perfect score. It's absolutely a perfect video game, it seems. There's not a thing that anyone could do to make a better arena shooter; at least, according to Game Informer, The Escapist, and Destructoid.
Now, this thread isn't a rant to say the game is complete shite. I enjoyed my time with it. I think the game deserves a solid 7 or 8 out of ten. But 4 perfect scores is laughable. The game does nothing truly memorable. It's an online-only arena shooter with personality-lite characters.
Again, I feel the game deserves universally positive reviews, but the perfect scores being given are ridiculous. I know it's Blizzard, Game Informer, but at least try to look at the game without such an obvious fanboy bias.
Some of you may counter my rant by pointing out these reviews are very early and, thus, should be taken with a grain of salt anyways. However, that only adds to my point. These reviewers simply looked at the name behind the title, checked to see if there were any major bugs, and then slapped a perfect score on it as if the title put an obscure genre on the mainstream map and created hundreds of thousands of new gamers, attracted by its magnificence (the irony is, World of Warcraft actually did this, and Overwatch already has twice the number of perfect scores that World of Warcraft ever received).
I had never believed reviewers truly held such undue bias for Blizzard, even throughout the lifetime of WoW and its expansions. But this..... This has made me a believer. Blizzard's made nothing but solid games since the release of WoW.... But merely solid. Nothing truly extraordinary. I wasn't aware that solid now equates to perfection in this industry. I am disappoint.
/endrant
Arena Shooter vs MMORPGS, RPGS. You speak like a Hired fanboi.
But let me finish your Title....
Overwatch is the only Game you'll ever need to never install if you don't like Arena Shooters!
See? I fixed it for you. How much are they paying you to type YOUR Single Personal Opinion?
This game is really fun, but it does have some problems.
My primary problem right now is that I'm playing as a filthy casual, but there's no separate solo queue. I would say that one out of three battles is against a fully pre-made team that's been playing several games together for years and the fights aren't even close. I was in a losing escort match last night where the payload never stopped once, they just walked it straight to the end.
Next match, same thing and I'm thinking "Why didn't it reshuffle the teams." By the third match I was like, are you serious? They're letting pre-made teams fight us filthy casuals like this? There's no math in the matchmaker that puts grouped teams against grouped teams? I dropped that match and no shit, the next three gruops I get dropped into are the same deal. It was a two hour, depressing losing streak.
That's been a problem they've had since they released HOTS. The matchmaker was atrocious there, but they have made strides in improving it. I don't know the specifics of the Overwatch matchmaker, but I think they'll eventually do the same with Overwatch as they did with HOTS. One might wonder why they didn't anticipate this sort of thing, though.
Have to agree on the matchmaking. I fear Blizzard is going to try and use the, hey there are not power ups or levels in the game, it is all skill based to justify a lack of a discernable matchmaking system. In the days since beta and now into launch I am running into more and more players, that while good for them, are ridiculously good at this game. I will not call cheat I will just say hey, they play a hell of a lot and are just way out of the league of the general populace.
My issue is that, like taking all football players from high school to the pro NFL and putting them on the same field and not expecting those that clearly dominate not to discourage or anger the less experienced players. There is a reason there are tiers and a reason people of like skill set and experience should be placed together and not tossed into some visceral blood pit. Roflstomping is only fun for those doing it. It causes many others to simply walk away and never return.
But that could be Blizzards intention from the beginning. When you blanket the planet with more enough advertising revenue to single handedly bail out the US deficit you will catch enough buyers that even if 60% of then never return you have still made a huge profit. I honestly think that has been Blizzard's philosophy for a while now. Like fishing, pit one expert, perfect fisherman against a fleet of trolling vessels and they will lose every time. In the end the quality and design is a small part when faced with millions if hype. They are looking at global coverage and not worrying I don't believe if their design decisions don't site well with even a large number of players.
So far I see it as a much better Unreal Tournament with Planet Side 2 kind of leveling. I like the maps for a UT/Quake feel and the Leveling and earning "loot" is nice. The game is well thought out for a FPS twitch game but I don't see it being anything resembling mmorpg. Well I guess that's why they call it mmofps . I Love the game for what it is. If you want FTP game kind of similar to overwatch (haven't played this for a while) try Microvolts (similar is the key word), its not the same but its fun and FTP with some pretty cool maps too. Like I said I'm not disappointed other then too small of maps and another FPS with no storyline. I will probably stick with Planet Side 2.
This post is intentionally written as to not make any sense what so ever. Thank You Very Much.
It's a fun shooter that is well polished. End of story.
Those screaming about "innovation isn't there" blah blah blah don't get it. Some things aren't broke. Some things don't need to be changed for the sake of change.
I'm glad there's no progression other than cosmetic , glad it's a freaking team based shooter that's simple and well, fun.
The head in the sand haters want to keep moving the goal post for success , and it'll be more delicious in a year when it's still not F2P , still topping Twitch view charts , with millions playing a game , that's just , well , fun.
I agree, Sure it's a great game. It certainly doesn't deserve the insane praise it's getting though. These are glaringly obvious paid reviews. Especially when you compare the critic score to the user score. Now I know nobody should take metacritic too seriously, But there's something fishy about this one...
Monster Hunter since '04! Currently playing: MHW & MHGU
Comments
Solution? Allow people to rate the ratings and ban people from rating games who are not objective with their ratings.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Definitely when it comes to DMKano's posts on games.
How desperate are you to say "marketing pushed 30 MILLION SALES".
Haters like yourself don't bash the old games because dreaming of a make believe world where old games where these amazing unbelievable life changing experiences is part of your gig.
A fun demonstration for you...I hope you enjoy it
D2 Reviews:
88.58%[35] (PC)
83.00%[36] (Mac)
D3 reviews:
(XONE) 89%[89]
(PC) 88%[90]
(X360) 87%[91]
(PS3) 86%[92]
(PC) 88/100[94]
(X360) 87/100[95]
(XONE) 86/100[96]
(PS3) 86/100[97]
Sorry what were you saying about d2 being way better than d3?
You point to the games Pre-WoW....the anti Blizzard fandom started after WoW
As in, the industry is a business much like Hollywood is a business - and it's really bad business for an investor to finance a game that's not of, at least, average quality. I'm not talking about high art - but about sheer craftsmanship that's been bought and paid for, like Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty. As much as those games hold almost no innovation, there's no denying they're of a certain quality in terms of craftsmanship.
I personally believe the 7-9 corrupt and ultra-biased review scale is a bit of a myth. I mean, of course there's some truth to it - but I believe it's been exaggerated. There are valid reasons for giving "most" big publisher funded titles a somewhat high score, simply because they're of a higher quality in terms of craftmanship.
Now, when it comes to creative and visionary designs, that's another story entirely.
Do note, however, that there are always exceptions and amazingly bad judgement calls - especially from suits.
But I also agree that we have some common ground. Probably a lot, as we seem to enjoy the same kinds of games.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't dream of giving Overwatch 10/10 - and that's not just because it's not my style. I always strive to be objective - as much as that is possible as a subjective human being - and I think it's incredibly derivative and safe. To me, that's just too boring - no matter how well it might be executed or how polished and pretty it is.
But even so, I simply can't assume the average fan of those games are blind or corrupt. I honestly believe it's plausible that a lot of people don't particularly crave innovation or bold visions. Seems to me the majority actually turn away from it, more often than not.
Just look at Hollywood. Look at the movies making the big business and getting the largest audiences. The same old blueprint superhero dreck over and over and over. Even the reviews support their success - and we're talking critics and common movie-goers alike.
Are they wrong?
Who am I to claim that. I have no right to do so.
Blizzard haters aren't hating on "old Blizzard" - they're hating on the post-WoW Blizzard. That's why the strengths of Diablo and Diablo 2 are vastly exaggerated. While both games were fantastic - they were no less FULL of flaws than Diablo 3. Diablo 3 had significant design flaws, especially at release, but it was still a high quality title. Anything but mediocre - in my opinion.
As others have mentioned, it has become cool to hate on the big boys. Anyone with enough success in the industry is instantly perceived as money-grabbers and corrupt incompetent artists.
People pretend that games of the mid-90s were these godlike pieces of high art - and that everything coming out from publishers today is a cash-grab.
While I do think they have a point to a certain extent, there's just no way to be realistic and pretend it's the rule.
I, too, crave innovative and bold titles, if for nothing else than that I have been playing video games way too long and have, since I began, gradually lost free time with which to spend on a game. So, with my precious free time, I certainly don't want to spend it on a game that seems, as you said, derivative of a game I've already spent time with. I think maybe that's why I rarely finish a game these days; the few that I have finished have been in genres I never really played in the past (horror/survival, the so-called "walking simulators," and, much to my own chagrin, sports games!). However, I still spend time with good shooters and RPGs; just rarely finish them completely.
I also enjoy the occasional heated debate between myself and someone who shares in my passion for this hobby. As such, a 4 page argument with a stranger who also plays video games is enjoyable for me no matter what the specific topic. Such is my personality.. And also, why I seem to fall for even the most obvious troll attempts on these forums over and over.
Your last paragraph might as well be a description of myself
If not, the only alternative is that there's something seriously wrong with the rest of the world
But, at the same time, thanks for saying that you hate other Blizzard games "Then why are the best Blizzard games not hated?" With this statement , you throw yourself in the hate train. Is *OK* to hate or bash, but stop saying you are not.
Yet, you didn't answer my question : How much "critic score" it has your beloved Archeage on metacritic.com ?!
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
My primary problem right now is that I'm playing as a filthy casual, but there's no separate solo queue. I would say that one out of three battles is against a fully pre-made team that's been playing several games together for years and the fights aren't even close. I was in a losing escort match last night where the payload never stopped once, they just walked it straight to the end.
Next match, same thing and I'm thinking "Why didn't it reshuffle the teams." By the third match I was like, are you serious? They're letting pre-made teams fight us filthy casuals like this? There's no math in the matchmaker that puts grouped teams against grouped teams? I dropped that match and no shit, the next three gruops I get dropped into are the same deal. It was a two hour, depressing losing streak.
There is still player hate, it's just not to the same extent. Go take a look at the reviews for the original Diablo. There are still 0/10 scores going back to 2008 which are just as irrelevant as some today. The only difference is that the amount of hate today has increased by a factor of 5-10 times what it used to be. It would be interesting to map this somehow. I'll bet you could actually see the degradation and relevance of the Internet degrade over time.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
But let me finish your Title....
Overwatch is the only Game you'll ever need to never install if you don't like Arena Shooters!
See? I fixed it for you. How much are they paying you to type YOUR Single Personal Opinion?
/endrant
/lol
/walks away laughing
"My Fantasy is having two men at once...
One Cooking and One Cleaning!"
---------------------------
"A good man can make you feel sexy,
strong and able to take on the whole world...
oh sorry...that's wine...wine does that..."
Have to agree on the matchmaking. I fear Blizzard is going to try and use the, hey there are not power ups or levels in the game, it is all skill based to justify a lack of a discernable matchmaking system. In the days since beta and now into launch I am running into more and more players, that while good for them, are ridiculously good at this game. I will not call cheat I will just say hey, they play a hell of a lot and are just way out of the league of the general populace.
My issue is that, like taking all football players from high school to the pro NFL and putting them on the same field and not expecting those that clearly dominate not to discourage or anger the less experienced players. There is a reason there are tiers and a reason people of like skill set and experience should be placed together and not tossed into some visceral blood pit. Roflstomping is only fun for those doing it. It causes many others to simply walk away and never return.
But that could be Blizzards intention from the beginning. When you blanket the planet with more enough advertising revenue to single handedly bail out the US deficit you will catch enough buyers that even if 60% of then never return you have still made a huge profit. I honestly think that has been Blizzard's philosophy for a while now. Like fishing, pit one expert, perfect fisherman against a fleet of trolling vessels and they will lose every time. In the end the quality and design is a small part when faced with millions if hype. They are looking at global coverage and not worrying I don't believe if their design decisions don't site well with even a large number of players.
So far I see it as a much better Unreal Tournament with Planet Side 2 kind of leveling. I like the maps for a UT/Quake feel and the Leveling and earning "loot" is nice. The game is well thought out for a FPS twitch game but I don't see it being anything resembling mmorpg. Well I guess that's why they call it mmofps
. I Love the game for what it is. If you want FTP game kind of similar to overwatch (haven't played this for a while) try Microvolts (similar is the key word), its not the same but its fun and FTP with some pretty cool maps too. Like I said I'm not disappointed other then too small of maps and another FPS with no storyline. I will probably stick with Planet Side 2.
This post is intentionally written as to not make any sense what so ever. Thank You Very Much.
Those screaming about "innovation isn't there" blah blah blah don't get it. Some things aren't broke. Some things don't need to be changed for the sake of change.
I'm glad there's no progression other than cosmetic , glad it's a freaking team based shooter that's simple and well, fun.
The head in the sand haters want to keep moving the goal post for success , and it'll be more delicious in a year when it's still not F2P , still topping Twitch view charts , with millions playing a game , that's just , well , fun.
It was dull.
Monster Hunter since '04!
Currently playing: MHW & MHGU