I like how TOR fanboys cannot possibly justify in their mind how anyone might dislike their game enough to post a negative review about it... but a 10/10 is completely justified because TOR is the best game ever ever ever.

I mean sure.. you can like it.. but you can OBVIOUSLY see that it's not perfect... and for some people it's not good at all.

I gave it a 5/10 on Metacritic... and most of the negative reviews make more sense to me than the positive ones 

I'd give SWTOR a 2.
Archaic pricing model for a WoW clone? Even with the Star Wars setting the lack of content doesn't justify so many poor decisions in crafting this game. EA went to its roots of just trying to cash in on a genre done better elsewhere (which has worked for them in the past granted) but they haven't had the leadership in a good decade to make it work.
Hope people enjoy it now. Have fun with the new shiny game, cuz that's what it was built to be. Shiny.
Then in 6 months we'll wait for a real contender in the MMORPG genre to stand up.

This game was not even half designed to be "it".

But hopefully it'll serve some fans some good and make BioWare concentrate more on what they're actually good at.

Originally posted by Teala

It is funny, go read the negative reviews compared to the positive reviews.  Many of the negative reviews talk about the game(some really good ones I might add) while most of the positive reviews are people attacking the negative reviewers while giving the game a 10.  

MWF3...

That is all.

After reading a bit from metacritic, the the game is popular but has a low score then its more then likely a good game.

Reading some of the negative comments, the ones I read have obviously played the game and just don't like it. People are allowed to not like a game and I find user ratings are generally right and reflect the views of the community on the whole. That user score will probably go up to a 7 and I think that is where this game is right now 7/10.

Originally posted by chaod1984

?

EXACTLY HOW I FEEL....why do all these fanboy's keep saying that we should have EXPECTED the game to be a mediocre theme park mirrored after WOW?

Sorry guys, that just doesn't cut it....I've given 2 reviews already so I wont go too far into this, but the game really is not that great.   Bioware should stick with single player RPG's....

"Not that great" is subjective, what's great to you may be horrible to me so on and so forth. Reviews are meant to offer an informative look at a game, it shouldn't be based on preference, as preference is different from person to person. A review should measure how a game stacks up for it's intended audience.

I'll go back to the COD scoring pointed out earlier. IS that 2.1 average based on the games intended audience, or is it based on those who don't like the franchise and prefer BF3? I'm willing to bet it's the latter.

Originally posted by AdamTM

I think all user-scores are absolutely justified, be it 0 scores or 10/10, and absolutely no matter for what reason they were given.

We'll just disagree then. I think 0 and 10 scores occur..but not to the degree we see on metacritic. That's not a review score where all things are considered , evaluated, then thrown in a pot and boiled down to a base score....those are merely numbers arbitrarily assigned by people with an agenda or at the least exteme bias 9emotionally fueled or otherwise). If most of them had the review particular down to support the number then fine..but this is just not the case. It's just a bunch of children saying" my dad can beat up your dad".

Well, to put it in a different perspecive.

Here are critic and user reviews for "Easy Virtue"

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1202807-easy_virtue/

A movie based on a Noel Coward play. Not very enthusiastic right? But I loved it. So much so that I'm going to buy it.

Here are other horrible user/pro reviews for Pandorum:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pandorum/

I loved it and have seen it several times.

However, here is are user reviews for "The fast and the Furious"

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1108372-fast_and_the_furious/

Pros didn't think much of it but the users really liked it.

Boondock Saints?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/boondock_saints/

Pros hated it, users liked it and I was thought it was average at best.

So who am I to believe? I'll just stick with my own opinion.

My biggest response is Who cares? I never ever listen to any critic when I make a decision to buy or not to buy any game. Taste in games is very personal and what some geek in an office somewhere likes in a game could be completely different than what I like in a game. I will read reviews not for the scores or final opinions but rather to see what information I can get on what the game actually is.

Is the game buggy?

Are there players active in the game?

What is the playstyle?

What type of game is it?

etc etc.

Why  I never use meta critic.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/star-wars-the-force-unleashed-

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/star-wars-the-old-republic

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/duke-nukem-forever

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by chaod1984

?

EXACTLY HOW I FEEL....why do all these fanboy's keep saying that we should have EXPECTED the game to be a mediocre theme park mirrored after WOW?

Sorry guys, that just doesn't cut it....I've given 2 reviews already so I wont go too far into this, but the game really is not that great.   Bioware should stick with single player RPG's....

"Not that great" is subjective, what's great to you may be horrible to me so on and so forth. Reviews are meant to offer an informative look at a game, it shouldn't be based on preference, as preference is different from person to person. A review should measure how a game stacks up for it's intended audience.

I'll go back to the COD scoring pointed out earlier. IS that 2.1 average based on the games intended audience, or is it based on those who don't like the franchise and prefer BF3? I'm willing to bet it's the latter.

I would write another review and be as objective as possible, but I already did that and can't put myself up to it again.  The game masks the oh so common theme-park ride with VO and a companion....EVERYTHING else in the game is standard fair that's been recycled since the early 2000's....it's not even 1% different....it's completely copied over...different setting, different story, same game.  In the end, a game is a game because of gameplay....not story....if I want a good story, ill read a 5 dollar book.

Originally posted by sgel

I like how TOR fanboys cannot possibly justify in their mind how anyone might dislike their game enough to post a negative review about it... but a 10/10 is completely justified because TOR is the best game ever ever ever.

I mean sure.. you can like it.. but you can OBVIOUSLY see that it's not perfect... and for some people it's not good at all.

I gave it a 5/10 on Metacritic... and most of the negative reviews make more sense to me than the positive ones 

It's not that we can't "possibly justify" that someone dislikes the game, it's that many of the people who dislike the game:

Not played it at all yet.

Are following the bandwagon of other peoples' reviews.

Have only played one aspect of the game (i.e. the single player storyline on the first planet, and they haven't even gotten their companion, their ship, or tried group play)

Have reviewed the game with an absurd score (numerous 0's).  No game in existence deserves a 0 out of 10.  Every game has at least a little bit of value...  unless it somehow physically kills you.   Then you are allowed to give it a 0.  But then you would be dead...

I commend you for giving it a 5/10, even though by your choice of words you're not a fan of the game.  I'm glad you didn't ravenously give it a 0/10 because it wasn't the messiah of MMO's that you thought it would be.

EDIT: Spelling/Grammar (ironic that I had to edit it again because I spelled grammar wrong)

For me, it depends on the class. I would give the game a solid 7 for the agent class. Its a good story, interesting class to play (especially the sniper) great acting, and a good sidekick. I leveled one up in Beta to around 30. For every other class its probably a 3 or 4. Nothing seemed interesting for the other classes. Just a blah and bland story, the gameplay was pretty much the same for all the light saber classes with some subtle differences. The smuggler could have been as good as the agent if all the dialogue wasn't so corny.  Just nothing held my interest like the agent storyline did. The space combat is horrible, simply dreadful, and I wish I could have more character customization at the beginning. I grouped some during beta and that didn't even feel right. I felt too much like I was playing a single player game. Is it worth it for $30 for 60 days, yeah, but $60 at launch for 30 days to wait in a 2 hour line to get in and then just to kicked out for no reason after 20 minutes is crazy.

All a bunch of butt-hurt sandbox fans and SWG refugees flooding metacritic to give TOR a bad review. You can't really take Metacrific seriously because most of the users who take the time to score a game there are doing so because they have a motive to destroy the game...

You can always tell the real reviews from the blatantly negative ones because real reviews will highlight both the goods and bads and give a fair score. The haters give the game a 0 and no real information as to why other than usually some one-line garbage rant.

Since my post got lost in a sea of rapid thread replies, repeating because it needs to be read: http://games.ign.com/articles/121/1212865p1.html

^ The problem with metacritic user reviews.  

This is like dragon age 2 review scandal but reversed lol

I especially like the reviews that begin:

'I haven't played this game...'

or

'I only played in the beta weekend...'

Originally posted by Kamikazego

Originally posted by sgel

I like how TOR fanboys cannot possibly justify in their mind how anyone might dislike their game enough to post a negative review about it... but a 10/10 is completely justified because TOR is the best game ever ever ever.

I mean sure.. you can like it.. but you can OBVIOUSLY see that it's not perfect... and for some people it's not good at all.

I gave it a 5/10 on Metacritic... and most of the negative reviews make more sense to me than the positive ones 

It's not that we can't "possibly justify" that someone dislikes the game, it's that many of the people who dislike the game:

Not played it at all yet.

Are following the bandwagon of other peoples' reviews.

Have only played one aspect of the game (i.e. the single player storyline on the first planet, and they haven't even gotten their companion, their ship, or tried group play)

Have reviewed the game with an absurd score (numerous 0's).  No game in existence deserves a 0 out of 10.  Every game has at least a little bit of value...  unless it somehow physically kills you.   Then you are allowed to give it a 0.  But then you would be dead...

 

I commend you for giving it a 5/10, even though by your choice of words you're not a fan of the game.  I'm glad you didn't ravenously give it a 0/10 because it wasn't the messiah of MMO's that you thought it would be.

 

EDIT: Spelling/Grammar (ironic that I had to edit it again because I spelled grammar wrong)

E.T. on the Atari 2600 deserves a big fat 0.

:)

Originally posted by chaod1984

Originally posted by Distopia

"Not that great" is subjective, what's great to you may be horrible to me so on and so forth. Reviews are meant to offer an informative look at a game, it shouldn't be based on preference, as preference is different from person to person. A review should measure how a game stacks up for it's intended audience.

I'll go back to the COD scoring pointed out earlier. IS that 2.1 average based on the games intended audience, or is it based on those who don't like the franchise and prefer BF3? I'm willing to bet it's the latter.

I would write another review and be as objective as possible, but I already did that and can't put myself up to it again.  The game masks the oh so common theme-park ride with VO and a companion....EVERYTHING else in the game is standard fair that's been recycled since the early 2000's....it's not even 1% different....it's completely copied over...different setting, different story, same game.  In the end, a game is a game because of gameplay....not story....if I want a good story, ill read a 5 dollar book.

Now this is where preference comes into play. Few theme-park games have been enjoyable to me. The only two thus far I could stomach were AOC and FE. Both of which I have a ton of gripes about overall. What drew me in was a connection to the Story or environment/atmosphere.

TOR on the other hand drew me in on an all around level. Atmosphere, story and game-play. Yes TOR has many of the same features other theme-parks have had, but it's their execution that sets it apart for me.

Your mileage may vary, and that's okay, just realize your "opinion" is not universal.

Originally posted by Snaylor47

Why  I never use meta critic.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/star-wars-the-force-unleashed-

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/star-wars-the-old-republic

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/duke-nukem-forever

To be fair, Force Unleashed 2 was completely phoned in.

Originally posted by 8BitAvatar

Originally posted by Kamikazego

Originally posted by sgel

I like how TOR fanboys cannot possibly justify in their mind how anyone might dislike their game enough to post a negative review about it... but a 10/10 is completely justified because TOR is the best game ever ever ever.

I mean sure.. you can like it.. but you can OBVIOUSLY see that it's not perfect... and for some people it's not good at all.

I gave it a 5/10 on Metacritic... and most of the negative reviews make more sense to me than the positive ones 

It's not that we can't "possibly justify" that someone dislikes the game, it's that many of the people who dislike the game:

Not played it at all yet.

Are following the bandwagon of other peoples' reviews.

Have only played one aspect of the game (i.e. the single player storyline on the first planet, and they haven't even gotten their companion, their ship, or tried group play)

Have reviewed the game with an absurd score (numerous 0's).  No game in existence deserves a 0 out of 10.  Every game has at least a little bit of value...  unless it somehow physically kills you.   Then you are allowed to give it a 0.  But then you would be dead...

 

I commend you for giving it a 5/10, even though by your choice of words you're not a fan of the game.  I'm glad you didn't ravenously give it a 0/10 because it wasn't the messiah of MMO's that you thought it would be.

 

EDIT: Spelling/Grammar (ironic that I had to edit it again because I spelled grammar wrong)

E.T. on the Atari 2600 deserves a big fat 0.

:)

See my proceeding comment about it physically killing you.  If you played it and are now here typing, I am completely convinced that you are a zombie. :P