Originally posted by Onecrazyguy

Originally posted by colddog04

Originally posted by Onecrazyguy

Originally posted by Mrlogic
Yea,... 93-97ish... any score lower than that would surprise me alot!

ROFL, what MMO has EVER had a score that high? Ever? I mean really, ever??

 

The reality is that many of the "pro" scores are based less on the game and more on the hype, advertising budgets and love for the particular studio.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/world-of-warcraft

 

Edit: Umm... lulz.

Alright fair enough, you found 1, the biggest in the industry ever and never again matched. Do you really think GW2 is another WoW in the works? I doubt it, but not because I think WoW is the best game ever, more because I think a large part of their success was "first mover". I don't think you'll see someone with a new MMO take the market to say 50M monthly subs (same order of magnitude WoW changed the industry by).

No, I personally think it'll get like an 87 like I wrote above and that people that say 93 - 97 are insane. The world has changed and people expect more out of their MMORPGs than they did in 2004. GW2 is still a pretty damn fine game though and will likely receive a pretty good meta-score.

Originally posted by Onecrazyguy

Originally posted by colddog04

Originally posted by Onecrazyguy

Originally posted by Mrlogic
Yea,... 93-97ish... any score lower than that would surprise me alot!

ROFL, what MMO has EVER had a score that high? Ever? I mean really, ever??

 

The reality is that many of the "pro" scores are based less on the game and more on the hype, advertising budgets and love for the particular studio.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/world-of-warcraft

 

Edit: Umm... lulz.

Alright fair enough, you found 1, baerly within the range, the biggest in the industry ever and never again matched. Do you really think GW2 is another WoW in the works? I doubt it, but not because I think WoW is the best game ever, more because I think a large part of their success was "first mover". I don't think you'll see someone with a new MMO take the market to say 50M monthly subs (same order of magnitude WoW changed the industry by).

 Yes :).

You can disagree if you like...time will prove one of us right.

So high it's nickname will be "Nadia."

Originally posted by bcbully
I said 100. What about user scores?

 Start another thread :).

I hope it's in the high 80's, and justified for such a high score.

Hopefully everyone will be able to log in the exact moment it goes live so the user metascore doesn't turn into a 3 from the raging idiots out there.

Originally posted by Creslin321

 

<SCORE REDACTED>

Talking about critic score here, not USER score.

So wait, the score for GW2 is an SCP?

Originally posted by MadDemon64

Originally posted by Creslin321

 

Talking about critic score here, not USER score.

So wait, the score for GW2 is an SCP?

Voted highest option, but to talk about wether or not its reliable:

I dont pay attention to numbers, but sites that aggregate reviews are definetly a way to judge a product. Whatever i buy, be that a physical item or digital item, after i'm convinced i'd like to buy it, i read negative reviews. I read what people hate. And if i understand that i can live with that, or that reviews are wrong/trolling/disgrunted for no reason, i buy it. If i see obvious flaws, i do not.

Metacritic might suck as an aggregated number provider, but it still provides much needed diversity of reviews all in one place. That's awesome and very useful.

Originally posted by IstrebiteI

Voted highest option, but to talk about wether or not its reliable:

I dont pay attention to numbers, but sites that aggregate reviews are definetly a way to judge a product. Whatever i buy, be that a physical item or digital item, after i'm convinced i'd like to buy it, i read negative reviews. I read what people hate. And if i understand that i can live with that, or that reviews are wrong/trolling/disgrunted for no reason, i buy it. If i see obvious flaws, i do not.

Metacritic might suck as an aggregated number provider, but it still provides much needed diversity of reviews all in one place. That's awesome and very useful.

 I agree.

I don't get why so many people hate metacritic...I think it's a very useful resource.  Even if there are some idiotic reviews on there, there are normally a lot of good ones as well.  And at least the critical reviews attempt to justify their opinions, and don't just give 0/10 because "it's a steaming pile of crap."

Originally posted by Creslin321

Talking about critic score here, not USER score.

Worst poll setup ever.

Wait, do people think that Metacritic invents their Critics score out of the blue?

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-secret-world/critic-reviews

39 different critics reviews.

Do MMO companies pay them all? Does Metacritic give preferential "weight" to reviews from the "big dogs" like IGN/PC World etc.?

No and NO.

Critics reviews individually may be questionable, but the average Metacritic displays as "Critics Review" is far, far more reliable than a single review site or any combination of user reviews.

Kind of contridictory to my previous statements, but I didn't see that TSW review was from 39 different Critics.

So what happened with TOR review? 73 critics, 68 of them positive!

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/star-wars-the-old-republic/critic-reviews?num_items=100

Big problem with MMO reviews - they are ALWAYS too early.

I did the same thing with TOR - loved it at first, for the first 4-6 weeks I was hooked. But not worth subscribing too long term. Is ANY review site going to wait 2-3 months to publish their review? NOPE.

Listen, there are a lot of tiny sites out there rewieving games to get attention. They won't get attention by giving GW2 a 90 score.

At least a handful of them will give the game very low score just to stand out from the crowd and get a lot of angry GW2 fans to register on their #"¤#"¤ web page to rage.

To counter this, there will of course be the usual fight over who can praise the saviour the loudest too.

My guess: 81

Originally posted by Creslin321
I think it's funny that some folks chose <70%...I mean, even you absolutely despise the game...we're talking professional game reviews here.  There is NO WAY that GW2 is going to get <70% on metacritic.  I mean, WAR got 86% LOL :).

It's not a contest to pick the metric others will vote for.

ppl still taking metacritics seriously ? lol

every hater can go there and just put a low scores just for the sake of it

once MoP is out i will go give it a 1.0 without playing it, that will do it xd

Originally posted by Sentime

Originally posted by Creslin321
I think it's funny that some folks chose <70%...I mean, even you absolutely despise the game...we're talking professional game reviews here.  There is NO WAY that GW2 is going to get <70% on metacritic.  I mean, WAR got 86% LOL :).

 

It's not a contest to pick the metric others will vote for.

 I'm not saying it is...I'm just saying they are wrong ;).  If they are right, I will delete my MMORPG account.  You can hold me to that.

Originally posted by xr00t3dx

Originally posted by Creslin321

Talking about critic score here, not USER score.

Worst poll setup ever.

 If you want to poll what people think user score will be...then make a thread for it.