---

Originally posted by Angier2758

---

Originally posted by Nitth  

---

Originally posted by sonoggi almost a 9:1 ratio lovers:haters   over 90% score by all but one professional reviewer some of the highest user score in gaming history  leaves other AAA MMO's in the dust when it comes to user score, professional review score, or both. study scores of Cataclysm, TSW, TERA, TOR, whatever. you will notice them all failing in either user review, or critic review categories (i.e. 50%  of reviews are mixed or bad, which is a big failure) most importantly, my gf who has despised PC games all her life is now exploring Tyria with me every day.    i encourage everyone to study the trends before bashing the game as sucky or whatever. you can, but your reasons will be very private and within a tiny minority. i think Metacritic trends speak volumes. 

---

  Last week ppl bashed metacritic for having gw2 in a non favourable light. This week metacritic be praised because it gives gw2 positive spin!

---

[mod edit]

---

Originally posted by Angier2758

Originally posted by Izik

Originally posted by Pivotelite

Originally posted by KingJiggly

Originally posted by Izik

Originally posted by sonoggi

Originally posted by adam_nox

Not sure how she can quest with you when there's no quests.

 

Pretty much every major mmo release has had favorable reviews.  Having the bestest doesn't really mean much.

completely untrue. every major release has failed either the users, or the critics. 

lol where were you abou 10 months ago? SWTOR launched with critical acclaim, rabid fanboyism, and a generally optimistic attitude about the game. It wasn't until people started reaching endgame that people realized all the fun is in the levelling, and has no lasting value outside of pvp.... Kind of like GW2 :/

...Was that neccesary? Not only is that completely untrue, with places like Orr, PvP, WvWvW, map completions, awards, hidden areas, exploring in general, and you dare come up with that baseless statement? Now, seeing that this thread is not on GW2 endgame, I will not argue here about whether Gw2 has an endgame (which it obviously does...) here. Also, is this not a troll post devs? You know, posting things like that with no facts? Mod Edit please?

[mod edit]

He made my argument easy, didn't he?

[mod edit]

The formulation was " It wasn't until people started reaching endgame that people realized all the fun is in the levelling, and has no lasting value outside of pvp.... Kind of like GW2 :/" and there are at least following problems with the reply from KingJiggly:

• KingJiggly names "PvP" and "WvWvW" as things that have a lasting value and implies Izik is wrong, but Izik already said in his post that he considers "PvP" to possibly have a lasting value and by extension also "WvWvW".
• KingJiggly says that Guild Wars 2 has an endgame and implies Izik doesn't acknowledge it, but Izik already said that earlier too.

Originally posted by sonoggi

almost a 9:1 ratio lovers:haters

over 90% score by all but one professional reviewer

some of the highest user score in gaming history 

leaves other AAA MMO's in the dust when it comes to user score, professional review score, or both. study scores of Cataclysm, TSW, TERA, TOR, whatever. you will notice them all failing in either user review, or critic review categories (i.e. 50%  of reviews are mixed or bad, which is a big failure)

most importantly, my gf who has despised PC games all her life is now exploring Tyria with me every day. 

 

i encourage everyone to study the trends before bashing the game as sucky or whatever. you can, but your reasons will be very private and within a tiny minority. i think Metacritic trends speak volumes. 

My own personal rating for GW2 is 8 / 10. The only rating that matters to me is my own.

However, i find it interesting that if game gets low scores Metacritic is unreliable but when a game gets very high score suddenly metacritic becomes credible source. 

Originally posted by QuicklyScott
The same type of people gave SWTOR game of the year...

Ups, someone told the truth. The thing is, you're talking about GW2... the perfect game, the best game ever, the WoW killer, the MMO messiah, so yeah this scores must be true and really prove that the game is the best.

Originally posted by Nitth

 

---

Originally posted by Angier2758

---

---

  Last week ppl bashed metacritic for having gw2 in a non favourable light. This week metacritic be praised because it gives gw2 positive spin!

---

PS - last week it was good too... dunno which chimp told you it wasn't.

---

There is a whole thread about it.

 

The thread I guess you're thinking of was just about those 10% who rated it low.  It was never about the average score, which has actually come down a little.  Was at 8.6 last week.

TOR, OTOH, only got as high as 6.1 and then went back down.  I don't know why people remember otherwise.

If we accept metacritic scores for one game, we'll have to accept metacritic scores for all games.

Not sure how that'll go with some of the posters around here.

Game reviews are 'validation' tools not 'I think this is a good game so you SHOULD buy it'

Think the GiantBomb crew had a discussion panel at PAX 2012 about it.

Originally posted by adam_nox

Originally posted by sonoggi

i encourage everyone to study the trends before bashing the game

lol I just thought about this statement.

so what you want is for people who dislike the game to discard their own opinions because it doesn't mesh with a trend?

You didn't think enough.  That statement is encouraging people to reconsider their opinions before bashing the game. 

GW2 has a great first experience which lasts about 10-20 hours.

Then you simply get bored to the constant faceroll zerging and the ridicilous gem-trade system.

Most of the reviewers don't put enough hours to GW2 to actually realize it's flaws. Pretty much the same reason why SWTOR scored suprisingly high.

GW2 is a casual game and reviewers play games casually. Thus the ratings are bound to be high, even if the game has a lot of flaws.

Originally posted by GoldenArrow

GW2 has a great first experience which lasts about 10-20 hours.

Then you simply get bored to the constant faceroll zerging and the ridicilous gem-trade system.

Most of the reviewers don't put enough hours to GW2 to actually realize it's flaws. Pretty much the same reason why SWTOR scored suprisingly high.

 

GW2 is a casual game and reviewers play games casually. Thus the ratings are bound to be high, even if the game has a lot of flaws.

I tend to agree. Majority of ratings started coming in after a day or two game play. Even two weeks isn't enough to rate GW2 given the scope and amount of content it has to offer.

However i rated GW2 8 because i already played GW2 for a month in beta.

Originally posted by Draemos

MMOs are long term games.  Any review of an MMO presented within the first month of release are next to useless for anything outside of simple impressions about graphics,  sound, etc.

 

I have absolutely zero respect for an MMO view that doesn't look at (and have experience with) long term viability, whether that review is positive or negative.  Reviewers who review them under the same criteria as single player games are just wasting my time.

With GW2, MMO are not  long term games anymore. I have more than 100h of game in GW2 and I still enjoy it. I don't know the end game yet. If I stopped for some reason to play GW2 right now, I would had much more value from my 55€ than most of the other games I've played. So what's the point of the "endgame" in a review, in the experience you have from a game ?

The fact is that GW2 gives you immediate fun starting from L1, this is new in the MMO world and you should rethink your way of scoring a game. Many people will have to rethink MMO.

Originally posted by sonoggi

almost a 9:1 ratio lovers:haters

over 90% score by all but one professional reviewer

some of the highest user score in gaming history 

leaves other AAA MMO's in the dust when it comes to user score, professional review score, or both. study scores of Cataclysm, TSW, TERA, TOR, whatever. you will notice them all failing in either user review, or critic review categories (i.e. 50%  of reviews are mixed or bad, which is a big failure)

most importantly, my gf who has despised PC games all her life is now exploring Tyria with me every day. 

 

i encourage everyone to study the trends before bashing the game as sucky or whatever. you can, but your reasons will be very private and within a tiny minority. i think Metacritic trends speak volumes. 

After playing the game nearly 2 weeks non stop about 15-17 hours a day i can say that the game is amazing but there are a lot of things that are missing or done badly.

It's a game that has great potential to become the best themepark on the market if developers keep adding stuff like group finder  etc.

If developers stop by saying ok we released now we are done...this game probably will end as a good game that worths the 60 bucks but nothing more.If this is their target they will fail hard.

Originally posted by GoldenArrow

GW2 has a great first experience which lasts about 10-20 hours.

Then you simply get bored to the constant faceroll zerging and the ridicilous gem-trade system.

Most of the reviewers don't put enough hours to GW2 to actually realize it's flaws. Pretty much the same reason why SWTOR scored suprisingly high.

 

GW2 is a casual game and reviewers play games casually. Thus the ratings are bound to be high, even if the game has a lot of flaws.

This completely misses the point that the majority of MMOs are casual games now.

RIFT, WoW, Aion, SWTOR, DDO etc are all 'casual' that appeals to the majority of MMO players.

Originally posted by rosco

Originally posted by Draemos

MMOs are long term games.  Any review of an MMO presented within the first month of release are next to useless for anything outside of simple impressions about graphics,  sound, etc.

 

I have absolutely zero respect for an MMO view that doesn't look at (and have experience with) long term viability, whether that review is positive or negative.  Reviewers who review them under the same criteria as single player games are just wasting my time.

With GW2, MMO are not  long term games anymore. I have more than 100h of game in GW2 and I still enjoy it. I don't know the end game yet. If I stopped for some reason to play GW2 right now, I would had much more value from my 55€ than most of the other games I've played. So what's the point of the "endgame" in a review, in the experience you have from a game ?

The fact is that GW2 gives you immediate fun starting from L1, this is new in the MMO world and you should rethink your way of scoring a game. Many people will have to rethink MMO.

Fun is a subjective thing. I had fun in lot of MMOS from starting level 1 but i surely didn't go ahead and rated it 9 or 10 after couple of days. A MMO is rated not only on basis of value for your money though.

So if i had to rate GW2 purely on basis of B2P model i would have given it 10 but that is not a fair way to rate any game. B2P should be a factor while rating GW2 but surely not the primary one.

I'm not saying the game is bad, but don't trust professional reviewers. Video game companies figured out how to rig the reviews a long time ago, they simply don't send free copies to reviewers who give bad reviews, and eventually they lose their jobs because they can't review anything. 

So far, I think the game is a definite step in the right direction. There are things I wish were there that aren't, but nothing's perfect and I'm definitely having fun.

Originally posted by rosco

Originally posted by Draemos

MMOs are long term games.  Any review of an MMO presented within the first month of release are next to useless for anything outside of simple impressions about graphics,  sound, etc.

 

I have absolutely zero respect for an MMO view that doesn't look at (and have experience with) long term viability, whether that review is positive or negative.  Reviewers who review them under the same criteria as single player games are just wasting my time.

With GW2, MMO are not  long term games anymore. I have more than 100h of game in GW2 and I still enjoy it. I don't know the end game yet. If I stopped for some reason to play GW2 right now, I would had much more value from my 55€ than most of the other games I've played. So what's the point of the "endgame" in a review, in the experience you have from a game ?

The fact is that GW2 gives you immediate fun starting from L1, this is new in the MMO world and you should rethink your way of scoring a game. Many people will have to rethink MMO.

I think that MMORPG sites and reviews should sort/be sorted into different categories based on time invested in MMORPGs. Such as 10 hours, 100 hours, 500 hours and 1000 hours reviews. Game A may be better than Game B in the 100-hour department, while the opposite may be true in the 500-hour one.

Originally posted by adam_nox

Not sure how she can quest with you when there's no quests.

 

Pretty much every major mmo release has had favorable reviews.  Having the bestest doesn't really mean much.

it does for gw2 buddy sry

like it or not admit it or not gw2 is the best themepark mmo to date

reviews well deserved,waiting for gamespot and ign

pvp simply owns,no more stupid nerds elitist with end game gear showing their ego,everything fair for everybody

this game simply owns glad i left pokeworld after 5 years for this masterpiece

Originally posted by ShimpoGenmu

Originally posted by adam_nox

Not sure how she can quest with you when there's no quests.

 

Pretty much every major mmo release has had favorable reviews.  Having the bestest doesn't really mean much.

it does for gw2 buddy sry

 

like it or not admit it or not gw2 is the best themepark mmo to date

reviews well deserved,waiting for gamespot and ign

pvp simply owns,no more stupid nerds elitist with end game gear showing their ego,everything fair for everybody

this game simply owns glad i left pokeworld after 5 years for this masterpiece

Subjective, it's for you... not for me, not for others.

I have to seriously laugh at this. Metacritic? WOW.

Ok, first off, the professional score is usually pointless. I don't play Diablo 3, but most people seem to hate it, but it as 88. SWTOR, as 85 total.

Now, of course these scores are indeed lower, but it just goes to show that most of these reviewers can be a big hit and miss. I remember how pcgamer gave TOR 93, and now gave GW2 a 94. TTH gave GW2 94, but gave RIFT 95.

And don't get me started on those like G4 TV giving 100.

Now, to the user score, i trust it quite abit more than normal ones.

However, if you look closely at, well, any game on metacritic, most of the positive reviews are 9 and 10, and negative ones are between 0 and 3. Most are over inflated fanboy and hater scores. Which is why it's not a good idea to trust it either.

BTW OP, if you do your reserch right, TSW as only 0.1 points less than GW2 on user score with 8.3, 8.4, respectively.

Using metacritic as proof of a game's quality, specially the overall number, is not a good idea at all.

Edit: I'm not saying the game sucks or anything, since i do like it from beta, but, trying to use this site as indicator is laughable. Sorry.