Originally posted by Shorun

AESTHETICS – 9

the only point I disagree with, mainly because the ground textures look like from GW1 which is 7 years old.

you do know what aesthetics mean right? really has nothing directly to do with polygons or textures.. here's good video on the topic http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/graphics-vs.-aesthetics

Originally posted by KhinRunite

Originally posted by boxsnd

Originally posted by Ethos86

Originally posted by boxsnd

Today I learned that:

1) an MMO with its endgame in the cons list can get more than 5/10 in the overall score.

Definition of endgame is "things to do once level cap is hit". By this definition there are tons of stuff to do after you hit 80. Depending on how you reached 80 you could still do personal story, craft legendary, complete dungeons and paths (story and explorable), complete the world map, WvWvW. I personally don't know why you'd put endgame in the cons list unless you're looking for themepark raids, arenas, and basically gear for power up treadmill. It's not required for MMOs to have those. ANet is probably more interested in catering to the demographic that dislike large scale scheduled raids. Also, I believe currently unavailable zones will be opened via patch much like WoW opening raids in major patches.

2) GW2 has "fantastic story and dungeons"

The difficulty of dungeons are putting off some players. I haven't done any yet, but the mini dungeons are fun. Also you need to let the personal story gain some momentum. It starts out slow as it introduces the player's backstory, but on my story I can feel things are about to get big.

3) GW2's copy pasted dynamic events are somehow better than classic questing.

Dunno why you had to associate "copy-pasted" with DEs, but omit them from classic quests. They're equally repetitive in nature, but DEs help make the world appear more alive. They give incentive to revisiting an area. Starting an event for the first time gives the feeling of discovery. That's not to say the current implementation of DEs are perfect, but I personally prefer the GW2 way over, say...WoW.

4) GW2 losing 40-50% of its player base within a month (see xfire+raptr) means it has longevity 9/10

Xfire is only meritable on discussions revolving around Xfire. I'm not in denial that population is stabilizing, but I could post server status displaying Full, High, Medium, etc. and that still won't prove anything because there's no actual numbers. As for longetivity, like I said there's tons of things to do, and let's not forget ANet will keep new (free) content coming.

5) not having to group or interact with anyone from 1 to 80+full exotics gives the game a social 8/10

You may have chosen not to interact with others, but asking for POIs, vistas, assistance with more difficult SP challenges, secret puzzles, and champion mob have to count for interaction. I see people do these. I do these. It's shortsighted to think that just because we're no longer forced to interact there's no more interaction to be had. Forced grouping isn't a metric for Socialization.

6) the dungeon grind can be a con while at the same time the dungeons are "fantastic". How does that work exactly? If the dungeons were fun the grind would be fun.

No comment. Haven't done dungeons. Maybe someone else will take this.

Haters, it's amusing.

I hope at least you were paid to create a new account over here and post this on your first day's first post. So funny to see these account stats right below your name.

Here's what I learned today: Trolls are too obvious.

Yet you don't even attempt to counter my arguments.

I said I wouldn't do this anymore, but you asked for it...

Unfortunately I couldn't give firsthand comments on some stuff as I haven't even experienced half of the game yet (my main is  only at level 48)

Your whole text in green is invalidated by the fact that you are level 48 and haven't done a dungeon yet. Trust me, I was just as excited at level 48. Come back to us after you spend 1-2 weeks at level 80. (if you make it that far) 

And btw I tried to be social. I tried inviting people who were on the same quest and got either ignored or yelled at ("we can do everything without having to group" etc), I tried grouping with friends but the hearts drove us to solo all the time(some of them are slower players than me and it's painful to always have to wait for them to finish their heart) . Also grouping gave us NO advantage whatsoever(soloing is faster actually), so why do it?

Originally posted by boxsnd

Originally posted by KhinRunite

Originally posted by boxsnd

Originally posted by Ethos86

Originally posted by boxsnd

Today I learned that:

1) an MMO with its endgame in the cons list can get more than 5/10 in the overall score.

Definition of endgame is "things to do once level cap is hit". By this definition there are tons of stuff to do after you hit 80. Depending on how you reached 80 you could still do personal story, craft legendary, complete dungeons and paths (story and explorable), complete the world map, WvWvW. I personally don't know why you'd put endgame in the cons list unless you're looking for themepark raids, arenas, and basically gear for power up treadmill. It's not required for MMOs to have those. ANet is probably more interested in catering to the demographic that dislike large scale scheduled raids. Also, I believe currently unavailable zones will be opened via patch much like WoW opening raids in major patches.

2) GW2 has "fantastic story and dungeons"

The difficulty of dungeons are putting off some players. I haven't done any yet, but the mini dungeons are fun. Also you need to let the personal story gain some momentum. It starts out slow as it introduces the player's backstory, but on my story I can feel things are about to get big.

3) GW2's copy pasted dynamic events are somehow better than classic questing.

Dunno why you had to associate "copy-pasted" with DEs, but omit them from classic quests. They're equally repetitive in nature, but DEs help make the world appear more alive. They give incentive to revisiting an area. Starting an event for the first time gives the feeling of discovery. That's not to say the current implementation of DEs are perfect, but I personally prefer the GW2 way over, say...WoW.

4) GW2 losing 40-50% of its player base within a month (see xfire+raptr) means it has longevity 9/10

Xfire is only meritable on discussions revolving around Xfire. I'm not in denial that population is stabilizing, but I could post server status displaying Full, High, Medium, etc. and that still won't prove anything because there's no actual numbers. As for longetivity, like I said there's tons of things to do, and let's not forget ANet will keep new (free) content coming.

5) not having to group or interact with anyone from 1 to 80+full exotics gives the game a social 8/10

You may have chosen not to interact with others, but asking for POIs, vistas, assistance with more difficult SP challenges, secret puzzles, and champion mob have to count for interaction. I see people do these. I do these. It's shortsighted to think that just because we're no longer forced to interact there's no more interaction to be had. Forced grouping isn't a metric for Socialization.

6) the dungeon grind can be a con while at the same time the dungeons are "fantastic". How does that work exactly? If the dungeons were fun the grind would be fun.

No comment. Haven't done dungeons. Maybe someone else will take this.

Haters, it's amusing.

I hope at least you were paid to create a new account over here and post this on your first day's first post. So funny to see these account stats right below your name.

Here's what I learned today: Trolls are too obvious.

Yet you don't even attempt to counter my arguments.

I said I wouldn't do this anymore, but you asked for it...

Unfortunately I couldn't give firsthand comments on some stuff as I haven't even experienced half of the game yet (my main is  only at level 48)

Your whole text in green is invalidated by the fact that you are level 48 and haven't done a dungeon yet. Trust me, I was just as excited at level 48. Come back to us after you spend 1-2 weeks at level 80. (if you make it that far) 

 

And btw I tried to be social. I tried inviting people who were on the same quest and got either ignored or yelled at ("we can do everything without having to group" etc), I tried grouping with friends but the hearts drove us to solo all the time(some of them are slower players than me and it's painful to always have to wait for them to finish their heart) . Also grouping gave us NO advantage whatsoever(soloing is faster actually), so why do it?

1.) I do not think my views will change about everything I spoke of once I hit 80. The main reason is that I want to run dungeons for exploration, not for rewards. I was never interested in the grind for gear. The only reason I did it in WoW was because I wanted to go and see the raid dungeons so badly. In order to do that I HAD to join the gear treadmill. In all MMOs I tried after WoW I stopped playing once I hit level cap, but not in this game, due to how different it was designed at endgame. I estimated the expansion coming out next year while I'm just about to complete my share of the vanilla content to my satisfaction.

If I couldn't finish  dungeons, despite others being able to accomplish them, I will blame it on my lack of ability (and will tend to hone my skills more) than blame it on the game.

Also I'm not so excited as to build myself up for disappointment. I know what lies ahead beyond 80.

2.) Well it's a case to case basis, as my experience is different from yours, and the reviewer apparently. But yeah, the lack of party buff, impossibility to directly assist a party member with heart quests are  a couple of my few gripes with this game. If they addressed these maybe the game will have gotten a 9/10 on the category :)

Awesome review.

I was critical of the socialization elements of the game initially, in that the game design does not foster much socialization, and still doesn't. (No mechanics have been changed, the game is still fast-paced which, I believe, is the primary reason that communication is extremley transient.) However, as things start to settle (on my server) personalities are developing, so there may be an uptick in the community aspect of the game.

As to end game, I just hit 50, so I'm still having a blast. I just watched the legendaries promo and there are a few items I wouldn't mind spending some serious time on acquiring.

Also, ArenaNet will deliver on future content. This is not a company that shines its playerbase on. So we have guaranteed new fun down the road. (This month, in fact, with Halloween.)

Originally posted by boxsnd

Today I learned that:

1) an MMO with its endgame in the cons list can get more than 5/10 in the overall score.

2) GW2 has "fantastic story and dungeons"

3) GW2's copy pasted dynamic events are somehow better than classic questing.

4) GW2 losing 40-50% of its player base within a month (see xfire+raptr) means it has longevity 9/10

5) not having to group or interact with anyone from 1 to 80+full exotics gives the game a social 8/10

6) the dungeon grind can be a con while at the same time the dungeons are "fantastic". How does that work exactly? If the dungeons were fun the grind would be fun.

100% agree

I dont understand the high score for a mini game.

Originally posted by Zylaxx

Originally posted by grimal

Longevity 9?   How in the world did you come up with this number?

Edit:  I guess since "hundreds and hundreds of hours" equals a 9, the expectation is for an MMO to satiate our appetites for a month?  If so, what's the big deal if it's B2P or P2P since all the content is done within that first month and there is never a need to pay past the inital box price?

Easy becasue anyone who isnt a voracious 16+ hour a day (which is 90% of an MMO demographic) consumer of content relizes that GW2 has 2 times the content of a normal MMO.  Look at this, yesterday the first legendarys were crafted, more then a month after release.  The average gamer will take months, if not years to aquire something like this.  Everything from WvW to Orr to Armor/Weapon skin farming and everything inbetween.  The great thing is none of those things will EVER be made irelevant due to gear threadmill or leveling out of the area. Downscaling and flat stat progression in and of itself creates content.

I am not so sure about your assessment in my experience. My guild has more or less just  vanished. Only a couple of them were even 80 so I suppose it depends upon how you define "longevity." I suppose assuming you do every bit of content, at a casual pace, this game does have a pretty long life, so in that case I could agree with the score. But on the other hand, as most of my friend's list and guild roster is going dark a month in, that score seems somehow disingeuous in my opinion.

And downscaling, to me, does not equal new content. It is just ways to reutilize content you would have experienced with alts in other MMORPGs. To me, the downscaling of content has already made a couple of my alts a lot more boring than I would have liked, because I did a good portion of their content already going for map completion with my main. Don't get me wrong, I like downscaling overall, but it has had a negative effect on the game for me from the perspective of replayability, which seems to be all we have waiting for us at level 80.

I would not disagree with the score, overall, but to say it is "raising the bar" or that the longevity is as high as it is when so many of my friends have quit a month in (most of the same friends were still playing SWTOR at this point, if only barely) just seems a bit off.

Originally posted by Naral

 

I am not so sure about your assessment in my experience. My guild has more or less just  vanished. Only a couple of them were even 80 so I suppose it depends upon how you define "longevity." I suppose assuming you do every bit of content, at a casual pace, this game does have a pretty long life, so in that case I could agree with the score. But on the other hand, as most of my friend's list and guild roster is going dark a month in, that score seems somehow disingeuous in my opinion.

 

15 of us with 4 leading the way, came over from TSW. I logged in last night, to see how people were doing,  there was one person on. That person was not one of the 15 either.  Anecdotal evidence, yes it is. True none the less, for better or for worse.

Originally posted by Toxia

Eww i'm still in masterwork gear there. All exotic now :D

~Taaz

Exotic = Tier 2?

This review is pure garbage. I miss the days were people would actually be impartial. I've been playing MMO's for a long time and none of them ever got me bored after one week like GW2 has.

GW2 is great on the visual presentation,  but that's pretty much the strongest point of the game. I would rate this game 8/10, nothing more, nothing less and that's because it's a b2p game. If it was p2p i would give it a lower score.

But i have to say... If the future of MMO's is:

- Having instances all over the place instead of having a true open world.

- Having a teleport system that makes the game lose immersion and also makes the player lose the sense of the size of the world.

- Quests that are repetitive has hell, even worse than standard quests like in WoW. Dynamic events that are nothing but a zerg fest and have no true incentive to group up. 

- Lack of interesting combat, mostly because there isn't a trinity system in place.

- No true open world PvP. Instead you get instanced PvP with tons of zerg fests (WvW).

Then im done with MMO's for a while. Maybe in 2 or 3 years there will be a MMO worth having my attention again, and maybe truly innovative unlike these games that have been coming out in recent years.

Originally posted by bcbully

Originally posted by Naral

 

I am not so sure about your assessment in my experience. My guild has more or less just  vanished. Only a couple of them were even 80 so I suppose it depends upon how you define "longevity." I suppose assuming you do every bit of content, at a casual pace, this game does have a pretty long life, so in that case I could agree with the score. But on the other hand, as most of my friend's list and guild roster is going dark a month in, that score seems somehow disingeuous in my opinion.

 

15 of us with 4 leading the way, came over from TSW. I logged in last night, to see how people were doing,  there was one person on. That person was not one of the 15 either.  Anecdotal evidence, yes it is. True none the less, for better or for worse.

Sadly, it seems like anecdotal evidence is not really lining up with the critical reviews very well. I will play as long as I have fun, and I still am, but I can see the light coming through the door at this point.  Found myself looking at the planetside 2 website a lot these days, and even thinking  about something I swore off...MoP. Still gonna take more to make me play KungFu Pana Online than a failed GW2, but the fact that I have even thought it kinda saddens me. =)

[mod edit]

GW2 is a blast once you hit 80 you can still do all the other zone's you missed wich is HUGE.

Dungeons are hardcore

WvW is epic

Spvp is epic

 Big Meta Events are epic

Grapics are idd very good

What more can you ask for ?

It's interesting to see a review from an "outsider's" point of view: Edge-Online:

http://www.edge-online.com/review/guild-wars-2-review/2/

Dynamic Events: -1

And you will tire of it. Guild Wars 2’s quest acquisition is novel in comparison with its peers, but the dynamic quests themselves are the same as they ever were: kill ten of these, pick up 15 of that. There’s the occasional snappy, well-plotted example, but the majority grate quickly – especially as there never seems to be quite enough of your target in the designated area, forcing you to backtrack and twiddle your thumbs until the MMOG gods deign to resupply the world with monsters. This problem is counterbalanced by the sheer weight of stuff in Tyria

Class Choices: +1

The classes themselves are more enjoyable. Each has a definite function in combat. The Ranger and Engineer affect a battlefield from afar; the Guardian stands in the centre and tries to make himself as big a target as possible. But each has more flexibility than a character in most MMOGs.

Combat: +1

Particularly when combat is so tough. Bosses in the game’s dungeons – currently eight story-led runs through gauntlets of tough enemies, necessitating a powerful group – can feel more like a Dark Souls enemy than a World Of Warcraft foe, forcing assailants to learn attack patterns and movements, not simply their own skill rotation.

...

However, value for money, GW2 appears to be one of the best games of the year. So definitely an 8.5 score, but not higher than 9.0 as the DEs are just not revolutionary enough. I think Edge's 8 is to nearest whole number and it also does not look at PvP in the review which it seems is one of the games BIGGEST SELLING POINTS.

Combat: +1

Particularly when combat is so tough. Bosses in the game’s dungeons – currently eight story-led runs through gauntlets of tough enemies, necessitating a powerful group – can feel more like a Dark Souls enemy than a World Of Warcraft foe, forcing assailants to learn attack patterns and movements, not simply their own skill rotation.

 

I would give combat a -1 because it's strategy is revolved around twitch rather than preparation and thought.  If I wanted to have play a twitch combat game, I'd play an FPS...I play RPG's/MMORPG's because I'd rather have to think on my way to battle, before battle and during battle....I said it before, twitch/instinct is the absence of thought.  RPG's/MMORPGs, at least I thought, were more a thinking person's game than anything.  This game has destroyed this concept and set a new precident...you don't have to think to play.  To prove that, I can make a video of my 8 year old son playing the game flawlessly if you'd like.  He even uses his skill points and moves his skills over to be able to use.

He tried to play Ryzom, Anarchy Online, AoC (even though this isnt even a thinking person's game really) and TSW and could not....died ALOT and the skill system for each (except for AoC) baffled him.

I don't usually use my child as a psychology experiment, but this time it proved useful.

AESTHETICS – 9 : True, beautiful environments and 3dmodels.

SOCIAL – 1 : Hard to party up with people, if it even works which it rarely does. It costs alot of ingame currency or real money if through gems to portal around to play with friends. It costs about 600 Euro to form a raid for one of the participants.

POLISH – 3 : Very buggy at levels 60+, most events and story-quests bug at one time or another breaking immersion and play.

INNOVATION – 1 : The only thing innovate would be automatic partying which is not new and therefore not innovative at all.

GAMEPLAY – 4 : It is really fun when it works. When it works.. When is the operative word here.



LONGEVITY – 4 : Lasts until level 80, after that you can still kill mobs but it will cost you a fortune.

Originally posted by xngxng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry dear MMORPG, I would say like this.

AESTHETICS – 9 : True, beautiful environments and 3dmodels.

SOCIAL – 1 : Hard to party up with people, if it even works which it rarely does. It costs alot of ingame currency or real money if through gems to portal around to play with friends. It costs about 600 Euro to form a raid for one of the participants.

You must have stopped playing after the first week because that big was fix very fast.  If I join a team and they are in a overflow server and I zone I am poped into the same shard my team is without being asked. As for commanders and paying RL money to get that, you dont. Earn the money ingame and you to can be a commander. 

POLISH – 3 : Very buggy at levels 60+, most events and story-quests bug at one time or another breaking immersion and play.

Im level 80 for a while now and in 20 events and hearts I find maybe 1 that is bugged. I was expecting that to be higher with no real large scale testing. Personally I am very impressed.

INNOVATION – 1 : The only thing innovate would be automatic partying which is not new and therefore not innovative at all.

Frist MMO to have no linear quests. Hearts are there just to point you in the difrection where public/dynamic events take place. NPC tells and combat circles really make things fun. First real dodge system. No gear grind, play for fun with 33 different dungeon runs. Dont pay a monthly fee with a game thats a AAA game. I could go on and on but GW2 has made enough of a foot print to be called inovative.

GAMEPLAY – 4 : It is really fun when it works. When it works.. When is the operative word here.

Pls list the bugs you find so bad, because ANet has been rolling out patches with fixes faster then most new MMOs I have played and I been playing them for almost 15 years. The game has polish!!!

 

LONGEVITY – 4 : Lasts until level 80, after that you can still kill mobs but it will cost you a fortune.

VALUE – 5 : Could have been higher, but the value is lowered because you need to spend 60+ of your own precious hours to realise it. Those hours is worth alot more than the game usually.

 

Over all I have no idea what game you played but its not GW2.

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Yakamomoto

 

.

 It's not arrogance, I just see anything below a seven for GW2 as being outside of a reasonable score, and thus I question it.  Also, my statement would allow for someone to give GW2 say like a 7.1, which is a pretty freaking low score.  That's a C-.

It's kind of like if someone gave The Matrix (first one) a 6, I would say they are smoking crack.  Or on a more rational level, their subjective, personal feelings about the movie did not allow them to see its objective merits.

Even if I personally HATE a game, I would still try to give it points for things that it did well objectively, or compared with its peers.  I really did not like SWTOR for example, but I gave it like an 8 if I remember right.

Also, I want to clarify that there is an issue of different "scales" here.  Some people really like to explore every number from 1-10, and give games a 4 that are like an 8 on metacritic.  I just want to be clear that I base all my scales (and your scales) off of the US grading system...which is pretty accepted among all the reviews out there.

So essentially....if someone has a wildly different view than you, you think they are "smoking crack" or are not seeing things objectively?  Wow.  If that's not arrogance, I clearly don't know what is.

 

No, that's not what I said, and you know it.  If someone like golf, and I don't, I don't tell them that it sucks.  I don't like Eve, but I don't see a need to go to the Eve forums and tell them about how I don't like the game and couldn't play it for an hour.  In fact, I completely accept their differing opinion of the game as valid.

In this case though, I'm just saying that your opinion is biased and not objective in the slightest.  Yep, I am saying that, not beating around the bush here.

If you are so intent on your score of GW2 being right, why don't you go ahead and justify it for us.  Tell us all the objective reasons why you think GW2 deserves a D score.  Now mind you, we are using the same scale that metacritic winds up averaging to here.  So this puts GW2 in the same league as games like:

Ghost Recon Online and Star Trek Online

So tell us, why do you believe that GW2 is on par with those two games?

 

 

That is what you said.  Look above. I'll underline the parts for you.  I just find it very interesting how close-minded you are about this game.  You have basically determined that this game, whether one likes it or not, is a 7.  This is what you said.  So, you are in fact placing your view onto others...

Let's try this another way, if I say something like:

Homeland is a great show.  It is a solid 9.  Anyone that rates it below a 7 is obviously biased.

I am essentially stating it is a fact that the show, regardless of opinion, is a 7.

I am saying my opinion is a fact.

See what I mean?

Also, just because you have a philosophy about recognizing a game as having a base value, does not mean everyone else needs to.  That is your philosophy.  It doesn't need to be mine.

 Ah the good ol' opinion versus fact argument.  Never fails!  It's also COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS.

We are not talking about the product of 6*7, or the average flying speed of the peregrine falcon here.  THOSE are FACTS.  No, we are talking about different views on GAMES.  OBVIOUSLY opinions.  It should be freaking implied that everything said here is an opinion.

So let me restate my views in a way that may be less offensive to your sensibilities.

It is my opinion that anyone who gives GW2 a score below 7 is smoking crack.

It is my opinion that YOUR opinion is wrong.

It is my opinion that many people here are not able to look at games objectively and from perspective, and instead decide to score games based solely on personal bias and preference.

Now, do I really need to say "It is my opinion" before every sentence I write?  Or can we just move past this and accept that all our views on games are just opinions, and shocker, we can argue about differing opinions.

Originally posted by Randayn

Combat: +1

Particularly when combat is so tough. Bosses in the game’s dungeons – currently eight story-led runs through gauntlets of tough enemies, necessitating a powerful group – can feel more like a Dark Souls enemy than a World Of Warcraft foe, forcing assailants to learn attack patterns and movements, not simply their own skill rotation.

 

I would give combat a -1 because it's strategy is revolved around twitch rather than preparation and thought.  If I wanted to have play a twitch combat game, I'd play an FPS...I play RPG's/MMORPG's because I'd rather have to think on my way to battle, before battle and during battle....I said it before, twitch/instinct is the absence of thought.  RPG's/MMORPGs, at least I thought, were more a thinking person's game than anything.  This game has destroyed this concept and set a new precident...you don't have to think to play.  To prove that, I can make a video of my 8 year old son playing the game flawlessly if you'd like.  He even uses his skill points and moves his skills over to be able to use.

He tried to play Ryzom, Anarchy Online, AoC (even though this isnt even a thinking person's game really) and TSW and could not....died ALOT and the skill system for each (except for AoC) baffled him.

I don't usually use my child as a psychology experiment, but this time it proved useful.

 Twitch and strategy are not mutually exclusive.  Look at Starcraft, it is basically equal parts twitch and strategy.

I don't think GW2 is as strategical as SC (but then again no MMO is), but I don't think it's pure twitch.  There are plenty of tactics you can do in GW2 that actual require thought and oftentimes coordination.  For example, a mesmer can trait himself so that anytime people enter or exit his fields (glamors) they get a stack of confusion.

He can then go to a busy control point and put down a portal field, and proceed to just kite everyone around as they run through the portal field (it's small) over and over again, getting 2 stacks of confusion each time, and proceed to kill themselves by attacking him.

Originally posted by stevebmbsqd

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Yakamomoto

 

.

 It's not arrogance, I just see anything below a seven for GW2 as being outside of a reasonable score, and thus I question it.  Also, my statement would allow for someone to give GW2 say like a 7.1, which is a pretty freaking low score.  That's a C-.

It's kind of like if someone gave The Matrix (first one) a 6, I would say they are smoking crack.  Or on a more rational level, their subjective, personal feelings about the movie did not allow them to see its objective merits.

Even if I personally HATE a game, I would still try to give it points for things that it did well objectively, or compared with its peers.  I really did not like SWTOR for example, but I gave it like an 8 if I remember right.

Also, I want to clarify that there is an issue of different "scales" here.  Some people really like to explore every number from 1-10, and give games a 4 that are like an 8 on metacritic.  I just want to be clear that I base all my scales (and your scales) off of the US grading system...which is pretty accepted among all the reviews out there.

So essentially....if someone has a wildly different view than you, you think they are "smoking crack" or are not seeing things objectively?  Wow.  If that's not arrogance, I clearly don't know what is.

 

No, that's not what I said, and you know it.  If someone like golf, and I don't, I don't tell them that it sucks.  I don't like Eve, but I don't see a need to go to the Eve forums and tell them about how I don't like the game and couldn't play it for an hour.  In fact, I completely accept their differing opinion of the game as valid.

In this case though, I'm just saying that your opinion is biased and not objective in the slightest.  Yep, I am saying that, not beating around the bush here.

If you are so intent on your score of GW2 being right, why don't you go ahead and justify it for us.  Tell us all the objective reasons why you think GW2 deserves a D score.  Now mind you, we are using the same scale that metacritic winds up averaging to here.  So this puts GW2 in the same league as games like:

Ghost Recon Online and Star Trek Online

So tell us, why do you believe that GW2 is on par with those two games?

 

 

That is what you said.  Look above. I'll underline the parts for you.  I just find it very interesting how close-minded you are about this game.  You have basically determined that this game, whether one likes it or not, is a 7.  This is what you said.  So, you are in fact placing your view onto others...

Let's try this another way, if I say something like:

Homeland is a great show.  It is a solid 9.  Anyone that rates it below a 7 is obviously biased.

I am essentially stating it is a fact that the show, regardless of opinion, is a 7.

I am saying my opinion is a fact.

See what I mean?

Also, just because you have a philosophy about recognizing a game as having a base value, does not mean everyone else needs to.  That is your philosophy.  It doesn't need to be mine.

 Ah the good ol' opinion versus fact argument.  Never fails!  It's also COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS.

We are not talking about the product of 6*7, or the average flying speed of the peregrine falcon here.  THOSE are FACTS.  No, we are talking about different views on GAMES.  OBVIOUSLY opinions.  It should be freaking implied that everything said here is an opinion.

So let me restate my views in a way that may be less offensive to your sensibilities.

It is my opinion that anyone who gives GW2 a score below 7 is smoking crack.

It is my opinion that YOUR opinion is wrong.

It is my opinion that many people here are not able to look at games objectively and from perspective, and instead decide to score games based solely on personal bias and preference.

Now, do I really need to say "It is my opinion" before every sentence I write?  Or can we just move past this and accept that all our views on games are just opinions, and shocker, we can argue about differing opinions.

Whether a person is smoking crack or not is really not an opinion.... I'm just saying.... ;)

 

 LOL, touche :).