wow graphics 97%, they played wow only before judging this 97%?

I would give it a 70 lol, yes im playing on max settings and yes graphics are 2004

Originally posted by MMOwanderer

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by BadSpock

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by bluefunk

...

.

But what these folks fail to understand is that professional reviewers do not user their grading scale, they use their own.  And by and large, this goes by something very similar to the US school grading scale.  So by that...

SWTOR and WAR were "B" games (85, 86)

WoW was an "A" game (93)

And so far, GW2 is an "A" game (94)

 

I honestly don't see why that is a bad score given the scale they use.

 

So, Rift is an A+ game since it got 95?

From TTH, and to them, I guess it is.  But its metacritic average is 84% ;).

We'll see where GW2 winds up metacritic average wise as more reviews come out...my predication has always been 93%.

Originally posted by MMOwanderer

But what these folks fail to understand is that professional reviewers do not user their grading scale, they use their own.  And by and large, this goes by something very similar to the US school grading scale.  So by that...

SWTOR and WAR were "B" games (85, 86)

WoW was an "A" game (93)

And so far, GW2 is an "A" game (94)

 

I honestly don't see why that is a bad score given the scale they use.

 

So, Rift is an A+ game since it got 95?

Rift got an 84.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/rift

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

Originally posted by Creslin321

Right and that metacritic user score is with a bunch of ragers giving the game a score of 0-2, which GREATLY skews the score down.  So I think an 8.5 is pretty impressive given that.

Face it guys...it's a good game, you're going to have to get over it and learn to live with it.  And hey, maybe you will even enjoy it if you try to play it one day.

Same here on MMORPG.COM. And despite those "0-0-0-0-0-0-0" haters, and despite the few launch related bugs, the game still gets 9.09.

'nuff said.

Wow talk about seeing only one side of the coin. The complete opposite would be true as well with fanboys giving it a perfect 10 score and user scores always drop over time. Right now it is like the honeymoon but in 3-4 months when everyone has hit 80, with more than one class, and done WvWvW and all that, the score will drop to a more realistic one. I guarantee you that.

 Yeah...but see to them that is just fine.

Fucking mindblowing really haha

Originally posted by BadSpock

4. You and I disagree fully on how much Art style and theme play into the graphics score, which is fine - I think Art style and theme is everything - without it even the most graphically impressive game on a technical level is "souless" and bland.

THIS. For instance, I found TSW having a nice graphic engine, but the world was (to me) souless and bland. Where I give TSW a 8/10 for the technical aspect and the engine features, I give GW2 a 10/10 because an engine is just that... an engine, a tool for the art team. The most expensive showel won't turn a mediocre gardener into a good one.

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

Originally posted by BadSpock

4. You and I disagree fully on how much Art style and theme play into the graphics score, which is fine - I think Art style and theme is everything - without it even the most graphically impressive game on a technical level is "souless" and bland.

THIS. For instance, I found TSW having a nice graphic engine, but the world was (to me) souless and bland. Where I give TSW a 8/10 for the technical aspect and the engine features, I give GW2 a 10/10 because an engine is just that... an engine, a tool for the art team. The most expensive showel won't turn a mediocre gardener into a good one.

I disagree with you. I thought the world in TSW was freaking awesome to behold and there was an attention to detail that is rarely seen. But then, so is GW2 in my opinion. The attention to detail and the overall design of both games is pretty amazing IMO.

Originally posted by Wickedjelly

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

Originally posted by Creslin321

Right and that metacritic user score is with a bunch of ragers giving the game a score of 0-2, which GREATLY skews the score down.  So I think an 8.5 is pretty impressive given that.

Face it guys...it's a good game, you're going to have to get over it and learn to live with it.  And hey, maybe you will even enjoy it if you try to play it one day.

Same here on MMORPG.COM. And despite those "0-0-0-0-0-0-0" haters, and despite the few launch related bugs, the game still gets 9.09.

'nuff said.

Wow talk about seeing only one side of the coin. The complete opposite would be true as well with fanboys giving it a perfect 10 score and user scores always drop over time. Right now it is like the honeymoon but in 3-4 months when everyone has hit 80, with more than one class, and done WvWvW and all that, the score will drop to a more realistic one. I guarantee you that.

 Yeah...but see to them that is just fine.

Fucking mindblowing really haha

You know, if someone plays a game for 3-4 months...plays it and enjoys it enough to get level 80 with EVERY class, then I honestly don't see why the game should score less if they get bored at that point.  

I mean, do people expect this game to replace their life?  Would you go back to slam an SPRPG after you completed it just because you ran out of content?

Originally posted by colddog04

I disagree with you. I thought the world in TSW was freaking awesome to behold and there was an attention to detail that is rarely seen. But then, so is GW2 in my opinion. The attention to detail and the overall design of both games is pretty amazing IMO.

 Yeah I agree. Both of these games excel in that area in their own fashion.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by MMOwanderer

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by BadSpock

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by bluefunk

...

.

But what these folks fail to understand is that professional reviewers do not user their grading scale, they use their own.  And by and large, this goes by something very similar to the US school grading scale.  So by that...

SWTOR and WAR were "B" games (85, 86)

WoW was an "A" game (93)

And so far, GW2 is an "A" game (94)

 

I honestly don't see why that is a bad score given the scale they use.

 

So, Rift is an A+ game since it got 95?

From TTH, and to them, I guess it is.  But its metacritic average is 84% ;).

We'll see where GW2 winds up metacritic average wise as more reviews come out...my predication has always been 93%.

Oh, i thought we where talking about TTH since, that is what the thread is about, but still, you get my point. Honestly, why do people get hung up on this?

The problem of what people don't udnerstand is that reviewes from who ever it is can't quantify the quality of a game, since that is in it's own self a personall element.

Justin Bieber is an extremely popular singer, but many challenge is quality as one. Do awards, scores, sales records quantfy quality? Is the community response? And if so, chow can one properly mesure it? The majority of people don't even look at internet forums, much less use them.

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

Originally posted by BadSpock

4. You and I disagree fully on how much Art style and theme play into the graphics score, which is fine - I think Art style and theme is everything - without it even the most graphically impressive game on a technical level is "souless" and bland.

THIS. For instance, I found TSW having a nice graphic engine, but the world was (to me) souless and bland. 

I bit like the real World it's set on . So for me it captures the essence of what it intend's , to capture that RL feel , not inbright colours but attention to detail (9-9.5/10), While I'm not overly impressed with GW2's but would still give them an 8 from a technical standpoint ..

Gotta love different views and opinions aye :p

Originally posted by colddog04

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

Originally posted by BadSpock

4. You and I disagree fully on how much Art style and theme play into the graphics score, which is fine - I think Art style and theme is everything - without it even the most graphically impressive game on a technical level is "souless" and bland.

THIS. For instance, I found TSW having a nice graphic engine, but the world was (to me) souless and bland. Where I give TSW a 8/10 for the technical aspect and the engine features, I give GW2 a 10/10 because an engine is just that... an engine, a tool for the art team. The most expensive showel won't turn a mediocre gardener into a good one.

I disagree with you. I thought the world in TSW was freaking awesome to behold and there was an attention to detail that is rarely seen. But then, so is GW2 in my opinion. The attention to detail and the overall design of both games is pretty amazing IMO.

Fair enough, we can agree to disagree like gentlemen :)

The "world" in TSW just doesn't feel like a world... the mob distribution is poor and packed, and the cities are pretty small and almost claustrophobic too. That's not how I would have imagined a MMORPG with a modern setting. Everything in TSW feels artificial, just there for the game, and not really part of a world.

I occasionally play a game named "Test Drive Unlimited 2". It's a "Driving MMORPG", sort of, and uses the real world setting of Hawai and Ibiza. Wide open areas with huge, life sized cities you can fully explore. That's how I imagine a modern setting MMORPG.

Just my own opinion and feeling of course - I totally respect yours :)

Originally posted by Creslin321

You know, if someone plays a game for 3-4 months...plays it and enjoys it enough to get level 80 with EVERY class, then I honestly don't see why the game should score less if they get bored at that point.  

I mean, do people expect this game to replace their life?  Would you go back to slam an SPRPG after you completed it just because you ran out of content?

 I was actually referring to the only seeing one side of a coin reference in relation to reviews in his first part. Suppose I should have cut the latter out.

Still, you keep saying "slam" as if an 8 is trashing the game since that was the reference he used. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

Not sure where you and some others get this notion that someone that thinks the game is rated too high at a 100 or 94 or that it is ridiculous to have a score like that this soon somehow means they hate the game or think it isn't good. Hardly anyone here said that. Hell, the OP himself even said it was a great game.

Originally posted by BadSpock

Originally posted by Yamota

I think there is one major difference between how you seen the numbers and how I do. For you 90+ is great score, for me 80-90 is great and 90+ is amazing with close to 100 is close to perfect. No way in hell this, or any other game I played are close to perfect. That should be reserved for games that are released once in a decade, if even that.

But I can address the parts you did one by one:

First of all I dont agree with the "standard" label which you seem to equate to ThemePark. For me an MMORPG is an MMORPG and I do not disqualify games because they are sandbox or themepark (if I did I would not have bought GW 2) so my opinion is just as valid as yours.

Couple of points - thanks for the great reply!

1. I think GW2 has (thus far) been one of those "once in a decade" releases - well, almost a decade - not since 2004 and WoW has a MMO like this been released and thusly deserves the "amazing" range with many of it's features. And that is not just me and "fanboy-ism" it's felt on every gaming site throughout the entirity of the MMO community - these thoughts are industry wide.

2. There is a very clear difference in design and format and general gameplay that makes themepark and sandbox MMORPG's so incredibly different at their very core level, you really do have to seperate them out - I don't think you can say a MMORPG is a MMORPG when you compare a game like.. TSW or TOR to EvE or SWG.

3. The rest is all highly subjective - I have no idea where your complaints on sound come from - they are 100% professional studio quality sound recordings for everything in the game - Anet released a couple of videos from their sound department - and the music is top notch as well when compared to Hollywood - Jeremy Soule is on the same level as many of the "modern" composers for movies.

4. You and I disagree fully on how much Art style and theme play into the graphics score, which is fine - I think Art style and theme is everything - without it even the most graphically impressive game on a technical level is "souless" and bland.

So yeah, we are arguing subjective rational, which is fruitless :)

You are welcome.

1. The EXACT same thing was said about SW:TOR with near perfect score from "professional" reviewers. Granted GW 2 is better than SW:TOR, which was above average at most, but in both cases the scores are heavily inflated. Both because professional reviewers have special interests and the fact that the game is new. Once the "professional" reviewers have moved on to the next big release and players are over the honeymoon period the scores will drop to the 80s.
2. Well if someone exclusively plays sandbox games and refuse to play ThemeParks then yes, obviously they hate the other variant and should not review them. But I do not, I have played and enjoyed ThemeParks (I played over 500 hours of WAR) and even PvE ThemeParks like FF XI so even though I prefer sandbox games does not mean I hate ThemeParks. If I did, as I said before, I would not buy them. This is why I think the perfect combination is a mix, like the upcoming ArcheAge.
3. Compare the sounds to your favourite fantasy cinema movie, like say Lord of The Rings, and you can see how this game does not measure up. Music I have already said is better than great (90%), it is the sound effects which are "just" good.
4. Yes agreed, I tend to put more on technical aspects than on Theme. However the latter does matter as I much prefer GW 2's style of TERAs. Still the technical aspects of TERA is much better.

Originally posted by colddog04

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

Originally posted by BadSpock

4. You and I disagree fully on how much Art style and theme play into the graphics score, which is fine - I think Art style and theme is everything - without it even the most graphically impressive game on a technical level is "souless" and bland.

THIS. For instance, I found TSW having a nice graphic engine, but the world was (to me) souless and bland. Where I give TSW a 8/10 for the technical aspect and the engine features, I give GW2 a 10/10 because an engine is just that... an engine, a tool for the art team. The most expensive showel won't turn a mediocre gardener into a good one.

I disagree with you. I thought the world in TSW was freaking awesome to behold and there was an attention to detail that is rarely seen. But then, so is GW2 in my opinion. The attention to detail and the overall design of both games is pretty amazing IMO.

For me, the theme of TSW was supposed to be one of its strengths, but to me it was a weakness. The "modern" setting just doesn't appeal to me in a video game - I want high fantasy / sci-fi and such because if I want to see realistic graphics and modern settings - I go outside.

Which is kind of odd because I generally prefer the modern setting for FPS games - but I like military tech and accuracy in shooter games so maybe that is why?

But, yet again, this stuff is all subjective and arguing it is fruitless - I just think anyone who thinks GW2 has "bad" graphics or "2004" graphics is just... simple?!

Never saw this ^ in 2004 people.

Originally posted by Yamota

You are welcome.

1. The EXACT same thing was said about SW:TOR with near perfect score from "professional" reviewers. Granted GW 2 is better than SW:TOR, which was above average at most, but in both cases the scores are heavily inflated. Both because professional reviewers have special interests and the fact that the game is new. Once the "professional" reviewers have moved on to the next big release and players are over the honeymoon period the scores will drop to the 80s.
2. Well if someone exclusively plays sandbox games and refuse to play ThemeParks then yes, obviously they hate the other variant and should not review them. But I do not, I have played and enjoyed ThemeParks (I played over 500 hours of WAR) and even PvE ThemeParks like FF XI so even though I prefer sandbox games does not mean I hate ThemeParks. If I did, as I said before, I would not buy them. This is why I think the perfect combination is a mix, like the upcoming ArcheAge.
3. Compare the sounds to your favourite fantasy cinema movie, like say Lord of The Rings, and you can see how this game does not measure up. Music I have already said is better than great (90%), it is the sound effects which are "just" good.
4. Yes agreed, I tend to put more on technical aspects than on Theme. However the latter does matter as I much prefer GW 2's style of TERAs. Still the technical aspects of TERA is much better.

Finally I would like to say that innovation and groundbreaking games matters to me alot and I cannot give a 90+ score, in gameplay, to a game which is not. And GW 2, with all the good it does, is an evolution of the MMORPG genre and not a revolution.

 

I appreciate the healthy debate, thanks again!

1. This was said about TOR, and you are right there is always a bit of shiney new toy goggles that are worn - but even though it was less than a year ago, the releases between TOR and GW2 raised the bar each game is subjectively and objectively rated on.

For example, TOR was really the "first" to do the whole cinematic voice over cut scene thing - but then TSW came out and did it better.

TERA was released and really the 'first" in some sense to do "action combat" - but GW2 in the eyes of many/most does it better as it's more fluid and less stop-motion.

So it is only natural human nature to rate something based upon what has come before, and a lot has happened in 2011/2012 with MMO releases!

But you are right in that if reviewers waited 2-3 months their scores would probably be lower, but that is a problem with the entire gaming industry not just MMOs.

2. I too appreciate a mix, I started this genre with UO then SWG and have played everything else starting 2004 with WoW. Perspective is a good thing - but I still stand by that I would review GW2 with a different lense filter on then I'd review something like Archeage (when/if it comes out in the West) due simple because I feel you HAVE to put aside your bias in order to review something "as it is" rather than for what a person's bias tells them it SHOULD be.

3. I still don't see that, playing the game with headphones when you can hear everything is just.. mind blowing fantastic. I am constantly and consistently blown away by the little things I hear when I'm absorbed into the GW2 world.

I think GW2 is indeed a evolution of the themepark MMO genre, but as WoW before it I think GW2 is going to lead a revolution away from the "EQ model" after 8 years of being stuck to it thanks to WoW.

So the evolution will start a revolution of ideas, and GW2 gets credit for that even if the game isn't "the" revolution itself - it's the catalyst for it.

Originally posted by Vapors

wow graphics 97%, they played wow only before judging this 97%?

I would give it a 70 lol, yes im playing on max settings and yes graphics are 2004

subjective category is subjective

art style is infinitely more important that technical aspects to me, so yes i would agree with a score in the 90s.   97% seems silly and arbitrary (what makes a 96 and a 98?) but its the best graphical MMORPG I have ever played, to me.

Originally posted by BadSpock

I think GW2 is indeed a evolution of the themepark MMO genre, but as WoW before it I think GW2 is going to lead a revolution away from the "EQ model" after 8 years of being stuck to it thanks to WoW.

 

You mean the EQ2 model.  The EQ model has been dead for a long time.  People that think EQ in its prime (2000-2004ish) was a themepark are dead wrong.  Themepark and Sandbox dont contain the entire set of MMORPG games but people seem to think a game has to be one or the other.

We've seen a bunch of complete crap come down the pipe getting 8s, 9s etc in various categories.

Keeping that same scale of quality in mind, GW2 should average about a 24 out of 10 I think.

Originally posted by Justsomenoob

We've seen a bunch of complete crap come down the pipe getting 8s, 9s etc in various categories.

 

Keeping that same scale of quality in mind, GW2 should average about a 24 out of 10 I think.

Can we make it 11, why? 11 is better!!!!