Are you drunk?

 

It's no lie.

Yeah noticed this trend. Seems pretty recent though. Heck even 9's aren't good enough now. Has to be 9.5 or 10. But if a game gets either of the two it is payed off.

 

Remember when anything from a 7 up used to be considered great? Heck if you look at the review numbers IGN for example lists a 7 as "good." Somehow that has turned into "bad."

 

Oh well...

 

Face it, its never going to go back to how are generation was.

Remember when we used to pay 40-60$ for a video game that was really only about an hour or 2 worth of content? (being very generous)

And you know what? I remember spending more hours playing metal gear and the legend of zelda on my NES then most games that come out these days.

 

Remember when we didn't have "save files"?

We had to memorize ******* codes. And really, getting to even one of those in some games felt extremely rewarding.

 

Remember when nintendo had there "Seal of approval"?

Sure, we had some **** games. But we also got some damn high quality games as well.

But holy **** where there bugs. And whats worst is that they couldn't be fixed. I still remember the majority of the mario 64 glitchs.

 

Lets face it, while we grew up. We felt like the bonofied gaming bad*** of the gaming industry and that we could conquer any game. Hell, the harder the better! I also remember (somewhat) how reviews used to be. The 1 to 10 scale was actually respected fully. If a game was average. It got a 5. It was that simple.

 

And what has the gaming industry become today?

Hand holding corridor shooters that can't even entrust you to open a door.

Game review scores should be just changed from 8-10. Hell, its already like that apparently. With 9 being average.

Instead of people treating bugs normally, we got people thinking bugs are "unnatural" and any competent game developer can avoid them.

 

Honestly, what the hell happened when I blinked?

Reviews are a disgrace, the market is filled with games that have no life of their own. Genres are dying due to other games starving the market.

And, really people... bugs? At least you can get those fixed. You know what we did if we found a bug on the NES? Nothing. There was no patching or bug fixes. If you found a game breaking bug and couldn't play anymore. That was it. All that money you saved up is now wasted. And what I would give to have "patchs" back then!

 

Seriously, I hate the current gaming industry. And how can you not?

I remember the 8 hour downtimes on peak weekend hours during AoC launch early access...fail

 

I remember there being no game after Tortage.

Now age of conan's first 20 lvls were great, all voiced, great quests, **** etc.

 

But then you left that area and it was terrible.

 

Add in all the bugs to the first area. It was instanced, heavily instanced. You could even be in a group for a group quest, go into an instanced zone and you would all be in separate instances.

 

Imagine that happened to SWTOR lol.

 

Age of Conan is one of the worst launches ever, it was terrible. Talk about no end game, there was no levelling content... It was basically a single player game, due to the instance bugs.

 

Anyway, make up your own mind if you like it or not, not some crap review. But yes, for new players, I guess it needs good reviews.

 

AoC rocks now, it had a premature launch much like swtor and we all know what happened to AoC. Anyways I'm off to play my Necro, because AoC rocks now!

SWTOR is worse than Age of Conan.

 

No it is not. Not even close. Age of Conan is more like a 2.5. Be realistic guy.

Space combat to ME and a bunch of my buddies is one the highlights of the whole game. Wow they really missed the boat on that one. Fortunately the users gave it an 8.8 and metacritic is giving an 8.7. Not perfect but pretty damn good.

good review... 8.0 is accurate considering the features that are needed, and the way some of the content operates... or isn't operating rather.

 

I would have thought he would come up wtih better 'dislikes' though, his excuse doesn't really justify the rating.

Edited January 7, 2012 by WLpride

The review scores these days are inflated as hell. MW3 scored over 8 which is surprising. Back in my day 8+ meant an extremely good game, now an 8 is average.

No it is not. Not even close. Age of Conan is more like a 2.5. Be realistic guy.

 

roflmao, you are so clueless.

lol unless this game gets a 5 from a critic nobody will believe the score. it'll just be bought or paid for. which just typing that out makes me laugh.

 

 

what company feasibly would risk losing millions for an arbitrary number that really doesn't make a difference.

Edited January 7, 2012 by chrisftw

SWTOR is worse than Age of Conan.

 

LOL

 

I fell out of my chair laughing.

roflmao, you are so clueless.

 

i'm going on a limb and saying you thought it was a perfect 10/10 amiright?

I would have given it a 7.9, so I'm okay with their 8.0

 

Whenever they revamp their graphics system and responsiveness, then I'll consider bumping them up to closer to 9

Edited January 7, 2012 by Bob-ombaFett

All of these (with the exception of Cata) didn't make it past the initial 6/mo period, and it doesn't look like TOR will either.

 

Citation needed.

I'm surprised Age of Conan survived at all. The original combat system was like that of a street fighter game. Each time you ranked a skill the combo got longer.

i'm going on a limb and saying you thought it was a perfect 10/10 amiright?

 

No I think AOC could use better raid UI but on the mmo evolutionary scale aoc to swtor is like a man to a chimp.

Space combat to ME and a bunch of my buddies is one the highlights of the whole game. Wow they really missed the boat on that one. Fortunately the users gave it an 8.8 and metacritic is giving an 8.7. Not perfect but pretty damn good.

 

You'll be happy to know they already are working on expanding it in a "significant way" then

They are all bought and paid for.

 

And just imagine what the REAL score would of been if they hadn't paid Gamespot.

Thankfully Gamespot has player reviews, which usually give a much more truthful impression of a game. I pretty much ignore the official reviews these days.

I think this quote from the review says it best:

 

"Don't come to it seeking the next online revolution. In fact, when you heard that the developers of Mass Effect were making an MMOG, this is the one you probably predicted: a prototypical online game with the standard BioWare trappings layered on top of them. "

 

In other words, if you don't expect more than what Bioware normally offers, if you don't come wanting an evolution in pvp and endgame, you may just have a good time.

 

IMO, it favors the casual, KOTOR fan. I'm not too worried about longetivity complexity in endgame, I can get that elsewhere. But it is entertaining, and a great adventure through the Star Wars Universe. As themepark MMOs go, I think this is what developers will start creating in the years to come- entertaining thrill-rides, no more no less. And what is really wrong with that.

 

Don't treat it like a competitive MMO, and you should do just fine.

 

My only hope is they add lots of content. The one thing the reviewer said that was its best quality is its production value regarding quests and voice-acting. Without that, well, it wouldn't be as entertaining. Not sure what you would have.

 

Its good for 1-2 years of fun, I think. 8/10 seems quite fitting, in that regards.

And just imagine what the REAL score would of been if they hadn't paid Gamespot.

 

If Blizzard didn't pay GameSpot probably a 10.

Most "video-game review" websites are trash nowdays.

 

Then again, so are most opinions, so one could say not to trust **** nowdays.

I stopped taking the review seriously when he started clicking abilities including numbers 1-5.

people still go by what gamespot/IGN have to say?

Gamespot and Gamespy are usually pretty decent as far as reviews. 8/10 and 4/5 I think are fair reviews. It's a good game with some flaws that doesn't really break new ground. Nothing wrong with that. It will be successful.