Personally i think that Age of Conan should have been on this list for #1 disappointment. It was nothing like they had promised and was an enormously bitter disappointment (to me at least). | |
It also wasn't at PAX. :P | |
And thus is what you get for being dragged around by a carrot on a stick held by the marketing department. Mythic is very good at doing that too, I can't believe how many people have been dragged along this far. | |
A really honestly biased but also misinformed opinion about WAR, in example players dont need grinding PvE levels for do PvP at end game, they can do PvP from very low levels and can leveling doing PvP. Write a long opinion about a PvP driven game and only played the first three PvE levels have this issues xD | |
For shame. Basing such a review (especially calling it one of your top 5 disappointments) on only 3 levels played is just bad form. You take 3 levels of the game (presumably the first 3, where players are still being taught game mechanics) and then write a disappointed review on the whole game. That's bad journalism. How would you feel if your articles were judged only on the first paragraph? There's also the point that you make about the graphics, but that just proves you didn't do any research. WoW looks the way it does because it's based on the art style of previous Warcraft properties. WAR looks the way it does because it's based on the art style of previous Warhammer properties. If you go look up any of the other Warhammer products, you'll see that the graphics do a great job of representing the feel and look of that IP. To go back to the journalistic point of view, your article also falls into the same amateur "write-by-numbers" review style that plagues our community. You talk about a game and say all these bad things and then the last few paragraphs flip a complete 180, talking about how the game can be so great and ignore the other 3/4ths of the article. This is bad journalism and has been pointed out by other people in the industry. It's like you try to completely negate the rest of your article by changing your tone in the last few sentences so people won't hate you. I feel a great sense of pity for the industry having to live and take information off of poor reviews like this. I could go into the rest of the article but I'm sure it would be just the same (and why not judge the article on just one game's portion, much like the reviewer did, right?). Then again, nobody ever said warcry was known for anything other than scraping the bottom of the barrel. | |
i totally agree with blurr! also comparing WAR with WOW, when WOW started it wasnt even perfect. It took them years to improve. Do you think when WOW started it really lives up to everyone's expectation?! Making reviews of a game that hasn't been officially release and only playing a few hours getting to know the game means you can't be a journalist... | |
If you actually did manage to read the article, you'd have noticed caveats that say exactly that - having played 10 levels of a Swordmaster in the beta now, that's *still* not enough to really review a MMORPG, with its greatest strength in the endgame. Even playing all the levels isn't enough to get the feel for how the game will turn out six months down the line. Burning Crusade was great the first ten levels through; there was a lot of cool things. Nobody could have imagined how much Arena would come to dominate the game, for instance. This was not a *review*, and I never claimed it to be as such. On the show floor, it's crowded, it's busy, and if you get a chance to spend twenty minutes playing the game, you're actually rather lucky. It's in no way a chance to get the full experience (for example, in WAR, reading the Tome of Knowledge) because you're trying to simply do as much as you can. This was not a review, again. This was the short impression I got from the show floor, which I said multiple times should be taken with a grain of salt given it was a taste of the whole experience. I didn't get to try out any of the RvR that is WAR's core, for example. The "180" you mention is precisely that; because I *didn't* get to try out any of the things that supposedly differentiated WAR from the other games in the industry, notably WoW. Having spent more time with the game in the Open Beta, I'm still not ready to give a "review," though I will be writing an impressions piece. As I'd expected, the RvR is truly what sells the game - doing Scenarios or just general RvR with my guild is fun and works very well. The slower pace that mars the feel of the early few levels works a lot better in group PvP, because it means that you have a chance to react sooner. So yes, given the proper chance to actually spend time with what makes the game unique, I enjoy it significantly more. That doesn't change the problems I encountered on the PAX floor. I do think that the game's models are still very ugly, and the High Elf/Dark Elf starting area is completely bland. In general, the game simply could have used a bit more color (not all the time, just... some of the time. To contrast.) I do like the look of Altdorf, though, and some of the other zones like the Dwarf starting areas are actually very good-looking. While the slow pace of combat does work very well in RvR as mentioned, it's still a huge pain to deal with in PvE. The PvE aspect of the game is boring and unappealing, and it was awful for the first few levels before I got a number of abilities I could actually use. That hasn't changed from my PAX impressions, and I stand by it. But PvE isn't what WAR is about; the core of the game is RvR - and that, as I'd expected, works very well. | |
If you think about it, WoW is a clone of WAR. Blizzard has only been around 13 or 14 years. Gamers Workshop has been around 35 years. Blizzard used ideas from everyone except the Warcraft "war" theme to make WoW. Orcs, good and evil elves... its a Warhammer clone. | |
Warcraft might have been inspired by Warhammer, sure - there is that persistent rumor that GW contracted Blizzard to make a Warhammer game then pulled out, leaving Blizzard with a half-finished game. Not wanting to let it to go to waste, they altered it a fair amount and then released it as Warcraft: Orcs and Humans. Of course, over WC2 and especially WC3, the franchise took its own path regardless of its beginnings, and has diverged pretty significantly by this point so that the criticism is really no longer valid. Orcs and "good and evil elves" are HARDLY unique to Games Workshop, though :P But that doesn't really matter here. Whether the Warcraft IP was influenced by the Warhammer IP is moot, because WoW the game precedes WAR the game. | |
Man, disappointing to hear that about GH:WT. I was actually looking forward to it. Does it feel more responsive than GH 3, at least? | |
Wow, WAR had a very bad review in this site. I guess part of the reason is that the writer is a WoW fan, and comparison keeps on pouring without any actual in-depth experience regarding the game. One guys comment is too little to put WAR as an entire disappointment for us. | |
Reply to Thread
or
or
Registered for a free account here
PAX 2008: Top Five Disappointments
On the other hand, sometimes you go in expecting a bit more than the game delivers. That doesn't mean that the game in question is necessarily bad, per se ... but that it just doesn't live up to what you hoped it would. These five games didn't live up to the expectations I'd gone onto the PAX show floor with.
Permalink