Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 24, 2017, 12:32:56 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
Donate! | Subscribe! | Shop: Amazon

***DONATION DRIVE 2 HAS BEGUN:
CLICK HERE TO BURN MONEY***
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  The Secret World  |  Topic: Investor Press Release 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Investor Press Release  (Read 20115 times)
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #35 on: August 10, 2012, 08:38:40 PM

Nah, because the 72 comes from people who tried the game. All the stuff you mention, is a barrier to ever buying it in the first place. The hope is that you get a high review number because that will help people overcome all that stuff and try it. A low number just gives them another reason to stay on the sidelines. So it isn't everything, certainly, but it is a very visible problem.

The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
Kageru
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4450


Reply #36 on: August 10, 2012, 08:42:27 PM

Meta-critic is fine for what it is, they're just reading far too much into it when they use it as a true guide to a games success. At the least they should be cropping some outliers and collecting trends over time if they're going to use it in that fashion.

If there's a one month holiday it should not have come as a surprise and their launch date should have been designed with that in mind. They also started the promotional advertising waaay too early, a lot of it was really obscure and the game is treading new ground in genre. Conan did get a lead in from having a recognized name and genre. And then there's the funcom penalty. Still, they might get a boost from being on steam.

Anyway, I hope they can do a slow growth and do well. But I still think they're going to be under a lot of pressure to keep up a flow of content.

Is a man not entitled to the hurf of his durf?
- Simond
Modern Angel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3553


Reply #37 on: August 10, 2012, 09:35:17 PM


If there's a one month holiday it should not have come as a surprise and their launch date should have been designed with that in mind.

Oh, absolutely. But... FUNCOM. It is/was the decision of about six or seven people at the top and it was a bad one.
kildorn
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5014


Reply #38 on: August 10, 2012, 09:40:04 PM

Metacritic ratings also aren't used on a sliding scale of "how well should it do", it's 75+ or abject failure. There's a reason companies got in a bunch of trouble over paying off reviewers and attacking low scores: a low score can completely and utterly fuck the company's employees regardless of the quality of the game or it's return on investment.
Feverdream
Terracotta Army
Posts: 98


Reply #39 on: August 10, 2012, 11:22:37 PM

Isn't Tom Chick one of the idiots who gave Diablo 3 a high score (over 85%, I think; I don't recall specifically).  I used to be neutral about "professional" reviewers, but I've gotten to the point over the last few years that I feel they are just useless leeches who wouldn't even be able to recognize a new game with potential.  That goes for PC Gamer and their ilk as well.

Yes, I'm annoyed.
Kail
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2774


Reply #40 on: August 10, 2012, 11:31:05 PM

[snip...]the game may go belly-up...[snip...]

Is this really a concern?  I just saw this on Steam and have been waffling on the purchase...  I'm not above dumping $50.00 into a single player game in the hopes of saving Developer X, but if I grab an MMO and it goes under, I've got nothing to show for it but a lighter wallet.
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 38020

Prevent all damage that would be dealt to you and other troops you control.


WWW
Reply #41 on: August 10, 2012, 11:35:15 PM

I'd go instead with everything folks have been saying since the first teaser content went on their site. It's a cool setting, but it bears no resemblance to anything people have gotten used to. It's not western nor eastern fantasy, it's not a known IP, the game mechanic itself isn't quite like anything else

So we can blame all the things that are great about this game?  Ohhhhh, I see.

Kageru
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4450


Reply #42 on: August 11, 2012, 02:44:50 AM


I don't think it's too much to argue that novelty, challenge and quality do not always correlate to mass appeal. At least they recognized and budgeted for that possibility so there's no shock factor.

I'm tempted to buy it on steam just to support them, but I just don't have the time for a subscription MMO at the moment.

Is a man not entitled to the hurf of his durf?
- Simond
John Difool
Terracotta Army
Posts: 31


Reply #43 on: August 11, 2012, 02:45:31 AM

[snip...]the game may go belly-up...[snip...]

Is this really a concern?  I just saw this on Steam and have been waffling on the purchase...  I'm not above dumping $50.00 into a single player game in the hopes of saving Developer X, but if I grab an MMO and it goes under, I've got nothing to show for it but a lighter wallet.

Check Amazon. There's a reseller listing there at $25 new with $4 shipping. At that price, well...if you are even only vaguely interested in the suspense/horror genre I can't see you not getting your money's worth. The game is hardly perfect but what they've done right they've done very well.

"I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand." -John Cleese in Clockwise
Tannhauser
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4436


Reply #44 on: August 11, 2012, 08:17:45 AM

I knew of this game, but it seemed to release under my radar.  And I'm an MMO fanatic. Marketing fail?  Also, Funcom's past shitty games cast a large shadow over The Secret World.  At least to me.  It's hard for me to get past my disappointment of AoC past Tortage.  Or the trainwreck of AO.

Having said that, I've been reading about TSW here and everyone seems to like it.  So I may buy it off Steam now but I kind of feel like a sucker going back to a ripoff mechanic.

If you take Metacritic seriously you should probably ask for help when you wipe your ass.






 
calapine
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4487

Solely responsible for the thread on "The Condom Wall."


Reply #45 on: August 11, 2012, 11:34:20 AM

Just finished the G4TV.com review, and feeling rather stabby. Here are the highlights:

Quote
The Secret World misses the mark in almost every way.
piss-poor voice acting, the game features almost no redeeming qualities.
The first thing I noticed when I started The Secret World was just how weak it looked.
Not only is it an ugly game, itís also a game that at its core isnít fun to play.
This is due to the gameís largest failure: a lack of classes or a leveling system.
The story is so weak and tortuous it hardly merits mention.
The writing is among the worst I have heard in a game and even the voice acting is hard to stomach.
Instead, the game is just too difficult to enjoy across the board. Mobs never really become easier to kill because you never really level above them.
The quests in the game are another serious weak point.
Most quests feel like time sinks without the comforting thought that at least youíre gaining experience and leveling.
Some quests require outside knowledge to solve, like say an obscure bible passage. But who in their right mind wants to exit a game, visit Google and look up a passage?
When describing my experience to one of my friends, she asked me, ďis it free-to-play?Ē I replied that even if it were, the cost would still be too high.

To misspell any doubts: Yes, this is a staff review. And yes, it features among the aggregate that makes up metacritic's 72/100 score. To think people get layed off over this... Ohhhhh, I see.

Restoration is a perfectly valid school of magic!
caladein
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3174


WWW
Reply #46 on: August 11, 2012, 12:03:15 PM

I don't think there's anything really wrong with what you bolded though.

The voice acting is occasionally awful and the lip syncing even more so.  It's not a strong engine and the real world setting and art direction do it no favors.  Not everyone likes deck builders.  The setting and the game's occasional ARG-like qualities are also pretty easy to find unlikable.

Everyone who recommends this game does so with heavy qualifications or caveats, sometimes implied in the case of Falc.  Guess what happens when someone who doesn't fall into those qualifications has to play the game?  An uncharitable review, but not one that's off-base.

"Point being, they can't make everyone happy, so I hope they pick me." -Ingmar
"OH MY GOD WE'RE SURROUNDED SEND FOR BACKUP DIG IN DEFENSIVE POSITIONS MAN YOUR NECKBEARDS" -tgr
Venkman
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11536


Reply #47 on: August 11, 2012, 12:21:33 PM

I partially agree with caladein. The review isn't off base if your audience is the same "I'm bored with WoW but want more WoW" that flocked to and then fled SWTOR. They just didn't seem to have any open mind at all to trying to learn how the pieces fit together. That too is playing to their base though. It's a strange game. But most gamers don't want strange. They want more of what they're already comfortable with, and maybe a few tweaks.

I'd go instead with everything folks have been saying since the first teaser content went on their site. It's a cool setting, but it bears no resemblance to anything people have gotten used to. It's not western nor eastern fantasy, it's not a known IP, the game mechanic itself isn't quite like anything else

So we can blame all the things that are great about this game?  Ohhhhh, I see.
Heh, yea, basically. tl;dr: niche-y game built with a AAA budget from lol Funcom.
palmer_eldritch
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1975


WWW
Reply #48 on: August 11, 2012, 12:29:44 PM

I'd say the review is very off base.

The writing and storyline can't seriously be described as "weak" or "among the worst" by MMO standards. To give one example, I played Rift up to max level and honestly can't remember a single interesting thing any NPC said.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I'm sure, but is "ugly" really the word to describe this game? www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7zybmNQh2U
Mobs do become easier to kill as you become more powerful (at least, the ones in the lower level zones do, which is what this guy means). He's simply incorrect on that point. It's debatable whether the fact that the game kind-of does have a level system is actually a strength, but the reviewer clearly hasn't played the game enough to understand how it works.
I think most people who've played the game would agree that the quests are far more interesting than the "kill ten foozles" you get in most MMOs. When they work. You do get a few traditional MMO quests, but they are the exception rather than the norm - most of the quests have some kind of twist or puzzle or unique little game mechanic. The reviewer would have a fair point about bugs, if he stuck to complaining about those.
He claims that in order to perform investigation quests you need to exit the game. In fact, you can load up Google in game, using the in-game browser. It also would surely have been reasonable to mention that you don't need to do these quests, as there's plenty of quests which largely involve shooting things to do instead.
If the voice acting is occasionally awful it's also occasionally very good. Overall, "piss-poor voice acting" is not a reasonable summary.
palmer_eldritch
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1975


WWW
Reply #49 on: August 11, 2012, 12:36:03 PM

I partially agree with caladein. The review isn't off base if your audience is the same "I'm bored with WoW but want more WoW" that flocked to and then fled SWTOR. They just didn't seem to have any open mind at all to trying to learn how the pieces fit together. That too is playing to their base though. It's a strange game. But most gamers don't want strange. They want more of what they're already comfortable with, and maybe a few tweaks.

I'd go instead with everything folks have been saying since the first teaser content went on their site. It's a cool setting, but it bears no resemblance to anything people have gotten used to. It's not western nor eastern fantasy, it's not a known IP, the game mechanic itself isn't quite like anything else

So we can blame all the things that are great about this game?  Ohhhhh, I see.
Heh, yea, basically. tl;dr: niche-y game built with a AAA budget from lol Funcom.

Yeah, a lot of us think of "MMO" as a genre which includes UO, a Tale in a Desert, WoW, Eve etc, while plenty of mainstream gamers think MMO means "WoW, games like WoW and uh wtf?". It's like if every FPS had been Quake or a Quake rip-off and then somebody releases Deux Ex.

But I do think a games reviewer should have some idea that a game can be different to other games and still be good. If someone gets confused when they are exposed to an MMO that's not Diku then it's reasonable to call them a bad reviewer. There's no reason a good reviewer wouldn't explain that this game won't be for everyone.
trias_e
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1296


Reply #50 on: August 11, 2012, 12:44:03 PM

I don't think there's anything really wrong with what you bolded though.

The voice acting is occasionally awful and the lip syncing even more so.  It's not a strong engine and the real world setting and art direction do it no favors.  Not everyone likes deck builders.  The setting and the game's occasional ARG-like qualities are also pretty easy to find unlikable.

Everyone who recommends this game does so with heavy qualifications or caveats, sometimes implied in the case of Falc.  Guess what happens when someone who doesn't fall into those qualifications has to play the game?  An uncharitable review, but not one that's off-base.

The voice acting is never awful in my experience.  I'd like to see examples of the awful voice acting, because I haven't encountered one bit that stood out as poor.  It's ranged from fantastic to average.  Overall the voice acting is one of the strong points of the game.

The art direction is another strong point of the game.  TSW has an excellent visual atmosphere and some really awesome monster models (although lack of variety there) which really bring the setting to life.  The only weak link is the human character models, which I admit can be a bit weak and oddly animated.  Everything else is top notch stuff however.

The bolded parts of the review are a joke.  Misses the mark in every way?  Nope. The story is tortuous as to not merit explanation?  The writing is some of the worst in gaming?  That's absolutely absurd.  It's an ugly game?  Nope.  The quests are a major weak point and a time sink?  Are we comparing them to other MMORPGs here?  If so, that's also untrue.  Rift and SWTOR have more grind and time sink elements in their questing by far.


I recommend this game with only one caveat:  It's probably the best single player RPG to come out in quite a while, but the MMO elements are shaky, so if you're primarily looking for the MMO elements the game may not satisfy.  It's still probably going to end up as my game of the year regardless, but I'm more of a single player RPG kinda guy these days anyways.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2012, 12:50:36 PM by trias_e »
Venkman
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11536


Reply #51 on: August 11, 2012, 12:50:26 PM

It basically reads like someone who tried the game, had no idea what the heck was going on, and rather than learn, got annoyed and ranted about it. That makes him a gamer rather than a reviewer, except that unlike our rants, his gets called out as potentially company-damaging. I agree with Palmer's "There's no reason a good reviewer wouldn't explain that this game won't be for everyone."

At the same time, as caladein said: even with all its uniqueness, the game can only be recommended with heavy caveats. That's why I would see 72 as "good". Except, companies don't, because anything that's ever gotten any type of marketing and PR budget isn't allowed to be below high 70s.
Tyrnan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 423


Reply #52 on: August 11, 2012, 12:54:44 PM

Quote
There are also a number of animation issues, even this late into the beta...

Apart from his comments about the game being ugly (character models fair enough but the game as a whole?) and the story being weak, this is what really pisses me off about that review. If you're going to call yourself a professional reviewer at least review the fucking finished product. "This late into the beta" could be BWE1 for all we know if he was referring to the entire beta process. FunCom were putting out an insane amount of patches towards the end of beta. Granted most of them broke stuff as well as fixed it but on the whole the game moved in a positive direction from them.

If they were proper journalists they'd give the game a second review now that it's been out a month, and with a different reviewer since it's pretty obvious that guy will never like the game no matter what they do.
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 38020

Prevent all damage that would be dealt to you and other troops you control.


WWW
Reply #53 on: August 11, 2012, 12:56:53 PM

That reviewer didn't get past Kingsmouth, I bet. Some of the early voice acting in Kingsmouth bothered me (the sheriff in particular). You don't see some of the more interesting aspects of the skill system until late in that zone. And if you don't do the dungeons, you really aren't seeing a lot of the differences between it and WoW-like MMO's that make the game special.

I can see how he wouldn't like the game, but if he's bitching about investigation quests making you go outside the game and not mentioning the in-game browser, he played a beta version and didn't bother to update his experience to live.

caladein
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3174


WWW
Reply #54 on: August 11, 2012, 01:39:19 PM

I didn't say that TSW had poor art direction.  What I tried to say was this: the game's realistic (versus cartoony) art direction and real world setting don't help mask that the engine or character models aren't good.

That's a small, subjetive, leap away from calling it ugly.

"Point being, they can't make everyone happy, so I hope they pick me." -Ingmar
"OH MY GOD WE'RE SURROUNDED SEND FOR BACKUP DIG IN DEFENSIVE POSITIONS MAN YOUR NECKBEARDS" -tgr
jakonovski
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4388


Reply #55 on: August 11, 2012, 01:43:07 PM

Meh, they just released the wrong product at the wrong time at the wrong audience, with the wrong business model. Everything talked about in the articles and this thread was known beforehand to the developers.

I mean I love the game and all, but everyone could tell the whole thing was doomed.
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #56 on: August 11, 2012, 01:59:26 PM

That reviewer didn't get past Kingsmouth, I bet. Some of the early voice acting in Kingsmouth bothered me (the sheriff in particular).

Yeah, I was going to point out the sheriff in particular as well. The skateboard kid is also pretty bad, and the Southern skank chick really overdoes it, and not in the awesome-funny-overacting way. And while Wolf's voice acting is not bad, his lines go on for ever and ever and are generally terrible. Honestly none of the first island people stood out to me as *good* voice actors except for the Orochi group pair, Britishy McVillain, Deputy Andy, and the hippie camp guy. And a couple of those could have been missed by someone rushing through. Think you're probably right, they didn't make it much past the start of the 2nd zone. I think it would be a lot harder for anyone to pan the voice acting/writing if they made it to Innsmouth Academy.

I didn't say that TSW had poor art direction.  What I tried to say was this: the game's realistic (versus cartoony) art direction and real world setting don't help mask that the engine or character models aren't good.

That's a small, subjetive, leap away from calling it ugly.

Yeah, and the part that makes it such a missed opportunity on this front is that the monster models are generally really good. I think if they'd gone for a more stylized look on the character models, they could have really nailed it.

Darniaq, on 72 being "good": I suspect most people read Metacritic scores like they're grades. A 72 (in America obviously) is a C bordering on a C-. Nobody who went to a normal American school is ever going to perceive a 72 as a good result. Now I don't necessarily know how that translates to the Norwegian investor world, but certainly American *reviewers* are largely going to expect their numbers to be perceived like that I bet.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2012, 02:04:44 PM by Ingmar »

The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
Threash
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7677


Reply #57 on: August 11, 2012, 02:51:05 PM

At least it should have some good word of mouth.  I started playing because so many people here liked it so much, and i talked a friend into trying the free weekend, she loved it and recommended it to her mom who is now trying to talk her husband into playing.  It's a good game, it should have good retention rates and good word of mouth.

I am the .00000001428%
Sjofn
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8286

Truckasaurus Hands


Reply #58 on: August 11, 2012, 02:58:58 PM

Yeah, the choice to have people first run into a bunch of New Englanders was not the best choice, voice-wise. That accent is annoying as shit to listen to, so even if the voice acting is good, it is hindered by the accent (which I think is the bigger problem with the sheriff lady, for example).

Honestly, the first area is kind of a mess from a first impressions standpoint. If you build yourself weird or a way you suck at, you're kinda screwed unless you already want to repeat content (and who wants to repeat non-PvP content that early?). The game doesn't actually let you know there's an in-game browser (I only knew because I hit "b" to open my bags early on). The quests are people with terrible accents reciting monologues at you, and sometimes what they ramble about has nothing whatsoever to do with what you wind up doing. And some of those monologues are LONG. The quest log is too small for how much they first throw at you and you find yourself running back and forth between spots repeatedly for no good reason. And the mob density is really, really annoying in some areas.


It DOES have some good word of mouth, though, and I've certainly recommended it to a few people that I thought would like it, even though I've kinda decided that ultimately this game doesn't float my boat enough for a monthly fee. But caledein is right, when you recommend the game it has to come with qualifications, and if someone isn't willing to put up with those, they're not gonna like the game. It's a niche game that's done well for its particular niche, but I don't think they wanted it to be a niche game.

God Save the Horn Players
proudft
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1228


Reply #59 on: August 11, 2012, 03:18:38 PM

There was WAY too much talking for me.  The last monologue I listened to was the sheriff lady.  After that it was ESC for all of 'em for the rest of the free weekend and figure out the quests from the journal/sidebar.

Part of it was I didn't want to use up my limited free-weekend-game-playing time listening to monologues, but they really didn't grab me at all and I probably would have skipped them for 'real'.  Also, for some reason you couldn't skip line-by-line like SWTOR, to let them get to the damn point.  But basically, I want my games and my books/movies to be two separate things.  Standing there mute while someone goes on, and on, and on, about three times as long as they need to to get to the damn point isn't atmospheric or immersing or anything but boring for me.

I liked the skills system and combat fine, so-so on the setting, and the quest delivery system was the final "I'll wait for something else."  

So if I were rating it, I'd give it about  70.   Oh ho ho ho. Reallllly?
Phred
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2025


Reply #60 on: August 11, 2012, 05:03:39 PM

It's like if every FPS had been Quake or a Quake rip-off and then somebody releases Deux Ex.
Interestingly enough Deus Ex is another game Tom Chick is semi famous for hating.

Quote
But I do think a games reviewer should have some idea that a game can be different to other games and still be good. If someone gets confused when they are exposed to an MMO that's not Diku then it's reasonable to call them a bad reviewer. There's no reason a good reviewer wouldn't explain that this game won't be for everyone.

Can't emphasize this enough. We kind of expect game reviewers to have some perspective on games and a broader range of experience of them than a non-professional game writer.

proudft
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1228


Reply #61 on: August 11, 2012, 05:36:54 PM

Basing any business decisions on any critic, even if it was the Roger Ebert of video games, seems incredibly stupid and bizarre, though.   There is some mumbling about how bad it is, at least:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/07/16/is-metacritic-ruining-the-games-industry

But who knows if it will have any effect.  The main problem with the game industry as a business is that everyone wants to be IN the games industry and so they are flooded with deluded people who are completely willing to sign up for ungodly hours of work for a shitty salary/contract/reward structure.
Venkman
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11536


Reply #62 on: August 11, 2012, 05:59:02 PM

Well, in that regard, I think the bigger problem is the complete disconnect between those in the industry due to passion and those running the numbers and holding the wallets. The former is populated by people doing it more for love than riches. The latter (at the bigger publishers anyway) are business-types who could be selling pens or consumer electronics for all that is different in how they make their decisions.

They focus on pre-launch marketing where most of the score-skewing reviews come from, and launch-week hit-driven sales largely driven by ad buys and in store placements. After that, the "service" might as well be some tax they pay for having launched a persistent world. Their focus then is either jumping to the next big thing (which makes me wonder if their Lego move was an act of pre-emptive desperation) or they shift attention to marketing/PR of the next box sale in the expansion.

Meanwhile, the truly dedicated developer is left wondering why they're out of a gig because of some uninformed review.

Darniaq, on 72 being "good": I suspect most people read Metacritic scores like they're grades. A 72 (in America obviously) is a C bordering on a C-. Nobody who went to a normal American school is ever going to perceive a 72 as a good result. Now I don't necessarily know how that translates to the Norwegian investor world, but certainly American *reviewers* are largely going to expect their numbers to be perceived like that I bet.

Yea. Which has always bothered me. To me that completely mitigates the need for a 100-point scale. If a game is a failure at the educational fail rating of 65, then really, any value below 65 isn't even worth printing (which is synonymous with <65 being "F"). But then, there's a whole lot about the rating system itself I'm not keen on  tongue
UnSub
Contributor
Posts: 8064


WWW
Reply #63 on: August 11, 2012, 09:27:15 PM

The Metacritic review score is only a small part of this picture (and even if you remove Tom Chick's 40 score, TSW's Metacritic average score only goes up less than a point given the other 42 critic reviews).

TSW launched in a period where it is between SWOR and GW2, was pretty quiet on the marketing (or was drowned out by EA - take your pick) and was very different to anything else that a lot of AAA MMO players had seen. A lot of the reviews - both critic and user - appear based on initial impressions, which weren't always favourable, regardless of how deep / good TSW got after that. MMO players have been conditioned that a game that isn't fun in the first 3 hours isn't going to suddenly get fun after 40 hours and there's no reward for finding out for yourself.

And because it was Funcom, a lot of people probably expected the worst and then a transition to F2P. So why pay box cost and then a sub fee?

Regardless, it's bad news for Funcom and another helping of bad news for MMO titles.

Megrim
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2500

Whenever an opponent discards a card, Megrim deals 2 damage to that player.


Reply #64 on: August 11, 2012, 10:55:13 PM

The Metacritic review score is only a small part of this picture (and even if you remove Tom Chick's 40 score, TSW's Metacritic average score only goes up less than a point given the other 42 critic reviews).

TSW launched in a period where it is between SWOR and GW2, was pretty quiet on the marketing (or was drowned out by EA - take your pick) and was very different to anything else that a lot of AAA MMO players had seen. A lot of the reviews - both critic and user - appear based on initial impressions, which weren't always favourable, regardless of how deep / good TSW got after that. MMO players have been conditioned that a game that isn't fun in the first 3 hours isn't going to suddenly get fun after 40 hours and there's no reward for finding out for yourself.

And because it was Funcom, a lot of people probably expected the worst and then a transition to F2P. So why pay box cost and then a sub fee?

Regardless, it's bad news for Funcom and another helping of bad news for MMO titles.

But the game was fun in the first 3 hours.

One must bow to offer aid to a fallen man - The Tao of Shinsei.
Venkman
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11536


Reply #65 on: August 11, 2012, 11:16:18 PM

If you knew what you were doing. But if you're a professional reviewer (or even a self-labeled one) fresh off reviewing Assassin's Creed Revelations and Rift, TSW is not easy to pick up. Doesn't matter if you played actual late beta or launch. This is a hard game. It works well, in that the unique systems are in place and functioning. But it in no way explains itself well, as others have said. You've got to want to like this game in order to get past the early wtf-is-this-wheel/ where's-my-main-heal/ why-can't-i-skip-dialog moments.

Reviewers don't have time for that stuff, and ding it as a result.

Which is unfortunate, and why word of mouth is way more important at this point than any PR campaign they could put together now. It's a great game out of the box, and has great potential if they can manage the costs and retain the talent for mission writing that they have.
Surlyboi
Terracotta Army
Posts: 9251

eat a bag of dicks


Reply #66 on: August 12, 2012, 12:00:39 AM

Reviewers are fucktards then. If I could pick this up, anyone can.

Tuned in, immediately get to watch cringey Ubisoft talking head offering her deepest sympathies to the families impacted by the Orlando shooting while flanked by a man in a giraffe suit and some sort of "horrifically garish neon costumes through the ages" exhibit or something.  We need to stop this fucking planet right now and sort some shit out. -Kail
UnSub
Contributor
Posts: 8064


WWW
Reply #67 on: August 12, 2012, 06:29:41 AM

I read a number of player reviews that all went that it was 'meh' in the first play session, so they didn't continue. Lots of "it's an interesting setting, but combat is so bland".

Or perhaps the last MMO they reviewed was SWOR, which played very well early on and TSW suffered as a result.

But again, it isn't just review scores behind this financial hole that Funcom now finds itself in.

Tannhauser
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4436


Reply #68 on: August 12, 2012, 07:39:29 AM

I haven't played, but it sounds like TSW doesn't have a fun/understandable newbie experience.  We've seen that a lot in MMO's.  Do they have a tutorial?  You throw a player in a non-diku MMO without some hand-holding you will get frustration.

Even AoC, their previous MMO, had a fun newbie experience and it lasted for all of Tortage.

Lantyssa
Terracotta Army
Posts: 20848


Reply #69 on: August 12, 2012, 07:47:24 AM

That reviewer didn't get past Kingsmouth, I bet. Some of the early voice acting in Kingsmouth bothered me (the sheriff in particular). You don't see some of the more interesting aspects of the skill system until late in that zone. And if you don't do the dungeons, you really aren't seeing a lot of the differences between it and WoW-like MMO's that make the game special.
It may have bothered you, but her accent was dead on.

The reviewer was too stupid to understand anything about what the game was trying to be.  He only wanted WoW, and when a game dared, dared, to be different, he savaged it.  Even if he had gotten WoW, he probably would have rated it low because it wasn't WoW.

Everyone one of his points was either outright wrong or subjective opinion passed off as factual information.  The dude could work for FOX with skills like that.

Hahahaha!  I'm really good at this!
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  The Secret World  |  Topic: Investor Press Release  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC