Re-review, but not really
March 25, 2010 13 Comments
It’s very clear, that MMORPG didn’t actually play WAR when they did their re-review (thanks to Gaarawarr for pointing me to the review). At least, not for any discernible amount of time. This review feels like little more than an angry rant at a game not being what they wanted it to be a year and a half ago. Anyone who currently plays WAR will tell you that things were much worse back then, much better now, but like all games, still has its issues. That said, the particulars of this review are so overwhelmingly biased, and just flat-out wrong, that I’m astounded that the site put it up. I’ll point out a handful of the more glaring statements.
“The current Tier 4 End-Game events rarely occur…”
I guess every day, multiple times a day is too rare. This is probably the single most ignorant comment he made. One of the biggest complaints across players is that the city-sieges (i.e. ENDGAME) happens far too frequently.
“…they literally require hundreds of players to ‘lock in’ the four racial parings in order to conquer the opposing realm’s Capital City.”
Considering the reviewer’s inability to count (one, two, FOUR racial pairings), I can see why he might think it takes hundreds of players to DO the locking. In reality, on my server, 48 people could do it. Sure, if even competition is out, you start to approach 100 (but still fall short), but by no means is it REQUIRED.
“Keeps are also commonly viewed as being too hard to attack, and too easy to defend- making the whole RvR scene counterproductive.”
Oh my Christ. I hope to God Almight above that this was just a mix-up of words, and that he really meant, “…too easy to attack, and too hard to defend…”.
“…as not only will it restrict ‘Twinks’ from participating (due to the Capital City restriction) but addresses one of the main gripes many players have with the current difficulty of sieges.”
While this is not an exact inaccuracy, the phrasing is awkward and leads a player to believe that twinks were ever an issue in the end game city siege. It’s further confusing giving the just paragraphs-previous statement about twinks in tier 1.
“Unfortunately, the trial appears to have segmented the game, and bred a new style of gamer in the form of a ‘Twink’. ‘Twinks’ are over-specced ‘Endless Free Trial’ characters, who are capped at level 10, but have continued playing with beefed up characters.”
Twink exist explicitly in tier 1, he’s obviously aware that they are capped at level 10, yet the proximity of these statements would lead any outside to believe that this behavior is pandemic and exists across all tiers. Twinks in capital cities never has been an issue.
And lastly, this gem of muddy clarity:
“One of the main reasons people fled from Warhammer Online was due to the lack of substance to solo and PvE content- and if you’ve had your fingers crossed for additional content, look elsewhere.”
Getting past the assumptions for the reasons people leave on his part, and acknowledging that without access to the polling data people filled out as they left, it’s a little hard to really get a good idea of the “why” as an outsider, lets examine the reality here. “Lacking substance” is a terribly vague and unspecific term that doesn’t really convey any meaning. What exactly does he mean by “substance”? It basically killed any meaning he had or argument he made that centered on that particular point.
Since launch, LotD was released (PvE), MANY MANY live events have been run (all solo-able to my memory), PQ difficulties were shuffled around to allow for more solo/small-group friendly versions of them in each chapter, and a new 6v6 scenario was released. More currency systems and methods of gearing up have been introduced that gave alternate paths of progression to players who are more casual, AND to those who play solo. All this despite the games repeated declaration of being focused on group play.
Here’s a breakdown of the review:
- First three paragraphs: Background on Mythic/Reviewer/WAR
- Next three paragraphs: How WAR was at launch, and some of the changes that took place, like server consolidation.
- Next five paragraphs: PvE stuff as well as talking a bit about player populations and the new player experience, and “twinks”.
- Next paragraph: Mythic’s community outreach and employee structure.
- Next four paragraphs: Mostly incorrect statements about the current state of RvR and the end-game campaign, with some wishful thinking that will float the reviewer’s boat.
- Next paragraph: Appearance/performance
- Last paragraph: Declaration of its underperformance “but play it anyway, it’s the best PvP out there!”.
I understand that reviewer’s time is limited. They are getting paid per piece most likely. That said, when you have review a game, ESPECIALLY if it’s a re-review, do it right. Talk more about the game itself as-is than at launch, or the company structure. Be clear about your meanings. And for God’s sake, at least bother to actually your facts right.