EA Offers Free Game to Early SimCity Adopters

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Here's a thought. Instead of giving people a free game, how 'bout you ALLOW THEM TO RETURN THE BROKEN ONE. LIKE YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE FROM THE BEGINNING.

Or...don't give me a free game AND PATCH OUT THE STUPIDTARDED DRM.

Fireprufe15:
Or...don't give me a free game AND PATCH OUT THE STUPIDTARDED DRM.

You can't just "patch out" a quarter of the games features...
What they COULD do is offer a "local server", where you can have an own region (limited to one or two per player, but it can be deleted and restarted).

uncanny474:
Here's a thought. Instead of giving people a free game, how 'bout you ALLOW THEM TO RETURN THE BROKEN ONE. LIKE YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE FROM THE BEGINNING.

The game itself isn't broken - it's just their servers. Or are you going to cry "broken game" every time an MMO is having a maintenance? No, you won't.

kajinking:
Well from what I hear even with the severs back up and running the game has very little in the way of replay value with the small maps being filled up in less than an hour and entire regions getting full way too damn quick. It appears the "It's a great game when it works" argument may have been a bit off.

oh, you want bigger maps?

well, they interfere with your achievement leader boards, so they wont be put in.

unless of course you pay something like $15 for bigger maps in their DLC they will no doubt be revealing once people no longer give a shit.

OT: 'people started playing the game that we couldn't anticipate'

That is the whole fucking point of a BETA, you find bugs by doing everything you can possibly imagine.

but oh wait, forgot, Beta tests are not actual tests anymore, just the ability to play games a few weeks early.

Bindal:

Fireprufe15:
Or...don't give me a free game AND PATCH OUT THE STUPIDTARDED DRM.

You can't just "patch out" a quarter of the games features...
What they COULD do is offer a "local server", where you can have an own region (limited to one or two per player, but it can be deleted and restarted).

uncanny474:
Here's a thought. Instead of giving people a free game, how 'bout you ALLOW THEM TO RETURN THE BROKEN ONE. LIKE YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE FROM THE BEGINNING.

The game itself isn't broken - it's just their servers. Or are you going to cry "broken game" every time an MMO is having a maintenance? No, you won't.

there is a difference between a MMO's maintenance and a broke ass game.

Age of Conan? that was maintenance.

Darkfall? broke ass game.

World of Warcraft was borderline broke, but they were quick to fix the more notorious issues.

this bullshit? all of this could of been avoided had they an actual alpha or beta test instead of just letting a select few people [whom from what I have seen were a majority of journalists to begin with] play for a few minutes each day.

It could of been avoided or at the least been buffed out more than what it is now had they any actual interest in the game's survival, which they dont.

Yes you can patch that out when you know 50% of your audience just wanted a single player game anyway.

Steven Bogos:

kailus13:
If you're going to offer a free game, tell people what it is. It's only common sense, but then so is getting enough servers to cope with demand and they sure ballsed that up.

The wording of her statement suggests that you'll get to choose your own game from EA's full library. But.. that seems a bit too good to be true?

Wouldn't the irony be delicious though? They worry about people getting their game for free, break the game in a hamhanded effort to prevent that, and as a result end up giving out games for free for EVERY SINGLE SALE they made.

They just gave themselves a 100% piracy rate!

Kalezian:
All of this could of been avoided had they an actual alpha or beta test instead of just letting a select few people [whom from what I have seen were a majority of journalists to begin with] play for a few minutes each day.

The public beta was BS, but the journalists got a "pre-release version", which they could play as much as they wanted that that worked. Mostly because the server had only to handle like 50 people or so.
And yes, you can blame them for not doing a proper stress-test (unlike other games, like Warface, which does one in about 10 minutes with the goal to actually CRASH the darn thing, if possible - people talking part even get 400 of the Real-Money-Currenty, which is A LOT in that game. Even the most expensive thing right now only costs about 35).

Still, if you manage to get on a server, the game works perfectly fine. It isn't broken.

Those eligible for the free game will probably find that, following some exciting cross publisher talks, the game they are getting is Alien Colonial Marines

CardinalPiggles:

itsthesheppy:
"The consensus amount... players is that it's a great game"?

she hasn't looked at the metacritic user reviews, has she?

Or she's lying.

Yeah, gonna go with lying.

People are obviously going to bomb that aren't they? Since when does anyone around here care what the fuck Metacritic scores are?

I've heard great things about the game from people who actually can play it.

The opinion of the 1500+ people who gave it negative scores are, to you, invalid because... there's a lot of them?

Bindal:

The game itself isn't broken - it's just their servers. Or are you going to cry "broken game" every time an MMO is having a maintenance? No, you won't.

The fact that the game requires servers at all means it's broken.

So, we had the Diablo 3 disaster due to always-online DRM, and now we have the SimCity disaster due to always-online DRM. If the next game with always-online DRM makes major pre-order and release-day sales, all I can say is gamers deserve every bit of mistreatment they get from these companies cause they're just not learning to keep their wallets closed. Repeatedly shitty games, increasingly bad policies, and intrusive, broken DRM, and, yet, gamers continue to throw money at these same companies every time the next new shiny is released, only to restart the cycle anew. Just stop buying it, people.

[capcha: makes wallets happy.]
How fitting.

EDIT: minor grammatical edit and added text.

Fireprufe15:
Yes you can patch that out when you know 50% of your audience just wanted a single player game anyway.

I highly doubt that 50% is even remotely an accurate figure. Remember: "built to run on your dad's PC". That quote didn't come out of nowhere, it literally meant "YOUR DAD'S PC".

Read: most people don't care if it's online or offline. And many of them enjoy the social aspect of it. Some are even able to say play with their kids who are in college, since SimCity is really meant to bridge a generation gap.

Their marketing and branding from the very beginning has made it clear that this is supposed to be an all-family type game, not just focused on the teen/young adult generation. Since I am currently in the vicinity of late young-adulthood, I appreciate that. The way they structured it technologically emphasized this: they put as much of the processor load onto their own servers (which had the well-illustrated consequences) and built the game as an online experience, not a mere offline title.

That's fine, that's a design decision, and I personally think it adds value and longevity to the title. Then again, I am playing in a pretty awesome region.

Always remember when reading forums that you are reading the opinions of a vocal minority, regardless of whether it's praise or criticism. That does not mean that people weren't outraged - I doubt ANYONE was happy with their server load fuckup, but I highly doubt the broad majority of the audience objects to the game not being a single player title.

In fact, a multiplayer Sim City has been that many people called for and wanted for a long time - don't forget that.

itsthesheppy:
"The consensus amount... players is that it's a great game"?

she hasn't looked at the metacritic user reviews, has she?

Or she's lying.

Yeah, gonna go with lying.

Metacritic user reviews are known to be such a good thing to base things off of and are generally written by level headed people who totally own the game.

Monsterfurby:
I personally think it adds value and longevity to the title.

So much for 'longevity' when EA eventually decides to turn the servers off.

http://i.imgur.com/inYVuJ5.jpg

So much for "earning back our trust"

Bindal:

Still, if you manage to get on a server, the game works perfectly fine. It isn't broken.

You're contradicting yourself a bit here.

If a game requires the player to be connected to the servers to play, and the servers are "broken", then the game itself is, essentially, broken.

That doesn't mean the game can't be fixed. But when a key feature of a game makes the game unplayable, then the game is broken. How is that debatable?

Why is there this prevailing tendency among gamers today to excuse big companies of responsibility when a high-profile, big-game release goes horribly awry? (especially when it most certainly IS the fault of the companies involved)

Even more baffling are the people who're saying things along the lines of, "Well, I can play the game, and I have fun with it, so the tens or hundreds of thousands of gamers that can't are just crybabies. The game is great and well-made."

It's just...ugh, it shows a complete lack of perspective and objectivity amongst the gaming community. It's the whole Diablo 3 debacle all over again, only worse. Seems none of us; publishers NOR gamers; learned our lessons from Spore.

Monsterfurby:

In fact, a multiplayer Sim City has been that many people called for and wanted for a long time - don't forget that.

There's an enormous difference between desiring the ability to play a game online, and being forced to play it online.

It goes without saying that many SimCity fans have desired a robust multiplayer feature-set being added to the series. Some even desiring a social-oriented feature.

However, many of the same fans didn't want to be forced into playing in such a fashion; especially at the expense of the solo/offline experience. That's the issue in all of this.

It's good for you that you're one of the few who can play the game. Congratulations.

However, many, many, MANY more can not.

Those people bought the game in good faith. Paying good money for a product and service that just don't work. They were told...promised...by EA and Maxis that they were purchasing a product that would preform in a certain manner. The product did nothing of the sort. Those people were lied to.

The gamers willing to stick by the game in anticipation of the day (if) it is fixed are free to do so. However, the ones who who aren't and would prefer getting a refund should be given the opportunity to do so. They certainly shouldn't be chastised by EA nor their fellow gamers.

It's particularly appalling to see some telling those gamers that they need to calm down and keep it all in perspective. As if to say, "This is just how it is. Put up with it."

I know that some will view this as a cope out move by EA, but i for one am happy... this means i get the Sims 3 University for FREE!

YOu'd think they would've learned about this when it happened to Blizzard and that stupid Diablo 3 online thing.

CardinalPiggles:
People are obviously going to bomb that aren't they? Since when does anyone around here care what the fuck Metacritic scores are?

I've heard great things about the game from people who actually can play it.

It's a nice game but the AI is dumb as bricks.

There is no "Special engine" in the back. The characters just go shortest route, send 100% of your emergency vehicles to one incident instead of spreading them across incidents, and other things like this.

It's a bit like spore, lots of advertised features and none of them exist.

Hey, were not letting you play this game you paid for and want to play, in them eantime play some other shitty games you neither wnat or like.
well played EA, well played.

VoidWanderer:
YOu'd think they would've learned about this when it happened to Blizzard and that stupid Diablo 3 online thing.

You'd thing Blingzard would have leaed about this when it happened to Ubisoft and that stupid Assasins Creed 2 online thing 4 years ago.....

Credit where due, this is a good move. EA is still pretty terrible as a whole, but for a company that takes one step forward, 5 steps back, at LEAST acknowledge the steps forward. They should have seen this disaster coming, and they should have allowed offline play (EVEN THOUGH the multiplayer is an inspired move). But given the bed they have made for themselves, this is a good start...unless of course, the list of games is crappy. But if they include things like the new Red Alert or a Crysis, good job. And frankly, I'm almost more impressed that they actually came out and admitted that they screwed up. That's a respectable move too. It doesn't vindicate, but it does mitigate.

I edited my double post, and it triple posts? What is happening here?!

In all my years here, this is my first ever double post. I am shamed.

itsthesheppy:

she hasn't looked at the metacritic user reviews, has she?

Because the user reviews on metacritic mean something. Metacritic is just where all the butthurt fans go to bomb the game, they mean nothing. Anyone that takes the metacritic user reviews seriously is an idiot, in my opinion.

Kungfu_Teddybear:

itsthesheppy:

she hasn't looked at the metacritic user reviews, has she?

Because the user reviews on metacritic mean something. Metacritic is just where all the butthurt fans go to bomb the game, they mean nothing. Anyone that takes the metacritic user reviews seriously is an idiot, in my opinion.

Yeah. The opinion of disappointed fans don't count. Only the happy ones!

itsthesheppy:

Kungfu_Teddybear:

itsthesheppy:

she hasn't looked at the metacritic user reviews, has she?

Because the user reviews on metacritic mean something. Metacritic is just where all the butthurt fans go to bomb the game, they mean nothing. Anyone that takes the metacritic user reviews seriously is an idiot, in my opinion.

Yeah. The opinion of disappointed fans don't count. Only the happy ones!

The opinion of disappointed fans count when they're being rational about it.

Kungfu_Teddybear:

itsthesheppy:

Kungfu_Teddybear:
Because the user reviews on metacritic mean something. Metacritic is just where all the butthurt fans go to bomb the game, they mean nothing. Anyone that takes the metacritic user reviews seriously is an idiot, in my opinion.

Yeah. The opinion of disappointed fans don't count. Only the happy ones!

The opinion of disappointed fans count when they're being rational about it.

Allow me to quote you from the top six comments when I click over to the metacritic user reviews.

Server reached maximum capacity and so I was placed in a queue and was not allowed to play a SINGLE PLAYER GAME because it forces me to constantly be online. So despite my flawless internet connection, EA's incompetence has forced me to postpone playing a game I'd like to play on my own anyway.

The game has a lot of problems. Only one of them actually matters. Never support always online DRM for a single player game. Lots of people cannot play their single player game because of this and gamers need to do everything they can to stop developers from including it. Do you still play SimCity 4? Good luck playing this game in 10 years.

It may be looked down upon to use this as a megaphone to shout through but the fact is that people need to see this, that NO-ONE should EVER support always online DRM for a single player game, on my partners 2nd attempt to play this game, she was told the servers were at full capacity and could not play until 235 minutes had elapsed.

BEWARE: Forced online DRM, will you be playing this 10 years down the track like previous Sim Cities? No, you wont. And they want this, so you buy the next one. Servers go down? Well screw you, EA already has your money. DLC available from release, server side save-games. I repeat, FORCED ONLINE DRM Also, server queues at launch. Thanks for destroying video gaming and my most treasured franchise.

It's been out for 2 days and I haven't been able to play it yet. When will they learn Always-On DRM does far more harm than good? I'll just wait for the pirated copies and play those.

This is an $80 facebook game. This origin (spyware) dumbed down piece of garbage, not only costs $80 for the full game (any lesser version witholds ingame content), but comes intact with intrusive, always-online DRM. Many people, even reviewers, were unable to access their games or load old saves because this.

Always online DRM, smaller, non-connected cities due to engine limitations, DAY 0 DOWNLOADABLE CONTENT, poor customer service and delivery of product (waited almost an hour to connect to my single player game), and a swath of simplifications in the gameplay that ruins it for a SC veteran like myself.

I'll stop there. They go on in much the same manner. Angry customers unhappy with a shoddy products, venting their opinion in the only place there they think it has some way to count for something. I'm not seeing many 'irrational' loonies here. Or maybe it's just easier for you to paint them with a wide brush to make yourself feel better about it.

itsthesheppy:

Kungfu_Teddybear:

itsthesheppy:

Yeah. The opinion of disappointed fans don't count. Only the happy ones!

The opinion of disappointed fans count when they're being rational about it.

Allow me to quote you from the top six comments when I click over to the metacritic user reviews.

Server reached maximum capacity and so I was placed in a queue and was not allowed to play a SINGLE PLAYER GAME because it forces me to constantly be online. So despite my flawless internet connection, EA's incompetence has forced me to postpone playing a game I'd like to play on my own anyway.

The game has a lot of problems. Only one of them actually matters. Never support always online DRM for a single player game. Lots of people cannot play their single player game because of this and gamers need to do everything they can to stop developers from including it. Do you still play SimCity 4? Good luck playing this game in 10 years.

It may be looked down upon to use this as a megaphone to shout through but the fact is that people need to see this, that NO-ONE should EVER support always online DRM for a single player game, on my partners 2nd attempt to play this game, she was told the servers were at full capacity and could not play until 235 minutes had elapsed.

BEWARE: Forced online DRM, will you be playing this 10 years down the track like previous Sim Cities? No, you wont. And they want this, so you buy the next one. Servers go down? Well screw you, EA already has your money. DLC available from release, server side save-games. I repeat, FORCED ONLINE DRM Also, server queues at launch. Thanks for destroying video gaming and my most treasured franchise.

It's been out for 2 days and I haven't been able to play it yet. When will they learn Always-On DRM does far more harm than good? I'll just wait for the pirated copies and play those.

This is an $80 facebook game. This origin (spyware) dumbed down piece of garbage, not only costs $80 for the full game (any lesser version witholds ingame content), but comes intact with intrusive, always-online DRM. Many people, even reviewers, were unable to access their games or load old saves because this.

Always online DRM, smaller, non-connected cities due to engine limitations, DAY 0 DOWNLOADABLE CONTENT, poor customer service and delivery of product (waited almost an hour to connect to my single player game), and a swath of simplifications in the gameplay that ruins it for a SC veteran like myself.

I'll stop there. They go on in much the same manner. Angry customers unhappy with a shoddy products, venting their opinion in the only place there they think it has some way to count for something. I'm not seeing many 'irrational' loonies here. Or maybe it's just easier for you to paint them with a wide brush to make yourself feel better about it.

And if you check the scores these people gave the game they're all 0's to 3's. I seriously doubt the game is that bad that it deserves a 1.6 overall score. Like I said, it's where all the butthurt fans go to review bomb the game. The scores these people have given the game have just confirmed what I said about metacritic user reviews. So yeah, as I said earlier, the opinion of disappointed fans count when they're being rational about it.

Why would they ask people to pull the advertisement for the game and then tell the consumers that if they buy the game before the 18th they will get a free game? why even bother with pulling the advertisement in the first place?

Kungfu_Teddybear:

itsthesheppy:

Kungfu_Teddybear:
The opinion of disappointed fans count when they're being rational about it.

Allow me to quote you from the top six comments when I click over to the metacritic user reviews.

Server reached maximum capacity and so I was placed in a queue and was not allowed to play a SINGLE PLAYER GAME because it forces me to constantly be online. So despite my flawless internet connection, EA's incompetence has forced me to postpone playing a game I'd like to play on my own anyway.

The game has a lot of problems. Only one of them actually matters. Never support always online DRM for a single player game. Lots of people cannot play their single player game because of this and gamers need to do everything they can to stop developers from including it. Do you still play SimCity 4? Good luck playing this game in 10 years.

It may be looked down upon to use this as a megaphone to shout through but the fact is that people need to see this, that NO-ONE should EVER support always online DRM for a single player game, on my partners 2nd attempt to play this game, she was told the servers were at full capacity and could not play until 235 minutes had elapsed.

BEWARE: Forced online DRM, will you be playing this 10 years down the track like previous Sim Cities? No, you wont. And they want this, so you buy the next one. Servers go down? Well screw you, EA already has your money. DLC available from release, server side save-games. I repeat, FORCED ONLINE DRM Also, server queues at launch. Thanks for destroying video gaming and my most treasured franchise.

It's been out for 2 days and I haven't been able to play it yet. When will they learn Always-On DRM does far more harm than good? I'll just wait for the pirated copies and play those.

This is an $80 facebook game. This origin (spyware) dumbed down piece of garbage, not only costs $80 for the full game (any lesser version witholds ingame content), but comes intact with intrusive, always-online DRM. Many people, even reviewers, were unable to access their games or load old saves because this.

Always online DRM, smaller, non-connected cities due to engine limitations, DAY 0 DOWNLOADABLE CONTENT, poor customer service and delivery of product (waited almost an hour to connect to my single player game), and a swath of simplifications in the gameplay that ruins it for a SC veteran like myself.

I'll stop there. They go on in much the same manner. Angry customers unhappy with a shoddy products, venting their opinion in the only place there they think it has some way to count for something. I'm not seeing many 'irrational' loonies here. Or maybe it's just easier for you to paint them with a wide brush to make yourself feel better about it.

And if you check the scores these people gave the game they're all 0's to 3's. I seriously doubt the game is that bad that it deserves a 1.6 overall score. Like I said, it's where all the butthurt fans go to review bomb the game. The scores these people have given the game have just confirmed what I said about metacritic user reviews. So yeah, as I said earlier, the opinion of disappointed fans count when they're being rational about it.

So... just stick your fingers in your ears and repeat yourself in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? I must be on the internet!

itsthesheppy:

Kungfu_Teddybear:

itsthesheppy:

Allow me to quote you from the top six comments when I click over to the metacritic user reviews.

I'll stop there. They go on in much the same manner. Angry customers unhappy with a shoddy products, venting their opinion in the only place there they think it has some way to count for something. I'm not seeing many 'irrational' loonies here. Or maybe it's just easier for you to paint them with a wide brush to make yourself feel better about it.

And if you check the scores these people gave the game they're all 0's to 3's. I seriously doubt the game is that bad that it deserves a 1.6 overall score. Like I said, it's where all the butthurt fans go to review bomb the game. The scores these people have given the game have just confirmed what I said about metacritic user reviews. So yeah, as I said earlier, the opinion of disappointed fans count when they're being rational about it.

So... just stick your fingers in your ears and repeat yourself in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? I must be on the internet!

Yes, thank you for providing me more evidence that user reviews on Metacritic are no more than irrational review bombings from butthurt customers. Because I'm sure this game deserved over 2000 negative reviews with scores of 0's to 3's. I have nothing more to say on it, you can pay attention to the Metacritic user reviews if you wish, see if I care.

Kungfu_Teddybear:

itsthesheppy:

Kungfu_Teddybear:
And if you check the scores these people gave the game they're all 0's to 3's. I seriously doubt the game is that bad that it deserves a 1.6 overall score. Like I said, it's where all the butthurt fans go to review bomb the game. The scores these people have given the game have just confirmed what I said about metacritic user reviews. So yeah, as I said earlier, the opinion of disappointed fans count when they're being rational about it.

So... just stick your fingers in your ears and repeat yourself in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? I must be on the internet!

Yes, thank you for providing me more evidence that user reviews on Metacritic are no more than irrational review bombings from butthurt customers. Because I'm sure this game deserved over 2000 negative reviews with scores of 0's to 3's. I have nothing more to say on it, you can pay attention to the Metacritic user reviews if you wish, see if I care.

While I agree that MetaCritic in general and it's user review in particular are pretty useless, when you've attracted so many negative reviews in such a short period of time, you must be doing something wrong. In this case making online play a requirement, not a desirable option and then underestimating the demand it would place on your servers.

Kungfu_Teddybear:

itsthesheppy:

Kungfu_Teddybear:
The opinion of disappointed fans count when they're being rational about it.

Allow me to quote you from the top six comments when I click over to the metacritic user reviews.

Server reached maximum capacity and so I was placed in a queue and was not allowed to play a SINGLE PLAYER GAME because it forces me to constantly be online. So despite my flawless internet connection, EA's incompetence has forced me to postpone playing a game I'd like to play on my own anyway.

The game has a lot of problems. Only one of them actually matters. Never support always online DRM for a single player game. Lots of people cannot play their single player game because of this and gamers need to do everything they can to stop developers from including it. Do you still play SimCity 4? Good luck playing this game in 10 years.

It may be looked down upon to use this as a megaphone to shout through but the fact is that people need to see this, that NO-ONE should EVER support always online DRM for a single player game, on my partners 2nd attempt to play this game, she was told the servers were at full capacity and could not play until 235 minutes had elapsed.

BEWARE: Forced online DRM, will you be playing this 10 years down the track like previous Sim Cities? No, you wont. And they want this, so you buy the next one. Servers go down? Well screw you, EA already has your money. DLC available from release, server side save-games. I repeat, FORCED ONLINE DRM Also, server queues at launch. Thanks for destroying video gaming and my most treasured franchise.

It's been out for 2 days and I haven't been able to play it yet. When will they learn Always-On DRM does far more harm than good? I'll just wait for the pirated copies and play those.

This is an $80 facebook game. This origin (spyware) dumbed down piece of garbage, not only costs $80 for the full game (any lesser version witholds ingame content), but comes intact with intrusive, always-online DRM. Many people, even reviewers, were unable to access their games or load old saves because this.

Always online DRM, smaller, non-connected cities due to engine limitations, DAY 0 DOWNLOADABLE CONTENT, poor customer service and delivery of product (waited almost an hour to connect to my single player game), and a swath of simplifications in the gameplay that ruins it for a SC veteran like myself.

I'll stop there. They go on in much the same manner. Angry customers unhappy with a shoddy products, venting their opinion in the only place there they think it has some way to count for something. I'm not seeing many 'irrational' loonies here. Or maybe it's just easier for you to paint them with a wide brush to make yourself feel better about it.

And if you check the scores these people gave the game they're all 0's to 3's. I seriously doubt the game is that bad that it deserves a 1.6 overall score. Like I said, it's where all the butthurt fans go to review bomb the game. The scores these people have given the game have just confirmed what I said about metacritic user reviews. So yeah, as I said earlier, the opinion of disappointed fans count when they're being rational about it.

If the game flat-out fails to function for most people, it deserves nothing more than a zero.

Doesn't matter if your game is the second coming of Christ, if people can't play it warrants nothing more than a big fat zero.

Andrew_C:

Kungfu_Teddybear:

itsthesheppy:

So... just stick your fingers in your ears and repeat yourself in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? I must be on the internet!

Yes, thank you for providing me more evidence that user reviews on Metacritic are no more than irrational review bombings from butthurt customers. Because I'm sure this game deserved over 2000 negative reviews with scores of 0's to 3's. I have nothing more to say on it, you can pay attention to the Metacritic user reviews if you wish, see if I care.

While I agree that MetaCritic in general and it's user review in particular are pretty useless, when you've attracted so many negative reviews in such a short period of time, you must be doing something wrong. In this case making online play a requirement, not a desirable option and then underestimating the demand it would place on your servers.

Online DRM's and server issues still aren't a reason to give a game a score of 0. Yes, online DRM's suck (well actually, I'm indifferent towards them. But I understand why people hate them), and obviously people are going to get pissed off about server issues. But rushing to metacritic to review bomb it with 0's is unfair. If someone went on and say, gave it a 5 out of 10, and then said something like "The game itself is pretty fun, but it's been simplified quite a bit from the old games. Also the always online requirement and the server issues ruin the experience" or something, then that's an acceptable reason for dislike with a fair score. It's the same with Mass Effect 3 which is sitting at a 4.6 user review score with over 2000 negative reviews, a lot of them complaining about the ending. They seem to ignore the fact that the rest of the game was brilliant.

DmC Devil May Cry, another game to be review bombed recently, a lot of people complaining about the new design on the characters. I'll be the first to admit that when DmC was released I hated what Ninja Theory did to the characters, and I still do. But I gave the game a chance, and when I played it I was pleasantly surprised. The gameplay was fun, the platforming was fun, the level design was great, the soundtrack was great. Overall it was a great addition to the series, but because of the character design the game got a bunch of 0's on metacritic.

One bad feature/part of a game does not warrant a 0 out of 10 review and an overall score of 1.something.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here