Valkirus Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 OP..it took me 6 weeks to reach level 50 on my Jedi Shadow and I never once felt like I was "grinding" to max level. IGN's overall review is more important than picking out what they consider to be negative parts. PC Gamer gave it a 93%. The game is not perfect by any means...but it is the best MMO out on the market now and if it was'nt...I would not be subbing to it. I am still having a blast and enjoying leveling some other chars. I am not hyped for GW2, as I really did not like the first one. You are right about WoW and the mistakes they made with Cata. And they lost 1.8 million subs..not 2 million. But...they are completely revamping the class talents..which I think the best system they had was in TBC. I really feel they doing that to make things easier for them as developers and to attrach the very casual crowds. Bioware on the other hand at this point is making changes because the players who still play the game have asked for them. I just hope they donot listen to the minority of complainers and ruin the game down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Light_Valkyrie Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 How is it a must read if said review is done by a sheep herder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PostalTwinkie Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I will go back and read it in a bit. But if it is anything like the GameInformer review they completely ignored the obvious and massive flaws, and focused on one small narrow area. GI pretty much reviewed the game as if it was a single player RPG and gave it a nice score, which it deserves if it was a single player RPG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quip Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) lol a 9... If you read reviews you should know the "new" scale. 6/10 = Wouldn't run, crashed the machine and bricked the hard drive. 7/10 = Ran but caused incessant vomiting among players. 8/10 = Ran and could be played for short periods of time without causing SIDS in adults. 9/10 = Could be played for longer periods of time but only if intoxicated, crashed regularly. 10/10 = Tolerable product, only crashes when the keyboard or mouse is in use. Seriously, numerical scores just help"journalists" avoid having to actually play the game to write an intelligent commentary. They also allow editors to "recommend" a score that won't harm a site or magazine's ability to brown nose the sponsors. Edited February 18, 2012 by Quip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CulannHS Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 1-85 A grind? It takes like 2 weeks... 1-50 in SWTOR? It takes like 2 weeks also... Neither of these are "grinds." Clearly someone never played any MMO that came out before 2009. Anarchy Online ring a bell? Try grinding 1-220 lol. Jesus Christ some people are just too lazy for their own good. Yeah. (shudder) Inferno Missions. Those things could cause a brick to need therapy, or at the least, serious counseling. 220 / AI 30 is pretty much the definition of agony and numbness. Of course, levelling to 50 with hell levels at 25, 35, 45 and crush levels at 26, 36, 46 weren't exactly a cakewalk either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisar Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I think this game is a WoW clone but completely fell short of that other game's appeal. They simply created a mediocre MMO with a 1 mil-1.5 mil sub projection. They never set out to be better than WoW or to even make a great game at all. Kind of an unsettling attitude, in my opinion anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notebene Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 [This is not aimed at the poster or anyone else, just a general sentiment regarding styles, formulas, and what not...] I think there's a place for all the different 'formulas' for different games and combinations there in. I think a skill-based combat system can be paired with a sand box and leveling classes with the 'trinity'. I think a theme park style game with no leveling classes or trinity combined with a 'die rolling' combat system would be fine. The bottom line is any game with any combinations of components would make for an interesting game. I just think all the rage out here comes from seeing a lot of money spent 'not' on the combinations of things they didn't want to see in a game. That doesn't make the game bad. Well, I guess it makes it bad to them, but then to declare it a 'failure' because it doesn't have the combination of things 'you' would have spent money on, that just seems rather odd and narrow minded and bitter and whatever else. A game comes out. You try it. If you find the combination of game elements appealing, then you play it. If you don't, you don't. I just find all the soap boxing crazy. Unless...you think if ya'll yell loud enough they'll take their AAA money and completely bend the game to what 'you' want, then I guess more power to you. I would hate to see that sort of 'design by committee happen', but I digress. I enjoy this game. I'm going to try Tera, just to try it and see how I like it. I don't feel compelled to play any game for years and years and years. I still have a Rift account, but I'm considering shelving that. I already shelved LotRO for the time being, and am really only 'actively' playing SWTOR. Will I find something in the next 6-12 months that might make me shelve this game? I don't know. I promise you I won't start a post that declares how this game is a failure because of XYZ and [some future game] is going to be a SWTOR killer. That's just silly. I think they made a fun game here. I think it appeals to certain people. I think there are bugs to be fixed. I look forward to seeing what their ('their' being the key word there, pun intended) vision of the future holds, and well there you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armaso Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 If you read reviews you should know the "new" scale. 6/10 = Wouldn't run, crashed the machine and bricked the hard drive. 7/10 = Ran but caused incessant vomiting among players. 8/10 = Ran and could be played for short periods of time without causing SIDS in adults. 9/10 = Could be played for longer periods of time but only if intoxicated, crashed regularly. 10/10 = Tolerable product, only crashes when the keyboard or mouse is in use. Seriously, numerical scores just help"journalists" avoid having to actually play the game to write an intelligent commentary. They also allow editors to "recommend" a score that won't harm a site or magazine's ability to brown nose the sponsors. No kidding. It's like when your wife or gf asks if you think she is fat. It's in your best interest to lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustTed Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 WoW does not take a lot of time to level cap, at all. I've gotten 6 or 7 85s and had every single class capped in wotlk. I have six 85s. Leveling is still a stupid waste of time. MMOs are about the endgame, and Bioware packed all the content into the portion of the game we abandon. It's crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustTed Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Your link is misleading. My thread focus entirely on the leveling formula process. Here is the ACUTAL LINK. http://pc.ign.com/articles/121/1218701p1.html?RSSwhen2012-02-14_154400&RSSid=1218701 Nah, your post is misleading. This isn't an IGN review, it's your personal forum post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts