Metacritic Reviews

wrote my review just to up that terrible number :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironhelix

We paid for a service, and it's not being provided. It's not MY problem that they cannot handle the load...

---

Yet you still got to level 17 already. They also gave you 4 free days towards your subscription. You can check via account management. They only temporarily locked you out of servers that are full. You could've 100% enjoyed the service you paid for by making a character on another server if you're that impatient.

FFXIV:ARR is also kind of getting blasted on Amazon as well...but that was expected. I wrote my own review and rating to offset some of the score just like I did with metacritic. I feel stupid for doing such a fanboy job that I would never think of doing to begin with but many of these reviews aren't even about the gameplay at all and they are just blatant Square Enix bashing just because that's the cool thing to do for the past year.

If they at least wait a week and keep going at it and still have issue with login and character creation then that's I wouldn't mind if FF14's score plummet to a 1 at that point. In any case, if you have time, do write an honest review and rating based on gameplay and not some temporary technical issue that every MMO faces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenn1

I like how people are mentioning Rift and swtor had smooth launches when they made the HUGE mistake of having too many servers. After people began to leave the starting areas, those servers became ghost towns. I quit both of those games because it took way to long to find a group at higher levels. Eventually they had to merge servers which is something I don't want this game to do down the road.

---

Indeed. SWTOR had an awful awful launch. I had to switch servers twice because they became ghost towns. I couldn't even start a dungeon due to the lack of players. Most servers had population issues the first few months. Some had about 5-10 in home town at prime time instead of 200 at other servers. :/

But once I managed to get on a server with a good population, the game was quite good.

Metacritic is the last place you have to go to define your buying choices.
Most reviewers cried out that they were locked out. What's the point in making you login if then the server will crash? So that you can whine from "inside" that stuff isn't working until another emergency maintenance?
They are going to fix it. No company that provides a service is happy seeing its own product give issues and not working as intended.
Most people should put themselves in the shoes of the team members before spitting stupid comments.

The game is excellent.

Server issues and login at launch should have no impact on the review of a game.

That'd be like saying Barcelona are crap because you couldn't get through the turnstiles to see the match. Barca are excellent, 10/10, but maybe the guys who run the gates are a bit gash.

Server issues are the fault of SE and their data center operational procedures. A metacritic review for SE for their handling of launch? Maybe a 5/10 at best.

However, review the game for what it is. A masterpiece in my opinion. Worthy of a 10 any day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinebox

So I felt compelled to go on Metacritic and give this game a 10 to offset the masses of idiots giving it a 0 for server issues. (I would honestly give it a 9.5 though)

Think about it, people are down rating a game for a TEMPORARY problem.

Also the original game only had 50 positive reviews and 150 negative ones. No matter how much people complain about not being able to login on the number of good reviews will always surpass the bad ones.

Good reviews, more sales = better content for us in the future. SE was not counting on this game receiving as much traffic as it currently is.

So please relax and stop abusing the metacritic scoring system.

---

For all the 0's you see that come with reviews pertaining to connection issues, hit report and select "Topics outside of the product/feature scope."

Metacritic scores the quality of the game, not the initial staggerings of a launch. They're out of scope of the spirit of metacritic.

Normally i hate the people giving 0s and 10s on metacritic but in this case i'm not so sure

People have paid for a game which is unplayable. That actually justifies a 0 in it's current state

Also anyone using user reviews on metacritic to decide whether to buy a game or not needs to start growing a common sense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Issac

For all the 0's you see that come with reviews pertaining to connection issues, hit report and select "Topics outside of the product/feature scope."

Metacritic scores the quality of the game, not the initial staggerings of a launch. They're out of scope of the spirit of metacritic.

---

So when critics reviewed SimCity and deducted points for the server issues they were out of scope too?

Sure...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeceptionsWrath

Well considering alot of people can't even get ON to play it... How could you give this a positive score?

---

If you haven't even experienced the game at all, how can you score it in any way?

Just wait until you get to experience the game and then review it when you actually know what you are reviewing. Surely a game is about more than just server queues and errors? I'm not saying this is something you can't take in consideration but to reduce the whole game to just that is just silly.