• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Metacritic: RO2: 75/68 - RO:O: 81/86.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
#4
ROOST did something never done before (hyperbole, sure, but you get the idea - it introduced the innovations of the mod to a larger public, as a retail product), whereas RO2 merely expands (and in some aspects devolves, such as no movement penalty to leg shots or extra sway on arm hit) on these elements, and had a rockier launch to boot. There's something to be said about the status quo of the gaming world around each of these releases, regardless of the individual perceived quality of each game.

Regardless, ROOST has a larger review pool, so maybe extra RO2 reviews could boost its score. Though the general metacritic tendency is having your score lower over time as more reviews come in.

EDIT: Apparently a smaller number of media reviews are being counted for ROOST. Anyways, it's silly to explain scoring tendencies with review numbers, they could just as well be extra positive ones and boost the score.
---
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#6
It says there are some less than satisfied customers who don't like change, are not willing to wait for the bugs to be ironed out, are annoyed at the way TWI were less than open about the 'flavour' of the final product or some combination of the above.

I fail to see anything surprising or even remotely interesting?

Look, we all thought RO2 was going to be product A and we got product C, but we can't turn back time so we have to make do with what we have and build on it, or not.

I decided I actually quite liked it and now I like it even more as it improves with each patch. I wish it didn't have all the bugs, but they are getting fewer by the week so I don't need anything else from RO2 for me to be satisfied with my purchase, and there's tons more stuff just over the horizon.

All this melodramatic nonsense and pointless claims of doom and gloom just clutter the place up. Furthermore, nobody who plays the game and enjoys it could care any less if their lives depended on it.

FYI, " Tittle " is a very apt mistake :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Josef Nader, OneDuck, Nimsky and 4 others
Upvote 0
#7
all the tile says is that you mistakenly believe that reviews are a worthwhile thing.

Reviews aren't worth the bandwidth or paper it takes to read them. The fact that so many people put so much stock into sites like Metacritic simply shows how incapable many are of independent thought. They'd rather be told what to think of a product than decide for themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S.t.a.l.k.e.r. and pepihoh
Upvote 0
#8
The RO2 meta score is based on significantly more reviews than RO1. While both scores are individually curious, they are useless for comparison.

The RO1 reviews are 2006 era reviews, a time of WWII spam, in which Red Orchestra was a unique and refreshing commercial release. I think this enticed tired reviewers and earned it some extra loving on the final score.

2011 hasn't been oversaturated with WWII titles, or even multiplayer shooters besides Call of Duty for that matter, so RO2 is not the surprising indie breakout title that needs a helping hand from reviewers to get recognised. In fact, RO2 was fairly well marketed and does not need anyone's pity or help to prove itself. The review scores are therefore more straight faced.

Honestly, this year has seen a lot of changes in professional gaming reviews, there is way more spread in scores, very positive reviews rarely make it far past 85/100, and only exceptional game of the year type of titles make it past 90/100 these days. I doubt we will be seeing many Half-Life 2 kind of reviews ever again ("98/100, this is the best game EVER!"), where basically anything worse than 9 is a mediocre game, and 7 is something to avoid.

75/100 is a realistic score for RO2 (though for me personally it should be somewhere in the mid 80's, a great 2011 game). 81/100 is close to how I would rate RO1 today, but accounting for review score inflation in the past 5 years I think RO1 should be scoring between 70-75.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike 78
Upvote 0
#10
...I don't know, Metacritic is pretty much just a number. The way they compile all the reviews is questionable. All reviews note a game differently and have a different notation system etc etc... I can go on and on, but to the point it dosn't mean anything. If you are interested in a video game, try it out, look at gameplay videos and read a review done by a journalist you have similar tastes with, who plays tthe same games as you... Best way to do it.
 
Upvote 0
#11
Upvote 0
#13
Thaelyn said:
all the tile says is that you mistakenly believe that reviews are a worthwhile thing.

Reviews aren't worth the bandwidth or paper it takes to read them. The fact that so many people put so much stock into sites like Metacritic simply shows how incapable many are of independent thought. They'd rather be told what to think of a product than decide for themselves.
Click to expand...

Based on your logic, everybody should've spent 50 dollars on "Duke Nukem Forever", and decided for themselves.
That they wasted 50 dollars.
 
Upvote 0
#15
Poerisija said:
Aren't you the guy who defended everything furiously like.. last year?

Everything as in recon planes, MkB's, heroes and what not.
Click to expand...

-Never cared about recon planes. Not in favor, nor against.

-Mkbs, I defended their inclusion based on TWIs lies, which consisted in:
1) They were there/we've got a picture, which later I found that it just couldn't be.
2) They would be RARE, and obviously, they are not.

-I never minded whatever advantage diferent stats may give the player because Im not a competitive prick and I understand that people is diferent in real life, but I was always against a grindy implementation of it, the level up and all that BS, a system of randomization would have been much better. I have posts from more than a year ago about that.

More questions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leo4444, Nimsky and jalex3
Upvote 0
#18
EvilKiwi436 said:
Based on your logic, everybody should've spent 50 dollars on "Duke Nukem Forever", and decided for themselves.
That they wasted 50 dollars.
Click to expand...
No. This is another lack of thought response.

There are ample ways for a prospective purchaser to educate himself about a new game before taking the plunge. All it takes is enough patience to wait a couple of days for the gameplay vids to pop up on Youtube and taking the time to read available information about the game. One doesn't need to buy a product sight unseen in order to form an opinion. Doing that is almost as foolish as deciding that some random stranger on the internet is an authority on whether or not you will like the game.

Don't presume to put words in my mouth> You're far from qualified to have the first clue about what I think.
 
Upvote 0
#19
Metacritic user score is usually more interesting to me. I don't care much for what gaming websites say, haven't for years. User score is 6.8 compared to Ost's 8.6 which to me is much worse than a lower critic score. Fans of the series were disappointed, and newcomers alike found fault with aspects of the game.

The numbers playing now aren't even more than Ost shortly after release, and that came with no hype, no "accessibility" elements, no treadmill grinding etc. All of TWI's efforts went in to making the game more accessible but it doesn't translate into numbers playing, or even user score because they went too far and ended up dumbing the gameplay down, making the guns too easy and diluted the realism with fantasy weapons. RO2 doesn't feel like an RO game. It lost its niche and didn't find a new one
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike 78, S.t.a.l.k.e.r., Leo4444 and 4 others
Upvote 0
#20
First impressions are everything.

RO2 sold well because of it's brand name and marketing. I'm sure 75% if not more of the sales came within the first week.

The game was junk and people dropped it. Some of you said they should wait for the game to be patched (or completed?)

Well 1. TWI doesn't care, they made their profit in the first week, it's not like they are missing out on anything
and 2. Even after patch, the steady player population has only grown by a couple hundred players and it's dropping again.

For those that did wait for the patch, it's apparent it didn't change opinions of the game like some of you suggest it would.

I think it's funny watching all the fanbois (I've played since the mod btw) scramble to rationlize or even completely demerit user feedback statistics. All I see is Excuse X or Excuse Y or Insult B. Not to mention a disregard of various business principles.

Truth is, RO2 sold well; but that doesn't mean it's a great game. Many people had mediocre to bad experiences when the game was released, and trying to overcome that hurdle is EXTREMELY difficult for ANY business or large corporation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nimsky, Mike 78, Makino and 5 others
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu