Gamespot Nightfall review: 8,2. Lower than Factions. WTH?:/

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/guild...gn3/index.html


"The Good: Features a great-looking new continent to explore, filled with countless quests; two interesting but complex new character professions add even more depth; gameplay still offers an excellent mix of action, role-playing, and strategy."


"The Bad: The core game hasn't changed much, and its shortcomings are still there; new hero characters can be complicated to manage."


_________________________

It's probably beginning to become as some have feared. It's like he is pointing it as a negative, that it is more of the same.

Obviously, the review'er is bitter over the LFG system(or lack thereoff), community and trading. All which he complained over in his factions review.


"So, at worst, Nightfall might be a case of having too much of a good thing."

It really seems like that across the over three games now, there is a feeling that too few changes are here to warrant a new game.
As much as I think Nightfall is a much better game than the other two campaigns, it is hard to disagree with the review.

It's one thing that 1,5 year has passed in game design, graphic advancement, and technology and that the fundamentaly the same game across a trilogy, warrants a much lower score, simply because it's not as impressive as it was in early 2005.

But it's also another thing to complain over the same core issues for so long.


It's a complex situation, really. I gotta admit. Im loving NF but im taking it very slow. And I really have to admit, that across the 150 bucks I have spent across the three games, it is unquestionable, ALOT of the same without any big leaps in technology.

So what I think will happen if this trend continues. If the core problems that so many people want to be adressed(grouping, communicating, trading) and if it will continue to be more of the same, then I suspect that even if the games are vastly better than the predessesors, that it will gain something like 7,8 or around that score.


I dunno. No one might not even care. Others might be pissed and claim it all as biased and ignorant opinions. I know many people have harsh feelings towards Gamespots harsh reviews though. And of course... It's a review. Just an opinion of one man(Greg Kasavin, in this case).

http://pc.ign.com/articles/745/745105p1.html



Factions got 8,5, and GWP got 9,0!





The low down;

7.5 Presentation
Lots of narrative, though it takes a while to get going. Cut-scenes are weak. Inventory still a pain to organize. UI easy to manage, lots of convenient shortcuts.

8.5 Graphics
Excellent character and enemy designs, great environments, and interesting architecture. Plus, it runs nearly flawlessly even on mid range systems and loads extremely fast.
7.5 Sound

Crisp, strikingly realistic ambient sounds and a solid soundtrack. Voice acting never impresses, often induces cringing. Many sound effects from previous games return.

8.0 Gameplay
Still the same gameplay as before, and it remains enjoyable.

8.5 Lasting Appeal
Lengthy single player campaign, a new PvP mode, plenty of opportunity for cooperative play. RP starts to grow stale after level 20, however, unless you're obsessed with finding unlocks.



8.4
Impressive OVERALL
(out of 10 / not an average)

foolish gamespot...

Any website that gives Nightfall lower than 9.0 out of 10 I will not be visiting in the future for other reviews. This person has no clue. I'm not saying Nightfall is the greatest game ever made, but in its genre it's one of the best.

Hey, you'd think after making us buy 3 iterations of a game that they'd have a better trading system and a better LFG system. But they don't. Hell, they can't even finish their devolpment cycles in time... (elite mission lol)

But yea, I'm really enjoying Nightfall. I guess the heroes take care of that LFG problem since now you never really need to group in PVE... despite it being a multi-player game.

A lot of people unfortunately take Gamespot as some kind of tool for finding good games by looking at their ratings..

I'm not gonna read this guide, but I can tell that Gamespot really doesn't like the GW series, or the people writing the article were really lazy. Why? Neverwinter Nights 2 came out on the 31st, while NF came out on the 27th. There's a review and even a guide to NWN2 already.

Magazines are always going to be biased. Opinions are biased. People take them too seriously.

I just looked at some of the pictures there... the person playing the paragon wasn't even using a full skillbar while in PvP...

then you might still wanna check 1up, as they have given the game 9/10: http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3155064


they seemed to really enjoy the humour and actually enjoy the game. I think they gave the original and factions 9/10 aswell.


82% on gamerankings this far; http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/932734.asp

Mabey using those new starter templates?8.2?! its more like........82/10 .Well at least a 9. lol.

Gamespot is full of a bunch of frickin idiots. They're a total loyalty to Xbox 360 only and they prove that daily now. I think they just did this review as is b/c of NCSofts current money loss. These guys even gave FFXII a low rating when all the consumers rated it much higher. They're a bunch of idiots I tell ya. THis is why I read the user reviews Which I even have one up there!

I usually enjoy Gamespot's reviews. I am not in the camp of 'believe everything they (or anyone) say(s)', but I'm also not in the campe of 'don't ever listen to a thing they say'. Like everything in life, it's good to at least consider outside information, and also use your own insights or perspectives. Going to one extreme or the other can be foolish.

As for this lower-than-Factions review, it does suprise me a bit, but not really. That's because: NF, more than either of the previous two GW's, is (I believe) for the hardcore gamer. As employees who need to quickly play as many games as possible, they aren't getting into this hardcore player aspect that us forum hounds do. We (by we I mean those of us who are obsessed with GW) are getting a lot more out of this game than the reviewers are, largely solely on the fact that we know the peculiarities and complexities, and know how to play this game to its fullest.

It's a very fair and well-written review, and I agree with it for the most part. Nightfall really is more of the same, with a cherry on top. It is undoubtedly the best chapter in the series, and had it been released in 2005 before Prophecies, it would probably have achieved a 9.7-ish rating. However, in terms of the innovations it provides over its predecessors, it's not that giant a leap forward. This is always the way games are, and *should be* reviewed.

They gave Prophecies an Editor's Choice award (9.2) when it first came out, and they've had nothing good to say about it after. Not even a runner-up GOTY award.

Merged Lawnmower's two review threads. Any discussion about Nightfall reviews can go here, don't make additional threads.

I kinda agree with the score. Really the only things I like about NF so far is the skill templates and the new professions. New skills and/or professions are always good (assuming its all balanced as much as possible).

Oh no! Gamespot can't micromanage 3 Hero's. If that is one of their beefs with the game, then they did not play enough. If they are going to complain about Hero's, it should be about Hero's making end-game PUGs harder to get into, where real people make end game missions much easier.

thanks mate.

and roger roger!!!

No prob ^^

They have a point, as people who have played the other Guildwars games might not find this one so new and exceptional. People I've showed Nightfall to, as new players to GW, have thought it incredible though.

However, I do feel a higher rating than what they gave would be been more correct... after all, they didn't look into a great deal of the game. Essentially, they're rating the PvE content, and not the extensive PvP factors of the game.

The reviews have been poor for Nightfall which is unfortunate because it really is the strongest of the lot.

About the Gamespot review - On one hand he critises the heroes and the LFG interface for making it difficult for casual players to PUG, but then complains about how *map travel* effects immersion on the other, which is so damn important for casual players. From what point of view is he trying to review the game from?

If the reviewer is complaining about how complicated it is to manage the heroes, I can also bet he had a beef with the enemy A.I. as well....hence the low rating.

Obviously he didnt know what he's talking about.

For all those critisising the "lfg-system":

On the one hand you all seek to play a roleplaying game and do not get tired of pointing out GW's supposed shortcomings in the rp-department.

On the other hand you avoid communications, avoid roleplaying, by crying out for a group organisation scheme which would totally eliminate the human factor or communication.

Like monkeys trained to perform various button pushing, the players once more seek a menu to do what could be done by simple language. It does not require an intricate code to find a group, as the prima guides want to make us believe. Often you will find the better players with better communication and better teamplay by simply writing a full sentence in the language of the district.

I guess you'll have to understand current Gamespot's rating system a bit. Based on what I see (I'm a regular Gamespot reader, so to speak), Gamespot tends to give out pretty low scores these days. I suspect that it's because they merged with the entire cNET network, and they now have "Editor's Choice" award (cNET gives such award to "Best" stuff in IT) for games with a score of 9+. So, if a game is not good enough to earn the "Editor's Choice", it won't go higher than 9.

If you look closer, you'll see that NWN2 got 8.6. Company of Heroes got 9.0 (that's base-line for Editor's Choice, meaning that the game barely made it there). BF2142 got 8.1.

And let me add a bit more that the review was done by Greg Kasavin himself (He's GameSpot's editor-in-chief), which means that Gamespot took the game seriously and didn't pick some random newbie reviewer to do it.

And don't you think Greg is right at some points? The game is in need of some LFG system and/or improve trading system. You're going to have a hard time doing some missions/quests (by design of the game, since the game is based on co-op, more or less), but the best thing the game gives you is....guess what.....CHAT CHANNEL to find a group. I mean seriously, is that the best they can come up with? (And please don't give me some craps about communication with real people or something.)

I understand about the trading system though. You don't really need to trade for best stuff/too much money in GW in order to play the game to the end anyway, unlike some other games where you need to trade for some rare equipments in order for the game to be playable.

So, Nightfall at 8.2 is an acceptable score for Gamespot to give in my opinion.

still... lower than factions???

Higher standards than when Factions was released most likely.

I expect lower scores for nightfall across the board and so far that's exactly what I'm seeing.

Chiefly because it's the 3rd chapter - I mean who are we fooling - they're expansions even if Anet calls them chapters and they're standalone.

Most game reviewers will lower scores on repeat expansion packs simply because of reusing core content and that they're not full new games.
They view this as simply "more of the same" and not a "new game". A way of milking the initial development costs.

And that's pretty much what we have - the basic core game dynamics are all the same. Change the pretty scenary, skins on monsters/weapons etc... some games/mod communities have world editors where this can be done.
Remember we're living in the time where modders can basically make very different games using the same core engine. GW has no modding scene being server based which puts it at a little bit of a disadvantage.

I will say that Anet seems to have really tried to break out of just giving more of the same - nightfall heroes are a significant addition to core gameplay but to the reviewers who get a few days to play the game before writing up the review it may not matter significantly.

But on the other hand the reviewer is right to point out that we don't have a party LFG system, trading system and one or two other things which have been asked by the community for ages.

We can all cry that the reviews are dead on or very unfair but like it or not a lot of people use these to guide their purchases.

I'm personally surprized that I haven't seen the AI been directly referenced yet in a review considering the botched AI update with a chapter release.

Lastly all reviews are completely subjective - it's not hard to find user reviews of a game where one person gave a 10- absolute perfect and another person gave a 2- absolute drivel.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

If you ask me, Nightfall would get higher score than Factions IF they're released at the same time.

But we're talking about the 3rd game here, the 3rd as in after the 2nd. They saw some flaws in the first game, and it's ok if the 2nd game doesn't fix it. But they'd expect the flaws to be addressed in the 3rd game, in some ways. But Nightfall doesn't really improve anything on that (unless you consider heroes as a fix for LFG system becasue you don't need to go LFG anymore....then yeah....fixed). Thus, lower score than Factions = to be expected.

lol QFT. You covered the points i wanted to bring up as well. After a year and a half of game development, you did think any game would have a better trading system, partying system instead Anet work around that by making everything worthless in the economy removing the need to trade between players and introduce Heros (love them for the same reasons) so that you dont need to form parties with anyone anymore lol yes despite being a multiplayer game. Interesting. Instead, they focused on adjusting AIs to prevent gold farmers from profiteering off them and make life difficult for normal players.

Again QFT as well, this has already been brought up before that things are likely to be "more of the same". Which in a way it was but in other ways there are some new elements to the game as well making it feel like an illusion for lack of a better word to descibe it since Nightfall does play differently from the previous two chapters (not saying if its a good or bad thing)

Given the great game that Nightfall is but as mentioned in here and elsewhere it is not without its flaws both new and old and its not surprising that ratings reflect this. But i would still like to clarify that despite what i said, i still enjoy Nightfall extensively and appreciate the other upgrades as well and the creativity involved in its conception,design and presentation.

imo, it is due to the fact that nightfall is pretty much a single player game..in fact, it is listed as multiplayer game..and i think that it is a biased review as well..:O

thats only one opinion, which is why i usually just look at the user reviews. if you noticed the users voted NF a 9.5. same thing with movies.

I think A-net did their best hand down, no matter what.

My ranting follows below if anyone is interested, if not then don’t read:

I hate those lackey’s at Gamespot, they really full of it. Just read their forums and it’s full of misguided jerks who don’t know any better, but to throw rocks at each other and Gamespot lets them do this (idiots with too much ego). However IGN is a bit more creditable when it comes to their review, but at times they can be biased. I will say this; the story for Nightfall ran at a better pace, I don’t care what they said about that. Yes things still need to be tweaked and fixed, but come on I think A-net did try this time.

I bet you even if they implemented a whole new combat system, as well as a better iteration for the story they would still complain (bunch of graphic wh****, your just showing Japan that they were right about us). I would love to be the one to kick up the story if I could for A-net myself, (I really could do it). Also I bet you they are still really (in back of their minds) comparing GW to WoW even though there is still a huge difference.

Anyways now that Rupert Murdock (that Australian dude that holds FOX studios & news corp in a vise) and his cronies own IGN & I find them less creditable; as for CNET they are a bunch of neo-conservatives too, they believe the apocalypse is coming very soon. Sorry for going a bit off topic, but this does affect their ratings now since they get back paid from certain production companies.

Do you guys think "Game Rating" will affect their sales ?

Yes I do

"RP starts to grow stale after level 20"

from ign.

I just don't get it, why is LEVELING up so important in role playing? I mean, cant they see the balance that the level 20 cap created? Find me one game that's not uber gear/higher level pwns.

3/4 of the pve game for me is after level 20, but it doesnt stale one bit for me. I mean, even if your character doesnt become stronger after level 20, but YOU the player became stronger with more experiences. How is that not fun? how is that stalling? really beats me.

Why people have this attitude in rpg, "i want to level up and become stronger, find good gears and pwn other people" what the hell is worng with those people

Well, Guild Wars is a different RPG game. It has not traditional grinding, high character level number, all skills at same time, helpful items like potions or dumb enough enemies. It has been simplified to prefer player's own thinking rather than tuning the virtual character. This is GW's strongest and weakest point at the same time. It divides players to the two camps. Traditional RPG still has stronger foothold in the player community.

Factions has three new PvP games (1 currently dead) which are very good ideas and offer fast and easy action. This is one of the best things happened in Guild Wars history. Maybe reviewers liked them even the PvE side is the weakest of three campaigns.

I can only hope, Nightfall will have something similar for random PvP too. Too organized battles are not fun for the masses.

I read a really good article about video game reviews and issues with game reviews. Especially a lot of issues with them.

They pointed out several things. This stands out from it, games sequels that didn't change a massive amount of differences or changes started getting lower scores, no matter how good the game was.

Example: Uber Game Part 3 Review

Person who's played Part 1 and 2: It's ok, highlights some changes, focus on it the "same game" + some new stuff.

Person who's never played Part 1 and 2: Awesome game, very high rating covers overview of the entire game.

They also pointed out how "pro" game reviewers have to speed through or not even play the entire game due to being under the gun.

Personally, I think NF is the best GW released to date but it's more different from the previous two. It may of not been there cup of tea.

I don't get it why you insist to throw insults at the reviewers because they gave your game a lower rating. The rating doesn't affect you the slightest and it's actually true.
The points given are valid, maybe that is why you see them in almost every magazine? You know, that is not just some paid Editor who took money from Blizzard to ruin the GuildWars Rating.

After 3 Chapters, yes... GuildWars is still the very same game it was when it started. Much was nerfed, some was buffed but it really is just the same old game. So what, there are heroes. Allright. And then? What is then new and refreshing part of Nightfall? There was one single part in Nightfall that felt refreshing and different. Other than the Jujundu, there was nothing new. Just the same old c+space mentality.
And what about the flaws? Shouldn't they be fixed by now? Tradesystem (been promised for ages), Guild Storage (been promised for so long they forgot about it), malfunctioning Z-Axis (just sigh), reconnects (after such a long time there is still no way you can rejoin an instance), lack of party forming system.
I mean, honestly... the flaws are right there. Of course, a fanboi would give it a better rating but do you want a fanboi review or a review offering critics. The way this thread reads with all the pitchforks and insults you only want a fanboi review.

Gamespot, like all other game review websites, is beholden to their advertisers. If you advertise with them, you get your back scratched. If you don't, you don't. They got called out on the Black and White review some years back and they still do it, albeit more carefully.

I've seen them choose not to review a bad game (Legion) for well after two weeks after its launch in order to postpone putting up a bad review until their advertising run is done. Not only is that unethical, it does a general disservice because most people buy games within the first week that it's out and need reviews in a timely manner.

When you go to Gamespot or any of their competitors take notice of whose popup ads are running and what games are on the banner ads. Then wait for those reviews. You'll see.

Game review ratings have a significant impact on game sales.

I remember back in the day when I would go to the local software store and buy games simply by the "cool" factor of the screenshots and box cover (when I had a lot more disposable income)... this was in the 9600 baud modem days, though I paid $120 for a 14.4 (just to age myself). "Internet" meant BBS'es.

But now, I have a lot less disposable income, and I have broadband Internet access. I read many reviews before I come to a conclusion about the next game I should by.

Nightfall, and Guild Wars in general, is a much more polished game than when Prophecies came out. Based on this fact alone, if Prophecies got a score of 9.2 or whatever, then Nightfall should get at least equal, if not a higher score.

The problem is that games are scored not only by how fun they are to play, or how bug free they are. They are scored based on "innovation" and whether or not the novelty of the gameplay has worn off.

It reminds me of the initial batch of N64 games, specifically Pilotwings. N64 games were gushing with good reviews. But then after the novelty of the new game machine, and the fancy graphics (for its day) had worn off... people realized that it was really the same gameplay and some reviewers actually retracted their initial reviews and re-applied lower scores.

Prophecies got good ratings because it was a new approach to MMOs, had a great graphics engine and innovative gameplay. Nightfall is still all of the things that Prophecies is, with incremental improvements.

That's not good enough for game reviewers. Game reviewers base scores on the "newness" factor first and foremost. It's evident in many reviews. You'll see something like:

TurkeyBlaster - 5 stars! Best poultry shooter evar!!!!

TurkeyBlaster 2 - 3 stars. Better than TurkeyBlaster, but not much new.

If a "sequel" game is better than the first one, then how can it have a lower rating?

It's important to read all of the reviews of a game series to get the real picture. You can't make a judgment of quality based on the most recent review of a series, because there will be the taint of "innovation quotient" baked into the review that might result in lackluster comments being made against an otherwise stellar game.

EDIT:

I think I might have hit on something. Game review sites need to break out another score... the "Innovation" score. That would let a game like Nightfall be awarded the same high gameplay and graphics scores that Prophecies got, but with a low innovation score. That would let readers know that it's just as good, but not much different, than Prophecies.

This game doesn't need the extra features in until the monster AI is re-overhauled, because until then its like putting new appliances in an abandoned house without electricity.