https://www.mmorpg.com/columns/our-absolver-review-2000106688 if we really need to dispell the whole 'its not an mmo so doesn't get to be discussed when talking about mmos' nonsense for my point to get through. Openworld pvp, constantly described as an rpg, decent amounts of players allowed in the same zone instance. Not massive multiplayer. But serviceable when talking about combat. Also they greatly improved pve post this review which was their only real complaint.
Absolver uses a tab target mainly but no targeting is required to attack and in fact tab targeting can be a disadvantage when fighting multiple enemies so certain dungeons require increased skill with untabbed targeting.
Metascore 75 player reviews 94 player score 6
That's a good metascore. Does it get to count as a sign it's good and should be investigated or should we ignore metascores and therefore your critique of Onigiri's lack of one above?
For reference as to games more commonplace in the forums here are two commonly cited games frequently referenced as acceptable for debate about AoC by most people when talking about combat or over all game design.
If I wanted to look like a completely biased uninformed moron I could have cited the erthia expansion numbers instead with 9 reviews and a 4.2. But I am not because that's not a fair representation of the community.
That's a pretty good Metascore. Is everquest 2 better than lineage 2 because it has higher scores? Does the metascore of absolver matter here since it's above Lineage 2's?
Let's throw in wildstar just to point out a deadgame that most people feel was good and has a bunch more reviews, but isn't playable
Lineage 2's reviews #'s are not that far off from Absolvers. Should we be caring about the fact that it has smaller review numbers than Wildstar? Is it invalid to talk about smaller games or not?
Oh and just for those who didn't want to bother fact checking Noaani's disingenuous claim about Onigiri they picked the latest port which was to switch rather than the ones with longer held communities to make their point look more impactful.
Yes they aren't as popular and have lower reviews but I personally think it'd be silly to consider the entirety of a games success to validate or invalidate a single part of the games design that was good. If we take that approach Wildstar died and is unplayable. I could make the, in my opinion, disingenuous arguement that Onigiri is playable while Wildstar isn't, so has more players than Wildstar and is therefore more successful. So let's ignore Wildstar in conversations. It's the same type of logic.
Last bit of fun: the game that serves as a large base of this game's design
We all know that score is in reaction to pay 2 win not that the game's combat was bad. But do the player scires matter more or the meta ones (that imo more accurately reflect the games quality.) Have I made a good enough case that this metacritic business should be retracted and discarded?
Never understood why people use metacritic to rate games anyways. Cause combat wise I was more talking about how combat flows in the games I mention and the combat was good but yeah theres a reason we aren't playing them in the long run. Some games are too grindy, some have quest systems and features that blow donkey balls. Some just don't make it because of shop systems ect. I was really only using combat and the mechanics of those types of systems from a programming point of view. So totally understand what your saying cause metacritic isn't even a thing I use when attempting to try out a game. I look at reviews from players and even then I still often try games out based on the types of reviews. If someone puts 12 hours into the game and says "lolz game suck" I figure its most likely some troll now if i see someone who played 50 hours and leaves a decent review about what they like / dislike thats the kind of review i care about.
Oh we are including metacritic as a valid measurement tool this time Noaani?
It isn't a great measuring tool, but it is a great way to quickly discount a game.
If someone says "this game is a great example of why X can be good in a game", and that game hasn't even had enough Metacritic reviews to have a score (despite being 10 years old), then that game can be discounted.
If it does have a good enough score (or indeed any score), then you need to look a little further in to that game, as I did in the post above (and found that the game in question had been dropped by multiple publishers, across every region).
You complain about my take on Onigiri, yet my main point was that it didn't even have a Metacritic score due to not having enough published reviews. Even if you take all four platforms and combine them, it STILL doesn't have enough reviews to have an actual Metacritic score.
If you want to hold that up as a shining beacon of what an action combat MMO can be, then go for it. My point was that it probably isn't the best game to point to when people ask about action combat MMO's - but hey, if you disagree with that assessment, next time someone asks you about action games and if action combat can be any good in an MMO, I expect you to point to it.
Cause metacritic sucks its based on what ever company spends enough money and has people write paid views for there game. But if you look at the player reviews for onigiri they are pretty favorable especially for a game that came out in December 12, 2013 I know what your thinking "but steam says its 2019" yeah but it was published overseas before it came out here. And when it comes down to it bottom line is most asian titles are never even viewed by American players for many different reasons. People automatically think pay to win tho often times over seas it is true.
My main point wasn't trying to say that we have to go action combat but we can't advertise as "brand new action combat game" if overall the experience is geared towards being a tab target. If the game is good people are still gonna play regardless. But I'm sure there will be some disappointment because originally when the pvp system was being tested and we had the ashes of creation fortnite people thought that was gonna be what the system was built with and not just a secondary feature system.
The bottom line that I'm really making is that the monsters don't work with the mechanics of an action combat so really if that isn't gonna change I would say that the game is tab target PvE and PvP action combat though balancing tab targeting in pvp also comes into question because what advantage does one have over auto lock targets. Unless that LoS, Distance to target, and whether the target is in front of you or not matter. If tab target is gonna make you turn to the location of the target or just give direct homing on targets. Then in pvp action combat is a joke as well. Literally no reason to aim when you can tab and always hit and lock-on to targets. But tab targeting has been around the longest and we aren't using a click and hold system like Ragnarok Online. Final fantasy 14 is still successful after all its flops and its tab targeting and even has the timed attack mechanic to a certain degree cause of its longer cooldowns for most abilities. We just can't go advertising for action combat if its really just the side botch of the game. Its there no one uses it cause theres no point. Though could use it in quests for the lolz though.
My main point wasn't trying to say that we have to go action combat but we can't advertise as "brand new action combat game" if overall the experience is geared towards being a tab target.
Intrepid have never called Ashes action combat.
It has always been a hybrid between action and tab, with tab combat the fallback.
In Alpha2 have a 250v250 event where the only weapon available is a thrown bun. Then separate the players into one side only using Tab combat and the other side only using Action combat. Then the Action vs. Tab bun-fight that has been running for years can finally be resolved by an actual bun-fight. Problem solved!
Comments
Never understood why people use metacritic to rate games anyways. Cause combat wise I was more talking about how combat flows in the games I mention and the combat was good but yeah theres a reason we aren't playing them in the long run. Some games are too grindy, some have quest systems and features that blow donkey balls. Some just don't make it because of shop systems ect. I was really only using combat and the mechanics of those types of systems from a programming point of view. So totally understand what your saying cause metacritic isn't even a thing I use when attempting to try out a game. I look at reviews from players and even then I still often try games out based on the types of reviews. If someone puts 12 hours into the game and says "lolz game suck" I figure its most likely some troll now if i see someone who played 50 hours and leaves a decent review about what they like / dislike thats the kind of review i care about.
College Lessons
Cause metacritic sucks its based on what ever company spends enough money and has people write paid views for there game. But if you look at the player reviews for onigiri they are pretty favorable especially for a game that came out in December 12, 2013 I know what your thinking "but steam says its 2019" yeah but it was published overseas before it came out here. And when it comes down to it bottom line is most asian titles are never even viewed by American players for many different reasons. People automatically think pay to win tho often times over seas it is true.
My main point wasn't trying to say that we have to go action combat but we can't advertise as "brand new action combat game" if overall the experience is geared towards being a tab target. If the game is good people are still gonna play regardless. But I'm sure there will be some disappointment because originally when the pvp system was being tested and we had the ashes of creation fortnite people thought that was gonna be what the system was built with and not just a secondary feature system.
The bottom line that I'm really making is that the monsters don't work with the mechanics of an action combat so really if that isn't gonna change I would say that the game is tab target PvE and PvP action combat though balancing tab targeting in pvp also comes into question because what advantage does one have over auto lock targets. Unless that LoS, Distance to target, and whether the target is in front of you or not matter. If tab target is gonna make you turn to the location of the target or just give direct homing on targets. Then in pvp action combat is a joke as well. Literally no reason to aim when you can tab and always hit and lock-on to targets. But tab targeting has been around the longest and we aren't using a click and hold system like Ragnarok Online. Final fantasy 14 is still successful after all its flops and its tab targeting and even has the timed attack mechanic to a certain degree cause of its longer cooldowns for most abilities. We just can't go advertising for action combat if its really just the side botch of the game. Its there no one uses it cause theres no point. Though could use it in quests for the lolz though.
College Lessons
It has always been a hybrid between action and tab, with tab combat the fallback.
I am joking.
U.S. East