PC Gamer gives Spiral Knights a score of 51
Just wondering if anyone else feels this is a fair score. They didn't really review gameplay, just deducted points based on the CE system. I feel this game is worth about 70~ in its current state.
Original Article: http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/07/26/spiral-knights-review/
Based on their description and what they experienced, a 51 sounds about right. It seems like they literally logged on for the first 100 mist, maybe waited it out for another day then quit. A little unfair, but I enjoy the game way more than a 51. If you want to progress for free and without losing interest, then it isn't going to be a play-all-day-long kind of game. It's kept me coming back for a month so far.
You know how people always complain about the CE system? Has anyone ever thought that it was a genuine problem?
A lot of people are willing to write excuses for it, but the fact of the matter is that it is debilitating in terms of enjoying the game to its full potential. Its not just that people are impatient or not have better lives or not want to support Three Stars- it just feels cheap. Cheap that you would purposely try to make people pay to play and still insist that the game is 'free to play'. Because its never just going to be a one-time thing, which at this point people would rather prefer than this ever constant need to CE just to continue running down the dungeons. I think the score is justified for a review.
From the way that review reads, the reviewer spent 100ME and quit. Makes no mention of buying CE with crowns, the fact that you only have to revive if you're solo or the party is totally wiped, or that you can in fact have more than 2 weapons. There's almost no substance to the review at all.
Stay Classy, PC Gamer.
Edit: ^ blah blah if you think the game is a 51 why are you here? /brag never spent a dime and have 14k CE... I see no problem.
While were on the topic of people reviewing SK, when i first started to play this game (couple months ago?), i played with a player named "GameInformer" who's name was in blue. They seemed legitimate.
While it's entirely possible that the player was bogus, I'd still like to see/read a review from GI about SK. From anyone really.
No, the article raises a very serious point - to a new player, that IS a fair rating, and it IS a critical flaw of the energy system.
Sure, the game in terms of gameplay is very good, and even as a pure mist player I've been happily playing since the steam release, but many people have about as much patience as that reviewer, and that means the energy system is an issue when it comes to attracting new players.
Pretty much what Fulgorre said. The review gives a quick synopsis of the game, makes a poke at a system the obviously hasn't been explored and slaps on an arbitrary number with no actual rational behind it.
I would have a lot more respect for the reviewer if the score was based off of more than 6 sentences of griping at the end when he opened up making it seem like he would actually discuss the energy system.
They would have had a mist tank? Did they not read the mail they got upon entering Haven...or did they include that in their energy and not write about it...I would have expected them to make a big deal about how OOO entices you with extra energy.
It would be nice if they did a little research before writing the article. You can have up to 4 weapons (by buying slots). You can buy energy without using real money. You can put people on your tab, usually, if you ask nicely in a party, someone is more than willing to put you on an elevator tab. If you buy the starter pack, you're pretty set for life and self-sustainable, and it's no more than what you'd usually spend on a small PC game anyways (I get that this takes the Free out of F2P...but all F2Ps come with some sort of cash sink) There are a few other things that should be said or corrected (gate creation). I get that explaining the price system is important in reviews, but spending most of your post complaining about it really isn't a particularly good review.
They gave BEEP a 68...I think SK deserves better than a 51 in comparison. (Mythos got a 43, IMO, SK is much much better than Mythos)
(Also, I much prefer SK's version of F2P than F2Ps with cash shops that make them not entirely F2P)
Gotta take into consideration the "first impression aspect" of the game.
You spend something like 40 mist energy to even get to Haven, and have enough for what, one T1 run? You don't make enough profit to buy CE (and probably don't even KNOW you can, or know how that works), and you probably don't understand what to do, what the game has, and ultimately what the game would be like if you played more. You would have to play another day or two to start understanding things, maybe get a few pieces of 2*(or purchase some CE), which still kind of a lackluster starting experience. I personally was confused by energy at the beginning, and didn't even KNOW you could buy it for crowns for the first few days. This type of experience is probably the key reason for the bad review.
After hitting T2, having more of a variety of weapons/armor available to you, after understanding the game's ups and downs, SK can have a more accurate review, but I doubt PC Gamer wants to spend 3-4 consecutive days on a game to pass some actual judgement.
With one days worth of playing, a glance at the AH to see the prices of 4*/5* gear, and comparing the experience they had through T1, it's no doubt that SK got a 51 for a review. I would say that at the point where you learn the game, yes that rating is accurate (as the starting SK experience does suck and can be confusing). After understanding game play and experiencing more of what SK has to offer, a score of ~70 doesn't sound unreasonable for a F2P game (which as I have experienced first hand, is F2P as far as I'm concerned).
Just my opinion on the matter, I'm sure Ill get some troll responses but whatever. I felt frisky and decided to post on the forums for once.
edit: I keep typing T(1-5) instead of (1-5)*
40 mist to get to haven?
And this is why you ignore reviews from people who have no clue what they're talking about. He mainly reviews the game's business model, not the gameplay. Because he doesn't know much about the gameplay. Nor, for that matter, the business model. The review could be summed up as, "I picked up a game with no idea what I was supposed to do, played briefly, didn't figure out what I was supposed to do, and quit."
I could have written a better review than that by the time I first arrived in Haven. Not a good review, mind you. But better than PC Gamer did. That's an awfully low standard to beat. Of course, I wouldn't try to write a review until I had played a game enough to know what I was talking about. Maybe that's why I don't work for PC Gamer.
A good review should offer useful information both to players who would like the game and do those who would not. You can say that things are good or bad on a polish level, but should mostly say, these are the game mechanics, and you (the reader) will have some idea of whether you'll like them. Not just, it doesn't match my personal preferences in game mechanics, and therefore, it's a bad game. I hate first person shooters, but that doesn't mean I can't accept that some of them do pretty well what they set out to do.
In the case of Spiral Knights, there are a lot of things that make it different from the norm. Such as blocking. Or the heavy emphasis on avoiding damage by getting out of the way. Or different gate strata having different themes, and different levels. Or how some levels are randomly generated, and others are fixed. Or four types of damage, with different gear to deal or protect against each. Or having swords, guns, and bombs, with pros and cons to each, and the ability to switch between all three on the fly. Or how some items are distributed to all party members, and some just to one. Or the PUG system that makes it easy to jump in and get a group for the content you want. Or how tier 1 is a gentle introduction to the game, tier 2 for people who have played a little, and tier 3 available to provide a challenge to those who have gotten reasonably good at the game.
But the review doesn't mention any of that. The few game mechanics that do get mentioned in passing have such a vague description as to be completely meaningless to someone who isn't already familiar with the game.
And really, what's with the shocked reaction upon learning that a commercial game is actually trying to make money? I expect that from 12 year old kids who can't get their parents to pay anything for online games. But from a professional reviewer? Really?
You spend some amount to get to Haven, Idk. I remember when I started off, I had 90 mist at the starting zone, dunno y, and burned some to get to Haven. I'm probably just stupid...either way, you spend mist energy to get to Haven and you don't have enough for two full T1 runs.
Pretty much what fulgorre and d0gr0ck said.
That reviewer doesn't seem like a pro really.
EDIT: And also pretty much what Quizzical said ;-D
I was curious so I clicked on the guys name and checked all the articles hes done in the past month. There was a lot of news reporting, but only 2 reviews in the past month. SK and Mythos (which he gave a 42).
I do wonder why they would let someone who doesn't regularly write reviews, put on the reviewer hat just to smack talk on anything that uses a business model he disagrees with.
Ax to grind?
Three Rings obviously didn't pay the good review tax. To be totally honest, I'm much more shocked that anyone still takes professional reviews seriously.
As far as CE goes, complaining that an F2P game cripples you if you don't play the microtransaction game is like complaining the ocean is full of water and it makes you wet. It's just how it is - either deal with it or don't.
You're completely missing the point that, as a game someone would pick up randomly to try out, Spiral Knights doesn't offer the opportunity for anyone to learn about these things, solely for the fact that everything is limited to how much energy you have. If whoever reviewed it actually had that opportunity to go on a complete run, thoroughly getting into the game without the cost of energy to keep going hanging over his head, he might have even thought to consider all those different elements. A lot of these things aren't glaringly evident in the gameplay itself unless you've looked up the Wiki, and what you do know at that point in the game is only through the tutorial level, which new players assume would cover pretty much all the important stuff they need to know to get through at least the first Tier.
But oh, it turns out a majority of new people find themselves at a loss when they find out that clicking on a button to go down won't let them, having no idea that it costs energy and that it takes money to get more. Or quit their session and wait the next day. It doesn't make sense for a game to be forcefully limiting, because most people don't play games to be told to stop at a midway point, assuming you've had enough for today. Or like one of those commercial ad scams where you pay for an introductory video and tells you to buy more of the series to actually get something relevant out of it. Moreover, even less people would know that you can actually purchase the energy in-game, and even then wouldn't have enough at that point to buy more to resume their session. Not to mention that the player-controlled CE market continually makes it an endeavor for new people to keep up with- while it forces them to learn how to play better, it leaves them very little opportunity to actually practice.
It doesn't matter if its some viable business model on 3Os part- the players themselves don't even care about that. They care about whether this is a game worth investing in or not, which is usually what makes the sale of a game in the first place. If the people aren't impressed enough by the initial run through because of something like the Energy costs, then there's a lot less reason for people to bother investing the time and interest to it.
To a degree, if a game can't be obvious to someone who writes reviews for games, then the game has problems.
The CE system in particular is something most people will not have run into, and OOO doesn't do much hand-holding to get very new players to learn the critical parts of it. The Puzzle Pirate's game of OOO has much more pop-ups/learning missions/tips, and I think SK would benefit greatly by having a similar system. The reviewer's example of running out of energy right before the boss level would be both a very easy thing for new players to run into, and leave a very bad impression. Going out and using your crowns from your first run or two to buy a nice sword instead of buying more CE is also a huge mistake. Making new players aware that your proto-gear is more than enough to get you through the first tier if you learn how to play is very important. Sure, you need to buy a better sword before venturing into T2 is important, but the proto-gear is good for a lot longer than most new players think.
Seriously, there is more introduction given to new players about the useless mineral system than the critical CE system.
Oh, it also doesn't help if the cr<->CE exchange rate is much higher than what new players an earn in T1. This hasn't been as bad since the steam players came, but any time it gets over 6k, it is going to be a problem for new players.
Oh, and obvious thing that would help: If you are out of energy, but have a mist take, give that as an option to use.
Also, don't forget that if you actually feel like writing a an actual review based on your experiences you can always pop over to Metacritic and leave your two cents.
I think the review was right on. It is the review of a person just starting out trying to play this game. The CE market is not made readily apparent to new players, nor is it very friendly even once you do have a grasp on it. Some of you like to play the part of grizzled veteran but you don't do anyone a service in the process. People complain about the system because it is detrimental to their enjoyment of the game. It's a lot like gas prices rising world wide. Why do you want to deal with gas prices in your relaxation time?
We're all pretty aware that this and several other reasons he mentions are a problem. The few reviews I have seen people give of this game all say the same thing, which is a bigger problem for OOO since a lot of people will read those before even bothering to try. These issues cost us current players as readily seen by how much the population dropped off even a week after the Steam release. When it's this big of an issue that reviewers are brushing the game off as well, it means SK loses potential players on top of it.
This is a problem that seems built in to the game itself. Expect rough waters.
"You're completely missing the point that, as a game someone would pick up randomly to try out, Spiral Knights doesn't offer the opportunity for anyone to learn about these things"
You could learn most of them the way that I did: by reading the wiki. That's why I could have written a better review than that one by the time I reached Haven. I read the wiki first. If you're not willing to try to figure out a game, and then you don't figure out what you're doing, then it's your own fault.
But furthermore, the whole point of a review is to tell people things like that. A review that doesn't do so is worthless. Even if a random player isn't necessarily willing to figure out what is going on before giving up on a game, a reviewer is supposed to. That's the whole point of having someone review the game in the first place. The reviewer figures out what is going on, and then explains it to people who aren't willing to spend the time.
It doesn't make sense for a game to be forcefully limiting, because most people don't play games to be told to stop at a midway point, assuming you've had enough for today
You've never played a Facebook game, have you? There are literally thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who flock to Facebook games and actually claim to ENJOY having an energy bar tell them how much they can do in a day. Now, sure, these same games allow you to level up the energy bar to give them more to play with, but I've met a good number of people who actually enjoy this game precisely because of the energy bar. It keeps them from getting so hooked to the game that they spend most of their days playing. And when you consider a F2P game is sometimes an excuse to kill a short amount of time, not necessarily to dominate your schedule, then this system can actually be quite beneficial.
Basically ... until you fully understand the CE system and crafting and other aspects of the game , as a newbie the game does seem a bit tedious and all about buying CE.
A lot of games with turn based systems have this problem since newer players just want to play and not have to log off and come back when it recharges.
Obviously on this review, all the pictures are from tier 1 so the reviewer didnt even play for more than maybe a few hours.... whoever thinks that playing just the beginning of a game can rate the ENTIRE game is an idiot and he should be demoted for thinking like that. Any true gamer (which I hope the reviewer is) would know to play the whole game through before giving it an HONEST review.
"You've never played a Facebook game, have you? There are literally thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who flock to Facebook games and actually claim to ENJOY having an energy bar tell them how much they can do in a day."
There's a difference above and beyond what you're discussing, and that's the accomplishment factor. When you play mobsters you can buy land, weapons, cars, whatever. Once you're done with that you can do a few click here to win missions and you've done what you can do in mobsters. You don't need to invest a lot of time in it because you can get in and do a satisfactory amount of playing before you're done for the day. It would be like SK, but no energy costs for crafting.
The other problem is that this is an MMO. It is advertised as one. People don't come to an MMO thinking, "A few minutes a day of satisfaction!" They see MMO and think it's a game where they can sit down, make a character, get the thrill of learning and leveling up. SK can be played like this, but you have to stick to it for a few days before you can sustain your CE on crowns alone. Even then, there's simply not a whole lot of content. In three weeks I was ready to fight Van, did, and haven't really felt the need to log in the over the last week. PvP will not solve this problem because this game was not designed for the activity. It will be a joke.
Now you can say "But it's free, so quit complaining," and I will say there are at least two other games which do not in any way force you to pay them to play as much as you want. Not only that, they have more content and a larger player base. One of them hit 15 million players recently. So I ask anyone, please explain why the CE system is not only good but beneficial? Please tell me why we are losing players, but that's ok because they're just whiny and need to learn to play like you or I? I would love to see someone elaborate on the benefits of how scaring players off is ok, not because the game is difficult, but because it is frustrating.
I love SK, I really do. But honestly, are most of you simply blind to the problem or too jaded to notice? I'm not saying SK isn't fun. I'm not saying that we're fools for gritting our teeth and muscling our way to self sustainability through crowns or whatever. I'm saying that there are a host of glaring issues, not the least of which have been pointed out in this review and that nothing is being done about it despite the detrimental effects. I'm also saying that a lot of you have "made it" so to speak money/energy wise in game and that if you have zero ability to view the game from any other view point than that, your opinions and comments are worth nothing as we're not concerned about you. We're concerned about why the population is horrible.
"You could learn most of them the way that I did: by reading the wiki. That's why I could have written a better review than that one by the time I reached Haven. I read the wiki first. If you're not willing to try to figure out a game, and then you don't figure out what you're doing, then it's your own fault."
The point is that a wiki shouldn't be NECESSARY though. It should be supplemental and informative, but a good game knows how to build all the most important aspects of itself into the tutorial, NOT reference players to thousands of pages of wiki text. Spiral Knights just has a very poorly implemented tutorial, and does not caution new players about the risks of spending money to buy equipment instead of energy at the start, which leads to newbie frustration, which leads to quitting.
he did give an honest review. the starting experience for new players is straight up the worst in any current MMO. between energy limits and poor explanations it is a wonder any new players stick around at all.
to enjoy SK you have to be a savvy gamer or you're gonna be spending your RL money for CE and its no longer F2P
unfortunately this system is very predatory. it relies on a portion of the playerbase being terribads that must buy CE, and an even smaller portion is relied upon to buy CE because they like the game, in order to reward the veterans with true "free" gameplay
thats not to say every veteran is playing free. but, they COULD be - due to the predatory nature of the CE system. the game will eventually support this model entirely and it will seem foolish to buy CE with real money when you could just as easily farm 10k in a single run... but not everyone will be able to do that. and then CE will go up - more crown sinks will be needed, etc.
its a self perpetuating vicious cycle.
What kind of hand fed world has gaming come too. As a long time console gamer I picked up the basic idea of this game right away. The controls are simple and the idea basic, while I assumed the much younger generation of players might need some prompting I don't see how someone who writes a review for a site can fail so badly.
I mean people are basically saying that a giant orange star on your mailbox showing you have mail giving you more energy is just too subtle and confusing. Or that it's too hard to select the tab right next to purchase showing you can buy energy for crowns.
its come to a pretty terrible handfed world. i was able to jump right in and on my second day i was already sustainable due to low CE prices followed by the 6k+ CE price right after which made it easy for me... but only at the expense of literally hundreds of other players- most of whom are no longer playing.
the game could use a little help with functionality. did i think the review was honest? yes. did i think it was fair? no way. he didn't even play the freaking game.
however his review is accurate in terms of a new player's experience. it will be VERY similar for most new players. running out of energy before snarbolax = instant ragequit & uninstall for a lot of people
There are literally thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who flock to Facebook games and actually claim to ENJOY having an energy bar tell them how much they can do in a day.
Do these face book games require new players to play 45-90 minutes before getting to the boss level and then if you don't have energy, cause you to start over from scratch the next day?
Really, this is not a casual game. You have to spend too much time getting through grindy parts of the clockworks to get to the fun part and too much time managing CE.
As long as they keep the prices at a 4-5k range of crowns for 100, it also limits your time a playing which is good because its not great to be on 24/7, plus it adds fun and a challange to the game although its hard for the new members to get there start on Sk which is an issue.Although it does not deserve a 51, I would say anywhere from 70 to a possible 80, they need to makea living somehow.
100000 out of 100. Is what I'd give it.
"however his review is accurate in terms of a new player's experience."
If I'm going to read a review, I want to come away with some idea of whether I'll like the game and want to play it for months. A review that only says, "this is what your experience might be like in the first hour if you jump in with no clue what you're doing" is useless to me. That might be useful information to Three Rings in designing or modifying a tutorial, but as a review, it's a complete waste of space.
There are two main ways that reviews can fill their purpose. One is explaining game mechanics. For example, there was a lot of hype surrounding the release of Rift a while back. I read up on it, looked at the game mechanics, and concluded that it does most of the same things that WoW did that were the reasons I didn't like WoW. Thus, I'll pass on Rift. Someone who likes raiding endgames, a heavy dependence on level and gear, a holy trinity class system, and so forth, could read the same review and think, hey, that looks interesting. A good review that lays out the game mechanics can both tell people who will like the game that they should try it, and also tell people who won't like the game to look elsewhere.
The other thing that reviews can do is to grade polish. For a game like Final Fantasy XIV, Darkfall, or Dark and Light, a review can say, here are a bunch of severe bugs, here are a bunch of wacky things about the broken UI, and so forth. In some cases, it's more minor things like, this particular quest is bugged and uncompletable. Or a review can say, the game is pretty polished and we didn't run into any significant bugs.
The PC Gamer review is able to fill neither role. Someone who knew nothing about Spiral Knights before reading the review would still know basically nothing about it. Someone who had no idea whether he'd like the game before reading the review would still have no idea after reading it. That's not true of this page, for example:
http://wiki.spiralknights.com/New_Player_Briefing
And that doesn't even purport to be a review. Because it isn't. But it still makes a better review than what PC Gamer posted.
"Free-to-play should mean just that: free, unrestricted play time." - Tom Senior
Has anyone actually read the review posted in PCgamer? I don't think we need to bash him for an honest review. That quote above underlines the very thought most new players think when playing this game.
Players such as us accept this fact and continue playing it. If we aren't paying real money for CE (crystal energy), we are paying with our hours trying to get crowns. Without buying any CE it often takes days doing runs and working the market to get anywhere in the game. Of course you can just pay $20 to buy the starter pack to gain 4* gear and tier 3 access, but it wouldn't be free.
The reviewer simply didn't get the "Free" game he was expecting. Free to stay in haven, but he wanted to play anywhere without having to deal with crystal energy. His review was an accurate depiction of a noob player hence the low score.
Well back to work at $2.50/hour. Crap pay but fun. :D
It may be an accurate depiction of a noob who didn't take a moment to figure out the game. But that's not what should constitute a game review. A review should be based on someone who at least understands what he's reviewing.
At best his can be called a "first impression review".
Since when does free to play = play as much as you want for free? Thats not listed anywhere. Thats like having a game with content you can choose to buy to be better but still download for free and saying it isn't free because you can't get XXXX item without paying when the item itself isn't all too relevent. Apart from all this, give the game a week and its unlimited play time.
Anyway this is the same as almost every other review out there where these people test the game for all of 1 hour and make a decision based on it. Of course if its some major project they'll show bias and give it plenty of time, something like this not so much. Trust me, I stopped taking things like this even the least bit seriously when I saw Paper Mario The Thousand Year Door get a 5 from Game Informer while Super Paper Mario got a 9 or 10 yeeeah ok...
"That quote above underlines the very thought most new players think when playing this game."
Only if you mean new to the entire notion of online gaming, and also clueless about economics. Anyone who either understands some economics or has played some "free to play" games will know that the company is trying to make money, and will restrict you considerably if you don't pay.
"Since when does free to play = play as much as you want for free?"
I think the underlying problem is that there's still a lot of people who haven't got the memo that the term "Free to play" means it's a microtransaction game and that if you don't pay you're going to have to grind your butt off and/or be crippled in some critical manner.
Completely unprofessional review, IMO. Definitely, completely based the review on a misunderstanding of the CE system. However, it does raise a really important point (that he didn't mention in the article because he doesn't really understand the game at all) ...
Being on the elevator and out of CE is a really sucky way to learn about the CE system. Okay, if you actually -read- the tutorial and talked to the NPCs, especially Energetic Knight, you ought to know by the time you hit the clockworks what's happening with energy. Obviously he didn't, even though he was reviewing the game (or did he only write the review after getting ticked and having decided he had something to say?) Ahem. So, if a 'professional' game reviewer can get into the clockworks without understanding that it costs energy every time they go down the elevator and that energy can be bought with crowns or cash or replenished slowly over time... okay, he's a sloppy reviewer, but he's still an articulate adult player. That information needs to be presented more unavoidably. Lock a gate until the player clicks through Energetic Knight's conversation or something.
Also, of course - unless this has been fixed? - you have about 5 seconds to remedy your energy situation. I don't know if you can do that if your credit card information is already in the system, but you certainly can't buy energy for crowns or enter credit card for the first time in that window before the elevator abandons you. It's get added to a tab (which is also not exactly explained very well in-game, how to get added to a tab) or nothing. Of course, maybe the 'join your party that has gone ahead of you' mechanic works for long enough that you can fix your energy, or at least that would be an improvement if it doesn't. I don't make a habit of running out of energy so I don't really know what has changed since the first week... but if it's still the way it was then, well, then, yeah. The way that elevator-out-of-energy moment is handled really does deserve to take points off of a review - not a -lot- of points, not the score he gave, but some.
i agree with what you say. however the problem is the barrier to entry is so high that not even a PROFESSIONAL game reviewer could get into it without someone telling him "but wait... do THIS instead and you'll like it more"
thus the barrier to entry becomes the main point. its far too high for most people to bother with spiral knights. lets be honest. the reviewer is a crock. his experience probably comes from a few years playing a troll warrior in WOW. these are the kinds of people we need to be attracting, though. casual players who just want to play and have some fun.
they have the basic idea down, but the problem is the execution. even coming close to running out of energy before your first snarbolax is a disgrace to the developers. its pathetic - have they ever played their game from the perspective of someone that hasn't CREATED it?
i knew nothing about spiral knights but i was smart enough to read about the CE system and essentially, prey upon the stupidity of other new players.
this system is not healthy and is the underlying cause for the reviewer's distaste for the game.
however, all this said, the review wasn't fair at all. honestly OOO should give that guy a call and ask him to try it again in a few months when they are better able to orient new players into the game.
it wouldn't be the first time reviews have been redone.
i think this game deserves an 80 based on the gameplay, but the rest of the game has some pretty harsh problems, ranging from the ebil microtrans system known as CE (10 for an elevator T_T) all the way down to the terrible graphical optimizations.
the servers can get very very slow during peak times as well. this can't really be fixed until OOO sees more revenue, though.
"however the problem is the barrier to entry is so high that not even a PROFESSIONAL game reviewer could get into it without someone telling him "but wait... do THIS instead and you'll like it more""
Are you implying that a professional game reviewer is somehow more capable of understanding than other gamers? Altough this should be the case, it's saddening that it's often not.
The first time I went into the clockworks I already knew beforehand what I needed to know.
PC Gamer does give extremely bias score. Unfortunately, they're the only few that even bothers doing proper MMO reviews, if it wasn't bias.
As much as I hate to put it, that score is gonna stick around for a while, unless you kids beg a different magazine to review it. What article points out is straight eye of a new player, however, and sentence-to-sentence wise, I find it considerably fair. Only problem I would have to say is, I don't know how they got to meager 57. That's below F, if this was a test.
For those complaining about the reviewer and the quality of the review, please note that the reviewer succeeded. The Spiral Knights review has gotten more comments than most other reviews on the site and has likely generated a bunch of page views.
So what we have learned is that even "professionals" skip tutorials and rage quit.
My rat could be a reviewer for PCgamer, he certainly knows more about SK than its reviewer. Of course this was less of a review than a rant about the micro-transaction model while poorly using SK as an example.
The elevator cut off does seem a bit abrupt perhaps the meter could go orange at 20 or 30 total E left, warning you before hand. Since the gate price never changes, t1 always costs 60e, if you get on the elevator with less than that, I see that as a player fault, not a game fault.
I like this game but there are certainly flaws and areas that need improvement, this review found none of them.
@Wrs1864, I wouldn't call this a success, sure PCgamer has a few more web hits but from people who question the quality of their reviews and calling their reviewer a moron. There is a big difference between a controversial review and a low quality one.
I enjoy this game, but it's completely understandable that they simply aren't willing to play a game that constantly wants money. I'm aware that it's possible to succeed without paying but that's only because of the people who already pay.
I'm a little disappointed that everyone is just immediately getting offended and retaliating when THIS is the response MOST people have to this kind of system.
The F2P design is still working out, people are still figuring out how things work, and as such some things will work better than others... but I myself have played games that I just gave up on because I wanted to be able to play a game without having to wait in between, I don't want to have to rely on a system built upon a market controlled by people who have commodities other players don't.
All that said, I play the game and enjoy it, but just because you guys are willing to work with/around the energy system, it's very understandable that other people would view it as a problem.
---
After all that is said and done, Spiral Knights isn't purely F2P, the review is correct, it's a game you can play for free TEMPORARILY, and if you work it correctly you can play further on the energy of people who DO pay.
Not sure who's getting offended. I just see people calling it an extremely poor review as it fails to do just that. It barely talks about the gameplay at all. The extent of the gameplay review is pretty much like me saying:
"In Zelda you hit things with your sword by pressing the A button. You can also use your bow. You'll come across enemies such as tektites and octoroks. There are a lot of dungeons."
It's not the 51 that I object to. That's an opinion, and different people can have different opinions.
It's that most of the information on game mechanics that should appear in that review, doesn't. And much of what does appear is factually wrong. For example, to carve out a sentence and a half:
"Forest areas contain wolves and pack rats, while electric zones will have more robotic foes. Each level is full of spike traps, turrets and ‘danger rooms’"
Forest areas? Wolves? Pack rats? Maybe he means Wolver Den, but why are "wolves" and "pack rats" two separate types of mobs there? And what are "pack rats", anyway? Gremlins, maybe, but those don't appear in anything that could reasonably be called a "forest area".
Electric zones are robotic foes? What about Deconstruction Zone/Circuit Breakers? Lichenous Lair/Shocking Synthesis? Wolver Den/High Voltail? Devilish Drudgery/Wired for Synergy? I guess some of those have some robotic foes, but that's not the theme of the level, and some conspicuously don't. Clockwork Tunnels/Power Complex and Thunder Fist Arena can have any class of mobs as its theme.
There are spike traps, though I don't see why those are worth mentioning but status traps aren't. There are gun puppies, which is probably what he meant by "turrets", but those are just another type of mob. And there are danger rooms. But most levels don't have all of those at all, and some don't have any of those. Yet each level is "full" of them?
That's just one and a half sentences, and there is so much wrong there that it takes quite a while to unpack it. Take that snippet out of the review and ask if it is talking about Spiral Knights and the obvious answer is "no", with the peculiar phrase "danger rooms" being the only hint that it might. That's just an awful review, and it would still be an awful review with any other score attached.
For your first 100 energy that review seems fair. Otherwise it's pretty much trash.
I like SKs system because a free player can experience all of the content. Purchase is not required as a free player can use in game money to buy energy and that energy is as good as the paying customers energy. With some time and skill you can see it all without paying. Paying of course makes it go faster. I've given OOO money, about what I would have paid for this game from a download store, but because I liked the game and wanted a boost not because the game forced me to.
The current energy system adds another aspect to buying a game, as now you can be smart or stupid with your money after your purchase. Only it's not called money it's called energy. I've seen people spend 1000ce to res themselves and other take 1000ce and turn it into 4000ce
The reviewer didn't bother to play the game long enough to grasp concepts that numerous casual players have learned. First impression does not equal review. He can do a proper review after beating Vanaduke. /thread
yeah im pretty sure the guy that couldn't get to snarbolax his first try is going to do just awesome when it comes to killing vanaduke. more like your average player won't even touch vanaduke until theyre already way overgeared for it.
If he can't figure out the game, then why is he reviewing it? I can't work a fighter jet, but I'm not writing reviews over which one flies better. It'd be like getting to the first puzzle in Portal, losing, quitting, and then saying the game was awful. The game's not awful, the game reviewer just failed to play the game. Hence, my statement that he can do a review after beating Vanaduke, because after doing that, he can claim to have played the game long enough to review it properly.
IMHO 51 is unreasonably low score.
Something around 70 (if 100 is max) would be OK I guess.