Why this game is getting unfair reviews

[Survivor]

War in the North currently holds a Metascore of 66 (PS3), 67 (Xbox 360) and 68 (PC). While everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, I think some of the reviews this game got are pretty unfair. This game gets trashed for very minor issues while many things it does right are ignored. Some critics just don't know how to play this game (more on that later) or they had no idea what to expect of it.

A simple visit to the Steam page of War in the North tells you all you need to know about this game. It's an action RPG, it's a co-op game and it's set in the northern part of Middle-Earth. Then why are so many people complaing that:
- this game is not an open-world RPG
- this game has no moral choices like Dragon Age
- the main characters don't have the same depth as the characters in Dragon Age or Mass Effect
Many comparisons made by critics and players are just off. Compare this game to Diablo, Titan Quest, Left 4 Dead and Borderlands but not to Skyrim, The Witcher 2 or Mass Effect. That's like trashing GTA IV because the driving is much better in Forza Motorsport.

Here are some quotes from various reviews to prove my point:

It's sad, really. Even though Snowblind demonstrates considerable respect for the lore, the three heroes themselves are so drab that it's little wonder why Gandalf allegedly just refers to them as a "handful of heroes." You never get attached to them, and any real sense of immersion is shattered by the ability to switch between the three characters as you level.

Wow. He actually complains that you can switch characters? How immersive were the main characters in Titan Quest, Diablo and Borderlands? I'd say that War in the North does a pretty good job. Sure, it's not Dragon Age, but that's not what it was meant to be.

There is no such attachment with the characters in War in the North.
Your team of three, a human ranger, an elven mage, and a dwarven warrior, are completely engrossed on their mission, revealing very little in the way of any personality or reason for their quest aside from sheer valor.

What did this reviewer expect? To cry when one of the main characters gets injured? Same as above, his expectations are off. A little bit of research would've prevented this.

Unfortunately, as fun as the combat can be at first, it soon becomes a bit too repetitive. You'll be fighting through the same hordes of enemies again and again

That's why it's a hack&slash game! Orcs and goblins are the common enemies in Lord of the Rings, what did he expect? That you would be fighting orcs with pink dresses, uruk-hai with guns and goblins with matrix-dodge abilities?

Instead, it seems that Snowblind has a different audience in mind: those who have seen Peter Jackson's films and said, "Remember that part where Aragron cuts the head off that scary dude with the bow and arrows? There should have been more stuff like that in the movies."

Sigh. Clearly this guy has not played hack&slash games before or previous Snowblind titles. How hard is it to understand that this is a hack&slash co-op game set in the LotR universe? It has nothing to do with what he described. You can't even play as Aragorn.

In my opinion, War of the North's fascination with violence is something of a disservice to the works it draws inspiration from.

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse. So because this game doesn't follow the exact same idea as the books (focus on hope, war is bad etc.), it's a disservice? This game is full of references and lore, how can it be a disservice? It probably taught many people who only saw the movies a thing or two about the lore and The Hobbit, how can that be a bad thing? If anything, this game is full of fan service. This reviewer probably doesn't understand that this is a game and that's why it has violence.

You won't get very deep into the game before you're facing absurd amounts of enemies with ludicrous amounts of health. And this means combat gets extremely tedious. When it takes you two or three minutes to take down a single orc, and you see a group of six of them running toward you, it's hard to see this as anything but an inconvenience. It feels like War in the North was designed as a completely solo endeavor, and in the later stages of development all the enemies had their stats beefed up to absurd levels in order to counter the fact that there would now be three players instead of one.

Now he confirmed that he's just stupid. You must be really bad if it takes you 2-3 minutes to take down one Orc. Even with bad equipment and without using any abilities, it never took me more than 1 minute to take down a normal orc/goblin. It's always 4 hits + crit, then another crit or 3-4 hits + crit again. As for the solo endeavor, what is he talking about? You play with three players all the time. Did he even play this game?
Enemies get more health and you deal more damage. That's how every action RPG / hack&slash game works.

Combat has traditional hack-and-slash mechanics, but is unsatisfying thanks to the encounter design.
Later, your foes have substantially more hit points, can interrupt your revival attempts, and they essentially stop reacting to any of your moves. They perform uninterruptable attacks as you lumberjack away at them like meat trees, never flinching or staggering under your assault.

Maybe he is the same guy as above? He trashes this game because enemies become more powerful and use more abilities as you level up? Are you kidding me? And uninterruptable attacks.. he probably never heard of the block and dodge button.

When you're trying to revive a downed companion, you may find him or her surrounded by enemies whose attacks knock you to the ground for a few seconds. This isn't an enjoyable challenge to overcome,

No indeed, the game would've been so much better if you could instantly revive each other and if all the enemies would stop attacking you for a while when you're busy reviving someone.

So as you can see, many reviews are unfair. Unfortunately these reviews already did their damage and probably convinced a lot of people to get Skyrim/MW3/BF3 instead of War in the North.

I do agree with some of the criticism (bad checkpoints, scattered abilities in the skill trees, some overpowered abilities, some bugs) but there are so many things this game does right. The combat sets a new standard for hack&slash games. The soundtrack and sound effects are very well done. The graphics are really good. Co-op is challenging and a lot of fun.

This is by far the best Lord of the Rings game I've ever played. I think most people who are enjoying this game knew what to expect. If you expected something similar to previous Snowblind titles, LotR: Return of the King or simply a good hack&slash game (with co-op), then this game is worth at least a solid 8 in my opinion. However if you didn't do your research and expected something different, then surely this game will disappoint.

I wonder if these reviewers will also trash Skyrim because the combat in that game can't stand up to War in the North. Probably not .

To end this long thread: I think WitN is underrated. Wrong expectations, unfair comparisons and complaining about minor issues resulted in mediocre ratings. Honestly, when a reviewer is complaining that enemies attack you when you try to revive someone or that you can switch characters, then I can no longer take them seriously.

[Glorthen]

I wouldn't agree to these reviews either, but there is one thing I do want to point out..

How do you make a orc head EXPLODE with an arrow, or let a goblin EXPLODE with a single hit of your sword?! So far this is the only thing that disturbed me in WitN.

[Misce]

I think you did a fantastic job at explaining why the game's low reviews are unfair. Cheers.

My complaint is that the game seems so superficial and short (not talking about the time it takes you to beat it; I'm ~23 hours and in Ch. 8 Prologue - I'm talking about replaying maps to hunt for loot: the levels are so, so linear and the fact you can't just leave an area at any given time so you have to play through pretty much the whole area if you go to it makes loot-hunting feel UNBEARABLY!! dull and monotonous but at the same time a dragging affair as the areas are long when you're breezing through them), but that's stuff for a different thread..

[Survivor]

@Misce
I definitely agree that there is a lot of room for improvement. That's why I think this game deserves a Metascore of 80/100 and not 90+. They could fix these issues with patches and DLC though.
If the challenge maps scale to your level, contain high level loot rewards and maybe have some random factors (not always the same bosses/enemies); then this would increase the replay value a lot. They could easily add 2-3 more challenge maps with DLC and improve the two challenge maps we already have.
Like Borderlands and Diablo, this game also needs content for level 40 players. It needs some kind of really challenging boss, random dungeons or challenge maps. Some people are asking for an increased level cap but if you think about it, that doesn't solve the problem. It only adds a few extra hours of gameplay and then there's still nothing to do.

Remember that Borderlands also didn't have much replay value in the beginning. But with the General Knoxx DLC, they added the boss Crawmerax who was not only challenging to beat but also dropped very good loot.

How do you make a orc head EXPLODE with an arrow, or let a goblin EXPLODE with a single hit of your sword?! So far this is the only thing that disturbed me in WitN.

They never explode for me. What are you talking about?
Maybe you're confusing WitN with Dragon Age 2 and Fallout 3 where enemies explode if you hit them in their left toe .

[Fexelea]

I like how you presented this and I agree. I stopped reading game reviews quite a while ago for my own purchases but I still read them to test popular opinion. I am often baffled by the blatant bias and lack of professionalism of the reviewers, particularly when it comes to rating the most popular shooters.

[Knives]

One thing I've come to learn is that reviewers do not play a whole game, they just play long enough to get examples to justify their opinion.

I was appaled by how X-play reviewed Muramasa for example. It was so obvious they had not played the game very much, they didn't even know that your swords had special techniques which is clearly explained in the mandatory tutorial. I was truely shocked by the lack of proffessionalism but I've come to realize that is the standard more often then not, particularly with indy games, since most people oddly enough are only interested in reviews of games they already have an opinion on such as Skyrim. Sadly few people are interested in finding good titles from smaller companies.

Now that said Snowblind really did not help themselves with WitN. Bugs, outdated graphics, sparse hub towns and IMO weak opening powers all serve to give people a poor initial impression. Worse I heard Snowblind self-referencing Mass Effect which I think is why a lot of people came in expecting Dragon Age meaning a vast amount of people have the wrong preconception about WitN which will make it harder to see the games many virtues. So yes, absolutely the reviews ARE unfair but Snowblind has not really done much to help itself in this area. I really don't feel the properly positions or promoted WitN.

In all the articles I read about it they never bought up Diablo, Boarderlands, Golden Axe, JL:H/Ultimate Alliance, the earlier Co-op Lord of the Rings games or anything which would really help people get the right idea of what WitN is about. Even with media bias and everything I don't think this PR crisis was unavoidable. I think they were hoping WitN would end up like Boarderlands a surprise success everyone picked up in the weeks leading up to a big release when most companies were sitting on their hands and I think it could have been if it has been polished and positioned. Now however it is an opportunity lost and most likely they can only hope to try and get picked up as a popular bargan title after Skyrim blows over then hopefully salvage things with some strong DLC to capitalize on the secondary market purchases.

[Survivor]

I fully agree Knives. You are correct that Snowblind could've done more. The Nazgul attack on the Ranger camp could've been a great opening scene instead of starting in Bree. The game doesn't really start spectacular.

Completing the game once is the least you would expect from a critic but unfortunately they don't do that. They should have rules for writing reviews to preserve the quality of them. Right now it's the silliest job I know of. I could write similar reviews to those found on many mainstream sites without even playing the game.

[Supersomething]

So as you can see, many reviews are unfair. Unfortunately these reviews already did their damage and probably convinced a lot of people to get Skyrim/MW3/BF3 instead of War in the North. I wonder if these reviewers will also trash Skyrim because the combat in that game can't stand up to War in the North. Probably not .

I agree most of the reviews are pretty skewed, since this game doesn't really open up until you complete the first play through.

They probably will not give Skyrim a low review because fans of that franchise know what to expect when it comes to the Elder Scrolls, a quality open ended, single player RPG. Most people had preconceived ideas as to what WiTN would entail, and then had a sour taste in their mouth when it didn't deliver to their expectations.

My only problem with WiTN is that the replay value seemed a bit lacking, but it kept me going long enough for the Skyrim midnight release tonight lol.

[Arctorus]

Why this game is getting unfair reviews

Because the "reviews" are written by people who have no understanding of how their cognitive biases corrupt their "professional opinions."

Most reviewers are shit. Without the games, they - and their so-called careers - don't exist. And they've forgotten that fact.

Reviewers should approach their jobs with far more professionalism, but the "gaming journalism" business wasn't founded by professionals. It was founded by people who played too many video games and were just clever enough to turn it into a career. There are some great gaming writers out there who don't churn out the useless opinion pieces called "reviews" - but there are too few of them. I wish there were more.

I personally tend to honor the responses of actual gamers who can express themselves in writing (using things like capitalization, good grammar, and punctuation; yes, this is my cognitive bias - if you speak in "text speech" or use continuous run-on sentences with no punctuation I ignore you).

There is a huge difference between a response and a review. A review is a function, aimed at commerce. A response is just that - one person's reaction to a game developer's final product after years of hard work. Which one is worth trusting?

[Blair85]

I agree with everything you said, I love this game, but what I'm surprised never made it into the reviews are the game ending glitches that are actually not uncommon. On my second playthrough (second mind you, so it's not a faulty save or disc) I am stuck at the end of Mirkwood unable to progress, and forced to face Saethra repeatedly. I'm sure at least one reviewer must have run into this glitch, as I've read at least 20 different accounts of people on the forum who have. Don't get me wrong, I love the game, but I can't believe the play-testers never caught something so glaringly obvious, and problematic.