Why this game is getting unfair reviews

[Kindredbay]

Originally Posted by CheatCC review
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.

This is one of the most absurd reviews I've read so far, and I've read the terrible G4tv review

that made me want to choke someone. This reviewer obviously knows nothing about how the game is meant to be played. There are weapons with 1-5x damage vs. orc and etc. It takes maybe one brain cell to figure out that to not suck in this game you have to not run in like an idiot, hit miniscule amounts of damage because you don't invest the time in anything such as armor, weapons, and skills, and die while waiting to get revived by teammates. This game is not meant to be "...designed as a completely solo endeavor" you imbecile. It's designed around a cohesive multiplayer experience.

There are skills that when used, make the game not as tedious...

Farin has one skill that lets you instantly revive teammates, which surprises me when I see some idiot reviewer pissing and moaning about having to revive the AI when there are mobs around them. I've played Skyrim and the combat is essentially the same as the combat in WitN, except... Without the blood, without the same amount of severing, without the fluidity, without... Everything. It's like hitting air. Don't get me wrong, Skyrim is great, but come on... Really? This game deserved a 9.5. I'm tired of reading reviews that are blatantly and obviously slanted in a demeaning tone towards the game because the reviewer obviously got angry... Because they sucked and never played a game like WitN before. "...a group of six of them running toward you, it's hard to see this as anything but an inconvenience." Really? Okay... So in GTA IV, which got a 10/10, has 6 guys shooting at you and you shoot them back, it's an inconvenience. No, it's an INCONVENIENCE to YOU to play any game that involves doing anything other than COD where you kill everything fast.

Personally, to prove reviewers like this wrong, I went through the game

and am now 1/3d through my second play through. I have 90 health potions in my inventory. I have only used maybe less than 5 health potions the entire time I've played to prove that reviewers saying the game is too difficult are idiots. I was able to down the second boss in less than 15 seconds playing as Farin with a shield on my second play through using an axe with 1-5x damage vs. orc. I have not once completely died, and only have had to been revived a few times. The enemies have "absurd" (laughable) amounts of health... No... You just suck at the game and did negligible damage because you're an idiot and probably had relatively the same equipment through the entire game.

People want stupid and easy games because, essentially, the definition

now of a "good game" is the same definition as "good music". The most popular music sells the most and is the most widely accepted. The most popular game is the one that sells the most and is the most widely accepted. Well, sorry to break it to you, but I don't want a game catered for idiots, which apparently encompasses the majority of people (namely, critics and reviewers) on the planet.

Originally Posted by Gamespy review
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.

Really? Where do I start... For one, there isn't much

immersion because Snowblind is sticking to the lore. They're A "handful of heroes", well, DUH! I bet if Snowblind made up some random back story around all of them, you would criticize the game for breaking away from the lore... You don't need to be attached to the characters, because they are essentially YOU... IDIOT. Where is the back story and depth to my characters in Skyrim and Oblivion? Oh, right, prisoner set out to change the world as basically the "chosen one", which is the same for every character. That's not drab or anything. Since when did games require you to be "attached" to the hero? Are games supposed to be movies now? I'm glad I don't let incompetent reviewers decide which game I'm going to play, if I did I would probably have Uncharted, which is one of my least favorite games of all time. I know that reviews are essentially personal, but come on, get somebody real behind the keyboard sometime. This is the best game I have ever played, and no butt hurt reviewer can tell me otherwise. I'll keep having my fun hacking orcs up while you play with yourselves to Uncharted and COD.

[Defiant Clone]

^ Amen!!!!

[Survivor]

Well said Kindredbay.
I find it's best to just ignore all these critics and Metacritic from now on or I'll just get frustrated .
Look at Gamespy's review of WitN. They criticize the game for it's repetitive combat and bad AI and give it a 6/10. Surely other games with a worse combat system/AI should also receive a penalty for it?
Think again. They give Skyrim a 100/100 without even mentioning the combat system. Look at this:

I haven't found the werewolf quest line. That might be because I've spend most of my time weaving in and out of the main storyline.

I haven't completed the main story yet

So, he hasn't completed the 10-hour main quest (that's how long it took me to beat it and I was taking it real slow), but he spent most of his time doing the main storyline. So he has played for 20 hours max and yet he's already writing a review?
I once had a discussion with a reviewer for a mainstream site and he said that a good reviewer can judge a game after 5 minutes. Obviously that's BS but maybe that explains the low ratings for WitN.

I completely understand it when a player gives WitN a 6/10 because of bugs (even though I haven't experienced any bugs myself). Or when a TES fan thinks Skyrim is really good and gives it a 10/10. That's fine.

But critics fail so miserably at their jobs. I bet that most reviewers haven't played WitN and Skyrim for more than 5-10 hours before writing their review.

WitN should never be criticized for things that are completely ignored in other games. And Skyrim should never get a 100/100 by critics because that would make it a perfect game. With the many low textures, bad AI, crappy melee combat, horrible UI on the PC, short and meaningless main quest and mostly simple fetch/kill quests, the game simply isn't perfect. I'd give Skyrim a 85/100 I think, based on it's great dungeons, good voice-acting, well designed cities and the tons of things you can do in this game. It's simply huge. But if you look at the quality instead of quantity, which a lot of reviewers are unable to do, then WitN deserves a better score and Skyrim doesn't deserve a 100/100.

I remember the time when a really great game, like System Shock or Half-Life, would get a 92-94 out of 100. These days we get dozens of 100/100 scores every year. Every year the critics want us to believe that they found the best shooter/RPG/etc. of the decade

[Passive Chicken]

100/100 or 10/10 is not supposed to be a perfect game, though, to be fair. Humans are imperfect creatures, so it is impossible for any of their creations to be perfect. What a perfect score is supposed to be (I say "supposed" because many reviewers do not see it like this) is a game that succeeds in so many areas that it allows you to forgive its shortcomings. Already I had found problems in Skyrim, and there was plenty I was dissapointed about with War in the North. Still, listening to people rail on about how much War in the North supposedly "sucks" makes me upset, because it is not a bad game and doesn't deserve the bad press.

I am tired of reviewers. So, so, so very tired of reviewers. War in the North is a good game that deserves better than that which it gets.

[KnaveSkye]

This game deserved a 9.5

Pretty much discredited anything you said before or after that. As a PC gamer I am somewhat used to the release now and fix it later mentality, but its somewhat rare for console games to get the same treatment. There is no way a game with this many issues deserves such a high score. That's great if you have personally side stepped all the game ending bugs, but that doesn't mean they don't exist and are not affecting others that payed full price for this title. I still agree that many of the poor reviews are for the wrong reason, but I don't agree that it deserves a much better score. Those who didn't buy this game up til now because of low reviews possibly saved them from buying a game they cannot play or complete, and so they still served a purpose.

[Captain of Despair]

Pretty much discredited anything you said before or after that. As a PC gamer I am somewhat used to the release now and fix it later mentality, but its somewhat rare for console games to get the same treatment. There is no way a game with this many issues deserves such a high score. That's great if you have personally side stepped all the game ending bugs, but that doesn't mean they don't exist and are not affecting others that payed full price for this title. I still agree that many of the poor reviews are for the wrong reason, but I don't agree that it deserves a much better score. Those who didn't buy this game up til now because of low reviews possibly saved them from buying a game they cannot play or complete, and so they still served a purpose.

I agree. Some of the rationale used by reviewers may be flawed, but their final scores are more than generous as far as I'm concerned. IMO this is not a great game, not even close.....this is a game released far too soon, with a list of bugs that is seemingly growing by the hour. And I find it ironic that one of the primary complaints by those who are trashing reviewers is they didn't spend enough time playing the game. Really? Just what do you think those reviews and final scores would have looked like had those reviewing the game gotten stuck in Mirkwood? Personally, I'd say the biggest favour reviewers did this game was not try and finish it.

[Kindredbay]

Originally Posted by KnaveSkye
There is no way a game with this many issues deserves such a high score.

I can't really relate to what you're saying, like you said, since I've found almost no bugs aside from a sound issue that was fixed instantly and hasn't bothered me again on my PS3 version. However, I agree that console games should be rigorously tested and have little to no bugs upon release. In my personal review of the game I gave it a 9.7, but that is not taking bugs into account since I have not experienced any. Although, most of the online reviews don't even mention any bugs, such as IGN's review, and they still gave it a 7/10 solely because the game is "repetitive" with a "bland" story. It makes no sense to me, but I assume that reviewers and critics are only there to really hammer anything that doesn't fit certain guidelines. I also don't see how giving my opinion discredits everything that I say, but whatever. I do agree with much of what you have said.

[KnaveSkye]

I also don't see how giving my opinion discredits everything that I say, but whatever. I do agree with much of what you have said.

You are right, I just took my frustration with the game out on you. If you had the issues I am having or many have had, you might understand why a statement like this game deserves a 9.5 might illicit such feelings. I apologize.

[terek]

Im new to the forums but I have to say that I Agree with weverything you said ( as almost everyone else did but anyway ), there are still opportunities to enhance the game. Add-ons could help everyone out, although after seeing the menu and all, the game does not look modification friendly, but maybe this is just something to hope for? For example, I would love a add-on that enable more challenge missions for example. To wrap it all up, the game could get better reviews if add-ons were made, that my opinion. feel free to judge.

[Passive Chicken]

A hearty welcome to the forums to you, good terek! To get straight to your comment, I agree that the game would be better reviewed if add-ons were made, perhaps even as a gift to those that purchased the game and have taken all of its problems along with its successes. While the agree that the War in the North menu appears linear and not friendly to additional content (save perhaps a challenge map or two), let us remember that looks can be decieving.

I loved the game Overlord, so when Overlord II came out I purchased it. On its main menu, they had "Downloadable Content" displayed prominently alongside "New Name," "Load," and "Options." It recieved one wretched piece of DLC (which was the equivalent of a challenge map) and was no more. Nothing else came, and it has been years since that came out. While War in the North's menu might not seem to welcome additional content, I am sure that with enough support Snowblind will do what they have to do to give us some more adventures out of WiTN. Welcome again, my friend!