Eurogamer POE review, 7/10

Giving score for arpg game... very hard. 1-10 scale is just broken. Preview games should be about score. We have used to it that 7/10 means terrible game and not worth to play. Its not true.

Just read prewies dont look score.

Visually POE and D3 looks good. Torchlight 2 looks just terrible. Titan quest didnt look nice. But Dungeon siege 2 looks best imo... someone must get angry now???

"

Kandi wrote:

Giving score for arpg game... very hard. 1-10 scale is just broken. Preview games should be about score. We have used to it that 7/10 means terrible game and not worth to play. Its not true.

Just read prewies dont look score.

Visually POE and D3 looks good. Torchlight 2 looks just terrible. Titan quest didnt look nice. But Dungeon siege 2 looks best imo... someone must get angry now???

I'm very angry.

"

big_aug wrote:

Seemed like an honest, legit review. You're kidding yourself if you think this gameis higher than a 7. Desync alone drops you 1-2 points minimum, so he was probably being generous as he didn't even mention it.

He clearly states its a good game.

He probably has no clue what de-sync is.

"

johnKeys wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Bluntski wrote:

This is the truth.

These forums are a giant circle jerk about how PoE is the best ARPG ever in the history of the universe. That said, this game isn't bad but it definitely isn't anything special.

Dunno about the universe, maybe there's an alien ARPG masterrace, but it sure is the best ARPG on the planet :) Pretty much every other review is better than 7/10, so PoE must be something special.

I think right now, PoE and Torchlight 2 are about equal.
TL2 got 8.7/10 user reviews (I actually gave it a 9), and PoE should get about 8.5/10 because of net-related problems and optimization which can be better. maybe as low as 8/10, but not lower.
still, TL2 holds an "unfair" advantage of being offline-based.
PoE is the best online-based ARPG at the moment.
it's also the peak of ability for a company the size of GGG.

D3 has a smoother technical side, and a bit better graphics - but it's utter garbage in everything else. maybe "Reaper Of Wallets" will make it better, I don't know.

If it is the best then why do more people play D3?

Why do more people drink Budweiser than Elysian? Why do birds... suddenly appear...?

Why does Duck Dynasty have a much higher viewer base than Breaking Bad?

This is one of the many review sites that was paid off by Blizzard to give Diablo III extremely positive reviews. I wouldn't put too much credit into what they say. These sites (also IGN, gamestop, gamespy, etc etc) reserve their highest reviews for those who pay them. They will intentionally make a less desirable review for any games that compete with games that have payoff reviews.

Bullshit review!

Sry but thats a game made with love not with a stupid moneymaking publisher like EA etc.

"

NebulousFury wrote:

This is one of the many review sites that was paid off by Blizzard to give Diablo III extremely positive reviews. I wouldn't put too much credit into what they say. These sites (also IGN, gamestop, gamespy, etc etc) reserve their highest reviews for those who pay them.

Maybe. Maybe the reviewer actually thought it was a 7/10 game. I can easily see why someone might not think it's a 9. I mean, I think it's a solid 9, but people have different opnions and all that.

Quotes are from the Eurogamer review.

"

But it turns out this is where the most important decisions are made, where the biggest challenges are faced - in all this customisation of characters and equipment. Path of Exile is a game that challenges you most while you aren't in the action, and while combat can be fast, it could certainly be a lot more difficult. Much of the time, it feels like a means to an end.

This is a particularly brilliant observation. You can trash talk the man for his overall conclusions, but you can't fault this.

"

The game only really bites back when you join parties with other players, inflating the number of monsters you'll have to tackle.

"

Its cosmetics are fairly expensive, with $30 getting you a pet, a soundtrack and 200 points. 200 points might buy one or two customisations, but it won't even stretch to some of the weapon effects.

This shows that the reviewer doesn't always check his facts. (In the latter case, Supporter packs would no longer be available by the time the review was published.) Not checking ones facts, of course, means that one's overall opinion may be based on falsehoods.

Regardless, I generally respect reviewer freedom of speech. In this particular case, I think he got some of the details messed up, but that's not entirely his failing; given the insightful paragraph quoted above, he's a smart guy, and the game managed to confuse him on several key points, so even if he was made aware of his factual errors, he could just come back with "this game is confusing." And it is. For people that like that sort of complexity, who enjoy the challenges when you aren't in the action, PoE is fucking awesome; for those who just want to dive in, the focus on planning and preparation can be frustrating. Now, if I was reviewing the game I'd explain the difference between these perspectives, letting the reader know that if they are in Category A they can take the final score and +1 it, while if they're in Category B they can -1 it instead, but if he wants to write solely from the perspective of the dive-right-in, "I love it when the screen is filled with monsters" crowd, and reduce its score directly, then that's his prerogative.

More to the point, the fanboys in this thread aren't calling this a bullshit review because of the factual errors. They're calling it one because of the score, and nothing else. In that sense, the review is not bullshit; those attacking it are.