I wouldn't argue about some titles getting high scores because of "wanting to get future reviews". But you should all be happy that Tera isn't one of those titles, so the points is actually accurate, instead of inflated.
You should be more upset if they got like 8.5 because EME looked like a cool company to review more games from.
I don't necessarily disagree with his points, I just think he scored the game too low given my experience with it. In particular, I don't think people give the story of this game enough credit. While there are a number of fetch quests, I do find the dialogue describing the "story missions" to have a rather engaging plot that provides purpose for what I am doing around the world.
I think a lot of people just skip the dialogue and conclude that the game lacks a story.
OR.. proof that Nick Kolan (the person who wrote that particular review, not everyone at IGN) has opinions of his own which you (and I) happen to disagree with. You decide.
I don't necessarily disagree with his points, I just think he scored the game too low given my experience with it. In particular, I don't think people give the story of this game enough credit. While there are a number of fetch quests, I do find the dialogue describing the "story missions" to have a rather engaging plot that provides purpose for what I am doing around the world.
I think a lot of people just skip the dialogue and conclude that the game lacks a story.
I honestly dont pay attention to this games story, at all. And im a huge lore buff most of the time, but i dont really feel any connect to this games world at all. The entire starting premise just failed to hook me.
If not for the achievements id just skip all the quests and solo bams all day.
I think most reviewers give Tera way too high of a score based on the combat and graphics.
IGN's score is about right on. Think about it once the initial buzz you have from the game wears off.
And as to one reply, yeah, Diablo 3 is getting WAY too high of reviews also based on initial buzz when that game has little to no staying power, very little content, forced online play (something that most aren't bashing bliz for enough), and is overall grossly overrated. What can you say...reviewers are all about kissing corporate butt like bliz.
OR.. proof that Nick Kolan (the person who wrote that particular review, not everyone at IGN) has opinions of his own which you (and I) happen to disagree with. You decide.
That game was so horribly crippled in content and bugs and lacking features that were standard in EVERQUEST with 10 year old combat style, uninteresting graphics, very low resolution, bad memory bleeds, fist fulls of exploits, horrible balance that went through roller coaster nerfing had about as much endgame content as Tera and managed to hemorrhage the bulk of their player base before getting through 3 months.
I'm not saying SWTOR had no redeeming qualities nor did I say the review for Tera is warrantless but if you put SWTOR to the same scrutiny as Tera's review there is absolutely no way to justify SWTOR getting a 9 with editor's choice award.
Opinions are that and reviews are opinion pieces but when you quantify scores like that and have such radically conflicting takes from review to review you lose credibility, and thusly seeing as how IGN does this and really has very little credibility...
The very succinct and original post I made about proof that IGN should not be taken seriously stands. Not because there is not good points to the Tera review (or other reviews) but because they are pure and unadulterated opinion pieces that assign arbitrary values based on whatever they feel like.
Look at the scores of the two reviews.
Tera is specifically mentioned as having cutting edge and amazing graphics and visuals and gets an 8
SWTOR has major graphical issues and extremely low res textures and it got an 8.5