They do quite often if something they like has been hit with a lot of negative reviews.
How the hell can it even be reviewed? Game should be played for 3 months to get a proper feel of it. Mythic dungeons haven’t even opened.
Game journos are total 
3 Likes
I’ve enjoyed it so far but it’s too early to give it a rating. This is an mmo, longevity matters. In 2 months if I am still subbed I’ll rate it mid 80s.
I do not believe any of those scores, I know that some of those scores are paid for as is the norm in this industry.
2 Likes
Journalism itself has become completely unreliable. None of them can be trusted. They are all bought and paid for.
1 Like
Is that so? You live in an interesting world.
Companies use bots to boost user scores as well. So there’s that too.
Honestly the only opinion that matters is your own. I hated DF and it was praised by the masses, I loved BFA and it was hated by the masses.
I’ve enjoyed TWW a lot so far.
3 Likes
This doesn’t happen and it’s literally been debunked by so many people at this point…
That whole line of crap started because people got mad that reviewers were giving high scores to games they hated, so they claimed they got paid to be positive without showing any evidence backing up their argument.
You’re in the same world whether you want to believe it or not.
Absolutely. Dead internet theory and all.
4 Likes
Bwahahahahahahahaha! Kids are so naive sometimes. Gotta love em.
1 Like
Well they dont hand them the money directly, but there is sponsoring and other benefits, flights to special events, merchandise etc.
The pressure with not buying the ad places is also very relevant.
1 Like
Kansas State fair gave it a yellow ribbon…so it’s got that going for it.
Okay, answer this question for me then.
How does Concord have a critic rating of 62.
Concord was published by Sony, a multi-billion dollar company, the creators of one of the most profitable consoles in the world. If critics were getting paid to give positive reviews, why would Sony not have bought positive press for Concord hmm?
Your entire case falls to pieces the moment big publisher games pop up with unfavourable review scores.
It’s not dragon flight or shadowlands
But it’s still more of world of Alliance craft
So it’s better, but still needs work
1 Like
Isn’t 62 well above average?
It makes sense to have immediate ratings for things like movies or TV shows where it’s all about story that people watch.
For games that have definitive ends and aren’t meant to be live-service it also makes sense to have reviews quickly. (Generally single player games).
For MMO’s though, you really don’t get a feel for how good or bad the expansion will be until you’ve gotten used to the endgame. The leveling campaign is just a tiny speck of time for most.
WoD, for instance, had a great leveling campaign. But the endgame was built around Garrisons, and did not do well. That’s what defined WoD. It’s too early for ratings of TWW to be useful. (Not that gaming publications are ever useful really).
Yes, it’s called Earth. And your naivety is clouding your objectivity.
No, it is not. It’s seen as ‘mixed’ on Metacritic. If Rotten Tomatoes rated games, it would be considered Rotten.
75+ is considered good, but the higher than number is, the better. Some gaming companies even tie whether employees get bonuses to the metacritic score the game gets. If the game gets below 75? No bonuses for them.
But 64 is the average rating. If I want to get into specifics, only 3 critics gave the game a score of 75 or higher.
Very appropriate score for what we’ve seen thus far. And there’s no reason to think that it can’t hold or improve such ratings.
There’s allot of whining in the forums but WoW just has a healthy share of whiny players. Beyond the typical pile of release bugs, there’s very little to actually complain about.
You also live in an interesting world. I also love the Ad hom to make me think your way.