Curse

Omega X · May 06, 2006, 09:36 PM // 21:36

GameSpy: 4.5 out of 5
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/guild-wars-.../705445p1.html

GameSpot: 8.5
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/guild...ns/review.html

I hope that Anet is paying attention to the reviews because they restate what a BUNCH of players have already commented on.

Loviatar · May 06, 2006, 09:56 PM // 21:56

those look like pretty good marks along with a *GREAT* on each as well

not shabby for a new game

MelechRic · May 06, 2006, 10:14 PM // 22:14

*smiles inwardly*

Quote:

"The Bad: Despite the multiplayer focus, communicating with other players feels clunky; the most enticing new content caters mostly to the hardcore."

Branskins · May 07, 2006, 12:49 AM // 00:49

I think they fail to realize that the elite missions were just for the top guilds and alliances. And I really think it is too early for them to judge who will actually hold the captials.

Gamespot gave the graphics an 8? Can someone explain..

Lepton CFd · May 07, 2006, 01:46 AM // 01:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Branskins

Gamespot gave the graphics an 8? Can someone explain..

Are you suggesting that that score is too high or too low?

If you are saying too low, then I'd say you're at fault. With the graphic technology available, GW's graphics aren't very good. It's just a bunch of fancy lighting techniques. However, I personally quite like the artistic feel of the graphics. In terms of overall graphic quality, MMO games like EQ2 have much better graphics than GW, and I'm assuming GameSpot is comparing GW to other MMO games.

Mysterial · May 07, 2006, 03:11 AM // 03:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Branskins

Gamespot gave the graphics an 8? Can someone explain..

The spell effects in this game are generally pretty bad and I'm surprised it doesn't get more mention. Arenanet's artists have done some outstanding environment work, but either their particle engine sucks or their artists have no idea how to get anything out of it.

CK0 · May 07, 2006, 03:37 AM // 03:37

GSpot

Quote:

The role-playing portion of Guild Wars Factions doesn't quite have the same epic feel as its predecessor, especially in how it seems to quickly rush you all the way up to the game's maximum character level of 20.

Read that ANET. This does not bode over well to the pure PvE fan-base. The gang of people that were initially drawn to GW and helped "popularize" it for what it was because of the PvE portion, as well as the no monthly fee.

Quote:

--involving a plague causing Cantha's populace to turn into aberrations that look a lot like the Flood from Halo--isn't particularly well-told. Apart from some story cutscenes delivered using not-particularly-convincing voice performances, quests are given in little text windows that don't do a great job of drawing you into the plot. And since you're not really earning much in the way of new stuff once you reach the maximum level, the campaign might not hold your interest.

What else is new. I wish GWF did better in the storyline dept. Don't shortchange your PvE fanbase.

GSpy

Quote:

That is, twice-yearly standalone installments brimming with content, providing gameplay experiences more polished and substantive than those that preceded them.

Sometimes I guess it's either they are paid off, or maybe they need to craft sentences so they are able to use the word "brimming" to make their reviews 'pretty'. Either way, I don't agree with that statement.

Quote:

Ingenious indeed, but exclusionary to the average player who can't get into one of the big guilds, let alone experience the exciting Alliance battles.

!

Quote:

If you've been wanting to play Guild Wars, there's no reason not to pick up Factions. It's a good bet you'll find yourself picking up the original as well.

If you are a PvE player, there are lots of reasons why you should choose Factions over Prophecies, at this current moment. If you, a PvE player, started with Factions, I will say you will be turned off, and won't bother with GWP.

- - -

Omega X · May 07, 2006, 07:42 PM // 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Branskins

Gamespot gave the graphics an 8? Can someone explain..

Probably the use of old textures.

Gamespot is really temperamental about graphics in sequels.

-------
A site named NZGamer gave it a 9 out of 10
http://www.nzgamer.com/hub-pc-reviews-279

Still waiting for the other magazine/review sites to ping in.

I have a feeling that EGM/1up will be one of the last to do a review. They are slow at everything.

Spartan033 · May 08, 2006, 04:38 PM // 16:38

Yha and WoW gets a 9 for its graphics...It sure deserved that (rolls eyes) I never even trust Gamespots reviews. They have failed quite a few times. IGN has some outstanding PC reviewers. Cant wait to see what they think of Factions.

Fred Kiwi · May 08, 2006, 04:58 PM // 16:58

"a lot of the content caters for higher end guilds"

A LOT? whats he been smoking?

Lepton CFd · May 09, 2006, 12:00 AM // 00:00

WoW got a 9 for graphics? What the hell? That game may as well be a manga considering its dreadful graphics...

Omega X · May 09, 2006, 01:05 AM // 01:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lepton CFd

WoW got a 9 for graphics? What the hell? That game may as well be a manga considering its dreadful graphics...

Most likely because it has a unique art style. They like things like that.

Omega X · May 09, 2006, 07:57 PM // 19:57

A site named Amped IGO gave it an 8.8 out of 10.
http://igo.ampednews.com/gamehub/2152/reviews/745/

Sir Skullcrasher · May 09, 2006, 11:00 PM // 23:00

I give Guild Wars Faction: Two Thumbs Up!

Str0b0 · May 10, 2006, 12:52 AM // 00:52

I only trust Game informer reviews. They have yet to steer me wrong. I'm sure they will give it a good score though. I'm reasonably pleased. I'm somewhat disappointed in some aspects but overall pleasant.