Ign Review On Warframe

[Eremes]

i know DE is implementing a new tutorial but id really like if the critiques of this review were taken seriously.

 

7.5/10 is not bad, and being a "mindless shooter" is not a compliment. 

 

 

this is what PS4 players are having right now.

 

discuss.

[KriLL3]

Who takes IGN seriously? I agree that the new player experience and lore and other non-mindless aspects of the game should be brought more to the forefront, currently most of that is between the lines and elsewhere, not really in the game, the cool trailers is a good example, they're on youtube etc, not in the game, there should be some way to get those into the game so people that don't know about the DE YT account can see them and enjoy the additional lore they provide etc.

 

But I don't see the point of traditional gaming review sites/magazines anymore, they're way too brief and at the end give you a numerical score that's fairly meaningless, and any review of WF is fairly quickly outdated, some of the really old ones really don't apply anymore, but their scores, and metacritic's aggregation of those scores stand.

[Dalethor]

I think the critiques of the game are in fact well founded. DE does much of the game right, the game play structure, combat and weapon/frame variety are great, but the amount of money that is charged for having that variety quickly is a bit over the top, in my opinion at least. In the video the reviewer stated that 60 dollars would be spent very quickly in order to gain a level of variety that was able to keep the game fresh and replayable. That I believe is a reasonable benchmark, on average, as everyone will have a different level of variety that qualifies as fresh and replayable. As to the assertion that the game is a mindless shooter, there is some credence to that as well, as the missions tend to be similar in style and scope across all planets, with the recent rework of Jupiter as a possible exception, at least graphically speaking. I however disagree as to the mindless aspect of the game, as I take a portion of the fun of playing in the manipulation of the various mods and seeing how they can be combined to maximize the output of my weapons and frames. So perhaps rather than mindless, repetitive may be a better adjective for the game in its current lineup of mission types and tilesets.

All in all, I think the score of 7.5 was well deserved, and the items that still require work were well described but not overly negatively. I think that for a game that considers itself still a beta, or at least a work in progress, as betas are generally thought of, DE should be happy with that review of a PS4 title that had so little time to be ported over for day 1 launch. I say that because that was a PS4 review, not a review of the PC build.

As to the validity of a numerical score I agree with the poster above the scores are quickly meaningless, for example the metacritic score you see on Steam refers to a build 3 or 4 updates ago. So, by all means, take the scores with a grain of salt, take the bits that mean something and toss the rest.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Dalethor

[Won_Doe]

 

But I don't see the point of traditional gaming review sites/magazines anymore, they're way too brief and at the end give you a numerical score that's fairly meaningless, and any review of WF is fairly quickly outdated, some of the really old ones really don't apply anymore, but their scores, and metacritic's aggregation of those scores stand.

 

Yes,  it's really all just gaming journalism now. I haven't read any reviews in over a year now. Some games nowadays are just too full of content to be summed up in a short article.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Won_Doe

[Won_Doe]

All in all, I think the score of 7.5 was well deserved, and the items that still require work were well described but not overly negatively.

 

I also have to agree with the score. Warframe is extremely fun, and it's been so long since I've put this many hours into a shooter, but you can't deny that the level of quality/polish is a bit low, even for a beta.

 

The game is best compared to Borderlands 2, and I think Warframe loses bigtime here in terms of capturing a wide audience. The problem with games that lack content is that they're forced to be grindy, otherwise you'd just complete everything way too fast. BL2 is a very vast game when it comes to weapons and variety. Warframe, not so much. The weapons are there, but many of them function much too similarly to eacother. Warframe is mostly the same maps used over and over again, where BL2 has a much bigger world to explore.

 

Still though, I prefer Warframe by far because of it's pacing and player mobility - it reminds me a tad bit of the Unreal Tournament series.

[HAYABU5A]

ninjas fighting aliens is about as deep as warframes story goes

 

ninjas fighting aliens

that automatically makes a game 10/10 

ISNT IT ?

 

IGN has always sucked anyways lol cant remember the last time i have ever seen or heard a honest video game review from them

IGN is not independant after all, they are in the industry pocket, you cant trust a puppet everyone knows that 

[Liminal]

7.5? Seems fair. There are alot of issues with Warframe, but I don't think the current mechanics are set in stone yet.

[Brimir]

Never trust gaming "journalists". Those sites are either in the pockets of the ruling developers/publishers or they are trying to push a disgusting political agenda(Kotaku, burn in hell).

 

I'll take the word of a fellow gamer over these hacks any day.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Brimir

[alienspacebats]

Quite surprised they scored it so high, lots of journos are going to town unfairly critiquing the game.

[Vunie]

IGN only gives good reviews to COD 

[MrSplashy]

IGN only gives good reviews to COD 

Agree with you bro, only COD gets the craps while the other games.. But still many people believes on IGN reviews..

[CaptainohCaptain]

Well, I'd rate Warframe like 6/10 and would remove "Great co-op" from it. Because it's too damn viable to play alone in team, having one only for increased number of enemies and drops.

Also, if we should use rate system like

 

ninjas fighting aliens is about as deep as warframes story goes

 

ninjas fighting aliens

that automatically makes a game 10/10 

ISNT IT ?

 

IGN has always sucked anyways lol cant remember the last time i have ever seen or heard a honest video game review from them

IGN is not independant after all, they are in the industry pocket, you cant trust a puppet everyone knows that 

I'd say

-1 for cheap and vulgar ninja advertisement

-1 for cheap name

-1 for "eternal beta" way

That's only before actually checking this out.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Icouldjustkissyou

[Luminati07]

Who takes IGN seriously? 

^This

 

Any website that constantly gives the CoD series 8's and 9's every year does not have any credibility.

[lautalocos]

my friend bought the PS4. he has blacklight and warframe.

 

for now, he is enjoying warframe the most. that should be enough for anyone

[BrainInvader]

I agree with the review. Although I play on PC not PS4, I ran/run into the same trouble as him.

Although this game is quite addicting, and would love to throw money at it(Which I have already done anyway, but I want to keep throwing), the platinum prices are a bit out of whack.

 

This game has a really nice base, and seems to be improving nicely as well.

It just needs some slight adjustments here and there(Which may or may not be in the backlog) and it would help so much in the game. For example:

Proper tutorials / helpful tooltips(Having to look at the wiki for every bit of information is a bit of a pain...)

Proper sniper scopes(My vectis scope sometimes turns invisible when looking at bright areas...)

Edited December 5, 2013 by BrainInvader

[RoboDoge]

7.5 is pretty good review for Warframe.

[Wiegraf]

I prefer to refer to Metacritic's review scores (not the user ones... those are constantly biased and extremes on 10s and 0). It's easier to get a picture of the game by having a metascore from a weighted average of the reviews. Then you get to read the best reviews, the worst ones and get a general opinion instead of a single, possibly half done one.

 

Then of course, there's personnal opinions. When I consider the time spent on Warframe, I'd say it would score pretty high for me personally (given I've spent more time on Warframe, as a multiplayer coop shooter, than any MMO I've ever played; that gives you an idea) but that might not be true for another player.

 

Then again, I was in the closed beta so I also got to see how the game changed/improved; I can't have the perspective of someone who just began playing yesterday (though I somewhat get it on PS4 even though I know what to expect) since I know and have experienced what was before U11 and all that content.

 

As far as a score? I don't believe a number can truly quantify an opinion : Warframe isn't a perfect game, that's sure, but it's fun to me enough to make me log in every evening for a couple of runs; that's a game worth playing in my opinion if it makes me come back to it on a daily basis.

[HellishWind]

so far if noticed all the revies hammer on the platinium costs mabye its time for DE to wake up ?

[Katakuna]

I don't know about you all but I thought that was a rather honest and good review of the game. I'm actually shocked it came from IGN. A couple words I wouldn't have used but he brought up key issues, especially for new players, that we all have.

 

Indeed, it's like some folks here didn't even watch the review.

 

That's a recurring problem when it comes to so-so reviews about Warframe, it seems.

[direcyphre]

At the end of the day, if the game was actually terrible, you simply wouldn't play it. There are definitely games I simply put down because they are so terrible or unplayable. None of which has anything to do with a score, just a matter of finding a game fun with enough things to do.

 

Also yeah, it's IGN. I can't recall the last time I ever trusted a standard publication or Game Review website to give me reliable information and insight. I put about the same stock in those Youtube reviewers all the same. In the end, we can easily see how a game plays from a run of the mill 'Let's Play', and short of a serious control scheme problem, we know exactly what the game is like.

[Silvershadow66]

In the video the reviewer stated that 60 dollars would be spent very quickly in order to gain a level of variety that was able to keep the game fresh and replayable. That I believe is a reasonable benchmark, on average, as everyone will have a different level of variety that qualifies as fresh and replayable.

 

No, its not a reasonable benchmark. With the new BP drop system that came a couple of Updates ago it is now extremely easy to build new frames. In your first month of playing warframe you could get a dozen weapons and half a dozen new frames. Took me less than 2 hours to get all the Nova BPs on the weekend and since U11 I also got myself Valkyr and Necros, I tend to play a few hours most days.

 

All you need for a lot of variety is about $20 to spend on slots, a few potatoes and maybe a colour palette if appearance is important. 370 Plat will get you 8 extra frame slots, 10 extra weapon slots and 7 potatoes.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Silvershadow66

[FlyDungas]

wtf is up with his vulkar scope? mine doesn't look anything like that

[Mak_Gohae]

wtf is up with his vulkar scope? mine doesn't look anything like that

 

That was a bug, it had the Grineer scope on top of the Corpus scope on top of the Tenno scope. 

 

Anyway, missions are repetitive, one minute later, you can play missions how you want and that's refreshing!

Wouldn't the refreshingness not make missions repetitive... ignoring the fact that pretty much all missions in shooters are repetitive.

Also, the game is F2P just because you needed to have all these choices early on and decided to drop cash doesn't make the game NOT a F2P.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Mak_Gohae

[Trainer772]

Terrible review:

The reviewer, like all reviewers, don't actually play the game in-depth enough to give a good review. They just base their review off of their first impressions and from what they hear. You can see from their terrible lack of mods and arsenal that they have very little experience with the game.

 

Little experience = little authority to make a review. IGN is just trying to get publicity for ITSELF.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Trainer772

[haon7272w]

Even though Warframe is free-to-play, that shouldn't be a reason to make the grade of the game worse.  Anything that isn't cosmetic can be obtained in game.  Even still, buying platinum for some essentials like weapon slots, potatoes, and MAYBE a color palette isn't bad.  If that detracts from the score then they are just complaining.  Other than that, I think a score of 7/10 would be fair, because all in all, Warframe aint a bad game, but there are some mistakes/bugs/quirks that need to be fixed.