The Reviews on Amazon.com are trickling in...

hellmunkey · March 7, 2013

This makes me really sad. I had high hopes for this game. After playing the demo and seeing whats going on now, it sucks. D3 had a crappy launch too, but all Blizz games do, and I was able to play a bit the first night and the next day and didnt lose progress. A couple of my friend have said that they are losing progress becasue their cities are being rolled back. I hope Maxis sees this fuster cluck and releases a proper Simcity.

There are some very nice gameplay elements that I would love to see in a new game, but the size, lack of transit options, and lack of teraforming are going to keep me from purchasing this game, even when the servers stablize.

dysonraf · March 7, 2013

When people start reviewing this game based on the actual gameplay I'll take it on board. So long as people are rating it 1* because they couldnt log straight away/hate origin/hate EA etc I wont.

Its interesting to see that on metacritic its rated at 82/100 by the critics (people who are taking an objective view) yet is given 2.0/10 by users, many of which havent actually played it. http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/simcity

Unfortunately its a sign of the times that popular online games all seem to struggle to some extent on launch until servers are optimized correctly.

I'll reserve my judgement once the hysteria is over and servers are sorted.

Shadely · March 7, 2013

You really think that the professional game 'journalists' are objective?

Huh.

dysonraf · March 7, 2013

You really think that the professional game 'journalists' are objective?

Huh.

They are certainly not basing a review off 20 minutes or zero playtime as a lot of the users are...

mayorgeek · March 7, 2013

You really think that the professional game 'journalists' are objective?

Huh.

They are certainly not basing a review off 20 minutes or zero playtime as a lot of the users are...

It's hard to get more objective than a negative review for a nonfunctional product.

Camlon · March 7, 2013

You really think that the professional game 'journalists' are objective?

Huh.

They are certainly not basing a review off 20 minutes or zero playtime as a lot of the users are...

The more recent reviewers are giving the game an average of 60-70. The offical rating has dropped from 90 to 82, and it is going to keep dropping when more reviews are submitted.

That is not normal for a big title game like Sim City. Its not just the server issues.

William Gates · March 7, 2013

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ROFL LOL LMAO ETC.

There is one sour point, though. I feel as though many of the reviews are negative not due to the limiting factors of the game (such as small city tiles, mandatory gaps between tiles, no terraforming, etc. etc. etc.) but simply due to the online requirement. While I understand the online requirements are not desirable for many people, I feel as though this is not the fundamental wrong with this game. Online requirements I can live with. Crappy gameplay I cannot. The game would not suddenly be significantly better if we could play offline. Unfortunately, I have to partially agree with dysonraf. People who install SC2013, see servers are down or whatever and immediately go into rage mode and head straight for the review sites with a 1-star rating do not consitute my idea of accurate feedback.

By the way, OP, please add Metacritic user scores as well to your original post. Same pattern. 1160/1460 are negative, average user score 1.9/10.

Camlon · March 7, 2013

There is one sour point, though. I feel as though many of the reviews are negative not due to the limiting factors of the game (such as small city tiles, mandatory gaps between tiles, no terraforming, etc. etc. etc.) but simply due to the online requirement.

Of course. People didn't want the online requirement in the first place, and then they cant even get enough servers to make it work after 3 days. What were they thinking? Did they learn nothing from Diablo 3 failed launch. The worst thing you can do in a launch is to make it impossible to play.

And I see many reviews mentioning the other problems as well.

Xenocity · March 7, 2013

You really think that the professional game 'journalists' are objective?

Huh.

They are certainly not basing a review off 20 minutes or zero playtime as a lot of the users are...

The more recent reviewers are giving the game an average of 60-70. The offical rating has dropped from 90 to 82, and it is going to keep dropping when more reviews are submitted.

That is not normal for a big title game like Sim City. Its not just the server issues.

Actually that's quite normal for most big games.

Many sites love to give controversial reviews to generate hits.

Camlon · March 7, 2013

The more recent reviewers are giving the game an average of 60-70. The offical rating has dropped from 90 to 82, and it is going to keep dropping when more reviews are submitted.

That is not normal for a big title game like Sim City. Its not just the server issues.

Actually that's quite normal for most big games.

Many sites love to give controversial reviews to generate hits.

What a load of bullcrap.

Where are all the bad reviews for Guild Wars 2 to generate hits? http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/guild-wars-2/critic-reviews

What about skyrim? http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/critic-reviews

Or Total War Shogun 2: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/total-war-shogun-2

And Tom Raider just got released like Sim City. They got a userscore of 8.7. not 1.9.

Decius · March 7, 2013

Or maybe it's a simple confirmation bias, where the people who review on day one about a game are those who like to complain, while the folks who actually like the game so far will wait until they've had a more complete experience before writing a review? Nah, that can't be right...

YEt the people reviewing on day one are also most likely to actually be critical!

Xenocity · March 7, 2013

The more recent reviewers are giving the game an average of 60-70. The offical rating has dropped from 90 to 82, and it is going to keep dropping when more reviews are submitted.

That is not normal for a big title game like Sim City. Its not just the server issues.

Actually that's quite normal for most big games.

Many sites love to give controversial reviews to generate hits.

What a load of bullcrap.

Where are all the bad reviews for Guild Wars 2 to generate hits? http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/guild-wars-2/critic-reviews

What about skyrim? http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/critic-reviews

Or Total War Shogun 2: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/total-war-shogun-2

And Tom Raider just got released like Sim City. They got a userscore of 8.7. not 1.9.

Skyrim has plenty of bad reviews for the PS3 version.

Bethesda made people wait almost a decade for Skyrim, they also enticed reviewers with goodies as well.

The DLC was given lackluster reviews.

Halo 4 sat in the 90s for the first few weeks and now has dropped to 87?

Why? Because the main sites and gamers complained 343 "rehashed" the game and didn't bother to do anything fresh (which an over exaggeration)

Darksider II has dropped to 81 with a user score dropping to 7.8

Read the negative reviews of the yearly release of Call of Duty as many sites take pot shots at it.

Remember EA isn't the only one who "buys" reviews

Camlon · March 7, 2013

Skyrim has plenty of bad reviews for the PS3 version.

What a load of bullcrap.

Where are all the bad reviews for Guild Wars 2 to generate hits? http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/guild-wars-2/critic-reviews

What about skyrim? http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/critic-reviews

Or Total War Shogun 2: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/total-war-shogun-2

And Tom Raider just got released like Sim City. They got a userscore of 8.7. not 1.9.

Skyrim has plenty of bad reviews for the PS3 version.

Bethesda made people wait almost a decade for Skyrim, they also enticed reviewers with goodies as well.

The DLC was given lackluster reviews.

Halo 4 sat in the 90s for the first few weeks and now has dropped to 87?

Why? Because the main sites and gamers complained 343 "rehashed" the game and didn't bother to do anything fresh (which an over exaggeration)

Darksider II has dropped to 81 with a user score dropping to 7.8

Read the negative reviews of the yearly release of Call of Duty as many sites take pot shots at it.

Remember EA isn't the only one who "buys" reviews

First off, the PS3 version for skyrim sucked. So of course they recieved bad reviews. But for the PC-version they didn't. And for the rest you didn't even bother to mention them, and starting mentioning other games like that is supposed to defend your argument.

Let me remind you, what is your argument. You made the complete ludicrous statement that "Actually that's quite normal for most big games. Many sites love to give controversial reviews to generate hits."

So how come the big games I mentioned have not been given a lot of bad reviews to bring attention?

Or did you just write a load of crap? So you can defend a bad game, that even you know is bad at the moment, because else you would play the game. Not sit on this forum.

Xenocity · March 7, 2013

Skyrim has plenty of bad reviews for the PS3 version.

What a load of bullcrap.

Where are all the bad reviews for Guild Wars 2 to generate hits? http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/guild-wars-2/critic-reviews

What about skyrim? http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/critic-reviews

Or Total War Shogun 2: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/total-war-shogun-2

And Tom Raider just got released like Sim City. They got a userscore of 8.7. not 1.9.

Skyrim has plenty of bad reviews for the PS3 version.

Bethesda made people wait almost a decade for Skyrim, they also enticed reviewers with goodies as well.

The DLC was given lackluster reviews.

Halo 4 sat in the 90s for the first few weeks and now has dropped to 87?

Why? Because the main sites and gamers complained 343 "rehashed" the game and didn't bother to do anything fresh (which an over exaggeration)

Darksider II has dropped to 81 with a user score dropping to 7.8

Read the negative reviews of the yearly release of Call of Duty as many sites take pot shots at it.

Remember EA isn't the only one who "buys" reviews

First off, the PS3 version for skyrim sucked. So of course they recieved bad reviews. But for the PC-version they didn't. And for the rest you didn't even bother to mention them, and starting mentioning other games like that is supposed to defend your argument.

Let me remind you, what is your argument. You made the complete ludicrous statement that "Actually that's quite normal for most big games. Many sites love to give controversial reviews to generate hits."

So how come the big games I mentioned have not been given a lot of bad reviews to bring attention?

Or did you just write a load of crap? So you can defend a bad game, that even you know is bad at the moment, because else you would play the game. Not sit on this forum.

Obviously the companies bought the reviews just like EA has :kitty:

Why are you sitting on this forum trashing a game when you could be doing something more constructive?

Ocram's Razr · March 7, 2013

Please calm down. As I have said before, those that purchased SimCity 2013 on Amazon have valid opinions on Amazon. Completely anonymous users are less reliable. If you sort the reviews to only include certified purchase reviews that are helpful, you will still find a rather low score but it is actually higher than the total reviews including those that did not purchase. --Ocram

Camlon · March 7, 2013

Skyrim has plenty of bad reviews for the PS3 version.

What a load of bullcrap.

Where are all the bad reviews for Guild Wars 2 to generate hits? http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/guild-wars-2/critic-reviews

What about skyrim? http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/critic-reviews

Or Total War Shogun 2: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/total-war-shogun-2

And Tom Raider just got released like Sim City. They got a userscore of 8.7. not 1.9.

Skyrim has plenty of bad reviews for the PS3 version.

Bethesda made people wait almost a decade for Skyrim, they also enticed reviewers with goodies as well.

The DLC was given lackluster reviews.

Halo 4 sat in the 90s for the first few weeks and now has dropped to 87?

Why? Because the main sites and gamers complained 343 "rehashed" the game and didn't bother to do anything fresh (which an over exaggeration)

Darksider II has dropped to 81 with a user score dropping to 7.8

Read the negative reviews of the yearly release of Call of Duty as many sites take pot shots at it.

Remember EA isn't the only one who "buys" reviews

First off, the PS3 version for skyrim sucked. So of course they recieved bad reviews. But for the PC-version they didn't. And for the rest you didn't even bother to mention them, and starting mentioning other games like that is supposed to defend your argument.

Let me remind you, what is your argument. You made the complete ludicrous statement that "Actually that's quite normal for most big games. Many sites love to give controversial reviews to generate hits."

So how come the big games I mentioned have not been given a lot of bad reviews to bring attention?

Or did you just write a load of crap? So you can defend a bad game, that even you know is bad at the moment, because else you would play the game. Not sit on this forum.

Obviously the companies bought the reviews just like EA has :kitty:

Why are you sitting on this forum trashing a game when you could be doing something more constructive?

Your posts are getting dumber. I didn't even mention buying of reviews. Why did you choose to make such a dumb post, instead of using logical arguments?

You are getting desperate, Why is it so important for you to defend EA at all costs?

arcology · March 7, 2013

You really think that the professional game 'journalists' are objective?

Huh.

They are certainly not basing a review off 20 minutes or zero playtime as a lot of the users are...

The fact is, people paid money for this game. Another fact - many have not been able to play consistently, or at all.

Fact, this game has been advertised as online only for quite a while - EA should have been prepared. They themselves were very adamant about online.

Fact - they are telling people that if they dispute a refund, they will be banned.

Fact - how can you tell people "how" to think, and "what" to think about a product they just purchased? The majority of them are educated consumers who wanted to love this game, gave their own money over for it, and on top of it are told to just "wait" for it.