Socom Confrontation GS Review RIP (10/21/08 - 10/29/08) (UPDATED)

[QUOTE="Lionheart08"]

Unless GS re-reviews expect for people to still count it as a flop. :P

footfoe2

No face it they fixed the problems so its much better now. This is an exclusive you lems won't get a chance to play, ownage

A flopped 6.5 exclusive, and nothing will change that score :P Welcome to System Wars (and yup, this is a game :P )

Every MMORPG should be terrible in terms of scores then.

LightReflection

Blizzard don't release broken games, dude.

If they re-reviewed Socom due to a patch, it would only be fair if Fable 2 was reviewed again aswell, however since the patch would not make Socom, AAAE it would be in fanboys best interests for this not to happen since fable would end up AAAE. I would like to see it because I think both games where underrated. anthonydwyer

[QUOTE="anthonydwyer"]If they re-reviewed Socom due to a patch, it would only be fair if Fable 2 was reviewed again aswell, however since the patch would not make Socom, AAAE it would be in fanboys best interests for this not to happen since fable would end up AAAE. I would like to see it because I think both games where underrated. Animal-Mother

from what I read in the fable 2 sticky, 360 owners thought the co-op was worth .5. I don't think GS would rate Socom 2.5 higher due to a patch.

Id like to see them re-reviewed as a one off special, but Socom is not out in Europe yet so would GS have to review it again for the EU release since it is different from the NA one?

This is an exclusive you lems won't get a chance to play, ownage

footfoe2

It's garbage, move on already:lol:

If they re-reviewed Socom due to a patch, it would only be fair if Fable 2 was reviewed again aswell, however since the patch would not make Socom, AAAE it would be in fanboys best interests for this not to happen since fable would end up AAAE. I would like to see it because I think both games where underrated. anthonydwyer

well, in Socom's defense, the patch that fixes server side problems has more of an impact on the review score than that of Fable 2 imo..

now correct me if i'm wrong but according to a quick glace at GS's review of Fable 2, the "bad" things about the game were actual core gameplay flaws.. not just issues with overloaded servers and such.. take a look:

• Making money is way too easy
• Story and characters lack depth
• Good and evil paths don't seem well-balanced
• Lousy map.

these things arent the kind of things that arent expected to be fixed in the first couple of weeks with an imaginary patch.. but with Socom and virtually any online-only based game, the gameplay lives and dies on the strength of the servers, lag, and etc.. Socom (whether it was the fault of the devs or not is another issue) was not ready for the load of players it received and thusly was nearly unplayble for the first few days.. a week later it still had issues.. but as the server issues are resolved, the game exponentially becomes better.. this is because the core gameplay is spot-on.. many people say that it is the best Socom to date, surpassing that of Socom 2.. for example, take a look at GS's "bad" review of Socom:

• Myriad network issues
• Lag sometimes spoils combat
• Stat-tracking is broken
• Movement can be awkward.

all but one of those complaints is due to server issues and even the movement issue was referrenced to control issues due to lag.. so tell me why this game got a "6.5" if you take server-based problems out of the equation.. server-based problems that are sure to plague any online-only game in the first couple weeks of release (to include Warhawk and MMORPGs).. sure, Socom was worse than most, but it was still widely known that these issues were temporary in nature.. and therefore, it would be reasonable to not reflect them in a permanant review score..

[QUOTE="anthonydwyer"]If they re-reviewed Socom due to a patch, it would only be fair if Fable 2 was reviewed again aswell, however since the patch would not make Socom, AAAE it would be in fanboys best interests for this not to happen since fable would end up AAAE. I would like to see it because I think both games where underrated. Antwan3K

well, in Socom's defense, the patch that fixes server side problems is has more of an impact on the review score than that of Fable 2..

all but one of those complaints is due to server issues and even the movement issue was referrenced to control issues due to lag.. so tell me why this game got a "6.5" if you take server-based problems out of the equation.. server-based problems that are sure to plague any online-only game in the first couple weeks of release (to include Warhawk and MMORPGs).. sure, Socom was worse than most, but it was still widely known that these issues were temporary in nature.. and therefore, it would be reasonable to not reflect them in a permanant review score..

The problem is that SOCOM has no single player gameplay to fall back on... at all. The game was literally broken and for the most part, could not be played. Even now, if you get into a game, you're good. But if you want to get into a game with your friends, expect to do some work to accomplish that.

Fable 2 on the other hand, despite its flaws, even the janky co-op... the game could still be played and anyone can find the core fun of the game.

[QUOTE="LightReflection"]

Every MMORPG should be terrible in terms of scores then.

xsubtownerx

Blizzard don't release broken games, dude.

It just shows how poor this game is, when the likes of conan, warhammer and wow all got great reviews, and that was before they released patches.

[QUOTE="Antwan3K"]

[QUOTE="anthonydwyer"]If they re-reviewed Socom due to a patch, it would only be fair if Fable 2 was reviewed again aswell, however since the patch would not make Socom, AAAE it would be in fanboys best interests for this not to happen since fable would end up AAAE. I would like to see it because I think both games where underrated. VoodooHak

well, in Socom's defense, the patch that fixes server side problems is has more of an impact on the review score than that of Fable 2..

all but one of those complaints is due to server issues and even the movement issue was referrenced to control issues due to lag.. so tell me why this game got a "6.5" if you take server-based problems out of the equation.. server-based problems that are sure to plague any online-only game in the first couple weeks of release (to include Warhawk and MMORPGs).. sure, Socom was worse than most, but it was still widely known that these issues were temporary in nature.. and therefore, it would be reasonable to not reflect them in a permanant review score..

The problem is that SOCOM has no single player gameplay to fall back on... at all. The game was literally broken and for the most part, could not be played. Even now, if you get into a game, you're good. But if you want to get into a game with your friends, expect to do some work to accomplish that.

Fable 2 on the other hand, despite its flaws, even the janky co-op... the game could still be played and anyone can find the core fun of the game.

i understand that, sir.. i even stated as much in my post saying that online-only games live and die based upon their server and network strength..

but as i've already pointed out, Socom's "problems" end there.. server/netwrok issues that are inherent to any online-only game to include MMORPGs and etc.. i can admit that Socom's issues were more severe than others.. the game was absolutely saturated at launch and these things are expected.. but they are temporary in nature.. why base a permenant review score upon temporary issues?..

and yea, Fable 2 had core fun to be had on day one.. that's why it got a 8.5.. online co-op didnt even factor into GS's "bad" section of their review, so apparently it didnt carry much weight in the review score if you ask me.. Fable 2 had core gamplay issues that lowered it from AAA to AA.. but AA is still great and fun, and people are obviously enjoying the game and have been since its release.. on the other hand, a 6.5 for Socom is far from accurately portraying the level of gameplay and fun the average gamer is going to expeience with the game beyond temporary server issues..

well fable 2 got an update the day it came out that allowed online co-op..... does that mean its not a flop any more?! no! because those are the rules on this stupid site.tomertr

and what about these issues:

* Making money is way too easy

* Story and characters lack depth

* Good and evil paths don't seem well-balanced

* Lousy map

y'know, the ones that were actually mentioned in GS's "bad" section of the review.. :?.. online co-op apparently didnt even play a major factor regardless.. next excuse??..

Cool!

With the bugs fisxed this game should at least be consoidered AA. The reviews say the actuall gameplay is great. Im definately going to get it :)

i understand that, sir.. i even stated as much in my post saying that online-only games live and die based upon their server and network strength..

but as i've already pointed out, Socom's "problems" end there.. server/netwrok issues that are inherent to any online-only game to include MMORPGs and etc.. i can admit that Socom's issues were more severe than others.. the game was absolutely saturated at launch and these things are expected.. but they are temporary in nature.. why base a permenant review score upon temporary issues?..

and yea, Fable 2 had core fun to be had on day one.. that's why it got a 8.5.. online co-op didnt even factor into GS's "bad" section of their review, so apparently it didnt carry much weight in the review score if you ask me.. Fable 2 had core gamplay issues that lowered it from AAA to AA.. but AA is still great and fun, and people are obviously enjoying the game and have been since its release.. on the other hand, a 6.5 for Socom is far from accurately portraying the level of gameplay and fun the average gamer is going to expeience with the game beyond temporary server issues..

Antwan3K

My point is...there is a more critical expectation that the game should work day one since the main (only) gameplay mode is online. I don't think that expectation is unreasonable given the type of game it is. I would expect intermittent problems early on, but on launch day, fans and reviewers are left with a broken experience and waiting for a patch.

Launch day for Fable 2, fans and reviewers were able to play the game enough to take note of what it did right.

At the end of the day, SOCOM was a victim of its own game type.

On an aside, are the clan calendar and party system working yet?

its still a flop. it wasn't purely those fixes that made it score so poorly, it was also the sub-standard gameplay and visuals... no patch will fix those.3picuri3

True Story, even if it did run perfect its not on the same lvl as games like COD4. Halo3, Gears, R:FOM

[QUOTE="Antwan3K"]

i understand that, sir.. i even stated as much in my post saying that online-only games live and die based upon their server and network strength..

but as i've already pointed out, Socom's "problems" end there.. server/netwrok issues that are inherent to any online-only game to include MMORPGs and etc.. i can admit that Socom's issues were more severe than others.. the game was absolutely saturated at launch and these things are expected.. but they are temporary in nature.. why base a permenant review score upon temporary issues?..

and yea, Fable 2 had core fun to be had on day one.. that's why it got a 8.5.. online co-op didnt even factor into GS's "bad" section of their review, so apparently it didnt carry much weight in the review score if you ask me.. Fable 2 had core gamplay issues that lowered it from AAA to AA.. but AA is still great and fun, and people are obviously enjoying the game and have been since its release.. on the other hand, a 6.5 for Socom is far from accurately portraying the level of gameplay and fun the average gamer is going to expeience with the game beyond temporary server issues..

VoodooHak

My point is...there is a more critical expectation that the game should work day one since the main (only) gameplay mode is online. I don't think that expectation is unreasonable given the type of game it is. I would expect intermittent problems early on, but on launch day, fans and reviewers are left with a broken experience and waiting for a patch.

Launch day for Fable 2, fans and reviewers were able to play the game enough to take note of what it did right.

At the end of the day, SOCOM was a victim of its own game type.

On an aside, are the clan calendar and party system working yet?

well, it looks like we are going to only go in circles with this one becasue i agree with you that when a consumer walks into a store to buy an "online-only" game, they want to be able to hop in and play that game without any issues (as if it was your typical offline title).. but the harsh reality is that when you buy a game of that type during it's launch period, you're going to run into serious network issues that are temporary in nature and usually justifiable..

Socom is one of those games.. and yea, it's a victim of it's own game type.. until reviewers adjust to these coming times or until devs are better prepared for these coming times, these mixed reviews will continue to pour in.. but at a purely gameplay level, beyond the temporary network issues, is Socom:Confrontation a "6.5" calibur game?.. no.. not within any stretch of the imagination.. and that's my entire point.. new potential Socom: C buyers will be looking at this review score six months from now and think immediately that this game "sucks".. but in reality, the issues that caused such a horrible score are just the nature of making "online-only" games and these initial server-side issues shouldnt be heavily reflected in the permenant review scores because many of the potential buyers wont ever personally experience the full brunt of what you are negatively portraying in your review..

and no, to my knowledge, the clan calender and party system are not up yet.. but i've not personally tried to use either of those features...

[QUOTE="tomertr"]well fable 2 got an update the day it came out that allowed online co-op..... does that mean its not a flop any more?! no! because those are the rules on this stupid site.Antwan3K

and what about these issues:

* Making money is way too easy - is it? Taking on odd jobs with the minigames just don't seem substantial enough to buy top-of-the-line weapons or clothing. Now that I'm buying houses and upgrading the furnishings, I'm starting to make some money consistently.... but then again, I've earned that ability. I'm also playing the good side. Earning money honestly in Abion is certainly no cake walk.

* Story and characters lack depth - Hold up now. The story is good, and the storytelling 5tyle (seriosly? this is a forbidden word?) is at a level most narrative-heavy games don't achieve.

* Good and evil paths don't seem well-balanced - can't comment on this since I'm playing the Good side first.

* Lousy map - The map becomes irrelevent when you use the breadcrumb feature. The maps that are available are more than enough to let you know where you are. The auto-travel also makes a world map irrelevent unless you intend on walking everywhere.

y'know, the ones that were actually mentioned in GS's "bad" section of the review.. :?.. online co-op apparently didnt even play a major factor regardless.. next excuse??..

Co-op really has no substantial impact on narrative other than making challenges a bit easier with an ally at your disposal. If anything, it's a social mechanic that's more an extra than core gameplay.

All I am saying is that the problems with Fable 2 were not as eggregious as those found in SOCOM.

Should we expect a few hiccups on launch for an online game? Sure. The huge problem was that the problems were not hiccups. They game-breaking problems that prevent people from actually playing. Die hard fans will muddle through it. Anyone else would move onto another game.

its still a flop. it wasn't purely those fixes that made it score so poorly, it was also the sub-standard gameplay and visuals... no patch will fix those.3picuri3

Hmmm I've read the review and I don't recall the reviewer calling the gameplay sub-standard or even hinted at that....I did read "movement can be awkward" which I don't think can qualify as sub-standard gameplay.

Good grief are cows still complaining about this? Let it go.

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]its still a flop. it wasn't purely those fixes that made it score so poorly, it was also the sub-standard gameplay and visuals... no patch will fix those.onewiththegame

True Story, even if it did run perfect its not on the same lvl as games like COD4. Halo3, Gears, R:FOM

based upon what?.. i challenge you to find me quotes from the GS review to back-up your claim (other than temporary server-based issues).. name any console online shooter that packs more tactical precision, skill, and tension than Socom: Confrontation and promote that ideal with facts and details.. compare and contrast.. please, do us the favor.. until then, keep your blind statements to yourself because they dont carry any real weight or relevance..

[QUOTE="Antwan3K"]

[QUOTE="tomertr"]well fable 2 got an update the day it came out that allowed online co-op..... does that mean its not a flop any more?! no! because those are the rules on this stupid site.VoodooHak

and what about these issues:

* Making money is way too easy - is it? Taking on odd jobs with the minigames just don't seem substantial enough to buy top-of-the-line weapons or clothing. Now that I'm buying houses and upgrading the furnishings, I'm starting to make some money consistently.... but then again, I've earned that ability. I'm also playing the good side. Earning money honestly in Abion is certainly no cake walk.

* Story and characters lack depth - Hold up now. The story is good, and the storytelling 5tyle (seriosly? this is a forbidden word?) is at a level most narrative-heavy games don't achieve.

* Good and evil paths don't seem well-balanced - can't comment on this since I'm playing the Good side first.

* Lousy map - The map becomes irrelevent when you use the breadcrumb feature. The maps that are available are more than enough to let you know where you are. The auto-travel also makes a world map irrelevent unless you intend on walking everywhere.

y'know, the ones that were actually mentioned in GS's "bad" section of the review.. :?.. online co-op apparently didnt even play a major factor regardless.. next excuse??..

Co-op really has no substantial impact on narrative other than making challenges a bit easier with an ally at your disposal. If anything, it's a social mechanic that's more an extra than core gameplay.

All I am saying is that the problems with Fable 2 were not as eggregious as those found in SOCOM.

Should we expect a few hiccups on launch for an online game? Sure. The huge problem was that the problems were not hiccups. They game-breaking problems that prevent people from actually playing. Die hard fans will muddle through it. Anyone else would move onto another game.

well, the issues illustrated were serious enough for GS to give the game a 8.5.. just in the same vein that Socom: Confrontation recieved a 6.5 for temporary server-based issues.. the point of the debate is that Fable 2's issues are permenant gameplay flaws which logically should be noted in the review score, while Socom's issues are temporary in nature and thusly should not be as heavily refected in the permenant review score...

that's the difference.. whether or not you can deal with the issues or can downplay them is irrelevant.. the same principles can be applied to Socom so in essence you've said nothing...

[QUOTE="onewiththegame"]

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]its still a flop. it wasn't purely those fixes that made it score so poorly, it was also the sub-standard gameplay and visuals... no patch will fix those.Antwan3K

True Story, even if it did run perfect its not on the same lvl as games like COD4. Halo3, Gears, R:FOM

based upon what?.. i challenge you to find me quotes from the GS review to back-up your claim (other than temporary server-based issues).. name any console online shooter that packs more tactical precision, skill, and tension than Socom: Confrontation and promote that ideal with facts and details.. compare and contrast.. please, do us the favor.. until then, keep your blind statements to yourself because they dont carry any real weight or relevance..

based upon me playing the game,oh and some quotes"control issues; you may find that your reloading process gets interrupted or that you've brought up a screen-commandeering command menu rather than initiated voice chat." and "cleanly textured, though not quite beautiful." and "Despite the third-person viewpoint and your ability to jump and climb over impedances, you'll still find navigation to be somewhat finicky. Rubble that could be easily stepped over might require a full-on leap, and a curb that seems easy to jump may demand a time-consuming clamber. Small spaces can be similarly misleading, and just because you can see between balcony railings or two adjacent boxes, it doesn't mean you can shoot through the empty space."

its a 6.5 game dude get over it

It's funny how everyone hating on the game, and using review scores as to why the game sucks to back up their point can't pull out quotes from these very same reviews stating that the core gameplay sucks.

Such a weird situation.

It's funny how everyone hating on the game, and using review scores as to why the game sucks to back up their point can't pull out quotes from these very same reviews stating that the core gameplay sucks.

Such a weird situation.

W1NGMAN-

"Despite the third-person viewpoint and your ability to jump and climb over impedances, you'll still find navigation to be somewhat finicky. Rubble that could be easily stepped over might require a full-on leap, and a curb that seems easy to jump may demand a time-consuming clamber. Small spaces can be similarly misleading, and just because you can see between balcony railings or two adjacent boxes, it doesn't mean you can shoot through the empty space."

[QUOTE="Antwan3K"][QUOTE="onewiththegame"]

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]its still a flop. it wasn't purely those fixes that made it score so poorly, it was also the sub-standard gameplay and visuals... no patch will fix those.onewiththegame

True Story, even if it did run perfect its not on the same lvl as games like COD4. Halo3, Gears, R:FOM

based upon what?.. i challenge you to find me quotes from the GS review to back-up your claim (other than temporary server-based issues).. name any console online shooter that packs more tactical precision, skill, and tension than Socom: Confrontation and promote that ideal with facts and details.. compare and contrast.. please, do us the favor.. until then, keep your blind statements to yourself because they dont carry any real weight or relevance..

based upon me playing the game,oh and some quotes"control issues; you may find that your reloading process gets interrupted or that you've brought up a screen-commandeering command menu rather than initiated voice chat." and "cleanly textured, though not quite beautiful." and "Despite the third-person viewpoint and your ability to jump and climb over impedances, you'll still find navigation to be somewhat finicky. Rubble that could be easily stepped over might require a full-on leap, and a curb that seems easy to jump may demand a time-consuming clamber. Small spaces can be similarly misleading, and just because you can see between balcony railings or two adjacent boxes, it doesn't mean you can shoot through the empty space."

its a 6.5 game dude get over it

I'm sorry but if you really believe the reviewer dropped a games score all the way down to a 6.5 becuase of those little nucents than I don't know what to say, I'm not trying to say the game is perfect but it sure as heck didn't drop 3.5 points because of those problems.

[QUOTE="Antwan3K"][QUOTE="onewiththegame"]

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]its still a flop. it wasn't purely those fixes that made it score so poorly, it was also the sub-standard gameplay and visuals... no patch will fix those.onewiththegame

True Story, even if it did run perfect its not on the same lvl as games like COD4. Halo3, Gears, R:FOM

based upon what?.. i challenge you to find me quotes from the GS review to back-up your claim (other than temporary server-based issues).. name any console online shooter that packs more tactical precision, skill, and tension than Socom: Confrontation and promote that ideal with facts and details.. compare and contrast.. please, do us the favor.. until then, keep your blind statements to yourself because they dont carry any real weight or relevance..

based upon me playing the game,oh and some quotes"control issues; you may find that your reloading process gets interrupted or that you've brought up a screen-commandeering command menu rather than initiated voice chat." and "cleanly textured, though not quite beautiful." and "Despite the third-person viewpoint and your ability to jump and climb over impedances, you'll still find navigation to be somewhat finicky. Rubble that could be easily stepped over might require a full-on leap, and a curb that seems easy to jump may demand a time-consuming clamber. Small spaces can be similarly misleading, and just because you can see between balcony railings or two adjacent boxes, it doesn't mean you can shoot through the empty space."

its a 6.5 game dude get over it

yea, control issues that are partly based upon the already mentioned lag/network issues drag this game down to a 6.5??.. seriosly.. do you think that if the game had absolutley no network issues (which will soon be the case) and the only complaint was an occational awkward moment in movement (which from personal experience only happens maybe less than 5% of the time and even less when you recognize those areas) would drag this game down to a 6.5?.. a 6.5 score from one "occational" issue??.. please... this game is easily AA calibur..

dude, seriously.. you're the one that needs to "get over it"... the fact is that you still havent aswered my original question and you've only served to prove my point.. currently, in terms of core gameplay, Socom: Confrontation has dethroned Socom 2 as the the best in series and is unmatched in tactial prowess on consoles due to it's rigid realism, default no-respawn design and gameplay, map design, and the absolute need for teamwork and communication..

Should reviewers wait for a patch to review an online-focused game? In theory, yes. But in practice, it would be a logistical nightmare that would only confuse readers.

So we wait for a patch. What if it doesn't address all of the problems? Should we wait for another patch? How many patches? Every major patch? Define a "major" patch?

If it's applied to one game, the same policy should be applied to ALL games. Every patch for every single game will be subject to review and evaluation.

Sorry. That's unreasonable.

What IS reasonable is to expect that any game should be functional at the time of release. It's unfortunate that they couldn't get it together enough to have a working game come release day.

Check it out guys, patch 1.3 is being worked on and is gonna offer quite a bit, what do you guys think?W1NGMAN-

Hold on wait a minute, are you telling me that they're patching a patch? Pretty lame if you ask me.

[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]Check it out guys, patch 1.3 is being worked on and is gonna offer quite a bit, what do you guys think?ReverseCycology

Hold on wait a minute, are you telling me that they're patching a patch? Pretty lame if you ask me.

Patching a patch? No the first patch did what it was suppose to do, this patch is just adding on to it.

[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]Check it out guys, patch 1.3 is being worked on and is gonna offer quite a bit, what do you guys think?ReverseCycology

Hold on wait a minute, are you telling me that they're patching a patch? Pretty lame if you ask me.

You really grasp for straws when trying to insult PS3 games. I don't care if you own a PS3, you're a flatout 360 fanboy. Patching a patch makes no sense. Patch 1.2 fixed all the server issues and freeze errors. These are the issues that IGN and GameSpot raise. 1UP also raised these issues, but retracted them soon after as patch 1.20 came out so soon after the game released. Patch 1.30 adds Trophies, a Tournament system (GameBattles-style) for clans to use to organize clan wars, a calendar which shows all clan activities at what dates, and the tournaments you are signed up for. It also adds a party system (game invites are already available) and it adds matchmaking, a feature noone in the SOCOM community uses as a main way of finding games, but a nice feature for quickies. It comes out very soon, but right now, at its current state, Confrontation is not accurate to the GS review. More like to the 1UP review. After patch 1.30, it goes to the 9/10 range for me. That's what a game can do that a review can't, give me enjoyment, and then some after. I love Confrontation. I'm not buying Resistance 2 cause I don't think I would play it if I bought it cause I love SOCOM too much. I already didn't buy LBP.

SOCOM online > Gears online, Resistance online, Halo online, COD4 (well basically every other "console" online shooter)

Why? Oh that's easy...

SKILL REQUIRED.

Pre-patched Socom sucks. deal.-General_Ram-

The fact that there patching a broken game like socom again within a week of its relase is ownage enough :lol:Gh0st_Of_0nyx

You just jump in every socom thread don't you? You secretly like the game huh?:| Add me to the PSN so we can play. ;)

Sounds like after this patch, SOCOM will be the game it should have been from the beginning.

All they need to do is make all games ranked like in socom 2 cause I can't stand all the clan stacking, camping, and lack of good game modes in the ranked rooms. Not to mention that my unranked score from custom games is included with my respawn score.

[QUOTE="Gh0st_Of_0nyx"]The fact that there patching a broken game like socom again within a week of its relase is ownage enough :lol:VideoGameRosado

You just jump in every socom thread don't you? You secretly like the game huh?:| Add me to the PSN so we can play. ;)

I don't understand your logic, they released a game with TONS of potential, and are fixing everything that took away that potential, and that is ownage?

edit:meant to quote the first guy

The fact that there patching a broken game like socom again within a week of its relase is ownage enough :lol:Gh0st_Of_0nyx

This just proves that the game was not ready to be released

This just proves that the game was not ready to be released

ExtremeOne316

but what is the worst that came out of it?
People got to play the game earlier then they would have, the game despite what everyone seems to think was only unplayable for about 2 days. I know i've been having a great time with it and I haven't had to wait an extra month.