Pcgamer.com Game Review: 68/100

[Garis 210]

Ouch. Wurm got a biting review in PC Gamer magazine:

http://www.pcgamer.c...-online-review/

"In (the first 10 hours of) Wurm Online, let’s just say there had been lots of watching Netflix on a second monitor while my clicking finger went numb."

"the loneliest hours I’ve ever spent in an MMO"

"I’ve had more social games of Myst"

"Wandering the map, everything looks much the same."

"limited scope for creativity"

"Wurm Online may be slower than continental drift"

"It looks like the back end of a bus"

"not one I actually enjoyed or felt the desire to play for the long haul"

"It’s absolutely worth giving it a try to see if it clicks for you as much as it’ll expect you to right-click for it."

Most of the above quotes were wrapped in comforting niceties, but they seem to have been there only to soften the blow a bit. I'd call this a pretty biting review, basically a bucket full of raw meat thrown to the wolves.

Like it or not, this is the sort of story new players (the 90% who bounce hard off of the game) are telling their friends about Wurm.

Possible responses to this review include:

1. Denial. Review? What review?
   
2. Circle the wagons. Insist loudly that this is the best of all possible sandbox MMOs.
   
3. Renewed focus on user interface, user experience, and new player experience. Show the player community visible, real, tangible progress on user interface improvements and not empty promises. Lift the veil of secrecy and work with the players to hammer out a UI that works for Wurm, or give us a Lua API and let us make our own.
   

[Zazz 325]

yes, you need lots of time to play this game. and thats what i pretty much like about the game, you cant win it and be "there is nothing more i can do".

[Pollo 146]

There was already a post on this http://forum.wurmonl...ge__hl__pcgamer

Personally, I dont think it was too bad of review. Even with 1.0, the graphics are not up to par with games coming out today. I like the gameplay, but it is not for everyone (in fact not for most I would say). The interface is terrible. The only part of the review that I disagreed with is when he said how empty the servers felt, I have always noticed people online ready to help. In other games with "more people" they just felt like player controlled bots, or else were downright unhelpful.

I might have graded Wurm above 70, but 68 is a fair score. Also I think the reviewer went out of his way to say how much the game will appeal to a portion of the gaming audience.

This is the only game I am playing nowadays, I dont want to be too critical about graphics or interface because I know these things are being worked on. Keep up the great job members of the Wurm Team, you are making the only game I want to play better.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Pollo

[darthryan 588]

Wurm has bad graphics, sloppy code, requires time tinkering with the settings to even run without crashing every few minutes... I'd say 68/100 is a fair assessment.

[joedobo 1,187]

#3 clickty-click-click-click

- Standard action: When you make a tool active the left mouse button (or whatever button standard action is bound too) is set to the most common action by default. If you want to do another action simply open menu with right click and do it. Aft wards Standard action will be updated with that. For example, make a rake active and left mouse is automatically set to farm. Or you make a shovel active and left moue is automatically set to dig. If you want to flatten simply right mouse and choose it from the menu.

- Repeat last action

- Tool bench crafting: Something along the lines of loading inv/bench with resources and telling the craft UI to make x number of items. This doesn't solve the waiting problem but it gets rid of the excess clicking. It could open up the door for fun mini-games, tho those should be optional.

#3 Eh, where are all the peeps at!

- More group projects. Linking carpentry skill is a great example of this.

- Fast travel options so its easier to meet up with your friends. We should have to craft the network.

- better tools for the players to make safe travel routes.

[darthryan 588]

No, please, do not add "fun minigames"... nothing ruins a game like that.

[Wulfgar 1,128]

The review was made by someone that clearly is not into sandbox games. Usually games are reviewed by people who enjoy that particular genre of games.

There is really no need to change much in Wurm, except what is already being worked on: new UI, optimize new animations/graphics/multi story code, keep expanding with more options for players to be creative (within certain limits please).

[EliasTheCrimson 348]

Possible responses to this review include:

1. Denial. Review? What review?
   
   
2. Circle the wagons. Insist loudly that this is the best of all possible sandbox MMOs.
   
   
3. Renewed focus on user interface, user experience, and new player experience. Show the player community visible, real, tangible progress on user interface improvements and not empty promises. Lift the veil of secrecy and work with the players to hammer out a UI that works for Wurm, or give us a Lua API and let us make our own.
   

4. Focus on improving the UI and new player experience and reach out to the community to collectively help create something that works smoother than the current MUD-oriented interface, but also come to terms with the fact that Wurm's niche appeal will always limit the number of players as well as the number of favorable reviews.

Edited February 8, 2013 by EliasTheCrimson

[Kegan 3,926]

It is funny how one person can read it and see a bad review and another see it as a good one. People are to use to a game taking you by the hand and leading you through it this is not that game and many people see that as a bad thing. I do agree that the UI needs some work but from what I have seen that is already planned.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Kegan

[Aeris 3,760]

We are used to all the quirks and oddities that follow the endless list of bugs, the dude who wrote the review saw it with fresh eyes. We've gotten used to the un-user-friendly interface and we enjoy the fact that the game isn't MineCraft fast.

The interface really needs work, especially since the morepart of the actions you perform in the game are dependent on it.

[thenewcndo 528]

PC Gamer is a completely biased game reviewing site anyway.

[Derp 310]

Some things are just silly flippant comments. E.g Wurm is anything but an antisocial game, unless you want it to be (even then, you may not be able to avoid it). Maybe just cause I've just been on the same pvp erver for most of it. Sometimes too social...

To be fair though, these things do take time to discover. This guy playing wurm for the first time is going to be ignorant of all of these things.

[Hula_Girl 266]

Keep in mind that those are impressions of a person who launched the game "to try and see". There is a specific "essence" or "gameplay" of Wurm, which you need to discover to love it (and eventually become addicted), but this is hidden beyond layers of right-click menus, bugs, and performance problems.

I found Wurm one day while looking for "some new game to play", I was running one game after another... and if Wurm was then working as poorly as it does now (performance-wise), I would simply close it, delete and forget.

[Darkmalice 242]

The interface really needs work.

This, and click reduction.

[Russianranger 9]

To be fair, because of this review, I found out about this game. It sounded like it required a time investment, and it had a payoff in its own right. Well, 50 hours of game time later, I'm hooked. I'm currently on Pristine and one of the players there took me under his wing and helped me get set up on his deed, and I'm just loving everything about this game. I didn't see that review as negative at all, but then again, I also LOVED X3, which has a metascore of 71, so there is that.

Publicity is good, negative or positive.

[Mystry 20]

Wurm is a niche game, period. It takes a special kind of person to enjoy playing it, and the twitchy, rittalin-infused screaming children of the FPS that populate the majority of the gaming population today are not those kind of people. And neither are the reviewers, who are, for the most part, older versions of those children. I could make the same arguments about their precious call of duty if I really wanted to, move mouse, left click, over and over. They just don't see it because they're entranced by all the pretty explosions and nostalgia of their childhood 360 noscope headshot days. The fact that they routinely give mindless FPSs scores of above 90, all of which are simply the same game with visual tweaks, churned out year after year to take advantage of the gullible and ultimately tasteless consumer base, and who try to excuse their abysmal single player 'campaigns' with repetetive, mindless, and pointless multiplayer modes, shows to me that I cannot trust them to give unbiased nor fair reviews to anyone who does not pay them off. That's the fact, reviewers and review websites are bought. I know because I used to be one of them, and I left for that very reason. The biggest culprit is EA, but all big publishers pay for high reviews. Don't believe me? Have a look at this http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/1993/paidreviewsedited.jpg That came with a copy of the game and an envelope full of cash.

In other words, I totally ignore what any 'game journalist' or 'reviewer' says.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Mystry

[JackBurton 903]

"Wurm Online may be slower than continental drift"

That one is priceless.

[vinius 1,496]

I respect that the reviewer gave an unbiased and realistic view of the game.

[Sarcaticous 338]

requires time tinkering with the settings to even run without crashing every few minutes

I can never understand this statement. I have a self built machine that's about four years behind the current hardware and I have almost all the settings maxed. WURM crashes maybe once a week or less. It's probably not the game. It's probably your machine.

One of the things where the review is spot on is the right click click click click. It's carpal tunnel friendly. Something needs to be done simply because this is ruining the health of every player in the game. There is no way to play the game without right clicking endlessly even with keybinds since so many action require a secondary window to be opened that key binding does not handle.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Sarcaticous

[darthryan 588]

I can never understand this statement. I have a self built machine that's about four years behind the current hardware and I have almost all the settings maxed. WURM crashes maybe once a week or less. It's probably not the game. It's probably your machine.

One of the things where the review is spot on is the right click click click click. It's carpal tunnel friendly. Something needs to be done simply because this is ruining the health of every player in the game. There is no way to play the game without right clicking endlessly even with keybinds since so many action require a secondary window to be opened that key binding does not handle.

Oh, yeah, my computer's crap, not Wurm code. It's not really about how high I have the graphics set, it's the compatibility window. Had it nicely figured out where I was easily getting 60 FPS before 1.0, after 1.0 I couldn't run the game at all with that settings combination. Now I've gotten it back up to 20-30 FPs by changing it up.

[Joanavon 553]

The review is fair. For me the thing that i hear from new players over and over and over is

1. Getting started sucks. Even with help

2. Unless someone reaches out to them getting started is often lonely. This is compounded by noob phobia

3. The game across the pc spectrum runs mediocre to poor especially post 1.0

4. The tutorial has little value on the ground.

[java1970 6]

I fear for this game once the two kickstarter sandbox games start going into beta/release. This, of course, assuming those games are good.

One of the games, I believe, raised over one million dollars for development.

Doubt the games see the light of day for another year or two, so hopefully the Wurm team can start fixing bugs and polishing the game until then.

[GreenHero 72]

The review is fair. For me the thing that i hear from new players over and over and over is

1. Getting started sucks. Even with help

2. Unless someone reaches out to them getting started is often lonely. This is compounded by noob phobia

3. The game across the pc spectrum runs mediocre to poor especially post 1.0

4. The tutorial has little value on the ground.

Pretty much summed up everything I had planned to point out.

[Joanavon 553]

I fear for this game once the two kickstarter sandbox games start going into beta/release. This, of course, assuming those games are good.

One of the games, I believe, raised over one million dollars for development.

Doubt the games see the light of day for another year or two, so hopefully the Wurm team can start fixing bugs and polishing the game until then.

a halfway polished sandbox allowing the same or even close to the terriforming, crafting, and construction capacity that wurm does even if it used minecraft-esqe graphics as long as it ran well and had the same per server scale could clean up. Especially among the under served but wealthy female population.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Joanavon

[Object 281]

What's PCGamer? <- that's the correct response by any self-respecting gamer. Might as well ask the i can haz cheeseburger cat to review the game.

I personally don't listen to reviewers anyways, I'll watch gameplay videos on footage and I'll check twitch for streamers. What's the point of listening to some dudes opinion of the game, it's probably not what you'll think and it might even influence how much you enjoy the game yourself so what's the point?

Nvm, I know what the point is, people continuously feel the need for affirmation from other people that they're opinion is valid, it's the reason game reviewers exist and it's pretty much the reason I'm posting this as well.

Good day sirs!