This depends on who is reviewing the game. A honest reviewer will play the game without bias and base all his game experiences on the moment.

But take this into consideration of MMO reviews. They are supposedly harder to get an accurate review on before release because they are not built for release yet. The game is not running where thousands or hundreds of players are out in force and other things not completed about the game. Also tweaking and optimizations are not in during most reviews who are honest and strait with what they have so far.

To be honest I wont take a review as being the accurate review before a game launches. I always wait for a month after a launch to get more accurate reviews. This is why WAR to me is not accurate yet with player and website reviews. Sure the game might be good now but within a couple months it can be the most redundant boring piece of crap ever made. With only RVR who will cling to that forever and still find it refreshing months later, we don't know yet.

Fact it this. AoC got unusually high scores for an incomplete broken game,  8.5 on GS  for a game that had:

A. Huge amount of content that was missing, even some that was promises on the box was not in the purchased game and still isn't. This is a sin against MMO players where content is king.

B. Items and skills in the game that are unbalanced and basically broken (useless) in functionality. (example: stats on armor and weapons) Again another huge sin against MMO players.

C. Game had unreasonable amount of OBVIOUS bugs. (balding in stealth for one example)  This goes for any game type.

D. Miscellaneous other things, forever install time, large HD footprint 30+ gig, armor and weapons repeated artwork constantly, etc. etc...

Even if the games battle engine was super fun, the facts above,  should knock the score down to average at best. Maybe a 6.0 to a 6.5 would be fair, but a 8.5, I don't think so. I have totally lost any trust in so called professional game reviewers at this point especially GS.  and yes I do believe some conspiracies are true, but that's another story.

It cracks me up that people expect honest game reviews from media outlets whose primary means of income are the advertising banners featuring the games being reviewed.

Well I guess this is my opinion...

I don't trust reviews... I really don't.  I almost never agree with any review I see..  games.. movies etc

The only way to give an "honest" review is if you can gain access to the material on your own.. and fund your own magazine or website.

To get those "inside" peaks is a perk.  If I crap on every product you make.. even if they are crap.. I won't get the perk.  So I can either be honest and have no access or I can lie so I can review the next product.

Magazines make money off advertising..

Websites more or less the same thing.

If any game company is advertising on a website or in a magazine its counter productive to piss them off.

This is why I don't really expect to see the truth in a review.

I know there are some independant sites for say.. computer hardware.. that seem to be fairly neutral or upfront about things.

I just don't think I've ever really seen one for games.

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by Azrile

I think it's more about insider access then it is about paid advertisments.

Look at the big 'fanboy' on this site.   He hung out with the devs, was bought dinner and drinks and generally has a personal relationship with the devs because of his status here.  I think every situation where a 'reporter' is given inside access, of course they are going to bias their public opinions because of that access and also because they want to keep that access.  There is nothing different in the gaming industry then there is with political reporting.  Do you think Bob Novac would be able to call Dick Cheney whenever he wanted if he ever actually criticized the administration?

 

Oops, I forgot to actually address what was said here:

The whole "insider access" thing. I think you're referring to one user in particular with this post, but I've heard this applied to journalists as well. The fact of the matter is that yes, we do know many of the devs in the industry. We have eaten and shared drinks with them, etc. That doesn't make us incapable of being objective and doing our jobs. Am I friends with some of the developers that I've met? Yes. Would that stop me from ripping into them professionally? No, and they understand that as much as I do.

Pleasure is one thing and business is another. Some company buying me a drink or flying me to a press event doesn't impress me. It's part of their operating costs. I don't feel flattered or like I've been given anything that's worth my professional integrity. 

I would rather be blacklisted by a company for telling the truth than lie to stay in someone's good graces. Besides, if I were to get blacklisted (which has never happened to me), I, as a reporter, and all of my journalistic colleagues would be in a very unique position to write about that fact, and the reason behind it. Nothing drives traffic like a scandal folks :) Stuff like that makes our professional day. :)

Thing is bro, there is a certain person that is obviously not objective in the mix here. It's so obvious, we joke around about it. If you guys can't see the bias, I don't know what to tell you.

P.S. could you tell said person to not access my personal information, such as other accounts that he so cleverly knew I had. Thanks

Originally posted by gryjin

the industry standard should require review updates on new MMOs imo. one at launch, one three months down the road, one at 6 months down the road..etc. but i can't remember ever seeing anything like that

I agree however , who really Cares 6 months after launch from what i see on mmorpg if you havent maxxed a char by 6 months and quit the games and started bashing them repeatedly for sucking on mmorpg and some of the other sites then you cant be part of the In crowd./sarcasm off.

i think that reviews are really not ever going to be able to compare  to mass population and besides wow i have yet to see another game appeal to mass population, one of my favorite games (Everquest) was appealing to a mass crowd yet folks trash it all the time just for simple fact s0ony owns it so how is anyone ever going to know unless all games have a free 30 day return policy , then i think the market would wake up and start finishing games before releasing them!

I just started trying aoc again but really having trouble getting into it, and warhammer doesnt appeal to me looks like it will be a awsome game for those who like that type of game though.

Originally posted by gryjin

after AOC i will not be buying another MMO until the three month mark....so i would actually disagree with your comment that no one wants to read a review after launch. i would now. probably not before, but i'm definately more cautious about MMOs in general now

AMEN! im on the Same bandwagon now adays gimme 6 months ill try your game if it isnt worth it i havent Wasted all that Collectors edition money:)

My view on this is that Game Reviewers are out of touch with their customers (the people that read their reviews with a view to purchasing a game)

If I ask a gamer what would an average game score (out of ten)?
The gamer would reply "5"

But for reviewers, they seem to think that "7.5" is average?

The problem then becomes - if a game gets a 9 - does that mean "almost perfect" or just "above average"?

And "10" should not be used unless cleared by the Pope. ;-)

OP, you are missing the point.  ALL of the review sites take revenue from the game publishers in the form of advertising dollars.  This is a quid-pro-quo system.  You give us good reviews, we keep paying for advertising on your site.  It is a win - win situation until you have writers that "tell the truth".  Then you have companies like EIDOS strong arm review sites to fire employees or remove the reviews off the site.  There is no real independent review site out there.  Without advertising money, they'd go under.

Originally posted by Shannia

OP, you are missing the point.  ALL of the review sites take revenue from the game publishers in the form of advertising dollars.  This is a quid-pro-quo system.  You give us good reviews, we keep paying for advertising on your site.  It is a win - win situation until you have writers that "tell the truth".  Then you have companies like EIDOS strong arm review sites to fire employees or remove the reviews off the site.  There is no real independent review site out there.  Without advertising money, they'd go under.

 

Just because I do not believe that point does not mean I am missing that point.

Unless of course you have some kind of proof to jump from correlation to causation.  If you do then please provide it.  Even some circumstantial evidence would be fine.

I think the reviewers only saw what most of us saw and raved about in the first few days of playing.  I think Tortage was well done and provided the hook.  Unfortunately that attention to detail just didn't carry through and beyond..

I think it would have been hard for a reviewer to play up to say level 30-40 by which time they would have thoroughly seen through the vail and cried foul.

Certainly something to think about in the futrue.  Just goes to show that it pays to wait a few weeks before buying and playing a new release MMO.

Originally posted by gestalt11

@Stradden:

 

IMO professional reviewers should maybe stop having drinks with these guys and start playing some hardball.

 

It is not really realistic to play the whole game in 2 weeks because these games are purposely made so that does not happen.

 

However it is easily possible for devs to give access to pre made stuff or various other means for a reviewers to get a decent survey of the real state of the game in a reasonable amount of time.

 

Mythic could easily give a reviewer a pre-made character at each of the 4 tiers just like they do for Beta testers.  Afterall reviewers are essentially testing things out for their readers.  Just simple things like this could make reviews actually mean something.  If AoC had given the pro reviews a premade level 60 and reviewer had tried to level to 80, how many reviews would have been 5 or 10 points less.  Probably quite a few.

 

All I see are excuses.  Well fine either admit these reviews are good for nothing but toilet paper or start refusing to review them until the developers give you the access you need to properly kick the tires and see what is really the case.

 

These devs spend a lot of resources to to get good reviews.  And not doing so will make them look like they something to hide.  It is easily possible.

 

Because all I have seen over the past few years is a bunch reviewers getting played by having dinner with these guys and the goo goo gah gah feeding frenzy effect of limited access.

 

Man up and turn it around on these guys.  They have been running these gaming sites like a pimp runs a ho.  That might be rather course but it is rather apt.  They need you, but they limit access and various other things and the press etc demand nothing in the way of quid pro quo.  They just do a fluff piece on the first 20 levels that these guys know you aren't going past. 

 

Seriously all I see a bunch of guys getting played and mostly because they want to be played.  Not corruption, not a sudden conversion to fanboyism.  But not real objectivity, not a real search for information.  Just limp wristed attempts and then taking whatever is shoveled at them.

 

Edit:  This is not meant to specifically apply to you, Jon.  its not like you gave EE a pass or something on your last interview.

You make some good points.  Reviewers could always say "give me a tricked out level 50 charecter" and lets see for myself.

Originally posted by cbas
  ....

You make some good points.  Reviewers could always say "give me a tricked out level 50 charecter" and lets see for myself.

That's exactly right and they should.

Alternatively, reviewers should get together and share accounts - so that 2 or three of them can level up fast (with constant play) and see more of the game in less time.

With the wonder of the interweb thingy and this new thing called email they could organize this easily.

but account sharing is against the rules! what kind of message does that send???

/sarcasm toggle

I agree completely with Jons posts. Ive been here a long time, and have read many reviews posted by the writers here. Some i felt went deep into the game and gave a balanced view, others well i think were the result of inexperience writing such reviews, possible past bias and habit in a struggle to write a balanced picture of the reviewers experience with a given title for the short time they were able to spend on the project.

One thing id love to see here on MMORPG.com is a two man review team. The Mr. positive Versus The Mr. negative. I think the argumentative conversations would be great viewing entertainment and a better view of both sides of the coin. But i will say, they would have to come strong with their points.

If more reviewers had this to offer, more would bring a better view of games for all walks. You cut and gut the talk of a bias review or a payed to review opinion, leaving gamers with the ability to make a choice of what they feel is fitting for them to play. Thus ultimately saving us some money.

Originally posted by rr2real

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by Azrile

I think it's more about insider access then it is about paid advertisments.

Look at the big 'fanboy' on this site.   He hung out with the devs, was bought dinner and drinks and generally has a personal relationship with the devs because of his status here.  I think every situation where a 'reporter' is given inside access, of course they are going to bias their public opinions because of that access and also because they want to keep that access.  There is nothing different in the gaming industry then there is with political reporting.  Do you think Bob Novac would be able to call Dick Cheney whenever he wanted if he ever actually criticized the administration?

 

Oops, I forgot to actually address what was said here:

The whole "insider access" thing. I think you're referring to one user in particular with this post, but I've heard this applied to journalists as well. The fact of the matter is that yes, we do know many of the devs in the industry. We have eaten and shared drinks with them, etc. That doesn't make us incapable of being objective and doing our jobs. Am I friends with some of the developers that I've met? Yes. Would that stop me from ripping into them professionally? No, and they understand that as much as I do.

Pleasure is one thing and business is another. Some company buying me a drink or flying me to a press event doesn't impress me. It's part of their operating costs. I don't feel flattered or like I've been given anything that's worth my professional integrity. 

I would rather be blacklisted by a company for telling the truth than lie to stay in someone's good graces. Besides, if I were to get blacklisted (which has never happened to me), I, as a reporter, and all of my journalistic colleagues would be in a very unique position to write about that fact, and the reason behind it. Nothing drives traffic like a scandal folks :) Stuff like that makes our professional day. :)

 

when you reviewed Conan you only did 1-20 and gave it a 7.9

what would you give the game as a whole now?

i'd say no higher than a 4.5

I dont think you will get an answer to that question because THAT would be bad business for them... to reveal their true opinion about a game a few month after the newbie area review...

AOC does a good job of wowing a player through those first 20 or so levels.  All of the bugs and flaws don't stand out as much when you have so much content and detail within those first 20 levels.  so the scores it got do make sense, if they are by a person who only did about 15 levels worth of gameplay.

However reviewers are supposed to be experts in testing out games and giving their opinion.  The fact that so many reviewers bypassed the glitchy interface, and many more didn't even pay past level 20 is kind of saddening to me.

But then agian, most games have the same level of consistancy throughout the game while AOC did not.

call me crazy, but I like Conan. Sure alot of the gameplay is Crap, and the end game content is not there. Sounds like most other mmo's Ive played.

The graphics are awsome though!

Bring on Aion.

You have to realize the people that write game reviews and work for the major game fansites like ten Ton hammer stratics, Warrcry and so on are almost always not game players.  At best they are casual players with little knowledge of the games they write about other than the talking points the games marketing departments give them.  They simply do not play the games or level up.  Thier job is simply to hype the games they write about it and get you to click on their links for mroe page views.  These reviews you see about AoC are from people that played to lvl 10-20 and no more.  AoC is a fine game 1-20.  But afetr 20 it starts showing tis flaws in game design and its awful simplistic combat system.  Higehr levels is an area even in a game as easy as AoC that most fo these reviewers will never get to as they simply do not play the games they write about except under the most extreme definition of casual player.

I voted yes but I want to elaborate a little .My sentiments have been echoed in some other posts

Firstly I don't blame MMORPG.COM for the inflated initial review , the game was released almost perfect for the first 1-20 levels and the high score was accurate .I appreciate  the post where Jon  explained the reasoning behind the review and how the dynamics work behind the whole reviewing process at MMORPG.COM.As we all know almost every game website gave AOC high reviews ...and so did we . Lets take a step back and think of the whole AOC phenomena and the hype .For years people waited for this game ,websites existed where people spent hundreds of hours discussing the game  and the new revolutionary features. People were saying how this the first true WOW killer and the Funcom marketing machine really did a good job.Almost everyone really believed this game was going to be amazing ...we all got pulled into this .Funcom then disingenuously made sure that the first 20 levels were perfect ..so anyone playing it or reviewing thought ..." amazing game ..awesome "

I remember the first real shock I got that not everything was as polished outside the starting area was the voice cuts being non-existent . Now we all know  the game started showing serious issues and imbalances the more you advanced ..to the point for many where it was almost unplayable .

AOC set a precedent ,no game company  ,IMO,invested as much into marketing as Funcom.It reminded me of the great Enron scandal ...a seriously dysfunctional system that no one really new about until later.

I don't blame the game companies for high reviews as we all believed that initially ...or I can hope for is that the next time there is another "AOC " ..reviews are done as objectively as the can be..and when the faults are apparent then the game websites highlight that so newbies to the game can be made aware

This disaster of AOC lies with Funcom end of the day ..they must be judged ...not gaming websites

Originally posted by Stradden

Anyway, sorry for the rant, this subject just really irks me. The bottom line is that it isn't even in my or the site's best interest to take any kind of bribe for a good review and I don't like hearing people talking about how we (or my colleagues at other gaming sites) do.

I don't think anybody is insinuating that it happens on mmorpg.com. That's not to say that it doesn't happen though. After the Kane and Lynch scandal people became aware that this kind of practice did go on, certainly made me more cynical in regards to gaming sites.

Edit: Without sounding like I'm contradicting myself I believe the man above me hit the nail on the head. Though, surely if reviewing a game (certainly a mmorpg) you can not base a review on the first ~10 hours of the game? I think the gaming sites are guilty to an extent as well. There probably weren't any conspiracies or anything but reviewing tortage is hardly a definitive representation of the state of the game. Oh well, i think everybody has learnt a lesson from AoC.

I voted: "no, they did reasonable".

How could they possibly have known that the game would turn bad after the introduction area? It's not like they were given enough time to play to experience the boring part of the game.

Originally posted by TalRasha

I voted: "no, they did reasonable".

 

How could they possibly have known that the game would turn bad after the introduction area? It's not like they were given enough time to play to experience the boring part of the game.

Which is the whole point of the poll? The review system needs to be revamped.

Originally posted by TalRasha

I voted: "no, they did reasonable".

 

How could they possibly have known that the game would turn bad after the introduction area? It's not like they were given enough time to play to experience the boring part of the game.

I agree in the respect that they can only review but so much of the game before they have to go to print, and reviews of hot games sell units and they don't want to lag behind the competition. I still voted yes tho because the complaints about the game were almost immediate regarding network issues, community and bugs and even a few weeks after release some were still giving it good reviews. Btw, if people think receiving a large check from a gamemaker doesn't buy good reviews or at least better ones I'd say think again. Maybe not at a big popular website like mmorpg.com, but some of those mid level ones that really need the cash and wanna please their advertiser's to keep it flowing.Consider the fact the laws and policies of this country (the U.S.) are manipulated to benefit the richest 1% over the interests of the 99% using lobbyists. Essentially legalized bribery, its how things like Nutrasweet, which is the product name of a deadly poison called aspertame, got passed by the FDA and resulted in the largest increase in central nervous system malidies in the history of medical research in just the 6 months after its release in 1983 because it breaks down into, among other things, methanol which causes various types of brain diseases and can essentially turn it to mush.

As a business owner its been my experience that "conspiracy "and collusion is how things work, its called "networking" and "cutting deals". That's why many times its who you know, not what you know that counts. So it seems more than just possible some of these review were a result of , yes ignorance, but also greed. Believe you me, a lot of these big wigs in these corporations see the consumers as cattle, a resource from which to extract money, and had no qualms in paying a bit more to generate more positive reviews if so inclined because they knew they would probably never be held truly accountable for doing so. With AoC burned at the stake and then drawn and quartered its put fear in the hearts of some of these companies, and by association some of these gamer sites no doubt, but only the future will show for sure whether they have truly taken heed.

100% yes, the current gutless, unobjective state of the major reviewing sites is appalling and is closer to advertising than journalism.