wow, no flames, i think mmorpg reviewrs have learned not to overate games since WAR and AOC

 I think this review is spot on, at best I would give some of the games features an 7.5 to an 8. Overall though its lacking and a 6 to a 6.5 is what I would rate it

Meh, I think 6 is really a harsh grade. Let's face it, 6 means a game is a big failure, whereas IMHO Champions has enough depth and polish to warrant at least a B- grade,or a 7.5 to 8 score on the number scale. The overall launch went pretty smoothly, and I haven't experienced the big game-crushing bugs I saw when AOC was released. Besides, this game is a breath of fresh air compared to all the cookie cutter WOW clones out there. I doubt I'll be playing it when KOTOR or Star Trek Online come out, but it's a great game to play in the meantime.

I also have to wonder who the heck reviews an MMOG in the first week of play? That's absolutely ridiculous. At the very minimum, the reviewer should have given an initial review and spent at least 2-3 more weeks before making a final recommendation.

 This game reminded me of Spore.

The character creator is the best part and everything else after that is mediocre and repetitive at best, the only reason why you would be motivated to play threw the same identical content again was if you wanted to see what a different character played like, personally the game did not motivate me enough to attempt this more then a few times before I lost interest.

The game being yet another massive single player online game did not help either, UI is awful and pvp is unbalanced and the usual tacked on as an after thought rubbish.

And 6/10 is fair, its the over inflated hyped up based on "potential" reviews that most MMO's get its being compared to that are at fault, this is just another slightly above average game with very limited re-playability that is currently flavor of the month which will experience at least a 50% drop in subscribers after the first month.

Hey, its not all bad, at least Bill Roper isnt crying and producing server logs ;)

 I think review is accurate.  But giving AoC a 9/10 and this a 6/10 is sheer lunacy.  AoC had almost exactly the same problems but even worse and IMO was even more unfinished when you consider promised feature like DX10 and sieges.

Probably this is not the same reviewer I didn't bother to check, but like I have said in the past MMO reviews are not even worth looking for even if they are sometimes accurate like this one.

Originally posted by gestalt11

 I think review is accurate.  But giving AoC a 9/10 and this a 6/10 is sheer lunacy.  AoC had almost exactly the same problems but even worse and IMO was even more unfinished when you consider promised feature like DX10 and sieges.

 

Probably this is not the same reviewer I didn't bother to check, but like I have said in the past MMO reviews are not even worth looking for even if they are sometimes accurate like this one.

i don't know where you get the idea of 9/10 for AoC, Eurogamer did a review recently and it got 7/10.
 

www.eurogamer.net/articles/age-of-conan-re-review

Maybe it is about time developers understand that it takes more these days to succeed. When COH launched there were no competition out there for superhero mmos. These days we (I) expect more. CO should have had villains. It makes the game one-sided. Which is why I didn't care to play it much in beta - just took a quick look and I haven't bought it.

I don't care about DC online, so all there is left now is hoping that Marvel Online will be great!

I agree with the review spot on.

This is the first game I literally played 3 times and then felt no urge to log back in.  I've played many mmo's that I ended up not liking and leaving, but I still stuck around for a few months to see what there was to do.  Age of conan....warhammer....all grabbed my attention more than this.  And that's not saying a lot:/

I would go for 5/10 at the moment, but its still early shit. In like a year its probably gonna be a 8/10.

Originally posted by haratu

Originally posted by gestalt11

 I think review is accurate.  But giving AoC a 9/10 and this a 6/10 is sheer lunacy.  AoC had almost exactly the same problems but even worse and IMO was even more unfinished when you consider promised feature like DX10 and sieges.

 

Probably this is not the same reviewer I didn't bother to check, but like I have said in the past MMO reviews are not even worth looking for even if they are sometimes accurate like this one.

i don't know where you get the idea of 9/10 for AoC, Eurogamer did a review recently and it got 7/10.
 

www.eurogamer.net/articles/age-of-conan-re-review

They re reviewed it, basically they were lenient on WAR and AoC. Heck WAR even got couple 90s.

"Twelve months ago, I was too lenient. Giving the game 8/10 in its first review on the site, I was aware of problems - some gaps in the content, bugs in the game engine, and so on - but optimistic. No MMO has a totally smooth launch, and Conan's was rougher than most, but I - foolishly - scored the game on its potential and on the heartfelt belief that Funcom, the company which had resuscitated Anarchy Online after a terrible launch and turned it into a warmly-regarded cult hit, would have the problems smoothed out in no time."

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/championsonline/review.html?tag=topslot;thumb;2

gamespot review is up, got a better scroe 7.5/10

after reading the review i dont know why they gave it such a high score, it sounds like it should have been lower.