Soon after a game's launch, we like to have the game's reviewer offer his first impressions to give players an idea of what they can expect early on. Today, Michael Bitton files his report on Champions Online.

In late August we took a look at what Champions Online has to offer players, and now with the game's release behind it we're checking in for our first impressions of the game in order to give you a taste of how things are actually stacking up so far. The idea of a "first impressions" would have been a bit of a challenge, seeing as how we've spent a ton of time with the game prior to its launch, but something that occurred on launch day made a first impressions article much easier. You see, for those of you who previewed the game in beta, or were even part of the head start, Champions Online launched almost a completely different game.

Before we get into all of that, let's talk a bit about the basics of an MMOG launch. Champions Online faired pretty well in this regard, many of the launcher and account issues present in the beta were thankfully absent at launch, with things going fairly smoothly on the technical side of things. Now, where were we? Ah, that's right, Champions Online launching as a different game, whatever do you mean? Well, in a boneheaded move, Cryptic Studios thought it would be a good idea to dump major, far-reaching changes onto the game in a launch day patch with absolutely no feedback from players. In these first impressions, we're going to take a look at this 'new' Champions Online and some of the effect the recent changes have had on early gameplay.

Read the First Impressions

OK, well, it might be a good idea to do some fact-checking before you turn these things in, reviewer. You can retcon from level 40 all the way back to genesis now, it's been this way for a while.

So much for "boneheaded mistakes."

I have a level 19 Darkness specced hero, and am just now feeling the effects of this increase in difficulty. My bigger issue though is lack of appropriate level content. Since level 16 I have been forced to take missions 1 or 2 levels above me, which begs the question, when will I run out of missions completely as I have already done the missions for the next level? And yes, I have checked the crime computer, I have them all and some are just undoable at my level. I think they need to add mission content FAST, or make grinding mobs worth more XP. This is my biggest problem with Champions atm.

Nice write up, pretty much agree with everything you said.   Game is fun, but some features are just plain frustrating, like the travel powers, mobs difficulty, build confusion.   You forgot to talk about the cluncky and slow UI, the very bad targeting system and the lag from time to time.

Very adept summary of the taste being left in everyone's mouth with Champions now that it has launched.  Sadly, the state of the game is not surprising at all to someone (like me) who is a 5 year veteran player of City of Heroes.  I was rather expecting the massive nerfs and "adjustments" that would be flung at players, I just didn't expect them to happen on release day!!!

I watched the development team (many of whom are responsible for Champions now) slowly drain all the "super" out of the superhero in City of Heroes.  There were regular massive nerfs and huge adjustments, where the developers applied what they thought the players should have, then had to adjust to quell the massive outcries about how bad they had screwed up many long term player characters.  But, at least in the case of CoH, they kept some semblance (usually) of player-to-enemy balance to at least make us feel above average.  But, interestingly enough, the best changes in CoH have come only after some of the primary thorns in the players' buttocks left to pursue development of Marvel Online (which then became Champions).

Even knowing the past track record, I gave Champions a shot, hoping to see some improvement.  I wasn't really disappointed in the game, it has some really fun aspects, but it failed to exceed my rather low expectations on most counts (so far).  I really don't see myself going past the first month, there just isn't enough to hook me like City of Heroes did.  Which is too bad, Champions had all the makings of a great game...  It just didn't seem to have the right hands molding it.

Originally posted by lordoffiling

OK, well, it might be a good idea to do some fact-checking before you turn these things in, reviewer. You can retcon from level 40 all the way back to genesis now, it's been this way for a while.

So much for "boneheaded mistakes."

Still not affordable though is it? Unless you've been using one of the gold sellers that have inevitably cropped up in the game.

Originally posted by Vrmithrax

Very adept summary of the taste being left in everyone's mouth with Champions now that it has launched.  Sadly, the state of the game is not surprising at all to someone (like me) who is a 5 year veteran player of City of Heroes.  I was rather expecting the massive nerfs and "adjustments" that would be flung at players, I just didn't expect them to happen on release day!!!

I watched the development team (many of whom are responsible for Champions now) slowly drain all the "super" out of the superhero in City of Heroes.  There were regular massive nerfs and huge adjustments, where the developers applied what they thought the players should have, then had to adjust to quell the massive outcries about how bad they had screwed up many long term player characters.  But, at least in the case of CoH, they kept some semblance (usually) of player-to-enemy balance to at least make us feel above average.  But, interestingly enough, the best changes in CoH have come only after some of the primary thorns in the players' buttocks left to pursue development of Marvel Online (which then became Champions).

Even knowing the past track record, I gave Champions a shot, hoping to see some improvement.  I wasn't really disappointed in the game, it has some really fun aspects, but it failed to exceed my rather low expectations on most counts (so far).  I really don't see myself going past the first month, there just isn't enough to hook me like City of Heroes did.  Which is too bad, Champions had all the makings of a great game...  It just didn't seem to have the right hands molding it.

QFT

For the first two week the devsmurdered their own PR, in Week 3 they only tourqued them, they need to get their act together if you want to survive the free month (where people are more flexible since their not paying monthy)

On that note i firmly belive freet-cons need to be given to every single character as a default, as said it is WAY to easy to gimp a build if your new, so a full freet-con for every character you create makes sense as a ballance issue because chances are you will fuck up your build, and bad.

Originally posted by korat102

Originally posted by lordoffiling

OK, well, it might be a good idea to do some fact-checking before you turn these things in, reviewer. You can retcon from level 40 all the way back to genesis now, it's been this way for a while.

So much for "boneheaded mistakes."

 

Still not affordable though is it? Unless you've been using one of the gold sellers that have inevitably cropped up in the game.

I have not had a problem affording my retcons, but that might just be because I know where the auction counter is located. Having said that, the devs have admitted the costs are too high, their solution to the issue has been carefully outlined.

My irritation is at the reviewer. The tone of most of his post is that he thinks the CO devs are idiots, and he's saying it when he himself can't get the facts in his tiny initial impressions review straight.

Another strange line in this review is that the devs created the launch day patch with "no feedback", when in the next paragraph he outright says the patch was created using accurate feedback from the players that the game was too easy. So what's the gripe? That they didn't get feedback on their response to the feedback? That they didn't delay launch so they could get feeback on the feedback on the feedback?

Sorry, the whole review is a dog wearing a cape.

Originally posted by Stradden

Today, enemies that were once cannon fodder can now shred players up pretty easily. This change has seriously impacted my opinion on the level of fun Champions Online provides.

Confusing would be the best description for the new player experience in Champions Online, and this is an extremely serious issue. There are no classes, so it is fairly easy to gimp your character by choosing the wrong powers, talents, statistical focuses, and gear. This problem is compounded further by the inflexibility and steep cost of the Retcon system. Players are able to retcon (respec) up to ten steps back in their choices, which is insufficient in and of itself, but is made worse by the fact that the cost of a respec of even a single step back can really break the bank, and at higher levels the cost is simply ludicrous. The aforementioned player was left with no recourse but to simply reroll his character. Screwing up one's character and having no choice but to reroll isn't really an acceptable option. It's only fortunate that leveling in Champions Online doesn't take very long, which is certainly a plus.

What really gets under my skin is the fact the developers admitted to erring on the side of caution

Read the First Impressions

I know right? I mean anyone who errs on the side of CAUTION is crazy. It would hav been better if they said "No, we didn't err on the side of caution we just go willy nilly..."

Your article highlights that people may get confused and 'gimp' their characters by not understanding how to play the game. (Yet, if it had been so simple you couldn't screw up, would you then decry how simple it is and no choice you made would matter?)

You further highlight someone who bought the game and in one day became 18th level and were now mentioning it was  difficult. First off, they only invested ONE DAY OF PLAYING. Thats still "Learning".

The early levels imho are intended to help give you a taste of how its going to play. Really, the business of being a super hero in earnest should begin at later levels, 15th or so..so I don't see the problem here.

Your article fails to deliver on really what the game offers and brings to the table, what kind of person would like and wouldn't like it. You mostly seem to just be using it as a platform to rant about your beef with devs.

This is one of the reasons why you cannot let non-professionals beta test video games. People tend to forget that beta test is there to test a game, and that the only game that matters is the one that releases. The game that released was harder than the one in Beta, so people complained. Well, if they didn't beta test the game, they wouldn't have know the difference and there'd be less complaining.

I for one don't beta test video games, because beta testing leaves bad impressions and spoils content. The bad impressions come when you see things in the game that suck, but people forget that those things that suck may not be there at release. Spoiled content comes by just playing the game.

I picked up Champions Online a couple days after release. The game is complex, in the sense that you can easily gimp your character, because you're free to choose any combination of powers, stats, super stats, talents, and travel powers.  After the learning curb, you pretty much know what you're doing, but you also learn that you need to fit in a non-official mold if you are to not gimp yourself, especially if you PvP. Some powersets are superior than others, as are some travel powers. Some powersets get owned in PvE, while some do the owning, and others seem about equal.

The game will benefit from some balancing patches, but the complaints about the game changing should not be heard. This is because beta knowledge and post release knowledge should not coexist, because people are not professional enough or mature enough to not let their opinions become biased. Bias is something that is really hard to control, especially when it takes place in something you are passionate about, such as your hobbies. The biased opinions from beta testers are unfair and are unwarranted. People forget that it was their job to test the game out, and it is the developers job to fix the game into their intended desire. The job of listening to the players, and only implementing what they deem worthy is not the devs job, nor is it anyones. Players do not always know best, and in this case, the players are wrong. You cannot have a game so easy that you never need groups.

Originally posted by lordoffiling

My irritation is at the reviewer. The tone of most of his post is that he thinks the CO devs are idiots, and he's saying it when he himself can't get the facts in his tiny initial impressions review straight.

Another strange line in this review is that the devs created the launch day patch with "no feedback", when in the next paragraph he outright says the patch was created using accurate feedback from the players that the game was too easy. So what's the gripe? That they didn't get feedback on their response to the feedback? That they didn't delay launch so they could get feeback on the feedback on the feedback?

Sorry, the whole review is a dog wearing a cape.

Um... I don't know if you're being ignorant on purpose or aren't reading it correctly. He's saying they patched on launch, and gave no feedback on the day of the launch. There was no warning. There were no patch notes. And hours and hours passed before an initial response was given by the devs.

That's a completely unaceptable approach towards your community in the opinion of most people paying money.

Originally posted by Malakhon

Your article fails to deliver on really what the game offers and brings to the table, what kind of person would like and wouldn't like it. You mostly seem to just be using it as a platform to rant about your beef with devs.

You do understand that this wasn't the review of the game, but rather, as the title indicates, a first impressions piece, right?

Originally posted by Senadina

I have a level 19 Darkness specced hero, and am just now feeling the effects of this increase in difficulty. My bigger issue though is lack of appropriate level content. Since level 16 I have been forced to take missions 1 or 2 levels above me, which begs the question, when will I run out of missions completely as I have already done the missions for the next level? And yes, I have checked the crime computer, I have them all and some are just undoable at my level. I think they need to add mission content FAST, or make grinding mobs worth more XP. This is my biggest problem with Champions atm.

You shouldn't hit any small tiny gaps of content until almost lvl 30...so your doing something wrong Senadine.  Try changing areas...at 16 you should be finding more than enough quest lines, citizen quests, and drop quests in Millenium city. Around 20 you'll start going back and forth between Desert, MC, and Canada...of course Reading your Crime Computer in your quest journal greatly helps as well.

Originally posted by lordoffiling

Originally posted by korat102

Originally posted by lordoffiling

OK, well, it might be a good idea to do some fact-checking before you turn these things in, reviewer. You can retcon from level 40 all the way back to genesis now, it's been this way for a while.

So much for "boneheaded mistakes."

 

Still not affordable though is it? Unless you've been using one of the gold sellers that have inevitably cropped up in the game.

 

I have not had a problem affording my retcons, but that might just be because I know where the auction counter is located. Having said that, the devs have admitted the costs are too high, their solution to the issue has been carefully outlined.

My irritation is at the reviewer. The tone of most of his post is that he thinks the CO devs are idiots, and he's saying it when he himself can't get the facts in his tiny initial impressions review straight.

Another strange line in this review is that the devs created the launch day patch with "no feedback", when in the next paragraph he outright says the patch was created using accurate feedback from the players that the game was too easy. So what's the gripe? That they didn't get feedback on their response to the feedback? That they didn't delay launch so they could get feeback on the feedback on the feedback?

Sorry, the whole review is a dog wearing a cape.

You must be getting magically lucky because I've never been able to sell a damn thing on the AH so its completely worthless as a way to make an income in the game.   If you can go all the way back to level Zero and do a full retcon please post pictures beacuse right now going back more than 1 or 2, maybe 3  levels is about all anyone at any level can actually afford.
 

The retcon system is seriously flawed and so is the economy...thankfully the game doesn't heavily rely on the economy except for retcon needs.

Originally posted by Jpizzle

Originally posted by lordoffiling

My irritation is at the reviewer. The tone of most of his post is that he thinks the CO devs are idiots, and he's saying it when he himself can't get the facts in his tiny initial impressions review straight.

Another strange line in this review is that the devs created the launch day patch with "no feedback", when in the next paragraph he outright says the patch was created using accurate feedback from the players that the game was too easy. So what's the gripe? That they didn't get feedback on their response to the feedback? That they didn't delay launch so they could get feeback on the feedback on the feedback?

Sorry, the whole review is a dog wearing a cape.

 

Um... I don't know if you're being ignorant on purpose or aren't reading it correctly. He's saying they patched on launch, and gave no feedback on the day of the launch. There was no warning. There were no patch notes. And hours and hours passed before an initial response was given by the devs.

That's a completely unaceptable approach towards your community in the opinion of most people paying money.

 

. . . No?

The line in question says, "Well, in a boneheaded move, Cryptic Studios thought it would be a good idea to dump major, far-reaching changes into the game in a launch day patch with absolutely no feedback from players."

So, it would seem it is you who did not read correctly. The review says nothing about Cryptic's communication. Yes, it did suck, no, that's not what the reviewer was talking about, nor was it what *I* was talking about. He's griping about the fact that the patch went live without the testers getting the chance to provide feedback on it. He is, in other words, upset that Cryptic Studios lacks the power to fundamentally alter the space-time continuum.

Proper feedback on a patch that size and scope might have taken weeks. It was launch day. Time was up.

The impressions seemed a bit too whiney to me. CO brings a lot to the genre and plays well, but I never would have gotten that impression from reading this article.

This article contains a bit too much drama, too much about the developer, and too much about the whiney community uproar. I think people wanted to read about the game itself and how it plays, not this 'he said she said' crap about Cryptic.

You contradict yourself first by saying: "Cryptic Studios thought it would be a good idea to dump major, far-reaching changes onto the game in a launch day patch with absolutely no feedback from players."
But then in the very next paragraph you state: "Champions' launch day patch was not put out to 'screw' the player, but was put out in response to player feedback that the game was in fact, way too easy."

So first you say the changes have "...absolutely no feedback from players", then you state that they were "...in response to player feedback". I find this contradicting, particularly because the first part sets the premise for a negative article. But not two sentences after you set this alleged tone, you completely blow up your entire premise.

While your article raises a few good points, it strikes me as a lot of whining without fully checking facts. There have been a series of patches adjusting things slightly in different ways to alleviate many of the problems you mention. Not all are entirely fixed, but that may be because they require a bit more time to code properly.

I don't know about you, but this game is meant to have a long lifetime (as MMOs by definitely do). It would seem to me a more significant challenge would be a good thing. Comparing that with a single player limited story platformer such as Arkham Asylum is about like comparing Warcraft III with World of Warcraft.

I do normally enjoy reading articles on MMORPG, but this one just smacked of sensationalism.

Wedge

Originally posted by dj-wedge

You contradict yourself first by saying: "Cryptic Studios thought it would be a good idea to dump major, far-reaching changes onto the game in a launch day patch with absolutely no feedback from players."
But then in the very next paragraph you state: "Champions' launch day patch was not put out to 'screw' the player, but was put out in response to player feedback that the game was in fact, way too easy."

So first you say the changes have "...absolutely no feedback from players", then you state that they were "...in response to player feedback". I find this contradicting, particularly because the first part sets the premise for a negative article. But not two sentences after you set this alleged tone, you completely blow up your entire premise.

While your article raises a few good points, it strikes me as a lot of whining without fully checking facts. There have been a series of patches adjusting things slightly in different ways to alleviate many of the problems you mention. Not all are entirely fixed, but that may be because they require a bit more time to code properly.

I don't know about you, but this game is meant to have a long lifetime (as MMOs by definitely do). It would seem to me a more significant challenge would be a good thing. Comparing that with a single player limited story platformer such as Arkham Asylum is about like comparing Warcraft III with World of Warcraft.

I do normally enjoy reading articles on MMORPG, but this one just smacked of sensationalism.

Wedge

I wanted to make it known that I understood Cryptic Studios' motives with the patch, but found the fact they didn't allow their testers to put the changes through the paces during beta a boneheaded move. Make more sense?

Originally posted by lordoffiling

OK, well, it might be a good idea to do some fact-checking before you turn these things in, reviewer. You can retcon from level 40 all the way back to genesis now, it's been this way for a while.

So much for "boneheaded mistakes."

I do apologize for this oversight, as I did know this, but it still bears no effect on the main point which is that the system is basically useless due to the extremely high costs. The cost is high enough the developers admit they may still be too high even after they crank up the money flow in the game. It doesn't really matter if you can go back all the way if a single step breaks the bank.

Originally posted by nate1980

This is one of the reasons why you cannot let non-professionals beta test video games. People tend to forget that beta test is there to test a game, and that the only game that matters is the one that releases. The game that released was harder than the one in Beta, so people complained. Well, if they didn't beta test the game, they wouldn't have know the difference and there'd be less complaining.

I for one don't beta test video games, because beta testing leaves bad impressions and spoils content. The bad impressions come when you see things in the game that suck, but people forget that those things that suck may not be there at release. Spoiled content comes by just playing the game.

I picked up Champions Online a couple days after release. The game is complex, in the sense that you can easily gimp your character, because you're free to choose any combination of powers, stats, super stats, talents, and travel powers.  After the learning curb, you pretty much know what you're doing, but you also learn that you need to fit in a non-official mold if you are to not gimp yourself, especially if you PvP. Some powersets are superior than others, as are some travel powers. Some powersets get owned in PvE, while some do the owning, and others seem about equal.

The game will benefit from some balancing patches, but the complaints about the game changing should not be heard. This is because beta knowledge and post release knowledge should not coexist, because people are not professional enough or mature enough to not let their opinions become biased. Bias is something that is really hard to control, especially when it takes place in something you are passionate about, such as your hobbies. The biased opinions from beta testers are unfair and are unwarranted. People forget that it was their job to test the game out, and it is the developers job to fix the game into their intended desire. The job of listening to the players, and only implementing what they deem worthy is not the devs job, nor is it anyones. Players do not always know best, and in this case, the players are wrong. You cannot have a game so easy that you never need groups.

I'm sorry i was under the impress those of us who Pro ordered and got the 3 day head start were being threated to the Live game, not "last minute beta"

you FAIL

 Regardeless of  the advisability of the first day patch, it should not be the focus of a fist impressions article. Instead this should be covered elsewhere (and has been). Complaining about how a game has changed from Beta or headstart does no one any good.

If, as you say, you found it hard to give a first impression to a game you'd been playing through beta then you should have just refrained and found someone who could actually have a first impression.  

To be fair there are a few lines in this article that could be construed as first impressions, i.e. about player confusion. But these are buried in a unproffesionally written rant.

Originally posted by nate1980

This is one of the reasons why you cannot let non-professionals beta test video games. People tend to forget that beta test is there to test a game, and that the only game that matters is the one that releases. The game that released was harder than the one in Beta, so people complained. Well, if they didn't beta test the game, they wouldn't have know the difference and there'd be less complaining.

I for one don't beta test video games, because beta testing leaves bad impressions and spoils content. The bad impressions come when you see things in the game that suck, but people forget that those things that suck may not be there at release. Spoiled content comes by just playing the game.

I picked up Champions Online a couple days after release. The game is complex, in the sense that you can easily gimp your character, because you're free to choose any combination of powers, stats, super stats, talents, and travel powers.  After the learning curb, you pretty much know what you're doing, but you also learn that you need to fit in a non-official mold if you are to not gimp yourself, especially if you PvP. Some powersets are superior than others, as are some travel powers. Some powersets get owned in PvE, while some do the owning, and others seem about equal.

The game will benefit from some balancing patches, but the complaints about the game changing should not be heard. This is because beta knowledge and post release knowledge should not coexist, because people are not professional enough or mature enough to not let their opinions become biased. Bias is something that is really hard to control, especially when it takes place in something you are passionate about, such as your hobbies. The biased opinions from beta testers are unfair and are unwarranted. People forget that it was their job to test the game out, and it is the developers job to fix the game into their intended desire. The job of listening to the players, and only implementing what they deem worthy is not the devs job, nor is it anyones. Players do not always know best, and in this case, the players are wrong. You cannot have a game so easy that you never need groups.

I agree with your point about beta testing spoilong content.
 

I have beta tested a few games now and am by no means a professional game tester, but each game test spoiled the content at launch, and took away from the new feeling of the game.

"Screwing up one's character and having no choice but to reroll isn't really an acceptable option."

Since when?  People certainly are getting spoiled....

Originally posted by MikeB

 

I wanted to make it known that I understood Cryptic Studios' motives with the patch, but found the fact they didn't allow their testers to put the changes through the paces during beta a boneheaded move. Make more sense?

There's that word again. "Boneheaded." Implies a lack of intelligence or unwillingness to learn.

You really think they didn't realize this thing was going to upset some players? I'm relatively certain that the people who made the game are experienced professionals, intelligent people with degrees and everything.

You're a writer for this website so I can only assume you know how this works: Patches take time to develop. They take time to test. They take time to get feedback on, and they take time to alter based on that feedback. Roll all that up into a sum and you get X, X being the amount of time it takes to properly create and implement a patch.

Since this isn't a live product, we must also factor for Y, Y being the launch date. Y is a fixed number, one mutually agreed on by Cryptic and Atari. Or maybe not, maybe Atari issued an ultimatum saying they had to launch on Y, regardless of the state of the product. It has happened before. In either case, Y is a date that, by the time it was realized the critical patch had to happen, couldn't be moved.

X was too big to fit into Y. They had to trim the process down. Since there was no time to even do so much as get patch notes up for it before it went live, I'm guessing they managed to get the thing into a workable state just under the wire by pulling triple shifts. They squeezed it onboard just in time, and the player feedback portion of the process became an unfortunate casualty. All done to make the patch content go live *before* the primary customer base could get their hands on the game and have the rug yanked out from under them days later.

The point I'm making is this: Hasty, it was. Boneheaded, it was not. There can be no "boneheaded" decision when your back is to the wall, the gun is to your head, and the man is in the process of squeezing the trigger, because the only truly stupid thing you can do in that situation is nothing.

And, before you ask, why am I making such a big deal out of this? Because this statement goes on to set the tone of the rest of your review. By writing in this fashion you make yourself more than you are, writing as though you know more than the devs. You come off sounding like--forgive me, fellow posters--an angry nerd on a video game forum, one of the ones who believes in his bones that he knows more about making and running an MMO than the people actually doing it for a living. The ones who arrogantly spout their ideas and scream things like, "They never listen to me!" when their pet cause goes ignored.

Originally posted by lordoffiling

Originally posted by MikeB

 

I wanted to make it known that I understood Cryptic Studios' motives with the patch, but found the fact they didn't allow their testers to put the changes through the paces during beta a boneheaded move. Make more sense?

 

There's that word again. "Boneheaded." Implies a lack of intelligence or unwillingness to learn.

You really think they didn't realize this thing was going to upset some players? I'm relatively certain that the people who made the game are experienced professionals, intelligent people with degrees and everything.

You're a writer for this website so I can only assume you know how this works: Patches take time to develop. They take time to test. They take time to get feedback on, and they take time to alter based on that feedback. Roll all that up into a sum and you get X, X being the amount of time it takes to properly create and implement a patch.

Since this isn't a live product, we must also factor for Y, Y being the launch date. Y is a fixed number, one mutually agreed on by Cryptic and Atari. Or maybe not, maybe Atari issued an ultimatum saying they had to launch on Y, regardless of the state of the product. It has happened before. In either case, Y is a date that, by the time it was realized the critical patch had to happen, couldn't be moved.

X was too big to fit into Y. They had to trim the process down. Since there was no time to even do so much as get patch notes up for it before it went live, I'm guessing they managed to get the thing into a workable state just under the wire by pulling triple shifts. They squeezed it onboard just in time, and the player feedback portion of the process became an unfortunate casualty. All done to make the patch content go live *before* the primary customer base could get their hands on the game and have the rug yanked out from under them days later.

The point I'm making is this: Hasty, it was. Boneheaded, it was not. There can be no "boneheaded" decision when your back is to the wall, the gun is to your head, and the man is in the process of squeezing the trigger, because the only truly stupid thing you can do in that situation is nothing.

And, before you ask, why am I making such a big deal out of this? Because this statement goes on to set the tone of the rest of your review. By writing in this fashion you make yourself more than you are, writing as though you know more than the devs. You come off sounding like--forgive me, fellow posters--an angry nerd on a video game forum, one of the ones who believes in his bones that he knows more about making and running an MMO than the people actually doing it for a living. The ones who arrogantly spout their ideas and scream things like, "They never listen to me!" when their pet cause goes ignored.

For only your 4th post, that is brilliantly stated.