| 363 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
mmorpg.com's review of wow they gave it an 8.0 aion gets an 8.7? aion is wow with...less content...
make sense |
|
Originally posted by nate1980
Really? Then why don't you give us that critique since you seem to be the expert on what a review is or isn't?
To what purpose would a critique serve and what would the benefit be for me? I've already critiqued the game for myself, which lead me to quit the game. Critiquing the game is not my job, nor is there any real benefit to me doing so for a forum full of ungrateful people, who will likely let the thread die in a matter of days, after flaming it to death. The only way I'll spend the effort to write down a critique about something is if I was properly rewarded for it, such as if it was my job, or a grade in school depended on it. You could have stopped at the "its not my job" part. Case rested. And since it isn't your job how are you a credible critic of a review over anyone else? How can you tell anyone that this review is any better or worse than any other?
|
|
Originally posted by dscar23
Eheh exactly my point. |
|
Originally posted by dscar23
Maybe mmorpg like pvp wow didn't do it good anyway so many class unbalances.
And people that played wow at launch say that it was not bug free so maybe that can add to the rating.
|
|
Originally posted by mmaize
Completely disagree. Aspects of the game should be told in a non biased and fair manner. If there are no negative aspects of a game or your having to get to microscopic to look for them then you tell it like it is...that there are really no negative aspects that you could find or that the ones you did find which are this, this, and that, are really more of a minor annoyance or hardly mentionable flaw. Same goes with the positive side...if all you find is negativity and the positives are too small then you mention them for what they are. What you don't do is try to drum up things to try to create some equal balance in order to appease the readers of a review because they believe a review isn't a review unless it's mostly negative...or mostly positive. Just state the facts and let the reader make up their own mind. That being said a review is always going to be created in the eyes of the person doing the review and what they find as an annoyance or what have you, might be something that's right up your alley in terms of play style or what have you.
Is it truely unbiased writing when you only write from your perception of things? What you describe the writer doing, is writing from his perception. If the writer didn't perceive there to be much negative, then there wasn't much negative. |
|
Originally posted by mmaize
Just so I'm clear...the rating system is 1-9 right? Not 1-10. Because a 10 is obviously by everyones standards here not possible and a 9 is pretty much the right hand of god? Yes?
|
|
Originally posted by nate1980
Completely disagree. Aspects of the game should be told in a non biased and fair manner. If there are no negative aspects of a game or your having to get to microscopic to look for them then you tell it like it is...that there are really no negative aspects that you could find or that the ones you did find which are this, this, and that, are really more of a minor annoyance or hardly mentionable flaw. Same goes with the positive side...if all you find is negativity and the positives are too small then you mention them for what they are. What you don't do is try to drum up things to try to create some equal balance in order to appease the readers of a review because they believe a review isn't a review unless it's mostly negative...or mostly positive. Just state the facts and let the reader make up their own mind. That being said a review is always going to be created in the eyes of the person doing the review and what they find as an annoyance or what have you, might be something that's right up your alley in terms of play style or what have you.
Is it truely unbiased writing when you only write from your perception of things? What you describe the writer doing, is writing from his perception. If the writer didn't perceive there to be much negative, then there wasn't much negative. That's a whole different argument. Are you unbiased in your own perceptions or are perceptions themselves biased since they aren't really the truth but more your interpretation? Sure we could get into that all day if you wanted to. The point I'm making is that if you are going to write a review you have to do so with an open mind and approach the subject matter from all sides. Technical aspects can be measured sure but you can't measure fun aside from your own personal take from actually playing the game and that's not going to necessarily be the same as the readers or others who experience the game for themselves either so the best you can do is explain to them how your experience was from your point of view and THAT is what this reviewer did. If you want a more technical review then you need someone who spends their time measuring things such as graphics, server lag, combat models, etc. But that's an entirely different review and usually the people who review such things have an entirely different view of what is "fun".
|
|
Originally posted by mmaize
Really? Then why don't you give us that critique since you seem to be the expert on what a review is or isn't?
To what purpose would a critique serve and what would the benefit be for me? I've already critiqued the game for myself, which lead me to quit the game. Critiquing the game is not my job, nor is there any real benefit to me doing so for a forum full of ungrateful people, who will likely let the thread die in a matter of days, after flaming it to death. The only way I'll spend the effort to write down a critique about something is if I was properly rewarded for it, such as if it was my job, or a grade in school depended on it. You could have stopped at the "its not my job" part. Case rested. And since it isn't your job how are you a credible critic of a review over anyone else? How can you tell anyone that this review is any better or worse than any other?
Do you need to be a Chef to cook a good meal or a Maid to clean your house well? Even if I made a list of reasons why I might be a more credible critic, would you or others believe them? Would it really matter? People aren't infallible, so there's room for improvement on everything. Whether or not this is a better or worse review than any others isn't really my concern. I do think it's reasonable to expect that reviews are unbiased, because of the reasons reviews are read. After all, who is more likely to get the most use out of a review, the players or the people on the fence? I'm not picking on the reviewer, and my opinion of the review is on the first page of this thread, if you care to reread it. |
|
Originally posted by mmaize
Is it truely unbiased writing when you only write from your perception of things? What you describe the writer doing, is writing from his perception. If the writer didn't perceive there to be much negative, then there wasn't much negative. That's a whole different argument. Are you unbiased in your own perceptions or are perceptions themselves biased since they aren't really the truth but more your interpretation? Sure we could get into that all day if you wanted to. The point I'm making is that if you are going to write a review you have to do so with an open mind and approach the subject matter from all sides. Technical aspects can be measured sure but you can't measure fun aside from your own personal take from actually playing the game and that's not going to necessarily be the same as the readers or others who experience the game for themselves either so the best you can do is explain to them how your experience was from your point of view and THAT is what this reviewer did. If you want a more technical review then you need someone who spends their time measuring things such as graphics, server lag, combat models, etc. But that's an entirely different review and usually the people who review such things have an entirely different view of what is "fun".
You had it there for a second, but then lost it in the end. Reviews are supposed to be written with an open-mind and covered from all the different angles, which can only be seen with an open-mind. A point-of-view is only one angle, one perception, and is biased. When you write something from every point-of-view, you've covered all angles and have written an unbiased piece. So you see, by claiming that a professional review should be written with only the reviewers point-of-view, you've lost the main point and contradicted yourself when I thought you figured out the answer for yourself. |
|
|
User rating of 8.2.-I could see that. Roughly the same as CO, Warhammer(8.2) or a LOTRO(8.4) without the content.
|
|
Originally posted by ste2000 Wow didn't have 10 million subs at release and as far as I know reviews are then when a game is newly launched and people have said many times that wow at launch was not bug free and that can result in a low review rate. Plus 10 million subs are worldwide aion is already successful in eastern (while the subs are not clear it may have from 1.5 million to 3.5 million just from eastern)
|
|
Originally posted by ste2000
Wow got an 8 because it was the newest kid on a very old school block. Today WoW is far outdated and anyone reviewing it today using today's standards wouldn't give it anywhere near that. Anyone who measures trends (which I do) for a living knows that you don't see significant trend changes overnight. WoW has dominated the market for a long time and a great many people have become institutionalized within it and have a hard time separating themselves from the time investment they put into that game. But sooner or later that is going to change and it's not going to change because some new game popped on the scene that's suddenly revolutionary because even if that did happen no one is going to believe it or buy into it until enough time has passed where enough people finally made the leap and transition and in turn opens the floodgates wide enough for significant moves to be made. But that initial drip takes a long long time to become a steady flow because of human nature. Wow is far past it's time in it's current state, and even Blizzard knows this which is why they are scurrying to make their last ditch expansion the bridge that will give them the time they need to focus on their next gen MMO. This isn't me bashing Wow, this is a well known fact. Point of all that is subs really doesn't mean a whole lot because when a new games comes on the scene you can no longer measure in the same way because the new games potential has to come into play and you sure as hell can't measure that with subs in the short term and yet the game could very well be the WoW killer for all anyone knows. So yeah a game just coming out and getting a 8.7 over a game that has been out for years and is outdated but has 10 million subscribers makes sense and is entirely possible. A true measurement would be if you pit WoWs rollout as a new game against Aion now. Then you could make some decent arguments and comparisons about the two.
|
|
|
7.7 (C+) at best and that is because it is a very cool looking game with flight (limited flight). Rating Why is it you guys rate games that are just average with such high regard? It's not an terrible game by any sense of the word but this game is not ground breaking. This is the same whitewashed, reskinned, flavorless, classic grinder as the other titles they produce. You give it points because " what it does, it does well"? It better do it well..the game is a year old! I guess Koreans/Asians don't experience the same "in-game" issues we did at their launch of the game =/. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Gameplay The game does not really get good (boring actually) until lvl 25 (or so) because you open up the fun content but then by the time you hit 35 (or so) the grind begins. So the in the end, the game is only fun for about 10-15 levels. I love that it is not easy to achieve max level but there is no excuse for a game that was released a year ago (Korea/China) to have shitty leveling content or such a wicked ass leveling curve. Sean suggests that you can skip the pvp content but fails to tell you that if you do not like pvp then the game is not really for you, or rather, you should not play this game because if you don't gain xp/ap through pvp you will be grinding instances until you eyes bleed. Did you even mention AP and how important it is to this game Sean? I think most Aion players would agree that the game just starts at level 25-35. Dude you are reviewing the best part of the game right now. (if you have gotten further than level 25 then you have yet again failed to communicate that accurately in your review.) Comments Does anyone care about end game content anymore? How can you give an accurate review of a game if you have not even experienced what it is like to level and play at max level? I am a grinder so I am used to getting to end game and waiting two to three months for the end game bugs to be fixed and hope for some added content. 2 cents
|
|
Originally posted by nate1980
Is it truely unbiased writing when you only write from your perception of things? What you describe the writer doing, is writing from his perception. If the writer didn't perceive there to be much negative, then there wasn't much negative. That's a whole different argument. Are you unbiased in your own perceptions or are perceptions themselves biased since they aren't really the truth but more your interpretation? Sure we could get into that all day if you wanted to. The point I'm making is that if you are going to write a review you have to do so with an open mind and approach the subject matter from all sides. Technical aspects can be measured sure but you can't measure fun aside from your own personal take from actually playing the game and that's not going to necessarily be the same as the readers or others who experience the game for themselves either so the best you can do is explain to them how your experience was from your point of view and THAT is what this reviewer did. If you want a more technical review then you need someone who spends their time measuring things such as graphics, server lag, combat models, etc. But that's an entirely different review and usually the people who review such things have an entirely different view of what is "fun".
You had it there for a second, but then lost it in the end. Reviews are supposed to be written with an open-mind and covered from all the different angles, which can only be seen with an open-mind. A point-of-view is only one angle, one perception, and is biased. When you write something from every point-of-view, you've covered all angles and have written an unbiased piece. So you see, by claiming that a professional review should be written with only the reviewers point-of-view, you've lost the main point and contradicted yourself when I thought you figured out the answer for yourself. Actually, no I didn't. No one can write something in the point of view of another with any real accuracy unless they walked in their shoes. This isn't a difficult concept to understand. Things like fun, positive/negative, good vs. evil, etc. are all relative. The point is that only things that are measurable and have standards can be reviewed and critiqued based upon a set standard, everything else is relative and based upon a point of view no matter how open minded and encompassing you believe yourself to be.
|
|
|
Because aion's endgame is accessible at level 25? it keep on opening the higher you go but you can pvp, siege and raid in the abyss at that level.
|
|
|
I only agree with this review rating if it didn't consider the bots and spam. The bots and spam have such an impact on the gameplay experience that by 30+ you'll be quite mad at them and how NCSoft still haven't done anything when they saw this coming and didn't make any defense in advance... actually it's comprehensible as they don't even have in-game GM assistance yet... an AAA title without that isn't really an AAA title until it provides it. Until then, IMO Aion gets a 7 at best - a ZERO at in-game rule enforcement and customer support. |
|
Originally posted by Xantheous
|
|
Originally posted by EricDanie
You are wrong in that there is in-game GM assistance. They work normal hours like 9-5 (7 days a week). You can see them in-game in chat talking every so often as they go about banning all the spammers. Soon within the next two weeks or so it will be ramped up to 24/7 In-game GM support. It just takes a few weeks to get GM's trained for the positions. Wouldn't have been any use to hire 100 GM's if the game tanked right out of the bat. You would have lost an entire months worth of pay just training the GMs and then having to fire all them GMs. So they played it safe and when they seen that there was enough demand and the population is going to stick around. They started hireing more GMs. Right now them GM's are in the training phase and will be rolled out to the live servers soon. |
|
|
Earlier I saw a post from someone saying the gold spam and bots are not bad. Well I have tried 3 different servers and everyone of them is loaded with both of the former. I don't see NCSoft doing much about it either. Support is horrible, and they don't seem to do anything. Just typical NCSoft. So because of these factors a 8.7 is far too generous for this game. It is a beautiful game and there are not a lot of problems with it. One thing that the review misses is the grind after 35 which is very notable and the lack of an end game at the moment. So my thought is for those enjoying it at present, many of you probably won't be playing in 6 months time. |
|
|
I don't think Aion is a bad game either, but it just goes to show you that all it takes is a (somewhat) clean launch and no game-stopper bugs to get high scores. That's what we give 8's for now, polish. Reflects alot of the MMO genre in general.
What's more interesting is the reviewer mentions a number of times there is nothing new or innovative to it, despite the flying aspect. Yet the game still rates highly. Like I said, pretty graphics and polish are what get high reviews with this genre.
Sad really |
|
Originally posted by Thomas2006
You are wrong in that there is in-game GM assistance. They work normal hours like 9-5 (7 days a week). You can see them in-game in chat talking every so often as they go about banning all the spammers. Soon within the next two weeks or so it will be ramped up to 24/7 In-game GM support. It just takes a few weeks to get GM's trained for the positions. Wouldn't have been any use to hire 100 GM's if the game tanked right out of the bat. You would have lost an entire months worth of pay just training the GMs and then having to fire all them GMs. So they played it safe and when they seen that there was enough demand and the population is going to stick around. They started hireing more GMs. Right now them GM's are in the training phase and will be rolled out to the live servers soon. I counter the spam issue myself by blocking spammers (as easy as right clicking their names and clicking block then OK, gets annoying to do this 2-3 times a day as you have to do it for every alt you play), still have to block 15-20 a day, Azphel server. Bots, in the other hand, are out of control, my /autohuntingreport usages get quickly used as I walk around in 25+ areas. I know Ayase promissed us a 24/7 GM Support soon, I'm just being realistic looking at the current issue. Like the server queues that got solved in two weeks (although they killed the private shop feature without increasing broker limit and allowing us to make partial stack purchases from there), I also believe this will get sorted out, but in a review you shouldn't be giving a good rating in a category that currently is horrible because you "believe" it will get better, you review the game as it is right now. Then you can re-review it later, MMOs are constantly-changing games anyway, a review will eventially get outdated, even more when you talk about the end-game. |
|
Originally posted by tanoril It's silly to not give a high score to a game just because it isn't innovative. |
|
Originally posted by Gameloading It's silly to not give a high score to a game just because it isn't innovative. Precisely! It goes back to either you review based upon a set criteria that is measurable and yes you can measure how innovative a product is, or you review from your point of view on what you think is enjoyable. Innovation is going to be relative depending upon the importance of that in their realm of what is enjoyable. I personally think you do both, you rate based upon whatever the standard measurable criteria is, and then you give your personal take on your experience and enjoyment of the game.
|
|
Originally posted by Gameloading It's silly to not give a high score to a game just because it isn't innovative. Agreed. If this genre was all about inovation there wouldn't be 150+ surviving titles around... most fantasy and level-based. |
|
|
A lot of the industy seems to think that Aion is a good game for what it is. It might not be perfect, but no game is going to be perfect to everyone. I just wanted to see if the review score here was higher than anywhere else, and it really isn't. metacritic which averages all review scores has Aion listed at an 81 or 8.1 score. The highest review was a 93 by game focus going all the way down to a 50 by 1up. Out of the 19 reviews they used to get the score only 4 were below 80. So if you want to see a large amount of reviews for Aion go to metacritic and read up for yourself. I know I would be going to multiple sources if I was interested in the game, because I know I would be with it for a while. Also this way you get to avoid all the people that just like to complain and say things like this review was paid for. |
|
