Nice honest review, of a great MMO.

Aion is the highest rated MMO on this site for a reason, i believe the polish and PvP components is far ahead of any current released game. Just look at xfire, people are loving the the game.

Originally posted by solareus

I;'m not playing Saga of Ryzom, Eve or Fallen Earth eithe rbut I can recognize that they are stellar game , stell concepts from content design, visual aesthectics .  If something is justifed, I will respect it. Aion is not justified, here is a question for you, how did the gold sellers have over 100billion in gold ready to ship in Aion in the first week ?

How do you know that sum were you involved? gold spam and bots are a problem YES I didn't deny it did I?

I'm giving ncsoft a chance to see if they will do something to reduce the spams and bots what about you? will you keep on writing on game's sections that you don't like? why do you need to hate a game so much? don't have anything else to do?

I heard you play or played eve or lotr why your not playing there instead of flaming and may give useless warnings and bans on people that are short tempered (not me of course I'm posting politely as far as I know)

LOTRO, one of the best games out there and the top ranked game on this site has an 8.5 review score. That's after 2 years of growth and (i assume) a re-review here at some point.

So now you are saying Aion less than a month in is overall 'better' than LOTRO?

I find it really hard to believe and I bet you that in a few months (especially after mirkwood) the numbers will speak for them selves.

All I'm trying to say is: however much the reviewer may have liked Aion, the score needs to be in some kind of context in the market otherwise it's more of a marketing effort than an objective review.

Originally posted by solareus

I;'m not playing Saga of Ryzom, Eve or Fallen Earth eithe rbut I can recognize that they are stellar game , stell concepts from content design, visual aesthectics .  If something is justifed, I will respect it. Aion is not justified, here is a question for you, how did the gold sellers have over 100billion in gold ready to ship in Aion in the first week ?

Thats a silly argument. So only sandboxes are allowed to get high scores?

We need a re-review.

I gave these guys credit for having the balls to give WoW a 8 score and they reinfocred that by going against a good number of sandbox fans by giving DF a 6.

This site for me atleast has been known for giving fair reviews with the exception of Eve (they seem to be catering to us a bit).

Now we get Aion the highest rated game on this site, honeslty can one of you guys chime in on this? Aion is nothing but a nice looking Lineage clone with random portal pvp.

Come on guys, the game needs a re-review.

Originally posted by Zorndorf

Originally posted by Gameloading

400k players? you do realise that these were pre - order numbers and the game has been avaible for a month now, right?

 

EVE's subscriber base is about 200k subscribers. if Aion sold only 200k copies this last month, that would mean it has 3 times as many active accounts. It really isn't rocket science.

I absolutely love all the people going apeshit over this. MMORPG's score is pretty much the average review score Aion is getting. It's a good game people, get over it. 

 

EVE has a confirmed sub base of 300K players (a week ago even 320K). The ratio between WOW-EVE-LOTRO on Xfire was always in the 5M-300k-180K count.

In no way this game has more then 3 times the number of EVE players (see the down trend of Aion already below).

With these references Aion would have now far over 1 M players in the west ... on 32 servers. A laugh if you defend this. In Chine at launch they had 113 servers to serve thsoe 1M players in Korea it was 41 servers for around 400K.

BTW after 2 weeks even the wrongly sampled Xfire numers are DOWN with at least 20% for Aion. So I even think the active number of players is LESS now than the dual launching week of NA/EU. It is clearly less then the first launching weekend.

http://www.xfire.com/games/aion/Aion/ 

Now comes the "above" review of a guy plastering all over the internet.

Remember the NEVER (by NCSoft) confirmed 3.5 million so called Asian players too and I think we ALL get the picture.

Only fools can be fooled into believing in this game.

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

You do not have any hard numbers. You have no idea how much of the servers in china were actually used, just because they launched with that many users doesn't mean that many servers were actually required at that time.

Xfire is NOT a reliable source. It never has been and it never will be.

Remeber that Ncsoft NEVER denied the 3.5 million asian players

Metalhead, you're STILL trying to deceive people by calling it a Lineage clone? haven't you emberassed yourself enough last time by making that comparisson? Stop talking about games you know nothing about.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by solareus

I;'m not playing Saga of Ryzom, Eve or Fallen Earth eithe rbut I can recognize that they are stellar game , stell concepts from content design, visual aesthectics .  If something is justifed, I will respect it. Aion is not justified, here is a question for you, how did the gold sellers have over 100billion in gold ready to ship in Aion in the first week ?

 

Thats a silly argument. So only sandboxes are allowed to get high scores?

Not at all in my opinion Ryzom is a 5.5, FE is a 6.5 and Eve a 7.5.  Personally I think if a game is consider "good" it should get a 5 or 6 at the most.

Aion = 7 and thats a great score imo.

Originally posted by metalhead980

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by solareus

I;'m not playing Saga of Ryzom, Eve or Fallen Earth eithe rbut I can recognize that they are stellar game , stell concepts from content design, visual aesthectics .  If something is justifed, I will respect it. Aion is not justified, here is a question for you, how did the gold sellers have over 100billion in gold ready to ship in Aion in the first week ?

 

Thats a silly argument. So only sandboxes are allowed to get high scores?

 

Not at all in my opinion Ryzom is a 5.5, FE is a 6.5 and Eve a 7.5.  Personally I think if a game is consider "good" it should get a 5 or 6 at the most.

Aion = 7 and thats a great score imo.

5 or 6 is widely considered to be either mediocre or average. Not good.

Guess the staff is losing it...what is next a "top 10 of smoothest mmo launches ever" with darkfall #1?

And yes I have tried this game for a week or so but it didn't do it for me, its not bad but def. not that good!

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by metalhead980

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by solareus

I;'m not playing Saga of Ryzom, Eve or Fallen Earth eithe rbut I can recognize that they are stellar game , stell concepts from content design, visual aesthectics .  If something is justifed, I will respect it. Aion is not justified, here is a question for you, how did the gold sellers have over 100billion in gold ready to ship in Aion in the first week ?

 

Thats a silly argument. So only sandboxes are allowed to get high scores?

 

Not at all in my opinion Ryzom is a 5.5, FE is a 6.5 and Eve a 7.5.  Personally I think if a game is consider "good" it should get a 5 or 6 at the most.

Aion = 7 and thats a great score imo.

5 or 6 is widely considered to be either mediocre or average. Not good.

Average or good is basically the same shit. From 5-6 is playable and isn't for everyone but the targeted fans of that particular game.

"niche" games getting a 5-6 are right on track with the expectations of the developer.

Step away from your console rating background and realize that a game doesn't need a 8 or above to be considered good.

Originally posted by metalhead980

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by metalhead980

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by solareus

I;'m not playing Saga of Ryzom, Eve or Fallen Earth eithe rbut I can recognize that they are stellar game , stell concepts from content design, visual aesthectics .  If something is justifed, I will respect it. Aion is not justified, here is a question for you, how did the gold sellers have over 100billion in gold ready to ship in Aion in the first week ?

 

Thats a silly argument. So only sandboxes are allowed to get high scores?

 

Not at all in my opinion Ryzom is a 5.5, FE is a 6.5 and Eve a 7.5.  Personally I think if a game is consider "good" it should get a 5 or 6 at the most.

Aion = 7 and thats a great score imo.

5 or 6 is widely considered to be either mediocre or average. Not good.

Average or good is basically the same shit. From 5-6 is playable and isn't for everyone but the targeted fans of that particular game.

"niche" games getting a 5-6 are right on track with the expectations of the developer.

Step away from your console rating background and realize that a game doesn't need a 8 or above to be considered good.

A 5 or 6 isn't considered good anywhere. Average and good isn't the same thing, good is above average.

A niche game is a game that has a small specific target audience, to say that the developer expects low scores because its game is designed to appeal to a specific target audience is ridiculous.

I'm sure in your own little world 5 or 6 are good. However a much more common rating system that is recognised pretty much everywhere in the gaming community is this.

Anything below 5 is bad. 5 or 6 is average or mediocre. 7 or 8 is considered good, 9 and 10 are considered really good or great.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Dragonalf

Have to agree with everyone else questioning the scoring of this review.

This question is to Jon Wood: Is the intent of this site to let every review stand on it's own? Or do you guys shoot for a score that compares the new games merits to those that have come before it ... i.e. a relative scoring approach?

Based on the data posted by xyzax, it appears you guys are using a "vacuum" approach to reviews. The reviewer fairly admits that the game does nothing new which screams "average", 7 out of 10, a 'C' grade to most people. He unabashedly admits he likes the art style and there is a general overly-enthusiastic tone to the whole piece. A neutral reader can't help but come away from the review thinking that the meat of the review does not match the tone and final score of the review.

I believe in order for reviews to mean something beyond being a fanboy or hater dissertation corroborating their point of view, there has to be meaning to the scale. A relational approach is more useful in that one can, at a glance, look at the rating of a new game and be able to compare it to the highest (and lowest) rated games to get a relative feel of it's place in the MMO universe.

From the body of evidence around the web and within the MMORPG review itself, the consensus is that Aion is a solid but generic MMO title but certainly not a trendsetter as the MMORPG rating portends.

 

Whoa, wait a minute.

 

Not doing something new equals average? really? You are then saying that if a game does nothing new but there are bugs all over the place and the writing is sub par and the combat is the same type of combat but just doesn't capture any sense of excitement then that is average? Not bad?

And to further that point, if a game uses the same techniques and same types of story telling and combat types but the writing is sharp and exemplary, the combat, though the same type of combat, is fast and exciting and The game is very polished then that is also average?

Reviews should be based around what the game is trying to accomplish and whether or not it does that.

If I review a newly released rock album I'm not going to say "music is in the same stale key signatures, all 4/4 time, maybe something in compound time thrown in, the obligatory quarter note equals 120 which should make you all want to jump out a window, same whiney subject matter about teen angst and rarely modulates to anything other than the dominant. Grade C.

I'm going to say "ok, here is a rock song. It falls in the genre of a rock song so how does it stand up to what a rock song should be?"

Reviews on the same site for the same type of games (MMORPGS) should be relative to each other. If one game gets 8.7 and another gets 8.4 then it should be the opinion of the site, not just the reviewer, that the first game is considered better.

The site publishing the reviews should have some kind of responsibility for the scores they post on the site. Unless the specifically say that the review, and the score, is entirely the opinion of the reviewer and not neccessarily supported by the site.

That way the site would distances themselves for taking responsibility of the review score just based on that statement. So either MMORPG needs to do that or they need to fully admit that they think Aion is the best MMORPG ever reviewed by the site.

Originally posted by metalhead980

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by metalhead980

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by solareus

I;'m not playing Saga of Ryzom, Eve or Fallen Earth eithe rbut I can recognize that they are stellar game , stell concepts from content design, visual aesthectics .  If something is justifed, I will respect it. Aion is not justified, here is a question for you, how did the gold sellers have over 100billion in gold ready to ship in Aion in the first week ?

 

Thats a silly argument. So only sandboxes are allowed to get high scores?

 

Not at all in my opinion Ryzom is a 5.5, FE is a 6.5 and Eve a 7.5.  Personally I think if a game is consider "good" it should get a 5 or 6 at the most.

Aion = 7 and thats a great score imo.

5 or 6 is widely considered to be either mediocre or average. Not good.

Average or good is basically the same shit. From 5-6 is playable and isn't for everyone but the targeted fans of that particular game.

"niche" games getting a 5-6 are right on track with the expectations of the developer.

Step away from your console rating background and realize that a game doesn't need a 8 or above to be considered good.

Say what? Good, in the context of reviews, are relative to other entities, above average. Average is average in relative to other reviews so in no way are they the synonimous.

Having a score system that goes from 1-10 and then saying a score of 5 is good would be very strange since that is the average score in that system and good should then be above that average.

Cant rate this higher then 8/10. Too linear, to standard, to grindy. Beautiful and polished tho

Originally posted by fps_noob

Originally posted by Reion1

Did you guys just rate this game 8.7? HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

 

Yeah ok.

 

Giving this game an 8 would be too much, 7.5 seems about accurate if you're going to try to blow it up like that.  But an 8.7 don't make me laugh.  How would any one rate this game so high when it has such a low amount of classes

Because making extra useless classes is a great idea

LOL. And more classes would be useless how exactly? LOL.

small world

Have you made it past the level 10 area? 

Obviously, because I know there's about four zones to each side.

and gathering/crafting that's a joke. 

How's that?

If you don't know have you made it past level 10?

Timed flying, no mounts

You just said that the map was tiny, what would be the point of mounts then? Also it would make complete sense for your character to be able to fly endlessly without tiring out. Even birds land to rest...

The point of mounts would an alternative to running on foot when you can't find that cliff to jump off.

huge grind

Have you tried doing quests? 

Yes, and there isn't nearly enough as you would want these people to believe.

Anyway, long story short this game is no where close to an 8.7.

tl:dr I don't think you played this game nearly enough to be able to rate it.

I don't think you've played this game enough to be able to reply to my post. 

You can defend and score this game as high as you like.  But the truth is it's going down the tubes, cold hard facts.

8.7 score ............. 1$ per visitor

8.4 score ............. 0.5$ per visitor

8.0 score ............. 0.2$ per visitor

score 6.0 and below if you don't pay anything at all, not even bother to pay us for a big ad. banner.

season special discount: 8.7 score + big flashing ad of a half-naked asian girl for all time best price 1.2$ per visitor.

I actually thought Paragus had a better/more detailed review of the game since he touched on post 25+ more.  By reading that review he'd probably rate it an 8 which is probably where the game falls.  I'm actually surprised that the game got reviewed so quickly, normally it takes much longer for this site to put a review for a game out.  I think the reviewer is correct that Aion becomes almost a different game post level 25.  Perhaps we can have a review that specifically focuses on that part of the game since everyone who plays Aion has developed the slogan 'Wait until level 25'.

Originally posted by mokoleus

i can't believe people can be so ignorant to be upset by a review.... it's quite laughable really.

Disingenuous question. They're not upset by the review, per se. It's more about what the review represents or seems to bring to light. If you haven't picked up on what that is throughout this thread... well.... that would be pretty sad. There's nothing laughable about it.

Also, what does being unhappy about a review have to do with being ignorant?

so please, stop complaining about mmorpg losing cred, if you want to threaten to leave, just leave, find a site that you feel isn't biased.

Wee!! Another would-be censor on mmorpg.com! 'cause we didn't have enough of those already. In every case, the mantra seems to be: "I don't like what you have to say and I don't have the self-control to simply not read it... So you all should go somewhere else".

I'll reitterate what's been said to many others here... as long as people remain within the posting guidelines of mmorpg.com, they are free to express any opinion they like. You, or anyone else, does not have a right to tell, or even suggest that people leave if you don't like what they have to say. You *do* have the right to not read it.

Originally posted by solareus

you got be kidding? Who's website is this ? Sean  Imancsoftfanby or mmorpg.coms website ? 

He wrote this turd to get into the good graces of the Austin studio, and I think it is ignorant for a website to even post reviews without even reading them and actually weighing the scale of what  the website deems fit for publishing.

Is Sean Balgar wanted fame, he has got it with being one of the most unknowledgable writers to have ever had Anything published on this website in the last 3 years I've posted here. You have no idea how angry I am that mmorpg..com doesn't ccare anymore to proof shit and actually say, "you know what, this reviewer is full of fucking shit"

I'm not saying you're wrong Solareus, but I have a few points to make:

1. This is not a reputable news source. It's a gaming website, with a community mostly made up of people who wouldn't know the difference between a reputable and illreputable website. So taking anything seriously on this website is a mistake.

2. You're getting angry over a website, that wrote something biased about a game, a GAME! It's not that serious! So getting angry over it only makes you look like less of a person to those handful of people who actually are worth something on this website.

3. I've been using this website since early 2005, and I only seriously use it for one thing: To learn about what MMO's are releasing soon. They're quick enough to let us know when a mmorpg will be released, so this website is worth putting on your Favorites bar for just that reason. The forums and reviews should be taken with a grain of salt, because it just isn't worth any serious energy or emotions. It's great for some drama filled entertainment, but don't get emotionally involved.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by metalhead980

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by metalhead980

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by solareus

I;'m not playing Saga of Ryzom, Eve or Fallen Earth eithe rbut I can recognize that they are stellar game , stell concepts from content design, visual aesthectics .  If something is justifed, I will respect it. Aion is not justified, here is a question for you, how did the gold sellers have over 100billion in gold ready to ship in Aion in the first week ?

 

Thats a silly argument. So only sandboxes are allowed to get high scores?

 

Not at all in my opinion Ryzom is a 5.5, FE is a 6.5 and Eve a 7.5.  Personally I think if a game is consider "good" it should get a 5 or 6 at the most.

Aion = 7 and thats a great score imo.

5 or 6 is widely considered to be either mediocre or average. Not good.

Average or good is basically the same shit. From 5-6 is playable and isn't for everyone but the targeted fans of that particular game.

"niche" games getting a 5-6 are right on track with the expectations of the developer.

Step away from your console rating background and realize that a game doesn't need a 8 or above to be considered good.

A 5 or 6 isn't considered good anywhere. Average and good isn't the same thing, good is above average.

A niche game is a game that has a small specific target audience, to say that the developer expects low scores because its game is designed to appeal to a specific target audience is ridiculous.

I'm sure in your own little world 5 or 6 are good. However a much more common rating system that is recognised pretty much everywhere in the gaming community is this.

Anything below 5 is bad. 5 or 6 is average or mediocre. 7 or 8 is considered good, 9 and 10 are considered really good or great.

this right here shows how flawed the system is.

Shouldnt a 10 be a perfect game? have you ever played a perfect game? I know I havent.

Anyway the rating system means nothing, read the guys review The con calls Aion a mostly standard mmo.

A standard MMO deserves to be #1 on the site?

Im just surprised that a site called mmorpg.com writes a shallow review like this one. I would expect something with more depth than the regular gaming sites but this was a real dissapointment.

It doesnt say more of the game than reading the Aion website about the features of the game...

Deleted

Originally posted by Yamota

Reviews on the same site for the same type of games (MMORPGS) should be relative to each other. If one game gets 8.7 and another gets 8.4 then it should be the opinion of the site, not just the reviewer, that the first game is considered better.

The site publishing the reviews should have some kind of responsibility for the scores they post on the site. Unless the specifically say that the review, and the score, is entirely the opinion of the reviewer and not neccessarily supported by the site.

That way the site would distances themselves for taking responsibility of the review score just based on that statement. So either MMORPG needs to do that or they need to fully admit that they think Aion is the best MMORPG ever reviewed by the site.

That's logical.

Originally posted by metalhead980

this right here shows how flawed the system is.

Shouldnt a 10 be a perfect game? have you ever played a perfect game? I know I havent.

Anyway the rating system means nothing, read the guys review The con calls Aion a mostly standard mmo.

A standard MMO deserves to be #1 on the site?

It'd make sense that 10 represents perfection, but let's temper this with reality. Nothing is perfect, so perfection shouldn't be the standard of measurement. Instead, what's offered should be measured against the ideal, and against other games in the same genre.

So a 10 would represent top of the line graphics, stellar gameplay, feature rich, great customer support, no stability problems with recommended specs, bug-free, and great replayability. A 1 would obviously be the complete opposite of that. A 5 would be right in the middle, or average. It's not the only way to rate a game, but it makes sense to me. It sounds logical.

While innovation would be nice, it's not needed to create a great game, so I don't count innovation, evolution, or revolution of the genre as a requirement to get a great score. It certainly helps, but does not hinder at all.

Also, whether a game is sandbox or themepark doesn't weigh in either, because that's just a preference, which is highly subjective. The same goes for fun.

Graphics are either techinically good or not good. A low graphical game can still look good artistically, but it wouldn't compare to a game that looked as real as technology allows.

Gameplay can be measured by how responsive your character is in combat, and how smooth the game flows from one task to the next, one area to the next and so on. It also represents how well things are put together, and if it is logical. Complicated things seem like a no brainer when it flows and is put together well.

Feature rich means there's a lot of features. Features can be anything that enhances gameplay, such as a great and customizable UI, housing, and even an auction house. Features can be as many or as few as a developer likes, but it's a tangible that adds value to a game if they work and doesn't inhibit gameplay. For example, a death penalty is a feature, but it's a feature that can be done right or wrong. You know if it's right or wrong by if it feels natural to the game.

Great customer support is easily measured. A website that offers everything a person could possibly need? Good communication between the company and players? Technical support? In-game support? Preventive and Counter measures to cheating, botting, and illegal RMT? Speed and efficiency of service both in and out of the game?

Stability problems. Server related lag? Works well on recommended specs at the intended graphic settings? CTD's?

Bugs. No noticable bugs in sight?

Replayability? Can I play the game from 1-max level without repeating content more than once? Twice? How many times? With how many classes and races? Combinations?

Now first id like to say Aion is polished and has a pretty good story to it. But come on a 8.7 LOL this game is should be ranked in the 7ish range.