Originally posted by Euphoryk

What baffles me more than anything, is how they could include FE among the 10 Best MMOs Since WoW (which, lets be frank, says ALOT about just how solid this recently launched indy mmo really is) and then let an independent reviewer score it as mediocre.

Ok, so the reviewers score is his own, we get that. However, is there not some final say or needed approval by the "senior staff" before these reviews are frontpaged? and if so, why do reviews like this ever make it to the frontpage to begin with? especially when they seem to contradict this own sites opinion (as presented in the 10 Best MMOs since... article mentioned above) of said game in question.

This is the exact reaon why i said that they should really leave scores and opinions off their reviews!!!

Because taking this further implies:

According to MMORPG.com: "There have only been 9 games released to date since WoW that are NOT mediocre!"

You guys just can't be giving numerical scores to games, then, if it just ends up being the subjective opinion "a finger in the air" of whomever is doing the review. People come here and want to see game ratings, but they mean nothing since you obviously don't have a standardized scoring system for your reviewers to follow. It definitely isn't professional to do things in this fashion.

I've not noticed lag (from the UK), but since the reviewer mentioned prime time, I can't discount that I guess. My prime time is obviously quite different from a US one.

Originally posted by Euphoryk

However, is there not some final say or needed approval by the "senior staff" before these reviews are frontpaged? and if so, why do reviews like this ever make it to the frontpage to begin with? especially when they seem to contradict this own sites opinion (as presented in the 10 Best MMOs since... article mentioned above) of said game in question.

Because Dana Massey's opinion differs from Joe Iuliani's? Different people are different.

 Well heres the thing.  Does this score dictate the entirety of the views of MMORPG.com?  Its the reviewers own score, to that i can understand. Now is it just some guys review? Or does this reflect the view of MMORPG.com? 

Now thats fine if 6.9 was what the reviewer decided on.  Its also okay that the review was positive up until the "lag"  issue which is only rebuked later in the thread when it was actually said the game runs "more smoothly"  when less players are on. (lag goes by region mainly, it could be laggy in odenville but smooth in pass chris).   Anyways, I'm not trying to debunk a reviewer of their review.  Obviously something strange seemed off.  No this game shouldn't be a 9 or anything, but 6.9 just seemed to be right on the cusp but purposely falling short due to unforseen reasons.

IGN gave Fallen earth an 8.1(impressive) they gave Aion an 8.5(Great). Yes there's a gap between them but not nearly as much. This is at least consistent, though they roughly give all MMO's about the same rating. For a little contrast both sites also reviewed WOW, IGN gave it a 9.1. Where MMORPG gave it a 7.0.

Now arguably Aion is simply wow with an asian theme. If you go by your reviews Aion was a much better game than wow, better than any other as well. I understand you guys don't want to sound bias or bribed, but something is wrong here. Your reviews are advertised as your score, as in MMORPG's. It's not really stated as our affiliate's score. Definitely something that you should think about changing.

I think Mediocre sums FE quite good.

Originally posted by Goob

Think above yourself when rating the time and effort that has been spent on something you can so easily strike down with a bad score. FE deserves that extra 0.1 for what it has accomplished (and I am basing that up against the rest of the genre, not against my preferences). It wouldn't have cost you much, Mr. Reviewer, but you selfishly wanted to wound the game.

 

That's exactly the problem my friend.
These so called reviewers score the game thinking that their taste in games will be shared by everyone....................how bloody naive.

When you review a game the most important thing is to acknowledge if OTHER people will like it, not if YOU like it.

Following your logic I would have given Aion a 4, but knowing some people will like it and acknowledging that the game has some solid features I would have given it a 7 as a reviewer.
How difficult it is to put yourself in other people shoes?

C'mon get quality reviewers or give up all together.

Originally posted by Stradden

Because Dana Massey's opinion differs from Joe Iuliani's? Different people are different.

Obvious answer is obvious. What a cop out.

I'll be using TTH or Massively for my info from now on.

What a terrible review. After Aion's overinflated review it calls into question every other review from mmorpg.

Its pretty obvious to anyone who has played the game the reviewer has either not tweeked his system per recommendations or has some issue with hardware. The lag (even at primetime) he describes is not the experiance for the majority of the playerbase. Logic dictates if the lag was this bad the playerbase would not be there at all, certainly would't post such high player reviews.

The reviewer has obviously not spent a lot of time in the game as well. He said himself his lag issue made it unplayable for him, so its fairly apparent he spent a minimum amount of time actually playing the game.

On the whole the review reads like the reviewer had a hardware issue that frustrated them and slapped a knee jerk reationary review.

Originally posted by ste2000

 

These so called reviewers score the game thinking that their taste in games will be shared by everyone....................how bloody naive.

 

A 1000 times more naive than 'bloody' since 50% of MMORPG forum posts are arguments about what people's opinions are on different games.

So his/her machine was above the minimum, why was there so much lag? States they checked the internet speed, though it could have been a router in between the client and server.

2 gig of video ram with 4 gig of system ram should have been plenty even with running 3850s, at optimum settings there should have been minimal lag even at peak times.

Something is not right there unless this review was done prior to the performance patch.

what was the res played at?  2560 x 1600 d-dvi?

EDIT...NM I see the light...j/k

reviewed other games all above rating he gave FE and all lower in hype/rating and none of which are in the top 20 of this same site.

Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures  -  Re-Review -  07/23/09  - Joe Iuliani  -  7.0
World of Warcraft Wrath of the Lich King  - Review -  01/02/09  - Joe Iuliani -  9.2
Hellgate: London -  Review  - 04/15/08  - Joe Iuliani -  7.0
Dungeon Runners -  Review - 04/08/08 -  Joe Iuliani - 7.9

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by Euphoryk

However, is there not some final say or needed approval by the "senior staff" before these reviews are frontpaged? and if so, why do reviews like this ever make it to the frontpage to begin with? especially when they seem to contradict this own sites opinion (as presented in the 10 Best MMOs since... article mentioned above) of said game in question.

Because Dana Massey's opinion differs from Joe Iuliani's? Different people are different.

Agree, but you should allow only people who is unbiased to review game ( or at least who tries to)

We all agree people is different and being completely objective is impossible, but the credibility of a reviewer is built on the ability to rate different kind of products with a certain degree of objectivity.

In the case of Aion, it is obvious the lad was a fanboy, even what he writes in the review contraddicts his own rating score.
I am still laughing my ass at Aion score, and no I do not hate Aion which is actually a decent game, but objectively it is not the best MMO out there, not even close.

Sorry Jon, you need to pick people who plays different genres of MMORPG and knows what people is looking in that particular genre.

If 1) the largest complaint the reviewer has is the lag and 2) the vast majority of other players are not experiencing the lag then 3) you'd think the reviewer would do more research to see who's fault the lag is. Especially with the whole "does not meet system specs" thing floating around (the reviewer's comments/complaints passed on here clearly indicate they don't have enough RAM, regardless of the reviewer saying they meet system specs), it just seems weird that a game would be dis'ed for something that it can't control.

But, hey, it is generating activity (I'm posting something). Kudos. :)

Originally posted by Stradden

As for the score: That's the score that the reviewer chose to give the game. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it but in the end when asked that the game was worth, he told me 6.9. Not everyone is going to like the same kinds of game. In the end, a reviewer scores a game based on his or her own opinions of it.

 

I don't really agree with that. To me a review should be an objective report on a game, using pre-defined scoring categories and a standardized scoring scale. Now, that's certainly a bit optimistic, but I think the recent reviews published here don't do this otherwise great site justice....

My review of the Review of Fallen Earth:

--The reviewer suggests that starting off in a non-pistol oriented town is too difficult. This is far too much personal opinion. What works good for you "by starting off in a pistol town" may not work for someone else. It should be stated, "you can start off in a pistol, rifle, or melee town depending on what fits your initial playstyle, but neither of them are so conforming to a single combat form". Leave your opinion out of it, I have a functional brain and can make my own opinion thank you very much.

--It states that crafting in the game is extremely intensive and is worthy of its own article. But two sentences later is states "it works like most crafting systems." To me this is contradictory. If it is just like all the other crafting systems, why does it merit its own article?

--"I found it a little unwieldy with a keyboard and a mouse." Well thanks for your opinion, I found it to work best with a keyboard and a mouse. Everyone has their own way of what controls works best for them. Say something to the effect that you can use a keyboard\mouse combination or control pad depending on what gives you better control. But the way it is stated has far too much personal opinion in it. This is a review, not "Joe Schmoe's Personal Playstyle Reference Guide."

--It goes on to give advice on how to perform combat. Such as hit and move and take your time targeting. Is this an advice column? Later on he says how much he died (albeit due to lag). I'm not exactly feeling the validity of the advice here since he ended up dyeing so much. Not only that's, but this is a review , not a playguide or advice column (gee, see a recurring theme here?). If he dies cause of lag all the time, how can you properly employ hit and move to see if it is a valid combat technique? Again, leave your own expert advice out of a review please - I have a brain and will find my own technique that serves me well.

--It states the UI is fairly standard. That's just not the case. It failed to mention you can minimize everything in different positions than they are maximized, everything is resizable\adjustable (how many MMO's have you played that have the typical immovable hotbar at the bottom of the screen?) While I don't consider his write-up of the UI an opinion so I can't speak negatively about that, the review leaves out aspects of the UI that are not 'fairly standard'

--"Fast paced combat is not for everyone." Well guess what? There is no MMO or facet of an MMO that everyone is going to like. To say some people will like it and some people wont is incredibly obvious and can be said for every single game ever made in the history of gaming.

--"Fallen earth players are passionate about the game" This implies other people are not passionate about their other games. Also, are you reviewing their forums or the game? Putting a blurb in about your review of the forum is not relevant and highly subjective.

Overall score of the review of Fallen Earth: 6.9

His review only re-affirms of why I come here: Forum entertainment only.

How is this game considered sandbox when the world itself is linear? (s1, s2, s3)

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

I've spoken extensively with the reviewer. There was actually a mistake made in the original text. Originally, he was talking about the RAM in the dual video cards, and neglected to mention system RAM. His machine, on top of the video cards, has 4 Gb RAM, more than enough to meet the minimum requirements.

He also assures me that the offending lag comes at peak times and the game does run more smootly when there are fewer players online.

My sincere apologies for any problems that this caused to people. As you can imagine, this has been a bit of an embarasing situation for me. I really should have caught this on my edit of the review. So, continue to crucify me if you want to, but that was my bad and I'm sorry.

As for the score: That's the score that the reviewer chose to give the game. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it but in the end when asked that the game was worth, he told me 6.9. Not everyone is going to like the same kinds of game. In the end, a reviewer scores a game based on his or her own opinions of it.

 

That's odd, as the card listed never had a 1gb model. only a 512. Its only 1GB when in dual mode, meaning it has a max of 1GB. And at this time FE does not support dual cards, so, hes back down to 512 again, and a old card that is no longer sold.

Now, everyone has performance issues in some of the major cities, but clearly, this is not the only place he is referring to, and I suspect, again... His system is to blame if it was worth putting in the cons two times.

i'm not sure where the review "rating" came from

from what i read it sounded darn close to an 8 and got me interested in seeing if there is a trial - - - i guess the lag is so bad the game slid to its 6.9

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

I've spoken extensively with the reviewer. There was actually a mistake made in the original text. Originally, he was talking about the RAM in the dual video cards, and neglected to mention system RAM. His machine, on top of the video cards, has 4 Gb RAM, more than enough to meet the minimum requirements.

He also assures me that the offending lag comes at peak times and the game does run more smootly when there are fewer players online.

My sincere apologies for any problems that this caused to people. As you can imagine, this has been a bit of an embarasing situation for me. I really should have caught this on my edit of the review. So, continue to crucify me if you want to, but that was my bad and I'm sorry.

As for the score: That's the score that the reviewer chose to give the game. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it but in the end when asked that the game was worth, he told me 6.9. Not everyone is going to like the same kinds of game. In the end, a reviewer scores a game based on his or her own opinions of it.

 

That's odd, as the card listed never had a 1gb model. only a 512. Its only 1GB when in dual mode, meaning it has a max of 1GB. And at this time FE does not support dual cards, so, hes back down to 512 again, and a old card that is no longer sold.

Now, everyone has performance issues in some of the major cities, but clearly, this is not the only place he is referring to, and I suspect, again... His system is to blame if it was worth putting in the cons two times.

 

ooooo  Thems' fightin' words.  can't wait to see where this goes. :)

Originally posted by Lasastard

Originally posted by Stradden

As for the score: That's the score that the reviewer chose to give the game. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it but in the end when asked that the game was worth, he told me 6.9. Not everyone is going to like the same kinds of game. In the end, a reviewer scores a game based on his or her own opinions of it.

 

 

I don't really agree with that. To me a review should be an objective report on a game, using pre-defined scoring categories and a standardized scoring scale. Now, that's certainly a bit optimistic, but I think the recent reviews published here don't do this otherwise great site justice....

Totally agree with you mate.

If there is not a standarised structure on the review system, then any average Joe can review a MMO, and as lately there are too many average Joe reviewing stuff in MMORPG.com

Stradden, will you accept my review of Aion as well?
It can't be any worse than the "official" one.
Or are you willing to leave a 9.3 score to a game which in 2 months will have less than 300K subs? (anyone who has a minimun of experience in MMORPGs can predict that easily)

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

I've spoken extensively with the reviewer. There was actually a mistake made in the original text. Originally, he was talking about the RAM in the dual video cards, and neglected to mention system RAM. His machine, on top of the video cards, has 4 Gb RAM, more than enough to meet the minimum requirements.

He also assures me that the offending lag comes at peak times and the game does run more smootly when there are fewer players online.

My sincere apologies for any problems that this caused to people. As you can imagine, this has been a bit of an embarasing situation for me. I really should have caught this on my edit of the review. So, continue to crucify me if you want to, but that was my bad and I'm sorry.

As for the score: That's the score that the reviewer chose to give the game. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it but in the end when asked that the game was worth, he told me 6.9. Not everyone is going to like the same kinds of game. In the end, a reviewer scores a game based on his or her own opinions of it.

 

That's odd, as the card listed never had a 1gb model. only a 512. Its only 1GB when in dual mode, meaning it has a max of 1GB. And at this time FE does not support dual cards, so, hes back down to 512 again, and a old card that is no longer sold.

Now, everyone has performance issues in some of the major cities, but clearly, this is not the only place he is referring to, and I suspect, again... His system is to blame if it was worth putting in the cons two times.

 

They just keep digging that hole deeper.

I must say, the most interesting and troubling thing i see about this, is that people give any relevance or importance to a MMORPG.com "review" to begin with ......

I mean come on.Even looking beyond that most of the reviews seem myoptic,amateurish, and nonsensical...You have that each reviewer uses his own personal scoring method...What the heck is the point of keeping score,if the scores are decided by different rules based on an individuals personal feelings...

Grain of salt ? A whole salt mine wont fix or cover this.

And yes, if you dont know it yet...IF for some reason its escaped you...mmorpg is just a site for advertising mmos,where the developers can get things said thru a proxy.Do the "news" articles read like PR releases ? Of course they do.Its just advertising.

If it wasnt for the forums where the customers can actually put up what they think, this site would be absolutely useless for the customer base.

Originally posted by Tethered

Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures  -  Re-Review -  07/23/09  - Joe Iuliani  -  7.0  - Decent tile, at best mediation.
World of Warcraft Wrath of the Lich King  - Review -  01/02/09  - Joe Iuliani -  9.2 - 800Lb gorilla
Hellgate: London -  Review  - 04/15/08  - Joe Iuliani -  7.0 - Shut down
Dungeon Runners -  Review - 04/08/08 -  Joe Iuliani - 7.9  - Shut down

 

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

I've spoken extensively with the reviewer. There was actually a mistake made in the original text. Originally, he was talking about the RAM in the dual video cards, and neglected to mention system RAM. His machine, on top of the video cards, has 4 Gb RAM, more than enough to meet the minimum requirements.

He also assures me that the offending lag comes at peak times and the game does run more smootly when there are fewer players online.

My sincere apologies for any problems that this caused to people. As you can imagine, this has been a bit of an embarasing situation for me. I really should have caught this on my edit of the review. So, continue to crucify me if you want to, but that was my bad and I'm sorry.

As for the score: That's the score that the reviewer chose to give the game. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it but in the end when asked that the game was worth, he told me 6.9. Not everyone is going to like the same kinds of game. In the end, a reviewer scores a game based on his or her own opinions of it.

 

That's odd, as the card listed never had a 1gb model. only a 512. Its only 1GB when in dual mode, meaning it has a max of 1GB. And at this time FE does not support dual cards, so, hes back down to 512 again, and a old card that is no longer sold.

Now, everyone has performance issues in some of the major cities, but clearly, this is not the only place he is referring to, and I suspect, again... His system is to blame if it was worth putting in the cons two times.

 

Very interesting.
 

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by Tethered

Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures  -  Re-Review -  07/23/09  - Joe Iuliani  -  7.0  - Decent tile, at best mediation.
World of Warcraft Wrath of the Lich King  - Review -  01/02/09  - Joe Iuliani -  9.2 - 800Lb gorilla
Hellgate: London -  Review  - 04/15/08  - Joe Iuliani -  7.0 - Shut down
Dungeon Runners -  Review - 04/08/08 -  Joe Iuliani - 7.9  - Shut down

 

 

 

BAM. He's a WoW player. Explains some, and I find it funny that AoC was ranked on par or below HGL and DR, hahahaha. There he goes again completely neglecting good aspects of a game just because of his own dissatisfaction. AoC had beautiful graphics, sound, and was quite unique. Give it some credit there. HGL launch was disastrous.

Although, AoC didnt deserve much more than 7, but thats on my own scale. And because of the at-launch end-game. Which I'm sure he didn't get to.