To be fair, he is still in the range of minimum settings. But anyone with a lick of computing knowledge, or even gaming experience knows, minimum settings means "It will boot", it has ZERO to do with playability.

Also, lag is network latency, Performance is Frames per second and rendering.

I've been coming here for years.  Just about every review or article I've read by Dana I have agreed with to some degree.

I think we see eye to eye on a lot of things.

I completely disagree with his score on this game.  I cannot believe that his true review could be summed up

with the score that was provided.  I can only assume there was a secondary issue affecting his judgement while writing and

scoring this particular game.  It was easy to believe his system was far below the required specs for the game.  It is even more

difficult to believe he gave this review using a system that meets or exceeds the specs required.

I hate to say it but I will not be taking Dana's future reviews as seriously because of this.

Originally posted by GreenWidow

I've been coming here for years.  Just about every review or article I've read by Dana I have agreed with to some degree.

I think we see eye to eye on a lot of things.

I completely disagree with his score on this game.  I cannot believe that his true review could be summed up

with the score that was provided.  I can only assume there was a secondary issue affecting his judgement while writing and

scoring this particular game.  It was easy to believe his system was far below the required specs for the game.  It is even more

difficult to believe he gave this review using a system that meets or exceeds the specs required.

I hate to say it but I will not be taking Dana's future reviews as seriously because of this.

Dana Massey did not write, or having anything to do with, this FE review. Thanks for coming.

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

To be fair, he is still in the range of minimum settings. But anyone with a lick of computing knowledge, or even gaming experience knows, minimum settings means "It will boot", it has ZERO to do with playability.

Also, lag is network latency, Performance is Frames per second and rendering.

I think he stated his true specs in the original post.

"I am running AoC with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem."

Ive never met anyone call their video ram "Corsair ", only their system ram.

Seriously, I think the reviewer needs to be reviewed.

I know it's a given, but all reviews should have a disclaimer on the bottom stating that the views expressed in the review do not represent the views of MMORPG.  That said MMORPG needs to be held somewhat accountable for what they have posted on their site.

A review is opinion and therefore can't be 'wrong' and as Dana has stated the review is the opinion of the reviewer only, I see his point. However Dana has should be held responsible for ensuring the review was fair, how can you take the word of someone on the rating of a game when they personally state they couldn't play it most of the time. Hello?

Wether he likes it or not Dana has to realise that people look at the ratings of games when they come to this site and when they look at that current list of review scores how can you expect to have an ounze of respect? There is absolutely no consistency at all, so what's the point in having it there? In the end it's hard not to believe this was a Eurogamer caper, maybe the hits per month had dropped or something?

Originally posted by Malickie

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.

^^ THIS!

Stradden, don't pull that 'independent reviewer' excuse when you embrace those independent reviewers scores as the "our rating" mmorpg scores.

Kind of a disgrace for mmorpg.com to crush such a great addition to the genre. It isn't perfect yet but it has certain very appealing qualities over other games. I'm really dissappointed in my mmorpg hometurf right now.

Also; the player rating of this game should have rang some bells with the mmorpg.com crew.

Please get some better, objective reviewers and/or give your whole system of reviewing games a solid overhaul. Invite some players to the table as well, and discuss what the 'our rating' will be before you hand out the final verdict.
 

Fallen Earth clearly deserves a higher rating then 6.9. With all the work and polish going on, it will soon be a masterpiece. Keep it up devs!

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

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.

 

Interesting.

So the gist of this all is that we had a biased reviewer assigned to the game (this is undeniable, especially when one looks at the writers past reviews and scores), he barely reviews the game at all and then scores it mediocre.

It is shortly after determined that the Reviewer's PC doesn't even meet the minimum requirements, then we are fed some halfbaked excuse by the sites Managing Editor about the reviewers system actually being fine, which is later proven to be false by a forum user.

What a fiasco.

Who cares for what MMORPG says? IGN gave it 8.1 and that was a well written and professional review. Good enough for me. Majority of players know that FE deserves rating between 7 and 8.

Also the lag reviewer mentioned is hardware side and not the server. 2gb ram? really?

Originally posted by mmo4life

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

To be fair, he is still in the range of minimum settings. But anyone with a lick of computing knowledge, or even gaming experience knows, minimum settings means "It will boot", it has ZERO to do with playability.

Also, lag is network latency, Performance is Frames per second and rendering.

 

I think he stated his true specs in the original post.

"I am running AoC with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem."

Ive never met anyone call their video ram "Corsair ", only their system ram.

What?

That kind of set up was barely good to run AoC 2 years ago..................buy more RAM for the win (not that the rest of the system is up for it either)
And then he complains about the lag...................Jeez

 

Originally posted by GreenWidow

I've been coming here for years.  Just about every review or article I've read by Dana I have agreed with to some degree.

I think we see eye to eye on a lot of things.

I completely disagree with his score on this game.  I cannot believe that his true review could be summed up

with the score that was provided.  I can only assume there was a secondary issue affecting his judgement while writing and

scoring this particular game.  It was easy to believe his system was far below the required specs for the game.  It is even more

difficult to believe he gave this review using a system that meets or exceeds the specs required.

I hate to say it but I will not be taking Dana's future reviews as seriously because of this.

Whats up GreenWidow,

Apparently the reviewer was Joe Iuliani.

And was also the reviewer of these games as well.

Dungeon Runners got a 7.9

Age of Conan (Levels 1-20) got a 7.9

Hellgate London a 7.0

Here is the link to other reviewers from mmorpg.com

www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3164970/Is-this-really-the-best-year-of-MMOs-EVER-Really.html#3164970

Just a couple of things to throw out there.  All the people whining about 'omg 2 gigs on vista? lawl' are being moronic.  2 gigs on vista is plenty if you set it up right.

Second, it's very, very possible that the reviewer played the game right after release, and based the review on the lag troubles that they had with some locations and connections then.  This doesn't necessarily mean that he was having fps problems.  It very well could have been lag.

Having said that, I currently run FE on a system that has a slightly worse processor, slightly better ram (still only 2 gigs), same OS, /and/ a much worse graphics card (single X1650 pro) than him, and it works just fine.  This is why I'm led to believe he really did have problems with lag, not fps issues.

Now, all that said, I don't agree with the final score.  I think it's much, much too harsh for just lag and nothing else.

Just felt I needed to throw my voice out there, to show some of the people on this forum how much they're frothing at the mouth currently.  Now, feel free to flame me for my honest post, frothers!

Dear reviewer, ofcourse you suffered so much lag since you are running 2gb ram gaming rig. However, you forgot to differentiate between system and server lag. I would like to review you and give you -1/10 for not even meeting the minimum requirements before attempting to review FE.

Originally posted by Bhawke21

Just a couple of things to throw out there.  All the people whining about 'omg 2 gigs on vista? lawl' are being moronic.  2 gigs on vista is plenty if you set it up right.

 

Most important is, it's below min. requirement listed on FE website here: 

http://www.fallenearth.com/node/16

Minimum Hardware Requirements
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHz or Athlon 64X2 2.4 GHz
RAM: 2.0 GB for XP, 3.0 GB for Vista
 

Stradden response was predictable -> Oh he said 2gb corsair ram? He meant 2gb GPU and 4GB ram.

The reviews were always silly here, but now this is extreme.

I think AION's score was way too high, 7.2 maybe.  But obviously, some people around here like much more than I do.

To me, FE's score was a bit to HIGH.  I wouldn't give this game more than a 6.5.  That's right, I'm not afraid to admit it.  This is 2009 and there is absolutely no excuse for the graphics looking like something from around 2002.  The gameplay is HORRIBLE.  The only saving grace about the entire game is the crafting.  It is unique and fun.  I wouldn't play this game continously for F2P much less subscription.

Originally posted by Bhawke21
blah blah.... i want to start flame war.. i am so desperate

No you are not worth it. And yes 2GB ram might be minimum what is required for Vista but not for playing games on Vista.

Originally posted by Bhawke21

Just a couple of things to throw out there.  All the people whining about 'omg 2 gigs on vista? lawl' are being moronic.  2 gigs on vista is plenty if you set it up right.

Second, it's very, very possible that the reviewer played the game right after release, and based the review on the lag troubles that they had with some locations and connections then.  This doesn't necessarily mean that he was having fps problems.  It very well could have been lag.

Having said that, I currently run FE on a system that has a slightly worse processor, slightly better ram (still only 2 gigs), same OS, /and/ a much worse graphics card (single X1650 pro) than him, and it works just fine.  This is why I'm led to believe he really did have problems with lag, not fps issues.

Now, all that said, I don't agree with the final score.  I think it's much, much too harsh for just lag and nothing else.

 

Just felt I needed to throw my voice out there, to show some of the people on this forum how much they're frothing at the mouth currently.  Now, feel free to flame me for my honest post, frothers!

I think you have ok points.

But a Reviewer should always 100% of the time review with a machine that meets the games minumum specs. Most review sites/mags will review at  recommended  specs.

Originally posted by Thillian

Most important is, it's below min. requirement listed on FE website here: 

http://www.fallenearth.com/node/16

Minimum Hardware Requirements
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHz or Athlon 64X2 2.4 GHz
RAM: 2.0 GB for XP, 3.0 GB for Vista
 

Stradden response was predictable -> Oh he said 2gb corsair ram? He meant 2gb GPU and 4GB ram.

The reviews were always silly here, but now this is extreme.

I know it's below min.  Just saying, that that doesn't necessarily account for the 'lag' he was having, like all the screaming people on here seem to think.  I run it just fine on 2 gigs of ram.

Originally posted by Shannia

I think AION's score was way too high, 7.2 maybe.  But obviously, some people around here like much more than I do.

To me, FE's score was a bit to HIGH.  I wouldn't give this game more than a 6.5.  That's right, I'm not afraid to admit it.  This is 2009 and there is absolutely no excuse for the graphics looking like something from around 2002.  The gameplay is HORRIBLE.  The only saving grace about the entire game is the crafting.  It is unique and fun.  I wouldn't play this game continously for F2P much less subscription.

 

Since when good gameplay has anything to do with shiny graphics? and if you can crank your setting all the way up, FE looks damn good. People like you only care for fluff where as for us who enjoy FE gameplay is what matters.

Originally posted by Getalife

Originally posted by Shannia

I think AION's score was way too high, 7.2 maybe.  But obviously, some people around here like much more than I do.

To me, FE's score was a bit to HIGH.  I wouldn't give this game more than a 6.5.  That's right, I'm not afraid to admit it.  This is 2009 and there is absolutely no excuse for the graphics looking like something from around 2002.  The gameplay is HORRIBLE.  The only saving grace about the entire game is the crafting.  It is unique and fun.  I wouldn't play this game continously for F2P much less subscription.

 

 

Since when good gameplay has anything to do with shiny graphics? and if you can crank your setting all the way up, FE looks damn good. People like you only care for fluff where as for us who enjoy FE gameplay is what matters.

Also, Icarus' patch yesterday cleaned up a bunch of their models/meshes that were messed up.  It also added a ton of ... er ... very mature voice-overs. ;)

Originally posted by Bhawke21

Originally posted by Thillian

Most important is, it's below min. requirement listed on FE website here: 

http://www.fallenearth.com/node/16

Minimum Hardware Requirements
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHz or Athlon 64X2 2.4 GHz
RAM: 2.0 GB for XP, 3.0 GB for Vista
 

Stradden response was predictable -> Oh he said 2gb corsair ram? He meant 2gb GPU and 4GB ram.

The reviews were always silly here, but now this is extreme.

 

I know it's below min.  Just saying, that that doesn't necessarily account for the 'lag' he was having, like all the screaming people on here seem to think.  I run it just fine on 2 gigs of ram.

But unless you meet the specs , how can you says its the game on a review? 

 it's a sad day when crap like aion out scores games like fallen earth

Since when did I say I like graphics over game play?  I'm saying that the graphic style there is crap.  They could have done a much better job on the graphic style.  I'm not talking about system performance because of said graphics.  There is a difference.  Also, game play is a lot more important to me than mature voice overs.   To me, FE devs focused on the wrong things in creating this game.  That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.