Lets not let this get out of hand - lets keep the personal attacks and what not out of this thread.

I understand Stradden's points about having some editorial control over the scores.  I understand why editors would prefer the hands off approach.  However, at the same time, this is a publication.  In a review such as this, it becomes MMORPG.com's review of Fallen Earth and that is how most readers are going to see it.  Yes, it was written by so-and-so, and it may be so-and-so's review, but we (the readers) will see it as MMORPG.com's review.  With that said, because I see it as MMORPG.com's review, I expect it to go through an editing process to keep it in line with other reviews.  As someone pointed out, what is the point of having a score if the scores themselves don't relate to one another.

And frankly, this hasn't been the first review I've questioned and it probably won't be the last, but if I was an editor and this was submitted to me, the first bit of feedback I would have given the writer is that the writeup doesn't exactly line up with the score.  The writeup was mostly positive with the only negative being lag.  Yeah, as a player, I might agree with the score, but as an editor, I would understand readers enough that at the minimum, either score or write up be changed to better reflect the other.  If the writer's experience was truly 6.9 then he left something out or didn't describe other problems appropriately.  If not, then he may be putting too much emphasis on the one issue described.  

And as for review guidelines....

For example, when evaluating the art behind a game, a good reviewer will separate his/her artistic preference from how well the art in the game was made.  The quality of the animations?  The detail of the textures?  Is the aesthetic consistent? Etc...

You would go through other aspects and evaluate them similarly, separating your personal taste from quantifiable aspects.

And then of course, the overall evaluation would be based on how well these aspects come together.  A good reviewer should be able to play a game he or she does not or would not want to play but still provide readers with a useful review and completely remove him/herself from that preferential bias. 

Originally posted by Skatty2007

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Shannia

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.

 

 

We are talking 'reviews' here not opinions i am afraid.

 

Reviews are opinions. It's Mr. Iuliani's call to write the review he did and give it a score that does not reflect what he has written. It's also our good fortune to be able to respond on a linked forum and state that his score is off base. We can then only hope that anyone reading the review, then looking at the score (with the subsequent thought of "WTF") will then refer to the various posts related to that thread.

Knowing that the majority of people post when they dislike something and seeing the overwhelming positive replies here for the game, and mixing that with other game sites giving more realistic scores, anyone looking for information can conclude that the score here isn't right and not to give it much credence.

Worry not. Joe Iuliani won't be the downfall of Fallen Earth. It'll do just fine without his endorsement or patronage.

 

Reviews are not opinions they are reviews and opinions are opinions...

I refer you to Skatty2007's post on page 3 of this thread :

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.

 

Ahh, I smell what you're cooking. Your saying a review should, in essence, be (in no particular order):

1) You press enter to access the chat line.

2) The inventory is access by pressing the "I" key or clicking on the UI link marked "Inventory".

Kinda of a step by step of what does what. A mechanical or technical review as opposed to an impression or opinion review.

 

Those are a bit simplistic examples, but yes.  A review should be about how the game presents itself, not the experience that the review had while playing the game.

For instance the game may have a rich story line.  One may not like the actual story details that the game reviewer experiences, but it can be well done.  Therefore the review should say the game has a well developed story and rate the game in part on how well that story is developed, rather than the experience that reviewer had while playing out that story.  It should say something to the effect that if you one feels a rish story is important, the game may fit you well.

---------------

There is in inherent conflict of interest in making a review of a game.  You are either going to like the game or not like the game.  But one has to separate those emotions in making an unbaised review - and that has to be hard to do, I'll definitely admit that.  That's why not everyone is qualified to write a review because some people are unable to do that.

In my opinion, that was not the case for this review, therefore this review is meaningless regardless of whatever score was given.

The highlighted in an opinion. My wife is a many times published author and what for you would be a well-developed storyline for her may very well not be. If you stand by your example, then opinion is indeed apart of the review, and review contain opinion. For then not to contain opinion they need only to present cold hard facts. Basically what you get in a game manual minus the fluff/background story.

And yeah, the only thing I learned here was not to read another Joe Iuliani review or post.

Even that is subjective and leads to inflated scores and across the nation we have high schools students graduating with 3.5-4.0 GPAs yet then can't gain a passing score on a college entrance exam much less pass their exams to graduate high school, thus they simple drop out.

Did you know 2008/2009 school year was the first time since they started keeping records that over 50% of the high school seniors dropped out vs completing their high school education?

Originally posted by Shannia

I've solved the problem for Jon.

It was a simple type-o.  It wasn't suppose to be a 6.9 it was suppose to be a 9.6!

There, now everyone is happy and we can all go about our business!

 

Heck know. For those that like to use the term, I guess you might consider me a FE "fanboy". That said, I wouldn't give it a 9.0 in it's current state (though, for full discluse I may have hyped it at 9.0 and you should duly note that I only bother with the hype meter after I've been drinking).

No, anywhere between 7.5 and 8.5 (with the latter being generous) would reflect the review written. Nobody wants an "aion" review score. Most just want a fair review score that matches the darn review.

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by Skatty2007

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Shannia

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.

 

 

We are talking 'reviews' here not opinions i am afraid.

 

Reviews are opinions. It's Mr. Iuliani's call to write the review he did and give it a score that does not reflect what he has written. It's also our good fortune to be able to respond on a linked forum and state that his score is off base. We can then only hope that anyone reading the review, then looking at the score (with the subsequent thought of "WTF") will then refer to the various posts related to that thread.

Knowing that the majority of people post when they dislike something and seeing the overwhelming positive replies here for the game, and mixing that with other game sites giving more realistic scores, anyone looking for information can conclude that the score here isn't right and not to give it much credence.

Worry not. Joe Iuliani won't be the downfall of Fallen Earth. It'll do just fine without his endorsement or patronage.

 

Reviews are not opinions they are reviews and opinions are opinions...

I refer you to Skatty2007's post on page 3 of this thread :

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.

 

Ahh, I smell what you're cooking. Your saying a review should, in essence, be (in no particular order):

1) You press enter to access the chat line.

2) The inventory is access by pressing the "I" key or clicking on the UI link marked "Inventory".

Kinda of a step by step of what does what. A mechanical or technical review as opposed to an impression or opinion review.

 

Those are a bit simplistic examples, but yes.  A review should be about how the game presents itself, not the experience that the review had while playing the game.

For instance the game may have a rich story line.  One may not like the actual story details that the game reviewer experiences, but it can be well done.  Therefore the review should say the game has a well developed story and rate the game in part on how well that story is developed, rather than the experience that reviewer had while playing out that story.  It should say something to the effect that if you one feels a rish story is important, the game may fit you well.

---------------

There is in inherent conflict of interest in making a review of a game.  You are either going to like the game or not like the game.  But one has to separate those emotions in making an unbaised review - and that has to be hard to do, I'll definitely admit that.  That's why not everyone is qualified to write a review because some people are unable to do that.

In my opinion, that was not the case for this review, therefore this review is meaningless regardless of whatever score was given.

The highlighted in an opinion. My wife is a many times published author and what for you would be a well-developed storyline for her may very well not be. If you stand by your example, then opinion is indeed apart of the review, and review contain opinion. For then not to contain opinion they need only to present cold hard facts. Basically what you get in a game manual minus the fluff/background story.

And yeah, the only thing I learned here was not to read another Joe Iuliani review or post.

But a story can have lots of twists and turns, in-depth, well developed, and what not.  The reader may not buy into details and the development and think it is not a very entertaining story. In this example, the review would state the writer wrote a well developed storyline, but the opinion would state the story was not captivating and boring. 

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by Shannia

I've solved the problem for Jon.

It was a simple type-o.  It wasn't suppose to be a 6.9 it was suppose to be a 9.6!

There, now everyone is happy and we can all go about our business!

 

 

Heck know. For those that like to use the term, I guess you might consider me a FE "fanboy". That said, I wouldn't give it a 9.0 in it's current state (though, for full discluse I may have hyped it at 9.0 and you should duly note that I only bother with the hype meter after I've been drinking).

No, anywhere between 7.5 and 8.5 (with the latter being generous) would reflect the review written. Nobody wants an "aion" review score. Most just want a fair review score that matches the darn review.

Except for Aion fanboys who are allowed to review it................

See that's why Aion review is so absurd...........not even Aion fanboys would have given the game such an high score (just out of self respect), so how the reviewer came up with 9.3 is anyone guess

Originally posted by Skatty2007

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by Skatty2007

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Shannia

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.

 

 

We are talking 'reviews' here not opinions i am afraid.

 

Reviews are opinions. It's Mr. Iuliani's call to write the review he did and give it a score that does not reflect what he has written. It's also our good fortune to be able to respond on a linked forum and state that his score is off base. We can then only hope that anyone reading the review, then looking at the score (with the subsequent thought of "WTF") will then refer to the various posts related to that thread.

Knowing that the majority of people post when they dislike something and seeing the overwhelming positive replies here for the game, and mixing that with other game sites giving more realistic scores, anyone looking for information can conclude that the score here isn't right and not to give it much credence.

Worry not. Joe Iuliani won't be the downfall of Fallen Earth. It'll do just fine without his endorsement or patronage.

 

Reviews are not opinions they are reviews and opinions are opinions...

I refer you to Skatty2007's post on page 3 of this thread :

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.

 

Ahh, I smell what you're cooking. Your saying a review should, in essence, be (in no particular order):

1) You press enter to access the chat line.

2) The inventory is access by pressing the "I" key or clicking on the UI link marked "Inventory".

Kinda of a step by step of what does what. A mechanical or technical review as opposed to an impression or opinion review.

 

Those are a bit simplistic examples, but yes.  A review should be about how the game presents itself, not the experience that the review had while playing the game.

For instance the game may have a rich story line.  One may not like the actual story details that the game reviewer experiences, but it can be well done.  Therefore the review should say the game has a well developed story and rate the game in part on how well that story is developed, rather than the experience that reviewer had while playing out that story.  It should say something to the effect that if you one feels a rish story is important, the game may fit you well.

---------------

There is in inherent conflict of interest in making a review of a game.  You are either going to like the game or not like the game.  But one has to separate those emotions in making an unbaised review - and that has to be hard to do, I'll definitely admit that.  That's why not everyone is qualified to write a review because some people are unable to do that.

In my opinion, that was not the case for this review, therefore this review is meaningless regardless of whatever score was given.

The highlighted in an opinion. My wife is a many times published author and what for you would be a well-developed storyline for her may very well not be. If you stand by your example, then opinion is indeed apart of the review, and review contain opinion. For then not to contain opinion they need only to present cold hard facts. Basically what you get in a game manual minus the fluff/background story.

And yeah, the only thing I learned here was not to read another Joe Iuliani review or post.

 

But a story can have lots of twists and turns, in-depth, well developed, and what not.  The reader may not buy into details and the development and think it is not a very entertaining story. In this example, the review would state the writer wrote a well developed storyline, but the opinion would state the story was not captivating and boring. 

Again, whether something is well-developed or not is an opinion. Just ask the TA that graded my last paper, lol. (Hey, I got a B, it wasn't that bad, lol!).

Now, if the reviewer stated that on average you can expect to read between 2 and 3 paragraphs, 5-6 sentences each, of dialogue per quest, then that would be factual and not an opinion. The player can then read those quests and determine for themselves if it is well-developed or not.

Wow.... this is pretty amateurish.

MMORPG.com might want to consider hiring a GROUP of PROFESSIONAL reviewers who have the capacity to review games in a manner which is unbiased and CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT when reviewing all games.

Folks who are aware of these gross inconsistencies in reviews (reviewers) will never be able to take MMORPG.com's reviews seriously, whilst at the same time, those less aware of these inconsistencies, will take these reviews as gospel--and both scenarios only end up doing the MMO genre a tremendous disservice.

I really dont care he doesnt even have the minimal specs ( and yes he is lying about the "graphic memory" , that model was 256/512 megs on standard versions and only LATE models modde'd by suppliers had 1 gig ) , i dont care about Aion getting a 8 something , i dont even care about the score FE got ... i just want to know when did we started calling a 69% Mediocre , cause i sure hell dont have a clue!

Okay, the Ortega Guacamole Style Dip (tm) has conveyed to me in it's yummy goodness that the reason the score didn't match the review was to generate the amount of attention for which it has successfully done. It's going under the premise of any press is good press, and playing on there the idea that passionate gamers will keep a thread rolling like a hamster on crack.

The dip is wise.

So, in a bit of recapitulation:

• Fallen Earth is considered by MMORPG.com to be among the 10 best MMOs since WoW. However, Fallen Earth only received a 6.9 (under "Our score" as stated by MMORPG.com), implying that only 8 games (I do believe Fallen Earth came 9th) scored over a 6.9 since WoW. This is clearly untrue if we look at the list of reviews since WoW.
• The reviewer writes a fairly nice bit of text about the game, but then doesn't match his review with a proper grade (to which we can assume there to be general consensus among the readers, it seems).
• The reviewer first states he has 2GB Corsair RAM, which cannot be video card RAM because Corsair doesn't produce video RAM. He also states his rig boasts dual ATI Radeon 3870s. 'Despite' playing on this 'awesome' rig, he experiences hefty lag. After receiving complaints that his specs are actually quite a bit below what the Fallen Earth website states is a minimum for his OS (i.e. Vista) and that Fallen Earth so far does not support Crossfire and therefore no dual graphics card setup, he reformulates into saying the 2GB was meant to indicate video RAM and that he actually has 4GB of RAM in his system. However, this is very accurately proven wrong by MrBloodworth, who noted that the graphics card specified in the review only came with 512MB video RAM max, meaning that a dual rig would result in a max. of 1GB video RAM and that is without taking into account that Fallen Earth doesn't support Crossfire in the first place. Furthermore, it is doubtful that the 2GB RAM were actually meant to indicate video RAM, because the review specifically states it to be Corsair RAM, while Corsair obviously doesn't make video RAM.

Pull the bloody review and sack the reviewer (whether he's a freelancer or even a volunteer; even they can be sacked). It is an utter shame to spoil your very informative and extensive game list (which I have often used to keep an eye on which games score well) with misinformed scores like this one. Suffice to say that, if I had relied on the MMORPG.com Games List for choosing MMOs here, Fallen Earth would probably have stayed safely off my radar, causing me to miss out on one of the top 10 games since WoW...

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

Obviously this was an oversight on my part in terms of the minimum requirements.

I've pulled the review while we look into this. I certainly don't want to see a game get saddled with a score that it doesn't deserve. My apologies for this mistake.

Excellent!

However, review is still up there.

And seriously. FE currently has the best player review score of ALL released games. I would say that we need a different reviewer as well, not just a capable system.

DB

It's not still up, it's back up, with an amendment to the computer spec section after the original error was detected.

Originally posted by Stradden

It's not still up, it's back up, with an amendment to the computer spec section after the original error was detected.

Wait... Am I correct in assuming you've just tried to cover up a fairly obvious lie by pretending it wasn't even there in the first place? The only thing worse than reviewing a game on an inferior rig and then complaining about performance issues would be to modify the review afterwards to disguise the problem with a lie about the reviewer's system specs...

Stradden had been responding within minutes of other users during the beginning of this thread, right up until the point where it was proven that his reviewer blatantly lied about his system to try and cover his own ass.

At that point, he mysteriously disappears and stops responding.

Coincidence? I think not.

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

Obviously this was an oversight on my part in terms of the minimum requirements.

I've pulled the review while we look into this. I certainly don't want to see a game get saddled with a score that it doesn't deserve. My apologies for this mistake.

Excellent!

However, review is still up there.

And seriously. FE currently has the best player review score of ALL released games. I would say that we need a different reviewer as well, not just a capable system.

DB

It's not still up, it's back up, with an amendment to the computer spec section after the original error was detected.

And you can honestly sit here, look me in the virtual eye and tell me that you personally are comfortable with the written review versus the numerical score it was given? All I'm searching for is an honest, man to man answer here. If you've read some of my posts you'd know I'm not "up to something" with this question.

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

Obviously this was an oversight on my part in terms of the minimum requirements.

I've pulled the review while we look into this. I certainly don't want to see a game get saddled with a score that it doesn't deserve. My apologies for this mistake.

Excellent!

However, review is still up there.

And seriously. FE currently has the best player review score of ALL released games. I would say that we need a different reviewer as well, not just a capable system.

DB

It's not still up, it's back up, with an amendment to the computer spec section after the original error was detected.

And you seriously believe that a score of 6.9 is fair, simply because the requirements are a bit more demanding than some? By that logic, EQ2 and Vanguard should have got scores of 2, respectively.
 

The only oversight here is of the quality of the game itself.

Originally posted by Haggis13

Wait... Am I correct in assuming you've just tried to cover up a fairly obvious lie about system specs by pretending the lie wasn't even there in the first place?

You certainly are,

Then there is also the issue that he has failed to address how his reviewer lied to him about the original error being a typo, when it most certainly was not. As proven time and time again throughout this thread.

Originally posted by Haggis13

Originally posted by Stradden

It's not still up, it's back up, with an amendment to the computer spec section after the original error was detected.

 

Wait... Am I correct in assuming you've just tried to cover up a fairly obvious lie about system specs by pretending the lie wasn't even there in the first place?

Wow. Ok.

Much earlier in the thread, I said that I was pulling the review until such time as I had straightened the issue out. After reaching the reviewer while he was at his day job, we discussed the matter. The specs were presented incorrectly in the first place. I don't know how to be any more clear about any of this.

So, once I had straightened that out, I re-enabled the review and informed everyone of what I understood the situation to be. If I misunderstood the man about the RAM in his video cards, that's completely possible. I'm not much of a technical guy. BUT I did ask him how much RAM the computer had. it's 4 Gigs. Which is consistent with what I knew of his system beforehand.

Now, on a personal note: I hear a lot from people who complain that developers give them the run-around and won't just tell them the truth  or will lie to appease them. While I'm not saying that I would do this, I am saying that I can see why someone, out of frustration, might resort to that when being open, honest and truthful results in stuff like this.

Disagree with the review all you want. That's completely fine. But, please check your conspiracy theories at the door.

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by Skatty2007

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by Skatty2007

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Shannia

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.

 

 

We are talking 'reviews' here not opinions i am afraid.

 

Reviews are opinions. It's Mr. Iuliani's call to write the review he did and give it a score that does not reflect what he has written. It's also our good fortune to be able to respond on a linked forum and state that his score is off base. We can then only hope that anyone reading the review, then looking at the score (with the subsequent thought of "WTF") will then refer to the various posts related to that thread.

Knowing that the majority of people post when they dislike something and seeing the overwhelming positive replies here for the game, and mixing that with other game sites giving more realistic scores, anyone looking for information can conclude that the score here isn't right and not to give it much credence.

Worry not. Joe Iuliani won't be the downfall of Fallen Earth. It'll do just fine without his endorsement or patronage.

 

Reviews are not opinions they are reviews and opinions are opinions...

I refer you to Skatty2007's post on page 3 of this thread :

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.

 

Ahh, I smell what you're cooking. Your saying a review should, in essence, be (in no particular order):

1) You press enter to access the chat line.

2) The inventory is access by pressing the "I" key or clicking on the UI link marked "Inventory".

Kinda of a step by step of what does what. A mechanical or technical review as opposed to an impression or opinion review.

 

Those are a bit simplistic examples, but yes.  A review should be about how the game presents itself, not the experience that the review had while playing the game.

For instance the game may have a rich story line.  One may not like the actual story details that the game reviewer experiences, but it can be well done.  Therefore the review should say the game has a well developed story and rate the game in part on how well that story is developed, rather than the experience that reviewer had while playing out that story.  It should say something to the effect that if you one feels a rish story is important, the game may fit you well.

---------------

There is in inherent conflict of interest in making a review of a game.  You are either going to like the game or not like the game.  But one has to separate those emotions in making an unbaised review - and that has to be hard to do, I'll definitely admit that.  That's why not everyone is qualified to write a review because some people are unable to do that.

In my opinion, that was not the case for this review, therefore this review is meaningless regardless of whatever score was given.

The highlighted in an opinion. My wife is a many times published author and what for you would be a well-developed storyline for her may very well not be. If you stand by your example, then opinion is indeed apart of the review, and review contain opinion. For then not to contain opinion they need only to present cold hard facts. Basically what you get in a game manual minus the fluff/background story.

And yeah, the only thing I learned here was not to read another Joe Iuliani review or post.

 

But a story can have lots of twists and turns, in-depth, well developed, and what not.  The reader may not buy into details and the development and think it is not a very entertaining story. In this example, the review would state the writer wrote a well developed storyline, but the opinion would state the story was not captivating and boring. 

Again, whether something is well-developed or not is an opinion. Just ask the TA that graded my last paper, lol. (Hey, I got a B, it wasn't that bad, lol!).

Now, if the reviewer stated that on average you can expect to read between 2 and 3 paragraphs, 5-6 sentences each, of dialogue per quest, then that would be factual and not an opinion. The player can then read those quests and determine for themselves if it is well-developed or not.

I guess I just don't agree.  To me, there is a distinct difference between having a story be well structured\developed, and the entertainment value one gets from structure\development that the story presents to the reader.  The former pretty much takes the opinion out, and the latter is composed primarily of opinions.

Anywhoo, I see too much of the entertainment value that the reviewer got out of the game.

Geezus. Wow, yeah Jon? Swallow your pride and pull the review. Get another reviewer to review the game, and come up with a scoring which is CONSISTENT with how all other scores are given to games in MMORPG.com reviews.

But, perhaps that's the problem in and of itself: the CONSISTENCY of the reviews (and resultant reviewer scores) presented on MMORPG.com? Until then, you might want to pull this review and get that sorted out.

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by Haggis13

Originally posted by Stradden

It's not still up, it's back up, with an amendment to the computer spec section after the original error was detected.

 

Wait... Am I correct in assuming you've just tried to cover up a fairly obvious lie about system specs by pretending the lie wasn't even there in the first place?

Wow. Ok.

Much earlier in the thread, I said that I was pulling the review until such time as I had straightened the issue out. After reaching the reviewer while he was at his day job, we discussed the matter. The specs were presented incorrectly in the first place. I don't know how to be any more clear about any of this.

So, once I had straightened that out, I re-enabled the review and informed everyone of what I understood the situation to be. If I misunderstood the man about the RAM in his video cards, that's completely possible. I'm not much of a technical guy. BUT I did ask him how much RAM the computer had. it's 4 Gigs. Which is consistent with what I knew of his system beforehand.

Now, on a personal note: I hear a lot from people who complain that developers give them the run-around and won't just tell them the truth  or will lie to appease them. While I'm not saying that I would do this, I am saying that I can see why someone, out of frustration, might resort to that when being open, honest and truthful results in stuff like this.

Disagree with the review all you want. That's completely fine. But, please check your conspiracy theories at the door.

 

 I can understand everything you just said ... but really , when did we started calling 69% mediocre!? i know i left school way back , but this is just wrong!

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by Haggis13

Originally posted by Stradden

It's not still up, it's back up, with an amendment to the computer spec section after the original error was detected.

 

Wait... Am I correct in assuming you've just tried to cover up a fairly obvious lie about system specs by pretending the lie wasn't even there in the first place?

Wow. Ok.

Much earlier in the thread, I said that I was pulling the review until such time as I had straightened the issue out. After reaching the reviewer while he was at his day job, we discussed the matter. The specs were presented incorrectly in the first place. I don't know how to be any more clear about any of this.

So, once I had straightened that out, I re-enabled the review and informed everyone of what I understood the situation to be. If I misunderstood the man about the RAM in his video cards, that's completely possible. I'm not much of a technical guy. BUT I did ask him how much RAM the computer had. it's 4 Gigs. Which is consistent with what I knew of his system beforehand.

Now, on a personal note: I hear a lot from people who complain that developers give them the run-around and won't just tell them the truth  or will lie to appease them. While I'm not saying that I would do this, I am saying that I can see why someone, out of frustration, might resort to that when being open, honest and truthful results in stuff like this.

Disagree with the review all you want. That's completely fine. But, please check your conspiracy theories at the door.

 

I think some frustration over the article is leaking onto this thread becuse people (both familiar with the reviewers sys specs and those of us who aren't tech guru's) can see clearly there was a system/hardware issue with his fps. Since the negative review lists "lag" as the issue for the lower score most of us feel the review wasn't accurate.
 

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

And you can honestly sit here, look me in the virtual eye and tell me that you personally are comfortable with the written review versus the numerical score it was given? All I'm searching for is an honest, man to man answer here. If you've read some of my posts you'd know I'm not "up to something" with this question.

You're right, you deserve an answer, but the honest answer is that my opinion on the score doesn't matter. Our policy is and always has been to allow the individual reviewer complete autonomy over their score. That's our policy and will be until it's changed.

This isn't Jon's personal opinion of all games website, nor should it be.

Look, if the senior staff members and editors made the scores for all of the reviews apart from the reviewers, we'd have a whole different series of complaints to deal with.

In honor of this thread, I've created a new one in the Site Suggestions section so that people like you who have constructive suggestions for improvement, can voice them and we can collect them and assess: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/sticky/256840

Which may be true...but please explain why his system had so much trouble running this game?

I have the client on two computers

1. Win7U, quad@2.8,  8 gig Ram, 3870x2 1 gig split across 3 screens (not xfire mode) - runs 45-65fps outside of towns and 30-40fps in busy towns.

2. Vista 64bit, dual@2.83, 4 gig Ram, 3850 512mb - runs 35-40 fps outside of town and 25-30 in towns - can stutter some when I load into a town if there are tons of people/horses etc but it is still very playable.

That is without tweaking the settings and both running at 1900x1200 on 24" screens.

Originally posted by Stradden

Disagree with the review all you want. That's completely fine. But, please check your conspiracy theories at the door.

 

This is not about disagreing Stradden, but this look like a farce, with all due respect.
Of course the conspiracy theories are bullshit (I even defended you), yet it is clear you do not use a standard system to review your games..............reviews should not be just opinions of the reviewer, I hope we agree on that.

I am neither a fan or hater of FE or Aion.
Yet I played both of them and neither of them convinced me, so I don't play them.
It is not of course about my personal opinion, but the fact is that Aion is not 2.4 points better than FE.
Aion 9.3 is plain ridiculous, by any standards.

Of course you can tell us to suck it up, just because you mange the site........fair enough you are entitled to.
But it is obvious you have issues with your review system, and IMO you should address it or you should not bother at all.
What is the point of writing official reviews which the majority of people disagree with?

I hope you get my point.