Originally posted by Stradden

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.

Yes, I do apologise for being a bit eager there. I should have added I did not actually think this to be the intention. However, I DO still think the reviewer lied about his system specs. As stated time and time again in the previous posts, Corsair does not produce RAM for video cards, so if the reviewer first states he has 2GB Corsair RAM, this is very unlikely to be a mistake between video RAM and 'regular' RAM. Secondly, the video cards the reviewer has stated to have in his PC (i.e. 2x ATI Radeon 3870) have a maximum of 512MB RAM on them. Donning two of these would mean the reviewer had a max of 1GB RAM, of which, moreover, only 512MB RAM could have been actively used by Fallen Earth because the game does not support dual video cards. Those 512MB RAM are only a FOURTH of the amount listed on www.fallenearth.com as the minimum system specifications. There is no way the reviewer's system can match the minimum system requirements unless he did all of the following:

1. Made a typo in the description of his amount of RAM.
2. Mistook the manufacturer of his video RAM for the manufacturer of his RAM.
3. Posted completely inaccurate information regarding his graphics cards; it simply CANNOT be the case that he has these two video cards AND meets the minimum system requirements.

The only logical conclusion would be that this reviewer forgot to check his system specs versus the game's minimum system requirements and, when he found out about his folly, decided that a lie would be the easy way out.

Originally posted by Skatty2007

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.

That's cool. A "simple" example of my view is that you and I can both pick up a cup of coffee and take a sip. You may say it's too hot and wait and I may not think it is and drink it up. Both cups of coffee are measured at 100 F. That same concept, for me, can be applied to whether something is well-developed nor not. *shrug*

And yes, I can agree with you that the review was heavy on opinion and entertainment value. Some degree of opinion has to be there, though, I think, when stating how well a feature is implemented, as opposed to just stating that it is implemented.

Anyway, my whole issue was with the numerical score not matching the words written. Opinionated or not, that number should reflect what the guy wrote, and it doesn't.

i only say a thing FE is not a sandbox game

Originally posted by cyrana

 

 

On a different topic the reviewer should just post his dxdiag and we'll see if we can help him. ;)

LoL 
 

Originally posted by Aganazer

The final score made me LOL a bit. A game like Fallen Earth has ten times the staying power as a game like Aion or Champions. Icarus seems to understand what makes a MMOG tick unlike so many failed attempts in recent years.

Yeah... I think it just shows which way the site leans, as well as other sites. They *like* the easier/faster-paced MMOs, so they give them higher scores. Was reading an article from the creator of curse about Aion and he's pleading with NC to make leveling in Aion faster, increase xp rewards, etc.

I think the sum of player reviews speaks more about a game than individual reviewers' scores do, typically speaking.

From a purely game design standpoint FE is a significant release. Its been a long time since we have seen a game with compelling crafting, an open world with no zoning, multiple factions with open world PvP between them, classless characters, and persistent vehicles/mounts. Its one the few MMOG's that seems to allow and encourage different play styles such as exploring while not requiring that the game be played in a specific way. We have certainly had enough acheivement focused games in recent years!

Yep... and what gets me is how there are still people trying to shoe-horn their "race and power-level to endgame" playstyle into it. Some are becoming frustrated that the game isn't accomodating that playstyle as much as others they're used to.... and it's kinda funny to see the occasional frustrated comments from those folks in chat.

 

Originally posted by Stradden

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

I get what you are saying. I was just curious if the tone and manner of those words translated to that numerical value in your mind. Not with any intent to then badger you to change it. What's done is done in my view. I was just searching for some...comfort I guess in that the ME wouldn't correlate the overly kind-worded written review with that 6.9 value.

I'd expect a 6.9 given score to have a written review that was significantly more harshly worded and with more tangible cons than "lag".

Que sera. Gonna go check out the forum you linked and then play some FE.

Originally posted by Stradden

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.

Bite me, our web site our rules.

Why spout a thousand words when a few express your sentiments more accurately.

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.

 

People typically throw around the "conspiracy theory" phrase when they have no argument. As if by saying those magic words, all is well. Sorry to break it to you, but we're not all that naive.

 If you're not going to rationalize why a relatively well-polished game like FE got a score of 6.9, while Aion (which is in no way any more innovative or substantially better of the two) somehow scored a 8.9, then I'm going to continue to suspect something isn't right here. I've played both games rather extensively since their release and there's no way that such an immense gap in score is merited.

I understand that everyone has their own opinion, and that much of what I've said is subjective, but if you look at the qualities of the game alone, and the relative stability of it's launch (which is even more emphasized considering it was developed by an indy company), it undoubtedly deserves a better score than what it's received, I don't care how you try to spin it. 
 

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

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.

That's cool. A "simple" example of my view is that you and I can both pick up a cup of coffee and take a sip. You may say it's too hot and wait and I may not think it is and drink it up. Both cups of coffee are measured at 100 F. That same concept, for me, can be applied to whether something is well-developed nor not. *shrug*

And yes, I can agree with you that the review was heavy on opinion and entertainment value. Some degree of opinion has to be there, though, I think, when stating how well a feature is implemented, as opposed to just stating that it is implemented.

Anyway, my whole issue was with the numerical score not matching the words written. Opinionated or not, that number should reflect what the guy wrote, and it doesn't.

Interesting point about the coffee example.

One thing is for sure - we both agree that this review of Fallen Earth isn't the highest quality review that this site has ever published!

And shame on you for making me hungry for guacamole dip earlier - I am on a diet! 

The tone and the descriptions of the review do not match the score. They are far more positive.

Giving 6.9 is very underhanded as it clearly goes for a psychological barrier, trying to make it look worse than it is. People focus on the first number. That why everyhing costs 9.99

While it is clearly valid point to bring up system performance this is a topic that needs to be carefully researched and proven that is a global issue rather than a local one.

Imagine the best game you ever played, but for some reason is extremely laggy on your computer. Does that warrant a negative review? I do not think it does. It may be just your computer.  A good reviewer needs to know that.

This review makes mmorpg.com look sad, I hate to say it but im very disappointed.

Myself i have Phenom X4 9950, 4 gig ram, nvidia 260GTX, playing on windows 7x64. I GET NO LAG,NO FPS STUTTERING, game runs just fine. I get in the range of 40+ in towns, and 120+ out in the wild.

I think you need to check reviewers specs to ensure he's not chocking your rock on his spec's.

 I registered on this site because of this review.

The author is a moron who has no business reviewing a PC game. First of all, he pines for a console controller IN AN FPS!

He complains about lag and lists it as the only CON. Yet that could be hiccups due to the launch or his own specs. MMORPG's score for the game for all time is based on this idiot's lag within a few weeks of launch when countless people are downloading the game/patches/etc?

Finally, as someone pointed out, the score is clearly designed to present a psychological barrier. We all know that the difference between a 6.9 and a 7.0 is essentially as big as a 6.0 and a 7.0. A 7 is a pretty god game. A 6.0-6.9 is a POS.

Joe Iuliani is a ****head.

I have to say the only thing I see that is mediocre when I read this review is the reviewer. The reason you are lagging so much is more or less your system settings rather than the game itself. I know plenty of people who play this game (I do not though) and they say it is a smooth running game. I am sorry, but this websites reviewers have gone downhill from being knowledgable to clueless.

This whole situation is hilarious.

I agree with the general sentiment of this thread, I really do. Considering the sheer multitude of games reviewed on this site, from a sheer probability standpoint, this score does not make any sense at all, let alone in the context of the (very) positive review.

To the Staff:

The frusteration stems from the fact that A) this game is the first unique MMO since AC, B) The review it's self is actally quite positive, and B) A lot of people like it the game a lot.

So much of what makes MMOs successfull is their population, and reviews like this have the capability to cause serious damage to the growth of the game, and when that is placed on the backdrop of score that seems ridiculous, it's incredibly frustrating.
 

Yes, he has every right to put down his opinion in the review. However, as the central discussion forum for an entire genre, reviewers (especially of smaller, independent games) have an incredible amount of power. 


On the flip side, most people in this thread should be ashamed. You've turned what is at worse, a mistake, and at best, is a difference of opinion into some sort of collossal affront to human decency. This stopped being a discussion, and started being a lynch mob a long time ago.

I want to see the game succeed as much as anyone else here, but some moderation needs to be employed.

Stradden, you've handled this very well, and I respect the way you've stuck up for your reviewers.
 

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."

I though this bullshit review was being pulled for further investigation? I guess the site editors are just as clueless as this reviewer.

Originally posted by LethalBurst

I guess the site editors are just as clueless as this reviewer.

Pretty Much

Ok here are my specs, which are below the reviewers:

3.6 ghz p4

ati 4850 Hd 500mb

3gb ram

7500 rpm raptor drive

XP pro

game running at 1900x1200,   AA x8, medium terrain and character texture, all other settings set to 80%

Now why is it with a system inferior to the reviewers I do not have the lag problems that he has?  Is there lag in the cities when they are crowded?  Yes there is.  BUT, it is comparable too, if not less than Aion and Champions Online which just launched also.  It runs better for me than AOC and Vanguard.  I get a range of fps of 20 to 50 typically.  Sometimes it will dip below that if it is really crowded.  Now when I get out into the wild it goes up to 30 to 70 depending on what I'm looking at.

Icarus could definitely improve performance, but the game has only been out about a month.  I remember how laggy Iron Forge was in WOW when it was new and sometimes, even with their very basic graphics I would lag out.  And that was WOW! Why is the game so heavily penalized for lag when other mmo's  with similar lag and performance issues scored much higher?

They have given us, the players who have been crying for something other than the standard WOW clone, something to enjoy.  It's an amazing game, and it does not deserve this score. 

I was a SWG vet.  Now this is not SWG (which was also imperfect).  I am only in S1 and I am still a newb.  But I find myself loving this game and I think it has something special.  Something intangible that other releases this year have been missing.   I have said it before with other games, I vote with my dollars. 

Well I am casting a vote of confidence in favor of Icarus. 

I fully agree that this makes mmorpg.com look pretty bad.

I really wish they would give games the reviewers they deserve. As in; people who have something going for the specific sub-genres, whether it is sandboxes, pve centered games, pvp centered games, space mmorpg's, etc. People who dive into a new release within their sub-genre of choice and try to give all they got to see what a game is all about. Not merely playing it to write a review, but playing it because they love playing games of a certain type.

Those kind of people might NOT be so easily put off by some client side latency issues and get to the bottom of it (and read up on the optimization guide on the Fallen Earth forums, for instance) instead of letting this very personal issue influence their final verdict that much.

I mean how hard is it to find out that your own problem is not something others are experiencing?

Bad,

Biased,

Bullsh*t

p.s.

Our Rating 6.9 (was signed, Joe Iuliani)

User Rating: 8.4 (Based on 323 total votes)

Says it all really ...

edit: there is a perfect system for user rating implemented on mmorpg.com (though it needs more different aspects to vote on), why even go for these random hit or miss 'independent reviewer' marks and highlight them anyway? Go for reviews without attached ratings and highlight the player ratings instead and be proud of it.

From a reviewers standpoint , I don't Think Aion deserved a 8.7.But I do agree that FE deserves a mid 6 or so.I Think FE is a great game if compared to games of its likeness.BUt as an MMO overall I think it is kinda mediocre,It didn't grab me and make me want to keep playing.I also have been experiencing some lag a bit , but even when the game is running smooth it doesn't strike me as even close to one of the better games i played.So I say Kudo's to the editor and the reviewer for standing there ground.

So my opinion is for it's style and type it's a great game.But for its actual gameplay,funfactor,and such I would say its mediocre.I have a feeling the reviewer has the same perception as I do.

Originally posted by korndog22

From a reviewers standpoint , I don't Think Aion deserved a 8.7.But I do agree that FE deserves a mid 6 or so.I Think FE is a great game if compared to games of its likeness.BUt as an MMO overall I think it is kinda mediocre,It didn't grab me and make me want to keep playing.I also have been experiencing some lag a bit , but even when the game is running smooth it doesn't strike me as even close to one of the better games i played.So I say Kudo's to the editor and the reviewer for standing there ground.

So my opinion is for it's style and type it's a great game.But for its actual gameplay,funfactor,and such I would say its mediocre.I have a feeling the reviewer has the same perception as I do.

Yeah man. Nothing better than a review site that has a completely different opinion about games than its own user base. That's sooo useful... 

 This is getting out of control,does anyone at MMORPG.com even proof read these review's now?or are they simply added to the site?

Why someone as a reviewer is using a gimped system for review's is bad enough,I mean come on 2gb RAM with Vista for game play!

But then they complain about the lag..it beg's belief. 

I honestly thought the Aion review was the bottom of the barrel but it seem's not,It would seem this site has become little more than a gossip column and advertising site.

The powers that be(yes Jon I am looking at you) get this sorted or the "delete account" will be getting used,A shameful and woeful review.

 In my humble opinion (though I know it wasn't asked - at least not in this thread)... I think mmorpg.com does need to seriously re-think how they present their reviews.... revise their review criteria, set a standard that every other reviewer has to follow... *something* to inject some kind of consistency into it.

Because, while I can understand when Stradden says "different people review the games and have different opinions than other reviewers"... that's great on its face. But...

Here's the the problem. When people see a review here, they see it as "MMORPG.com's review of XYZ game". When game websites cite reviews and comments and scores given here in their "accolades" section or whatever... It's cited as "MMORPG.COM"... not the name of the reviewer. I've seen ads for games in magazines and there will be quotes from this site (and others), cited as "MMORPG.COM"...

Do you see what's happening here?

Every review that's put out by this site is seen as being the official opinion of mmorpg.com as a whole - not merely the person who wrote it.

I think it's time you people at mmorpg.com realize this site's "grown up". You're not a small, upstart site like you were some years back. Your name (for better or worse) carries weight and anything you put out in terms of reviews is seen as being the collective opinion of the site... just like IGN's, or any gaming magazine. 

I think this is why people react the way they do to such all over the place reviews... You're trying to cling to that "individuals' reviews" approach, but your website has grown way beyond that. Beyond this site, MMORPG.com is a presence unto itself, it's beyond the individuals who edit or write for it. So when you defend the reviews by saying "well that's what those individuals think", it sounds very disingenuous.

Again.. just my thoughts... but I think you guys need to seriously reassess the way you handle reviews and rate games.

A good place to start might be what was suggested.... do away with number scores. Those seem to create the most uproar - unless that's what you're after.

Fire the reviewer, Did you seriously go there expecting some 100million budget game? Btw really nice computer you got there.

Let's put things straight here.

A review should be unbiased (or at least try), I am not getting why people are accepting the reviews are a personal matter.
They should not be a personal matter, in particular when they rappresent the official view of the site/magazine/paper.

The difference between a reviewer and average Joe is that the reviewer should base the review on objective points, and they should not score products based on their preference.

If a reviewer is writing just his opinion then what is the point of the review?
There are already thousands of people posting everyday their opinion in this forums, why should the reviewer opinion be more qualified than mine or the person next to me?

I played every major MMO released since UO, like many of us in this forum.
So why the opinion of this guy should be more valid than mine for example?
The only reason would be because he can discuss the game with more objectivity than most of us with equal if not better experience than him.
If it fails to do so and he bases his review on his opinion, then it defeats the point of the review, since his biased opinion might clash with the view of more experienced people, or people with more common sense than him.

In short reviewer should be able to say they do not like a particular feature, whilst at the same time admitting that the same feature can contribute to other people fun.
When you review Aion you need to put yourself in the shoes of the casual/themepark player, when you review FE you put yourself in the shoes of the sandbox player.
You do not evaluate both games with the same measure.
If you are not able to do so, it means the reviewer is not the job for you.