Originally posted by Zzulu

*writes a review*

 

*community nerdrages about review*

 

*retracts review*

 

Somehow I feel even less respect for you guys now. I guess you can never win on the internet.

Community was justified in their rage, reviewer's machine did not meet minimum specs and much of the score was based on the games performance.  Wasn't fair and should be addressed.

Now, if they'd only do something about that ridiculous Aion review.

"Agreed. A review is supposed to be subjective. Have you guys ever read a movie review, or a restaurant review.... it isn't supposed to be a news piece, it's an opinion."

While there is certainly a subjective element in reviews as you say, they are supposed to be more than mere opinions. They are supposed to be reasoned judgements based on stable critera and rendered by people whose expertise is trustworthy. The FE reviewer blew it because he tanked the game based on lagginess when in fact he was experiencing frame-rate problems because his system wasn't up to the minimum specs. Perhaps FE really does stink, but when one's main criticism is based on a flaw like this, it's a buggy review, not a buggy game.

I thought the review was spot on. I agreed with it mostly and I am still playing FALLEN EARTH. It is not a great game but good enough to play. IT also might be good to remeber AOC first couple of reviews. Read them, bought the game, and put the game disc in the trash that night. Plus FE has free trail period right now so go play and figure your own opinion out.

Originally posted by Dana

Originally posted by Salvatoris

Originally posted by Zzulu

*writes a review*

 

*community nerdrages about review*

 

*retracts review*

 

Somehow I feel even less respect for you guys now. I guess you can never win on the internet.

 

Agreed.  A review is supposed to be subjective.  Have you guys ever read a movie review, or a restaurant review.... it isn't supposed to be a news piece, it's an opinion.  It should tell us what the reviewer thinks of the game, not what the developer or the fanboys want us to believe about the game. 

I didn't read the review before it was taken down, but I can only guess it was pretty harsh.... as it should have been.  This game is turd.  everything they got right is overshadowed by the piss poor performance and lackluster graphics.  I could understand one or the other, but this game manages to look bad and run bad at the same time.  It's an armature attempt at making a video game and it shows.

 

 

We didn't arrive at this decision because of the score or the community pressure. The community pressure we just a symptom of a flawed review. Honestly, to read it, it came off as a summary of game features that was generally positive, then had one negative thing (which was an error) and whipped out a mediocre score.

The new review could be scored higher or lower, who knows. That will be up to the reviewer, but we have to do a better job vetting to make sure that they arrive at their opinion without issues like this one had. The review's score was largely based on "unplayable lag," which was more of a customer support/hardware issue than something that should have been in a review. If someone experiences unplayable lag, they must do everything they can to figure out if it is "just them." To the degree that it impacted this article, the lag described seems to have been "just him" and we didn't do the due diligence necessary to confirm it.

Thus, it was retracted.

Feel an awful lot like John  Marshall do you, between a rock and a hard place and instead of backing down and admitting it you come up the third answer that's not really either of the original two but sort of is, Kudos to you sir

 Meh whatever. Sure the champions of Fallen Earth may have won a victory for Truth and Justice, but the cruel reality is that the game probably deserved something not too far removed from the score it got. It's a fantastic setting and a great concept for an MMO that is at best averagely executed. The combat is choppy, the animation clunky and amateurish, the progression linear, the layout themepark, the quests (apart from some notable exceptions) generic, the scenery mostly bland (under the convenient excuse that "it's set in the desert")... etc.

There are areas where the game really shines, but on the whole it's pretty obvious that this is an indy effort. That in itself shouldn't count against it, except that they've stepped up and put themselves on a par with all the other major titles in the genre in terms of pricing and sub rates... and for most MMO gamers it's just not worth that. This is a game that will have a solid core of diehard fans who will love playing it, and that's great for them, but howling and jeering at those who don't share their passion for this diamond in the rough is not going to make their opinion any more popular nor any more correct.

Originally posted by Scottgun

[quote]Agreed. A review is supposed to be subjective. Have you guys ever read a movie review, or a restaurant review.... it isn't supposed to be a news piece, it's an opinion.[/quote]

 

While there is certainly a subjective element in reviews, they are supposed to be more than mere opinions. They are supposed to be reasoned judgements based on stable critera and rendered by people whose expertise is trustworthy. The FE reviewer blew it because he tanked the game based on lagginess when in fact he was experiencing frame-rate problems because his system wasn't up to the minimum specs. Perhaps FE really does stink, but when one's main criticism is based on a flaw like this, it's a buggy review, not a buggy game.

There is a fine line between a Review and someones personal opinions on whatever is being reviewed, and like you said a true professional reviewer will distinguish these things clearly for the reader to form his own personal opinion and whether or not to try or not try something out. What transpired here with Fallen Earth was Epic and unless detected by a few would of gone unnoticed and might of caused the demise of Fallen Earth, a game that besides Darkfall and Mortal online was being watched by many.

No reviews are objective. A reviewer will always use his/her experiences as the basis for whether he likes something or not. I don't even look at one reviewer's score anymore. I look at a whole range of reviews before I make a  decision, because what one person likes, I wouldn't and vice versa.

The issue with the Joe Iuliano review was that his review wasn't even based on a system that could run the game properly, according to the minimum system specs. When questioned about it,  he then goes to say that the 2 gig Corsair Ram reference was to the dual 3850 video cards and not to his actual system RAM, which was quite an obvious lie. It sort of invalidates the results of the entire review. Then, on top of that, the whole criticism gets shoved into Site suggestions, which has no bearing on what the OP was saying as he wasn't suggesting anything for the site. He was rebutting 'Joe Iuliano's' credibility.

Originally posted by GreenWidow

Thank you Dana.

 

You have renewed my confidence in MMORPG.com

I come to this site far too often for needed information on investments in money and time on my part.  I appreciate that you folks have integrity and the desire to meet the needs of the community.

Thank's again for taking another look at Fallen Earth and I look forward to the new Review.

Man spot on, couldn't have said it better myself.  Kudos MMORPG.

I think for many, it wasn't the actual score or the review for the most part.  It was the discrepancy between the two.  On one hand, you had a for-the-most part positive write up.  On the other hand, you had a fairly negative score (6.9 may be close to 7 but a 6 on this site, and no matter what the decimal value is, will be seen as moderately negative).  Combined with the fact that posters removed some credibility from the reviewer, this just wasn't fair to both Icarus and readers.

And I will say this, I remember when I first discovered MMORPG.com years ago, the articles were interesting, well thought, and well written.  That quality is becoming less and less evident in the write ups here, and it is both disheartening and sad, frankly.  Whether you are a paid staff member or a volunteer for the site, every one of you needs to step it up.  The site is seen as a publication and its sad when your featured member blogs are both more informative and more entertaining than the site's own headlining articles.  The standards here are low and it is showing.

I'll mention it again(as I did in another thread) as I think its relevant.  I remember back when Horizons development had switched gears, I wrote an article about the growing emphasis on community interaction ala the proposed features of both Horizons and AC2.  I submitted the article to HorizonsVault at which point I was contacted by the editor there.  She wanted to publish the article on the site, but we went through a lengthy yet very informative meeting discussing changes that she felt were necessary.  I wasn't even a volunteer staff member and yet I went through a very extensive, detailed editing process.  My article was a lot better because of it (and there were only a few seemingly minor yet very important changes made) and received quite a bit of awesome commentary from the community.  It may sound tedious but each article should be extensively fine combed so that the goals of the article are achieved. 

Not everything here is going to be awesome, that is understandable.  Lately, there are more misses than hits (haven't really seen a hit in a long while now).  You're writers will benefit from a more strict editing process (is there even one).  A true writer and creative in general will appreciate the feedback no matter how harsh it is - it only makes the end product better.

Come on MMORPG.com you can do so so so so so so much better.

Edit:

Dana, I appreciate the retraction as I think it was the appropriate thing to do.  I hope you guys put a lot of thought into the review process here as it is one of a number of things that need to shape up a bit.  It is encouraging to see that you recognize changes need to be made.  I will say that I appreciate the interactivity (good or bad) that goes on between the staff and the community as its the one thing that keeps me coming back.  That and controversy is always a good thing :D

Originally posted by Ruyn

You need to implement a system that institutes some kind of uniformity into the review process.  A review can be rife with personal opinion but it is important to remain objective and score a game against a certain criteria.  The same criteria that every game you review should be held up against.

It is nice to see MMORPG.com take the appropriate action with this review. 

Structuring future reviews in a more uniform manner is something I would also appreciate. Without a common standard it is often hard to gauge how the reviews opinion is relative your own. Knowing how the writer's view align or conflict with your own greatly increase the usefulness of a review beyond what could otherwise seem like an arbitrary number.

Originally posted by Zzulu

*writes a review*

 

*community nerdrages about review*

 

*retracts review*

 

Somehow I feel even less respect for you guys now. I guess you can never win on the internet.

Sadly neither the site nor FE's community have come out very clean in this fiasco, but I expect it'll hurt FE a lot more then this site.

The nature of a game's "community" is an important factor for a lot of people, and personally if the response to this review was indicative of the type of community the game has then it is to be avoided.

Originally posted by Myria

Originally posted by Zzulu

*writes a review*

 

*community nerdrages about review*

 

*retracts review*

 

Somehow I feel even less respect for you guys now. I guess you can never win on the internet.

 

Sadly neither the site nor FE's community have come out very clean in this fiasco, but I expect it'll hurt FE a lot more then this site.

The nature of a game's "community" is an important factor for a lot of people, and personally if the response to this review was indicative of the type of community the game has then it is to be avoided.

This is what i call shotgun response.

'hey look at me i don't read posts and then make nonsense replies'

Learn to read. Dana explained it well why they retracted the review. it had nothing to do with FE community.

Originally posted by Greek_Matt

 Meh whatever. Sure the champions of Fallen Earth may have won a victory for Truth and Justice, but the cruel reality is that the game probably deserved something not too far removed from the score it got. It's a fantastic setting and a great concept for an MMO that is at best averagely executed. The combat is choppy, the animation clunky and amateurish, the progression linear, the layout themepark, the quests (apart from some notable exceptions) generic, the scenery mostly bland (under the convenient excuse that "it's set in the desert")... etc.

There are areas where the game really shines, but on the whole it's pretty obvious that this is an indy effort. That in itself shouldn't count against it, except that they've stepped up and put themselves on a par with all the other major titles in the genre in terms of pricing and sub rates... and for most MMO gamers it's just not worth that. This is a game that will have a solid core of diehard fans who will love playing it, and that's great for them, but howling and jeering at those who don't share their passion for this diamond in the rough is not going to make their opinion any more popular nor any more correct.

Right but the review did not have anything like what you just wrote...nope, had it had Lag, bad lag, horrible lag...so lets give its a bad score for that..

I do not think it would have been a big deal if the reviewer had things to write that were based on his opinions of the game that had some thing to do with the actual game versus problems from his system.

Then to later come back and possibly lie about his spec later was just a creamy topping, Granted he may have upgraded his spec since his last review but he has the same spec in all his past reviews and in a lot of them complained about the same issue "lag" but was a bit more in depth in his opinions with a heck of a lot less "nashing of teeth n nails" about them from the masses.

Fallen Earth has issues, performance is minor compared to some of them. Did he write that an ATV will get stuck on a pebble? Nope...lol why not, to me that is a pain in the arse of an issue, especially since an ATV is being given out to some download orders...

Clunky Animation? Like how in Aion when I have to talk to someone and sheath my weapon it shadows stutters 2 or 3 times? or did you mean something else? I have not seen clunky animation but my definition of clunky may be different, English is not my primary language.

Choppy Combat - combat is okay to me, other then the AI sniffs glue.. Combat animation, yes needs work, like more of it and more depth.

Progression is linear in 90% of the mmos, cant really complain about it..its just part of the package..

Layout Themepark - not sure what that means, to me it means I get on a ride and scream like a baby...in gaming it means what? That everyone is a crafter / killer / explorer - only if they want I guess.

Quest/Missions generic - same thing - get this, kill that, go there, click it, in every game I have played...etc...etc..ad nauseum

Scenery, yeah I guess you can say its bland, been to the area...looks pretty much the same in the real world...sunsets and sunrises are better and more color..

 I played for about two weeks of my month. I concur with the review. Since MMORPG has seen fit to remove the (subjective) review, I don't see any reason to continue to follow MMORPG's "news" or "reviews".  I can get my information from a number of other sources, thankyouverymuch.

Originally posted by Dana

Originally posted by Salvatoris

Originally posted by Zzulu

*writes a review*

 

*community nerdrages about review*

 

*retracts review*

 

Somehow I feel even less respect for you guys now. I guess you can never win on the internet.

 

Agreed.  A review is supposed to be subjective.  Have you guys ever read a movie review, or a restaurant review.... it isn't supposed to be a news piece, it's an opinion.  It should tell us what the reviewer thinks of the game, not what the developer or the fanboys want us to believe about the game. 

I didn't read the review before it was taken down, but I can only guess it was pretty harsh.... as it should have been.  This game is turd.  everything they got right is overshadowed by the piss poor performance and lackluster graphics.  I could understand one or the other, but this game manages to look bad and run bad at the same time.  It's an armature attempt at making a video game and it shows.

 

 

We didn't arrive at this decision because of the score or the community pressure. The community pressure we just a symptom of a flawed review. Honestly, to read it, it came off as a summary of game features that was generally positive, then had one negative thing (which was an error) and whipped out a mediocre score.

The new review could be scored higher or lower, who knows. That will be up to the reviewer, but we have to do a better job vetting to make sure that they arrive at their opinion without issues like this one had. The review's score was largely based on "unplayable lag," which was more of a customer support/hardware issue than something that should have been in a review. If someone experiences unplayable lag, they must do everything they can to figure out if it is "just them." To the degree that it impacted this article, the lag described seems to have been "just him" and we didn't do the due diligence necessary to confirm it.

Thus, it was retracted.

Like I said, I didn't read the review... but I gathered from the comments here that performance was an issue.  While "unplayable" varies from person to person, I had the same experience with this game.  I tried it out of all four of the machines here, two close to minimum specs and two well above them.  I could make it playable by turning the graphics settings all the way down, but I could not find a reasonable compromise of making the game look good and run an acceptable frame-rate.  Granted, this was in beta, but the performance issues persisted all the way through the until the end of beta.  And we all know there is never a launch day miracle patch.  Maybe it's better, maybe it's not.  I understand that some people aren't reporting the same performance issues, but I have certainly seen plenty that do have them.  IMO, this game is unplayable on many machines that are well above minimum specs.  based on my own experience, I can say that I know for a fact the performance issues were not "just him".

What bothers me is the attitude, held exclusively by fanboys of whatever game just got a bad review, that a review isn't supposed to be subjective.  Whenever a game gets a well deserved low score, like the Eurogamer Darkfall review, or just about any early review of vanguard, people come out crying about the reviewer just posting his opinion of the game... that is what a review is supposed to be.  It's funny that the thing people get most up in arms about are critiques of a game's performance, which is generally pretty easy to verify.

My question, have YOU played it?  What kind of performance did you get?  I think this issue could best be put to rest by having the re-review done by one of the senior staff members of the site.  I'd be interested in reading it myself.  This is a game i was very excited about during development, until I I got a chance to play it and found... you guessed it, unplayable lag.

Well done MORPG.com

I love the smell of justice in the evening!

Good stuff. Curious about the new review system.

Please don't forget that with the player rating system you have an excellent tool already to rate games. (Haters and fanboys cancelling eachother out somewhat and the large amount of scores assuring a proper average). No single reviewer's score will ever be more valued by me than the average opinion of a couple of hundred members.

 Kudos. Look forward to the new review process.

I enjoy the game. Your review can't change that. At best, it could deter new people from trying the game. With one big server, and rapidly growing population, I don't care if fewer people start playing. It's a fantastic game that keeps getting better. If you don't feel that way then play somewhere else.

I do appreciate that MMORPG is man enough to fix mistakes.

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Zzulu

*writes a review*

 

*community nerdrages about review*

 

*retracts review*

 

Somehow I feel even less respect for you guys now. I guess you can never win on the internet.

 

Community was justified in their rage, reviewer's machine did not meet minimum specs and much of the score was based on the games performance.  Wasn't fair and should be addressed.

Now, if they'd only do something about that ridiculous Aion review.

 

Have to agree here. This a positive step for the site in addressing and acknowledging inconsistencies in one of this sites reviews. But the same needs to be done for the Aion review to further address inconsistencies of reviews on this site lately.

Jon, why no response or comment on the strong arguments brought forth about the inconsistencies in the Aion review? It has been consistently pointed out that the score and tone of the review for Aion do not mesh. Couple this with the score being the highest reviewed MMO on this site ever and we have evidence that there is no uniformity in the review process.

As I've claimed in the Aion thread, along with well-defined criteria for writing a review, the scoring of a review must take into account previous review scores from this site for there to be any long-term relevance to all the reviews on this site.

This reminds me of the Champions Online review. It read like a 6.5 review, but the reviewer gave it an 8.

Originally posted by Deleted User

 I played for about two weeks of my month. I concur with the review. Since MMORPG has seen fit to remove the (subjective) review, I don't see any reason to continue to follow MMORPG's "news" or "reviews".  I can get my information from a number of other sources, thankyouverymuch.

You do know that the review was a positive one as one have to assume that you actually read it...?

It was the final score that did not match up to what was written in the review.

Originally posted by Dragonalf

Have to agree here. This a positive step for the site in addressing and acknowledging inconsistencies in one of this sites reviews. But the same needs to be done for the Aion review to further address inconsistencies of reviews on this site lately.

Jon, why no response or comment on the strong arguments brought forth about the inconsistencies in the Aion review? It has been consistently pointed out that the score and tone of the review for Aion do not mesh. Couple this with the score being the highest reviewed MMO on this site ever and we have evidence that there is no uniformity in the review process.

As I've claimed in the Aion thread, along with well-defined criteria for writing a review, the scoring of a review must take into account previous review scores from this site for there to be any long-term relevance to all the reviews on this site.

Originally posted by Xondar123

This reminds me of the Champions Online review. It read like a 6.5 review, but the reviewer gave it an 8.

 If you're going to slam us, please check your facts.

Aion was not the highest ever review on the site. It was tied for 4th. However, consistency has been a large issue generally I will grant that. Too many years, too many standards, too many editors and only one scoring system.

And, Champions got 7.5, not 8.

You people that believe the review was retracted because of mass complaints are very ignorant, please get a grip on the situation before flapping your mouths.

Why is this a bigger deal than the potentially over-rated Aion review? Well, a low score from an unfair review on a popular site such as MMORPG.com will greatly hurt a game, and in tihs case, FE as a small independently developed MMO deserves better. Regardless, an unreasonably low score in any game is far more unfair than an unreasonably high score to the individuals reading the reviews. If you buy a game solely based on 1 high score, and don't like it, too bad. But you're much more likely to get a bad vibe from a game with 6.9's out on the internet regardless how good it sounds.

I think the problem with past reviews is that it has been left up to the reviewer as to how to grant the final score.  This also creates a problem because even though scores here are on a scale of 1 - 10, most scores end up between 6 - 10.  Anything lower is usually reserved for anything so bad that a low score is given for the sake of giving a low score.  In fact, I would suggest MMORPG.com move to a 4 or 5 star rating system (being that 5-6 on a 10 pt scale is considered low even though it really is average).

1 star - horrible don't even bother, can't recommend

2 star - heavily flawed and few redeeming qualities, would not recommend

3 star - rough around the edges and may be worth a look for a few redeeming qualities, may or may not recommend depending on the player

4 star - a must try despite a few flaws, would recommend

5 star - a must try, definitely recommend

Don't bother with half stars or decimals.  Its either a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5.  If its not a 5 and not a 3 then its a 4, not a 3.5 or a 4.5, just a 4.  Partial scores/points/stars tend to encourage inflation of scores.  The final score should reflect the overall experience.  I've played many games where an average may put the game at a 3.  However, maybe the story was so good and intriguing that it made the overall game experience a 4.

Examples:

For example, I'd give Aion a 4.  Its polished, looks great, plays great, but content is bare at higher levels and level design can be bland.  It provides an overall positive, yet very standard MMO experience but may grow tiresome as players reach higher levels due to drop off in content and poorly designed/poorly rewarding objectives.  It is a game I would recommend to other players to at least try as the pvp, setting, and overall presentation may appeal to many gamers.

Fallen Earth would be given a 3.  Overall, the game is rough around the edges.  The art is, while pleasing to the eye, is inconsistent with the occasional rough animation, texture or poorly modeled figure.  The gameplay isn't as smooth or refined and has a fairly clunky feel to it.  Players will either learn to enjoy/accept combat or they will never grasp the controls and fight against the mechanics of it.  Crafting is meaningful but because the design encourages players to provide for themselves, the economy is lacking and will continue to do so until players are encouraged to rely on others.  The game is more akin to a post-apocolyptic AC in that players will level up but are free to invest in skills that they chose.  For that reason, the game will have the open ended/sandbox feeling of UO and SWG but still feel linear as players most level up and advance to level appropriate areas.    Because of the inconsistent presentation, awkward combat, and niche appeal, it would be hard to recommend to the mainstream gamer.  However, despite it's misgivings players looking for something a little different may find the game both enjoyable and challenging - and would be a "must try" in that case.