Meh, I haven't picked up an issue of  PC Gamer in years, so their review doesn't mean that much to me. I tend to follow IGN anyways (mainly because of Jessica Chobot )

I fail to see the problems the reviewer has.  Combat doesn't feel clunky to me at all.  I rather like the combat, and have had almost no problems with lag in combat -- and my main is a pistoleer/melee type. 

If they support WoW, that is all I need to know to ignore their reviews.

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

"Overstretched on launch. Fallen Earth is broken in too many places. Wait a while and the ambitious world could become impressive." 55%

"The only thing you can't craft is better combat"

It is all about comparing to a would be Fallout MMO. Whats with that, can't they take a game and review it for what it is instead of comparing the game to another of another genre?

"Combat is real time and, bucking the MMO trend, relies largely on mouse ability rather than stat calculations. It's a refreshing decision, but a clunky game engine renders it frustrating, particularly during server lag. Ranged combat is acceptable, if stilted, but melee battles are weak. Group combat is also hamstrung by this issue, despite a helpful and friendly community."

I am interested to see if F.E players agree about the combat mechanics, I like the look of the game but with others on my plate at the moment I do intend to check out F.E. next year at somepoint.

PS. PC Gamer magazine US pg 81 Holiday edition.

Don't get me wrong I see a really good community for the game it is just as coming from someone who loves to craft and also the real time combat element, is what the review says semi true for the game in combat terms?

Weird, last years, games that recieve below 60% I find enjoyable, and games above 90% I find to be an utter crap.

They don't rate the quality of the game.

They rate the appeal to mass market. If a game will appeal to mass market (their readers/customers) they give it high. They might mention negative things, but they still rate it over 90%.

If a game will not appeal to mass market and try to attract a niche market, they will give it 50-60%. They are not really reviews, they are just predictions how well did they do in the general public.

They have nothing to do with movie critics, these usually do that the other way around.

I have to agree with this post. I personally do enjoy the game and they were right about the combat. I don't have any issues running it whatsoever on my gaming rig (see sig.... I shouldn't have an issue playing ANY game on it) and was able to play it (albeit roughly) on my laptop (dual core 2ghz, 4 gigs gaming ram, fast hdd, oc'ed onboard gfx card). 

That magazine has changed so much and switched editors so many times in the last few years, I wouldn't really take stock in anything they say. I just ended my subscription of 15 years because most of the articles they have in there nowadays are utter rubbish.

PC Gamer.... anyhow..

 Similar sort of story in the UK with our version of PC Gamer.  However, the staff there are such overt Blizzard (and Valve) fanboys, that most of their non WOW MMO reviews are embarrassing to read through sheer lack of professionalism.  Their old editor left to join Blizz ffs.  I still remember a review of one MMO and one of the WOW expansions in the same mag - the WOW expansion was lauded for "innovative" features that anyone who had played MMOs for any amount of time would know originated in other areas - the other MMO damned for stealing features from other MMOs.  As I said - a pretty embarrassing read usually.

As I always say, give one-thousand reviewers a peace of paper and a pen each and you will get one-thousand answers. The only review that does count is your own, you don't need anybody else to tell you what you like or don't like. After all the freedom of choice is in your hands. 

Originally posted by Euphoryk

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Fallen Earth seems like a 55% right now with extremely good potential to be an 80-90% in six or seven months. I found their assessment of the game to be rather accurate.

 

 

Makes me wonder if you've even played past S1, because their assessment is far from accurate in my eyes, however opinions do vary so I'll chalk it up to differing opinions and leave it at that.

S1 is basically just a giant extension of the tutorial itself designed to get you into the game and used to it systems and mechanics. I often wonder how many players/attempted players actually realize this...

If I didn't play past S1, and the game becomes something dramatically different beyond that, then maybe 45 days, instead of 30, would have been enough time for me to reach that part that would justify subscribing. 

  I like the concept of the game and several of its features. I like the graphics of the game and I find combat entertaining. However, the skill system and crafting didn't seem too intuitive to me. At the end of a month, I felt like I had just been doing quests like in every other MMO except in a different setting. I'll be anxiously watching two things - to see if the game offers better aid in getting me into aspects OTHER than wandering around killing stuff or if a decent amount of guides pop up on the net that help me achieve that end.

Do you feel the problem is that the people who have left were people who never made it past S1? If so, then maybe that's something to bring up to Icarus - that the game is a great game, but new players aren't getting a chance to find that out due to time, game design or some other factor.