Ok this is an easy poll and here is the back ground and justification.

AoC had very good reviews initially.  This is simply not debatable.  Tons of reviewers give it 90% or higher.

Later there were a few reviews that had a better take on it.  But well before there were real player reviews with the real scoop.  On this site alone posters like Enigma had a realistic but fair review within a month.  And other posters did as well.  Of course there were plenty of silly poster reviews as well.

Supposedly the whole point of professional reviews is that they are actually a) knowledgable b) fair and c) thorough.

I submit that they were in fact mostly, biased and anything but thorough.  That is nothing new really to say, but the sheer scope of it is what is startling to me.

If they had given it awful scores, you wouldn't be turning this issue up, and you know why? Because reviews are subjective too - I bet there's not few people who agree with those reviews. People who, if Conan would've been given a low score, would be "calling them out" just like you think you are.

No offense, but this post reflects your bias, not theirs.

Besides, most reviews concentrate on two things: gameplay and stability. The gameplay in Conan is cool, and the game works... most of the time. They don't cover things like endgame content (in Conan's case, mid-game-on content ), class balance, and so on. That's why the reviews were mostly positive. They give you an impression of what it's like to play the game, not a detailed, full experience of it (another story it would've been... low scores aplenty!).

Warning: rambling now, but I do think that MMO reviews should be handled in an entirely different way than normal games. They should tend to describe the full experience. I think MMORPG.com went the right direction by reviewing the first twenty levels of this game only, because more attention to detail was paid. Of course, we're missing the next 60, but until they decide to do it, we'll have to see. In any case Conan's relevance is about to fade with the release of WAR.

I call bullshit on age of conan reviews. The fact that some of the sites that gave positve reviews had advertisments plastered everywhere smells fishy. Either that or clearly none of the reviewers bothered to level past tortage.

Originally posted by mrnutz1065

 

I call bullshit on age of conan reviews. The fact that some of the sites that gave positve reviews had advertisments plastered everywhere smells fishy. Either that or clearly none of the reviewers bothered to level past tortage.

How do you suggest a site make any money to pay a reviewers? 

Or do you think they should be able to get enough adverts from non-gaming companies.  Its possible I suppose.

I dunno at least with advertising money and banners its obvious and perhaps even traceable.  The real stuff you should look for all the "favors" and special treatment reviewers get.  All the smart companies butter them up like there is no tomorrow.

When that thing happened with Kane and Eidos it was tracked down by reader quickly really.

Please, take PC gamer... They don't mind bashing a game totaly and give it 40%, if you think FC paid them off or some other conspiracy you probably believe that Goerge Bush is behind 9/11 too. Sure theres always a lazy sod just copying someone else but that's rare in real media even though it can surely happen on this site.

Maybe they liked the game. And if you didnt you don't have the same taste.

I always wondered why some movies gets good grades in newspapers like "Home alone" and other crap or most pop music for that matter but I hardly believe in a conspiracy for that.

The posters here also differs in taste, and it will colour their review, anything else is impossible.

Originally posted by Loke666

Please, take PC gamer... They don't mind bashing a game totaly and give it 40%, if you think FC paid them off or some other conspiracy you probably believe that Goerge Bush is behind 9/11 too. Sure theres always a lazy sod just copying someone else but that's rare in real media even though it can surely happen on this site.

Maybe they liked the game. And if you didnt you don't have the same taste.

I always wondered why some movies gets good grades in newspapers like "Home alone" and other crap or most pop music for that matter but I hardly believe in a conspiracy for that.

The posters here also differs in taste, and it will colour their review, anything else is impossible.

Well I do not believe in a conspiracy at least not in general sense or very often.  Occasionaly there has been collusion though.   I merely think the vast majority of reviewers aren't worth spit when it comes to MMORPGs.

But there are certainly people who do throw out the conspiracy stuff.

thing is, i enjoyed the game at first myself, i agreed with the reviews...but i would like to see a serious followup review for the state it is at now

Originally posted by Loke666

Please, take PC gamer...

Interesting.  The reason I cancelled my PC Gamer subscription years ago was because they gave AO the MMORPG of the Year award right after it was released.  I haven't given PC Gamer reviews a glance since then as they lost all credibility in my eyes.

Originally posted by gryjin

thing is, i enjoyed the game at first myself, i agreed with the reviews...but i would like to see a serious followup review for the state it is at now

But shouldn't a professional reviewer have taken this into consideration.  Doesn't this come under thorough?  These are supposed to be professionals not amateurs.   Funcom played them like it was nothing.  I don't blame Funcom all companies do it and that is what I would expect of them, that is part of PR.  But it was just so easy.

the industry standard should require review updates on new MMOs imo. one at launch, one three months down the road, one at 6 months down the road..etc. but i can't remember ever seeing anything like that

as hinted at earlier, game review companies garner large sums of cash thru adversiting from the games they are reviewing. now if they give game X a  terrible review, then game X will not pay them to advertise anylonger.

even if game X is, infact, terrible, the review companies would make alot less cash if they were totally honest.

i actually disagree with that...i've seen enough negative reviews to know that they will do it when its called for. AOC at release looked damn nice. so i can't fault them there

Well a lot of reviews are based on a part of the game either the beginning of the game or a part the devs let the reviewer play on special events (This is especialy the case with pre-views). If you really want to write a good review about any game you should have played it from the beginning to the end, but most magazines and website have released there review on the day the game is released. (Treu that they might have recieve the game prior to official release),

I think it's more about insider access then it is about paid advertisments.

Look at the big 'fanboy' on this site.   He hung out with the devs, was bought dinner and drinks and generally has a personal relationship with the devs because of his status here.  I think every situation where a 'reporter' is given inside access, of course they are going to bias their public opinions because of that access and also because they want to keep that access.  There is nothing different in the gaming industry then there is with political reporting.  Do you think Bob Novac would be able to call Dick Cheney whenever he wanted if he ever actually criticized the administration?

The other aspect is that most of the gamer sites actually pay their reviewers (yes, I was paid for an article).    It's a double edged sword.    You have two extremes...  in one case, the reviewer isn't really interested in the game in which case he plays a minimal amount of time (ie tortage) and then writes a review based on limited gameplay.  The other extreme is if the reviewer is a bigtime fan/follower of the game in which case the review will be biased the other way.  For example... a lot of people who actually tried AOC were reallly big haters of WOW.    Of course their reviews will be tilted away from WOW and they gave the devs every benefit of the doubt.

The other issue is timeliness.   Nobody wants to read a 'review' of AOC 4 months after it is launched.  Therefore the reviewers have to 'guess' how many of the bugs will be fixed, and how much content will be added after their review.   I think in the same way that beta testers were dupped, reviewers were also duped.

I can only talk from experience, but my paid review came with no strings attached.   The company that paid me gave me no instructions whatsoever regarding being 'postive' about the game because they happened to have advertising on that site.  (no, it wasn't AOC LOL).   I think if that did happen, there would be more than a few 'articles' written about it.

after AOC i will not be buying another MMO until the three month mark....so i would actually disagree with your comment that no one wants to read a review after launch. i would now. probably not before, but i'm definately more cautious about MMOs in general now

Originally posted by Azrile

I think it's more about insider access then it is about paid advertisments.

Look at the big 'fanboy' on this site.   He hung out with the devs, was bought dinner and drinks and generally has a personal relationship with the devs because of his status here.  I think every situation where a 'reporter' is given inside access, of course they are going to bias their public opinions because of that access and also because they want to keep that access.  There is nothing different in the gaming industry then there is with political reporting.  Do you think Bob Novac would be able to call Dick Cheney whenever he wanted if he ever actually criticized the administration?

The other aspect is that most of the gamer sites actually pay their reviewers (yes, I was paid for an article).    It's a double edged sword.    You have two extremes...  in one case, the reviewer isn't really interested in the game in which case he plays a minimal amount of time (ie tortage) and then writes a review based on limited gameplay.  The other extreme is if the reviewer is a bigtime fan/follower of the game in which case the review will be biased the other way.  For example... a lot of people who actually tried AOC were reallly big haters of WOW.    Of course their reviews will be tilted away from WOW and they gave the devs every benefit of the doubt.

The other issue is timeliness.   Nobody wants to read a 'review' of AOC 4 months after it is launched.  Therefore the reviewers have to 'guess' how many of the bugs will be fixed, and how much content will be added after their review.   I think in the same way that beta testers were dupped, reviewers were also duped.

I can only talk from experience, but my paid review came with no strings attached.   The company that paid me gave me no instructions whatsoever regarding being 'postive' about the game because they happened to have advertising on that site.  (no, it wasn't AOC LOL).   I think if that did happen, there would be more than a few 'articles' written about it.

This post hits a lot on the head, and I'm going to repeat what I've said numerous times before:

Just because a company advertises with us (or most gaming sites), does not mean that they will get a positive review. I know that at first blush, it might look like a company doing something like that that makes sense, but if you think about it on the long term, it would really be a dumb move.

Having not worked anywhere but MMORPG.com, I am going to have to reference our policies, but I suspect that this is true of most other sites as well.

Let's say for the sake of argument that we were to take money for our reviews, or have some kind of deal worked out wherin advertisement = good review. Yes, you're right, money could be made on a deal like this in the short term. However, the primary revenue stream for advertisment based websites like this one are not actually the clients, it's the users. Generally speaking, a site can charge more money for advertisement space if they have a higher number of users. This is the same logic that has sent Superbowl commercial prices through the roof. The more people you reach, the more the space is worth.

Ok, with that in mind, let's look at the pay-for-review theory again:

If you folks were to ever find out that a company had paid MMORPG.com for a review (and I have no doubt that were it to ever happen, that you guys would be all over it in very short order), you would more than likley stop visiting the site. We would CERTAINLY lose traffic. The loss of traffic would result in lower prices for all of our ad space (you've probably noticed that we have a LOT of different advertisers here). Over time, whatever "deal" had been worked out would have ended up costing us more money than it possibly could have gained us in the short term.

Then, there's the employees. I am not an owner of this site, I'm an employee. If I were to ever get involved in something like this, there would be NO tangible benefit to me. Not only do I not see any of the ad money, but my professional reputation would be ruined. I would be unable to find work at another outlet and I'd have to go back to substitute teaching (believe me when I say i wasn't cut out for it).

So, then why do gaming sites use game companies as advertisers? It's all about market share. Let's say I approached Ford about advertising one of their trucks with us (even though I don't sell advertising for the site). They would want to know how many users we have, how many visits a day and the like. Then, they would want the demographics of those numbers to see how many of you all would potentially be interested in buying a new truck. Obviously that wouldn't be all of you. Just eliminating the folks who can't drive yet takes away from our numebrs...  So let's say that of our 900,000 users, 300,000 would potentially be interested in buying a truck. So they're willing to pay based on only 1/3 of our users. Game companies on the other hand, know that if you're vidsiting this site, you are potentially interested in their product. That's 100%. Obviously they get more bang for their buck and we can charge them a higher price (and they're willing to pay it). Why would we go after advertisers who would pay less?

Ok, that's the system as I understand it. I'm not a professional, I don't have an MBA but it seems pretty logical.

Now, those are the business reasons. Let me now touch on some the personal reason for me: It's unethical. I'm a gamer first and foremost and I just can't imagine getting myself tied up in something like that. Money may be nice, but I value being able to sleep at night a lot more. You have nothing but my word on that, but *shrug* there it is.

I want to say too that I am proud to say that the owners of the site, who deal directly with the advertisements (they don't touch my desk. I see them first at the same time as all of you), have never EVER even hinted that a good review would be nice. No winks, no subtle hints... nothing. I have a great deal of respect for them for just that reason and if that were to ever change, I know that I would have to re-consider my current employment.

I agree, there is something lacking across the board in MMO reviews from all outlets. The problem is that they are so vast that getting a timely review out for any new game is a more difficult task than some might think. Inevitably, there will be aspects of the game that were missed, and that's usually at the high-end of the game.

Knowing this limitation, I think that the best thing that review sites can do is be up front and honest about it. That's why I wrote a 1-20 review of AoC and that's why I labeled it as such. We have been trying to find someone to review AoC fully for a while, but it is very difficult to find someone willing whose bias either for the game or against it (there are lots on both sides) wouldn't interfere with an honest review. I don't want to run a review from someone who was overly positive any more than someone who was overly negative. Reviews are VERY subjective things. Remember though, reviews are only opinion. I know that many folks out there disagreed with my 1-20 assessment, but I wrote what I thought and I think that it would have been irresponsible of me to do otherwise.

Anyway, sorry for the rant, this subject just really irks me. The bottom line is that it isn't even in my or the site's best interest to take any kind of bribe for a good review and I don't like hearing people talking about how we (or my colleagues at other gaming sites) do.

Originally posted by Azrile

I think it's more about insider access then it is about paid advertisments.

Look at the big 'fanboy' on this site.   He hung out with the devs, was bought dinner and drinks and generally has a personal relationship with the devs because of his status here.  I think every situation where a 'reporter' is given inside access, of course they are going to bias their public opinions because of that access and also because they want to keep that access.  There is nothing different in the gaming industry then there is with political reporting.  Do you think Bob Novac would be able to call Dick Cheney whenever he wanted if he ever actually criticized the administration?

Oops, I forgot to actually address what was said here:

The whole "insider access" thing. I think you're referring to one user in particular with this post, but I've heard this applied to journalists as well. The fact of the matter is that yes, we do know many of the devs in the industry. We have eaten and shared drinks with them, etc. That doesn't make us incapable of being objective and doing our jobs. Am I friends with some of the developers that I've met? Yes. Would that stop me from ripping into them professionally? No, and they understand that as much as I do.

Pleasure is one thing and business is another. Some company buying me a drink or flying me to a press event doesn't impress me. It's part of their operating costs. I don't feel flattered or like I've been given anything that's worth my professional integrity. 

I would rather be blacklisted by a company for telling the truth than lie to stay in someone's good graces. Besides, if I were to get blacklisted (which has never happened to me), I, as a reporter, and all of my journalistic colleagues would be in a very unique position to write about that fact, and the reason behind it. Nothing drives traffic like a scandal folks :) Stuff like that makes our professional day. :)

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by Azrile

I think it's more about insider access then it is about paid advertisments.

Look at the big 'fanboy' on this site.   He hung out with the devs, was bought dinner and drinks and generally has a personal relationship with the devs because of his status here.  I think every situation where a 'reporter' is given inside access, of course they are going to bias their public opinions because of that access and also because they want to keep that access.  There is nothing different in the gaming industry then there is with political reporting.  Do you think Bob Novac would be able to call Dick Cheney whenever he wanted if he ever actually criticized the administration?

 

Oops, I forgot to actually address what was said here:

The whole "insider access" thing. I think you're referring to one user in particular with this post, but I've heard this applied to journalists as well. The fact of the matter is that yes, we do know many of the devs in the industry. We have eaten and shared drinks with them, etc. That doesn't make us incapable of being objective and doing our jobs. Am I friends with some of the developers that I've met? Yes. Would that stop me from ripping into them professionally? No, and they understand that as much as I do.

Pleasure is one thing and business is another. Some company buying me a drink or flying me to a press event doesn't impress me. It's part of their operating costs. I don't feel flattered or like I've been given anything that's worth my professional integrity. 

I would rather be blacklisted by a company for telling the truth than lie to stay in someone's good graces. Besides, if I were to get blacklisted (which has never happened to me), I, as a reporter, and all of my journalistic colleagues would be in a very unique position to write about that fact, and the reason behind it. Nothing drives traffic like a scandal folks :) Stuff like that makes our professional day. :)

when you reviewed Conan you only did 1-20 and gave it a 7.9

what would you give the game as a whole now?

i'd say no higher than a 4.5

The problem with PC gaming magazines, and PC Gamer in particular, is that they make deals with game producers to do "early previews" of games in exchange for advertising revenue and the opportunity to preview the game before their competetion. This has been done by almost every major game release, and definitly leads to biased "reviews" that are not subjective. I no longer trust PC Gamer, or any other PC game mag because of this. Sure, the magazines will still review other games fairly, especially ones that are not buying huge advertisment deals. But if they cannot review fairly and unbiased across the board, they are not getting business from me.

Another issue is that the PC gaming industry in general is not doing as good as it could or should be doing lately. PC Gamer has a vested interest in big name titles such as AOC doing well to help revitalize their lost subscriptions. Between the growth of the console market and the availibilty of online forums and review sites, their subscription rates as well as advertising revenue have taken a huge hit the last few years. When big games such as AOC, WAR, and WoW lead to higher revenue when the games sell well, at a time when they are clawing just to stay afloat, you know damn well that this effects their game reviews.

---

Reviews are VERY subjective things. Remember though, reviews are only opinion.

---

---

when you reviewed Conan you only did 1-20 and gave it a 7.9
what would you give the game as a whole now?
i'd say no higher than a 4.5

---