4/10...least it went up for the fans lol

www.eurogamer.net/articles/darkfall-online-second-review

Reviews from eurogammer are already proofed to be not prefossional and  the reviewers they use are biased shitheads and  magazine is crap and was unknown till the DF "review" they did.

These new attempt to "re-review" is uncalled for and not needed like their first "review".

Stick to the UK gamer reviewer posted on nowgamer.com.

This all argue between a site, that noone should bother to read with at least bits of his brain functioning and a developer, that produced a game that noone should bother to play with at least bits of his brain functioning (BoBF) is just silly. We all know there are no game reviewers, people that write that stuff are not those that have BoBF, they are just people that can write articles that try to please the majority. And if a developer starts this war against some kiddy bloggers at eurogamer, well it is time to think about having a brain surgery for their marketing department.

Will be interesting to see if Tasos enters the arena and starts a new "war" with eurogamner :P

While he touched on alot of the flaws and I agree with them, I feel he spent an inordinate amount of time talking about the other review, what he didn't do, why he didn't do it, and not explaining things generaly very well.

I feel this review was more of a dig into the fanbase and the company than it actualy was the game.

just my opinion. Still not a very professional review.

Eurogamer repeatedly discredits itself.  They need to stop doing 'reviews' and acting like they are a respectable news site.

Good review, clearly brings up Darkfalls strengths and weaknesses. However did he mention the archaic gfx engine and terrible sound? I would say that is quite important to most gamers.

Other than that, excellent review that reflects my opinion perfectly.

it actually makes sense after numerous patches to fix bugs and what not DF got its rating up by 100% not bad, not bad at all..............

i cant honestly go believe anything that tasos said about play times of eurogamers first rewiev, like that review points out they hold the logs so who would i belive tasos who sold beta software with monthly fee as gold and now sells should have been gold version for expansion or people who just review games.

maybe i can believe if someone can explain why would game review site just bash games.

Seems like a fair review, well written and covers main pros and cons. 

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

Reviews from eurogammer are already proofed to be not prefossional and  the reviewers they use are biased shitheads and  magazine is crap and was unknown till the DF "review" they did.

These new attempt to "re-review" is uncalled for and not needed like their first "review".

Stick to the UK gamer reviewer posted on nowgamer.com.

Per Tasos, "I spoke with Kieron and I believe he is capable of doing an excellent job at reviewing Darkfall".

While it's true that public perception of Eurogamer, in regards to the original Darkfall review, might be tainted, there's no denying the quote above.

That being said, while I can see that he actually played the game and I agree with some of his points, I'd like to see it broken down into more detail.

~Ripper

 good review, i just wonder if everyone who replied in this thread read it cause its pretty long. and yes he does talk a lot about the first review but who wouldnt if your buddy received numerous death threats cause of it?

Well I for one think the reviewer did a good job. If you go back and look, the majority of the DFO players that commented on various forums and sites pretty much all said the same thing "I'm not upset about the score, but from the review it doesn't sound like the reviewer played it at all". This was of course backed up by the logs. While Kieron spent a little much time trying to validate the previous reviewer (In vain), he did a good job in reviewing DFO. Most did not argue with the original score, just the content of the review. In this case it deffinetly seems like the reviewer played.

The buddy who scammed the employer (Eurogamer) for money then took the day off  to get drunk and wrote a review with failures, bias  and made journalism look bad. (These is the summary of the first eurogamer "review")

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

Reviews from eurogammer are already proofed to be not prefossional and  the reviewers they use are biased shitheads and  magazine is crap and was unknown till the DF "review" they did.

These new attempt to "re-review" is uncalled for and not needed like their first "review".

Stick to the UK gamer reviewer posted on nowgamer.com.

Can't stick to the nowgamer.com "review" as it really isn't one.  An opinion piece filled with broad generalizations and no meat about the game, it's systems and how things are implemented is not a review.

Whether good or bad, everyone has the right to perform a re-review.  The first one caused a stink and they felt it necessary to try and save face in a sense.  Most any group would do the same thing.  Unfortunately, they were reviewing Darkfall and so that limited how much good could really be said.  Personally, I don't listen to reviews or forum chat.  I bought the program for myself shortly after launch and played it to make up my own mind.   I call it a program and not a game, as it is not a game.  It is a loose framework designed for nothing more than supporting a poor combat system.  I don't see why people are wasting time reviewing it in the first place.

In closing, it is perfectly natural to only want to support an opinion that matches your own.  Nothing wrong with it.  Is human nature.  For me, Darkfall was so completely forgettable that after about a month from letting my subscription lapse, I can't remember a thing about the game.  Not what race I played, or town I hung around...well, I do remember having to left click a lot.

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

The buddy who scammed the employer (Eurogamer) for money then took the day off  to get drunk and wrote a review with failures, bias  and made journalism look bad.

Both of the reviews are pretty much what review is supposed to be, a subjective view on a given product. You are free to review Citizen Kane and say that it is the worst movie ever done and those shadows are just plain stupid, not to mention the smoke raising from the chimney at the end. Others can then take up on that and proceed to whatever direction them deem fit. If you try to validate your personal opinion as the sole supportable one that has nothing to do with these reviews but everything to do with your personal preferences. For me, these both reviews have appeared well-written and informative, much moreso than e.g. the nowgamer.com review you personally linked.

The day when journalism means pleasing everyone is when it looks bad, not when it actually has the guts to look unpopular. There are way too many "reputable" game review sites on the Internet that pretty much always give a number that is 7 or higher on a scale to 10. Does that make their reviews somehow per se better ones. I doubt it. It just makes their reviews much more generic but arguably much less journalistic. Many of the reviews you see from MMOs are generic to the bone and could have been written based on press releases of the company publishing it. In sum, feel free to disagree with the reviewer, but throwing a hissy fit and turning to ad hominem insults hardly makes you look critical, only, what that word was, a carebear?

The re-review is such a shocker.

Originally posted by Harkkum

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

The buddy who scammed the employer (Eurogamer) for money then took the day off  to get drunk and wrote a review with failures, bias  and made journalism look bad.

 

Both of the reviews are pretty much what review is supposed to be, a subjective view on a given product. You are free to review Citizen Kane and say that it is the worst movie ever done and those shadows are just plain stupid, not to mention the smoke raising from the chimney at the end. Others can then take up on that and proceed to whatever direction them deem fit. If you try to validate your personal opinion as the sole supportable one that has nothing to do with these reviews but everything to do with your personal preferences. For me, these both reviews have appeared well-written and informative, much moreso than e.g. the nowgamer.com review you personally linked.

 

The day when journalism means pleasing everyone is when it looks bad, not when it actually has the guts to look unpopular. There are way too many "reputable" game review sites on the Internet that pretty much always give a number that is 7 or higher on a scale to 10. Does that make their reviews somehow per se better ones. I doubt it. It just makes their reviews much more generic but arguably much less journalistic. Many of the reviews you see from MMOs are generic to the bone and could have been written based on press releases of the company publishing it. In sum, feel free to disagree with the reviewer, but throwing a hissy fit and turning to ad hominem insults hardly makes you look critical, only, what that word was, a carebear?

So , in journalism it is allowed to state wrong things as fact ?

Originally posted by rhinok

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

Reviews from eurogammer are already proofed to be not prefossional and  the reviewers they use are biased shitheads and  magazine is crap and was unknown till the DF "review" they did.

These new attempt to "re-review" is uncalled for and not needed like their first "review".

Stick to the UK gamer reviewer posted on nowgamer.com.

 

Per Tasos, "I spoke with Kieron and I believe he is capable of doing an excellent job at reviewing Darkfall".

While it's true that public perception of Eurogamer, in regards to the original Darkfall review, might be tainted, there's no denying the quote above.

That being said, while I can see that he actually played the game and I agree with some of his points, I'd like to see it broken down into more detail.

~Ripper

 

Heh yep... I remember back when Tasos talked about them doing another review, certain folks around here (on the rabid fan side) were all "Good... that guy's a better reviewer, and he's gonna make Zitron look like an ass when they re-review it".

So, of course... when it doesn't get much better of a review... they bash them anyway.

Yet more proof (like we needed any more) that the only review a rabid DF fan will accept is one with a higher score, no matter how well-written, researched, detailed or reasoned it is; no matter who writes it.

And, really... Rhinok, you should know by now that the rabid DF fans will ignore any quote from Tasos when it doesn't suit them. So, those of us who haven't drank the Tasos brand kool-aid see the irony in the situation. The usual suspects, as usual, are going to completely ignore and pretend Tasos never said what you quoted. Or, they'll dig up some other quote from him - taking it completely out of context if necessary - and claim that it  contradicts and proves the first quote false.

Classic.

That said...

The review was a very good read. He actually was complimentary of DF in various areas (not that the usual suspects would notice, what with the low score and all). I don't think he spent an inordinate amount of time defending the original review at all. He discussed it a bit in some asides, particularly how it affected his approach to reviewing the game himself. But the majority of the review, by far, was of the reviewer's experience and opinions of the game itself.

Very good review and, as has been said.. it more or less confirms the first review, as well as several others that have been done, as well as the comments of many players.

 

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

Originally posted by Harkkum

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

The buddy who scammed the employer (Eurogamer) for money then took the day off  to get drunk and wrote a review with failures, bias  and made journalism look bad.

 

Both of the reviews are pretty much what review is supposed to be, a subjective view on a given product. You are free to review Citizen Kane and say that it is the worst movie ever done and those shadows are just plain stupid, not to mention the smoke raising from the chimney at the end. Others can then take up on that and proceed to whatever direction them deem fit. If you try to validate your personal opinion as the sole supportable one that has nothing to do with these reviews but everything to do with your personal preferences. For me, these both reviews have appeared well-written and informative, much moreso than e.g. the nowgamer.com review you personally linked.

 

The day when journalism means pleasing everyone is when it looks bad, not when it actually has the guts to look unpopular. There are way too many "reputable" game review sites on the Internet that pretty much always give a number that is 7 or higher on a scale to 10. Does that make their reviews somehow per se better ones. I doubt it. It just makes their reviews much more generic but arguably much less journalistic. Many of the reviews you see from MMOs are generic to the bone and could have been written based on press releases of the company publishing it. In sum, feel free to disagree with the reviewer, but throwing a hissy fit and turning to ad hominem insults hardly makes you look critical, only, what that word was, a carebear?

 

So , in journalism it is allowed to state wrong things as fact ?

 

 

Okay, first off, never confuse a review with that fact word.  Reviews are not facts.  I don't care if it's a review of a boock, a movie, a game, a restaurant, anything.  A reviewer sits down with a background of experiences and a set of beliefs and biases.  If it so happens that yours are a relatively close match, the review might be useful to you.  I seldom pay any attention to reviews, as they aren't often worth the paper they are printed on, so to speak.  All anyone can do is find one of those people out there that write reviews and seem to match your personal preferences.  And then, that is only applicable to you.  Pushing it off an anyone else, using truth or fact or best or any other cool word is a useless exercise. 

---

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

So , in journalism it is allowed to state wrong things as fact ?

---

I guess that you are refering to original Eurogamer review and the mismatch of information vis-a-vis to the game's actual content at the time being. Well, as the new review points out, the game is pretty badly documented and as such part of its hefty features might conceal themselves from the eye of a mere mortal. This is also part of the charm of a review, you are free to state that something is missing, for it is missing for you although it would be "present" for others.