Originally posted by Hammertime1

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

only a minority of those who play Darkfall rate it 4 / 10.  Last poll  i remember  (which was similar to previous polls) has 60% - 70 % rate it   a 7 / 10 or better.

 

Ummm...that would be the people that bothered to vote in the poll giving it a 7/10, that in no way tells us what percentage of players that represented now, does it?

And most of the players that I played with gave it a 4/10,  and with the number of players that didn't renew their subscriptions, I'm betting that a lot larger chunk of players considered DF a 4/10 game...and they voted with their feet, not in a poll.  Some "minority".

Yeah most people with IQ enough knows this, its just hard to get some people to realize that.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

only a minority of those who play Darkfall rate it 4 / 10.  Last poll  i remember  (which was similar to previous polls) has 60% - 70 % rate it   a 7 / 10 or better.

Try to make a poll in a McDonalds asking if people eating there like Hamburgers, or in a KFC asking if they like chicken, or in a Pizza Hut asking if they like pizza... oooh look, 80%!

*sigh* those arguments are so hollow it's not even funny anymore.

Good score for one of the most poorly produced and operated MMO's in the last 10 years..

The only thing on the same level or worse that I can think of is Dark and Light.

Throw in all the lies from Tasos and scamming (double billing for NA client) and they deserve an even lower score.

There's absolutely nothing of quality that can be associated with this piss poor production. The website is terrible.. the game is terrible... and the company behind it iserrible.

Want to know why sites like Gaemspot , IGN , Gamespy etc do not bother reviewing this?  Because they already know that their score would be the same or even lower and don't want to waste their time.

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

 

Sure if the reviewer would mention the food and magic then he would have no time to masturbate (as in downtime) and mention that instead.

I understand.

No, I dont think you understand much of anything Darth. Attend some english classes and maybe get away from the keyboard once in a while. Maybe then you will get a bigger persective than the extremely narrow and close minded one you have right now.

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

Only one remarkable sentence in that reviewers nonsense and mumbling at

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/07/17/darkfallout/

"That’s the thing with Darkfall. Despite everything, it’s much more like an MMO I’d like to throw my time in than the anything WoW-derived."

DArkfall is more of an MMO then WoW and that likes.

 

You took that sentence out of its context and left the rest of what he said out.

"That’s the thing with Darkfall. Despite everything, it’s much more like an MMO I’d like to throw my time in than the anything WoW-derived. Its problem is that it’s just not good enough. To be charitable, you can say “yet”. But “Yet” doesn’t matter in reviews. Marking for potential is forever foolish."

"

Originally posted by Ubie

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

Only one remarkable sentence in that reviewers nonsense and mumbling at

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/07/17/darkfallout/

"That’s the thing with Darkfall. Despite everything, it’s much more like an MMO I’d like to throw my time in than the anything WoW-derived."

DArkfall is more of an MMO then WoW and that likes.

 

 

You took that sentence out of its context and left the rest of what he said out.

 

"That’s the thing with Darkfall. Despite everything, it’s much more like an MMO I’d like to throw my time in than the anything WoW-derived. Its problem is that it’s just not good enough. To be charitable, you can say “yet”. But “Yet” doesn’t matter in reviews. Marking for potential is forever foolish."

 

"

darth, the king of spin

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by Zorvan

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

MMORPG.com has  excellent correspondetnts provides anyone interested with credible and valid information

www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/4/view/features

unlike those "reviews" and (re) "reviews" in such local rags like EG.

 

 

Correspondents are given the title due to the fact that they are fanbois. You've brought correspondents up time and time again and you get told the same thing every time, and yet you learn nothing.
 

Why don;t you just come out and say it. Any review that does not lick Tasos browneye is a bad review in your eyes. Any review that doesn't agree with you is a lying review.

Why don't you just stop.

And @ Chinacat: So now 20 hours played is not enough to do a review. Do you honestly think any gamesite is going to play 100-200 hours to meet your qualifications for reviewing a game?

Newsflash: if a game sucks in the first 20 hours, the game sucks. Period.

 

Here's the bad part about DFO when it comes to reviewers. The first 10 minutes of DFO can be a blast for most people. It's new, exciting, it looks ok. Then after the first 10 minutes it starts to suck and it doesn't get better for a long time, it actually gets worse and worse for a good while. Theres just so much friggin grind you wanna cry. Then you hit the wall. You just can't do it anymore. The boredom, the cheaters, the grind, the bugs, the lack of customer service, the crappy decissions, the sounds, and so on. It all hits you at once. If you push through that portion of the game, it does get fun again. The problem is, it only gets fun again in spurts. Thats when the real PvP starts and you're able to actually compete and keep up. But the PvP isn't always easy to get to. If you planned on sieging another city that right there is a friggin several hour long process in itself and thats assuming you already managed to grined every thing you need. If you got the Siege weapons, gear, etc and are now ready to actually do the siege theres still a long arse wait. For the first 2 hours, your protecting your city or in many cases simply waiting for the 2 hours to be up. Then for the next 2 hours you try and take your opponents city. This is a 4 hour long battle where generally 2 hours of it are spent twidling your thumbs, and the great part is that for this 4 hour battle you had to grind for days, weeks or even months in some cases. 

Random PvP isn't exactly common either. Random ganking is, not random PvP. In order to find random PvP you generally go out to the newb area's or out into the wilds and look for people harvesting or players farming low end mobs. The travel time to get to an enemy races newby area is outrageous some times.

 

The main problem with reviewers reviewing DFO is that the good part of the game is way later in the game. Not only that but that good part doesn't happen anywhere near as often as it should. Even then when it does happen it can take a very very long time to get going, setup or finish. DFO's good parts are hidden where no reviewer will ever find them. But some of the worste parts of the game jump up and scream BOO within the first 10 minutes of the game.

 

DFO does have potential. Even with Aventurines lack of buisness sense, customer service, design know how etc. and so forth it still has potential. The review was pretty accurate, wether fans want to admit it or not. DFO is not meant for casual players at all, solo players maybe but not casual players. The best part of DFO and the only part that seems to have had much thought put into it is the PvP (Even that needs work, but it is fun at times) and to get to that there is a ton of borring, repetetive, asinine grind required to compete with others. Any reviewer worth his or her salt will never give DFO a good review or mark, reason being is because no reviewer worth his or her salt will ever put in the time required to get to the good parts. It just takes way to friggin long to get to them. Thats just the way it is.

 

DFO has potential, it's a long way from reaching it and from the looks of it they may never achieve it's potential without some serious elbow grease.

 

As a whole DFO in my opinion is between a 2-4. PvP in DFO is a 6 with potential to one day be a 10+.

Zitrons a tard that did not play the game and his review showed it. Kieron (h/e you spell it) on the other hand did do a good job and he did play and give it a fair shot, his review shows that. And thats the last I have to say about any of this.

 

Edited to Add: It's late and I know I mispelled grind repeatedly but I'm just to tired to go back and correct that and my other errors.

Thus we reach the ultimate reason why the review is bad, and why the game is not enjoyable for many people. It has nothing to do with potential or what the game may be, its just the fact that the game is tedious for to many potential customers to bother "getting" to the good parts.

My account expired at the end of june, i was going to Transfer to NA, but after the 50$ money grab from AV, i am just not inclined to, because the game just isnt enjoyable enough to bother with because the game has potential. At the time i quit, i had around 11 N keys, 4-5 S keys, and around 150k in cash/items in my personal bank.  I just really didnt see the point in grinding through the wall, since i really was not playing the game at all and everyone was just standing around grinding to reach some magical leprechaun level.

Originally posted by miagisan

Originally posted by Ubie

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

Only one remarkable sentence in that reviewers nonsense and mumbling at

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/07/17/darkfallout/

"That’s the thing with Darkfall. Despite everything, it’s much more like an MMO I’d like to throw my time in than the anything WoW-derived."

DArkfall is more of an MMO then WoW and that likes.

 

 

You took that sentence out of its context and left the rest of what he said out.

 

"That’s the thing with Darkfall. Despite everything, it’s much more like an MMO I’d like to throw my time in than the anything WoW-derived. Its problem is that it’s just not good enough. To be charitable, you can say “yet”. But “Yet” doesn’t matter in reviews. Marking for potential is forever foolish."

 

"

 

darth, the king of spin

Lol, reminded me of  THIS .

I can't remember how or why I found it.

As far as the Eurogamer re-review goes.

The reviewer made it clear (at least to me), that although he had fun playing the game, that the cons still outweigh the pros. That is reflected in the 4/10 score. It really is that simple.

Darkfall is a 4/10 no matter how long you play the game.

The games starts out 'hardcore'.   Meaning that the UI is terrible, and difficult to learn.  The graphics are bad, the sounds are terrible.  Gameplay isn't very good.  Quests are lame and the monster AI is just stupid.   It's a very VERY basic game,  much worse than UO 8 years ago.  the skill game system is all about unattended macroing.

But you say, the game is hardcore, you'll soon get past that

So then you play for a couple months.  You'll find the pvp consists mostly of naked fighting.  Most of the murderers in the game will attack you only if they are naked and have nothing in their backpack.  The hamlets and towns were all bought the first week when players exploited bugged MOB AI and farmed monsters non-stop who didn't fight back.   The game is filled with exploits, including fast-loot, teleporting and map exploits that allow players to see anything on the map they want to see.   There are speed-hacks, most of which are used in moderation and aren't blatent.  Everyone know has their speedhack set to 120%, not 300%.    The entire game is just about who has the better hacks.

There is a reason a game with so much pre-launch hype can't even fill 2 servers.

Originally posted by skydragonren

How interesting a read would "DF Sucks donky balls!" be really?

 

I mean the Donky part kinda peaks the interest, then you see balls and it's like bleh.

So.....

The review had to fit Donky balls into several paragraphs. They are trying to seem interesting ya know?

Now that, my friend, is funny. You win!

Originally posted by Hammertime1

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

Originally posted by Hammertime1

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

only a minority of those who play Darkfall rate it 4 / 10.  Last poll  i remember  (which was similar to previous polls) has 60% - 70 % rate it   a 7 / 10 or better.

 

Ummm...that would be the people that bothered to vote in the poll giving it a 7/10, that in no way tells us what percentage of players that represented now, does it?

And most of the players that I played with gave it a 4/10,  and with the number of players that didn't renew their subscriptions, I'm betting that a lot larger chunk of players considered DF a 4/10 game...and they voted with their feet, not in a poll.  Some "minority".

 

i have a different experience. Most players i know moved to Darkfall because we all think its the best game  on the market right now.  Only a small percentage of us visit forums at all (including official one, i vote 8 / 10 and i am sure the people i know dont vote much different , we meet daily for hours in game and having fun.

 

Ooookay...speaking of small percentages, how many people are playing DF now? 10k maybe? Have fun.......but those kind of numbers won't pay the bills.

1) There is more than 10k active subs. I can't prove it, but if there wasn't a second server would have never opened. Not saying both servers are full or populated properly though

2) You don't know anything about whats needed to keep an MMO on life support. How many people play AO or better yet, how many people played EvE at launch, or better still how many people played Shadowbane. Get the picture?

Tsaos declined to have a re-review but they did it anyway. Why? Because it's self-serving to Eurogamer; Tsaos knew what game they were playing and wouldn't have any part of it.

Eurogamer had no choice but to re-review the game to try and maintain some integrity amongst gamers, because it was such a blatant act of incompetence and dishonesty. But ultimately Tsaos knew it was only being done to serve their interests and that they had to try and save some face on the issue, so instead of giving the game the minimum 6/10 it would deserve, they split the difference and land at a 4/10 in order to make it look like their original review was not so far off base. That's why he was smart enough not to play their game and give tacit approval to a re-review, when what they should have done was nullify the original review as a recognition of their failure. Instead all they do is try to cover their ass as shown by the fact that more time in their review is spent talking about the original review than the game itself.

Metacritic user reviews put the game at 6.8, which is right for a niche game that has some issues but ultimately the issues can be overlooked if you're looking for a game that offers what nothing else will.

Originally posted by Trenchgun

Tsaos declined to have a re-review but they did it anyway. Why? Because it's self-serving to Eurogamer; Tsaos knew what game they were playing and wouldn't have any part of it.

Eurogamer had no choice but to re-review the game to try and maintain some integrity amongst gamers, because it was such a blatant act of incompetence and dishonesty. But ultimately Tsaos knew it was only being done to serve their interests and that they had to try and save some face on the issue, so instead of giving the game the minimum 6/10 it would deserve, they split the difference and land at a 4/10 in order to make it look like their original review was not so far off base. That's why he was smart enough not to play their game and give tacit approval to a re-review, when what they should have done was nullify the original review as a recognition of their failure. Instead all they do is try to cover their ass as shown by the fact that more time in their review is spent talking about the original review than the game itself.

Metacritic user reviews put the game at 6.8, which is right for a niche game that has some issues but ultimately the issues can be overlooked if you're looking for a game that offers what nothing else will.

 

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what Eurogamer's motives are, if any. You seem to be twisting things to fit "your" view without any factual knoledge (ie. talking shyte)  Eurogamer, like it or not, is one of the most reputable gaming sites in Europe and I would wager most ppl agree with the 4/10 score given. With such a small player base I would think most large sites don't think it important to review DF, so at least Eurogamer took the time to give it a shot.....twice.

Originally posted by Ubie

Originally posted by Trenchgun

Tsaos declined to have a re-review but they did it anyway. Why? Because it's self-serving to Eurogamer; Tsaos knew what game they were playing and wouldn't have any part of it.

Eurogamer had no choice but to re-review the game to try and maintain some integrity amongst gamers, because it was such a blatant act of incompetence and dishonesty. But ultimately Tsaos knew it was only being done to serve their interests and that they had to try and save some face on the issue, so instead of giving the game the minimum 6/10 it would deserve, they split the difference and land at a 4/10 in order to make it look like their original review was not so far off base. That's why he was smart enough not to play their game and give tacit approval to a re-review, when what they should have done was nullify the original review as a recognition of their failure. Instead all they do is try to cover their ass as shown by the fact that more time in their review is spent talking about the original review than the game itself.

Metacritic user reviews put the game at 6.8, which is right for a niche game that has some issues but ultimately the issues can be overlooked if you're looking for a game that offers what nothing else will.

 

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what Eurogamer's motives are, if any. You seem to be twisting things to fit "your" view without any factual knoledge (ie. talking shyte)  Eurogamer, like it or not, is one of the most reputable gaming sites in Europe and I would wager most ppl agree with the 4/10 score given. With such a small player base I would think most large sites don't think it important to review DF, so at least Eurogamer took the time to give it a shot.....twice.

I only think they re reviewed it because Tasos made such a stink and since he said the reviewer would do a good job now he has to eat the review. Howver 6/10 seems about right if you take AV out of the picture and ignore the Tasos factor. He brings most of the hate on himself. If they had a decent PR department they would have half the bad press.

Wrong. Eurogamer doesn't re-review things because a dev gets mad - No one does. And Tsaos proved that by outright declining a re-review of the game. Eurogamer went ahead with it of their own accord for their own reasons and their own benefit: Which was to try and save face after their colossal fuckup, a fuckup that was plain as day to everyone who looked. Their concern was not appeasing Tsaos, but convincing their readers they still had some shred of integrity left. Unfortunately their own self interest precluded a proper review.

Originally posted by Trenchgun

Wrong. Eurogamer doesn't re-review things because a dev gets mad - No one does. And Tsaos proved that by outright declining a re-review of the game. Eurogamer went ahead with it of their own accord for their own reasons and their own benefit: Which was to try and save face after their colossal fuckup, a fuckup that was plain as day to everyone who looked. Their concern was not appeasing Tsaos, but convincing their readers they still had some shred of integrity left. Unfortunately their own self interest precluded a proper review.

You assume a lot of things, and, doing that, ends up just speculating and fantasizing.  The only people that disagreed about the first review was Aventurine (obviously) and the die-hard fans. Don't pretend to be a spokesperson when you are not.

Originally posted by xpiher

Originally posted by Hammertime1

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

Originally posted by Hammertime1

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

only a minority of those who play Darkfall rate it 4 / 10.  Last poll  i remember  (which was similar to previous polls) has 60% - 70 % rate it   a 7 / 10 or better.

 

Ummm...that would be the people that bothered to vote in the poll giving it a 7/10, that in no way tells us what percentage of players that represented now, does it?

And most of the players that I played with gave it a 4/10,  and with the number of players that didn't renew their subscriptions, I'm betting that a lot larger chunk of players considered DF a 4/10 game...and they voted with their feet, not in a poll.  Some "minority".

 

i have a different experience. Most players i know moved to Darkfall because we all think its the best game  on the market right now.  Only a small percentage of us visit forums at all (including official one, i vote 8 / 10 and i am sure the people i know dont vote much different , we meet daily for hours in game and having fun.

 

Ooookay...speaking of small percentages, how many people are playing DF now? 10k maybe? Have fun.......but those kind of numbers won't pay the bills.

1) There is more than 10k active subs. I can't prove it, but if there wasn't a second server would have never opened. Not saying both servers are full or populated properly though

2) You don't know anything about whats needed to keep an MMO on life support. How many people play AO or better yet, how many people played EvE at launch, or better still how many people played Shadowbane. Get the picture?

If you can't prove your numbers, your guess is as accurate as mine, but that being said , for a newly released game, it has a tiny number of players. And very rarely does a game survive a bad launch.

And as far as keeping a game on life support, here are four vital words in that regard:

twelve million dollar loan.

DF has investors that will want a return on their investment, and the pitiful number of DF sales and subscriptions are not going to be making much of a return to those investors. That is not the path of longevity to any business, much less a MMO.
 

Originally posted by xpiher

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

....

Someone would mine such a obviously difference is easy to spot and makes no prob to anyone.

But even Kieron Gilen the man  who his job is to spot such differences this presented him  a intellectual challenge.

So lets then declare the sheath / unsheath indicator as distinctive tool to separte the wheat from the chaff . The retards from really DarkFall material. I personally didnt believe it would be something so easy to spot like the sheath / unsheath indicator lol

 

Sigh you make fans look bad please stop.

Dear X, poor X, you now know why some of us will never touch DF, not even if we are PAID by the hour to play.  Its the community.

DF is a game you play with people.  The quality of gameplay depends on who you play with.  If Darth represents the community, this game means torture to whoever with a trace of sanity.  It takes my boss a huge salary to get me to mingle with half decent clients.  It will take a significant multiple times my paycheck to get me to mingle with Darth.  Even with that pay I might decline.

The real issue is how many of the remaining DF players are decent and reasonable.  From the general rule of "bad players drives out good players", the small the community, the less the good ones.

Its not $50 or $12/month, $50 is less than a working hour's pay.  That is less than half I spend a day on hotel fees when travelling at work.  It is not about loot, when I left EQ, I leave behind 190k plat.  All loot are meaningless the day I left a game.  It is not about dying, I die a lot in every PvP games.  I even die due to random "tricks" the imperials pull when using AT to "aggro" non flagged wookies in SWG.  Its not about AV alone, even tho AV does raise a lot of red flags.  At least I do not need to deal with AV once I can log in, until I run into issues I need to report.  It is about the people I interact with day in day out, I interact with throughout the duration that would be, if I sub and play DF.  It is about the essence of the game, the gameplay.

If the gameplay is broken, because the tools to provide gameplay (the community) is nasty, then nothing else matters.  SWG has excellent community, despite some of the issues ingame, the gameplay is superb.  It takes CU and NGE to end the game, and that is, when the majority of the community left.  That seals the game.  GAMEPLAY.

Originally posted by Trenchgun

Tsaos was right to question the legitimacy of their so-called re-review. Eurogamer was in the position of not being able to admit they fucked up royally the first time, but also not being able to let the original stand because it was so blatantly shoddy. They can't allow the rereview to be even a 6/10, because admiting that much would put egg all over their face. A 4/10 lets them admit that they didn't do proper justice to the first review without having to admit that the first one was too far off base.

Proof?

Do people like Darth realise that Kieron is one of  Englands highest achieving writer with regards to Pc gaming ? If all they can come up with is that he missed a few small things, and that makes his review worthless, show that some people are really clutchin at straws.

Gillen has worked for a lengthy list of publications, including PC Gamer UK, The Escapist, Amiga Power, Wired, The Guardian newspaper (where he wrote the first long-form videogame review in a mainstream newspaper[1]), Edge, Games Developer, Develop, MCV, Gamesmaster and PC Format, among others.

On the web, Gillen is a founder and major contributor to the PC gaming site Rock, Paper, Shotgun and a games reviewer for Eurogamer.

He is notable for his manifesto[2] for New Games Journalism, more simply the model of new journalism applied to videogames journalism.

In 2000, Gillen became the first-ever videogames journalist to receive an award from the Periodical Publishers Association, for New Specialist Consumer Journalist.[3]

Gillen has also been invited as a guest speaker at games-industry conferences.[4] [5]

Just a quote from his wiki page showing some of the stuff he has done. This guy knows what he is doing, and no amout of childish moaning about minor details and insulting him is going to change that fact.