Here is a simple table of the top 5 MMO scores given each year (from 2004-2009) here at MMORPG.COM

(I am including only original reviews, not re-reviews, or expansions).

So, we are to believe (from the review scores above) that this is the BEST MMO year of releases EVER!

Cool... I guess. 

Just thought it would be interesting to see what other gamers take is on the "inflation" of Review scores.  Are the MMOs really getting better and therefore deserve the higher scores? 

Or, is there something else going on here? 

(And yes I know, there are only 4 listed for 2008.  I didn't feel the other reviews met my standard of being original, non-expansion, or a re-review... i.e. AOC was reviewed twice.  I put in the first review.  I also didn't include reviews done for the first time here on MMORPG.COM, but done quite awhile after the game was released... i.e. EQ and UO).

(If any mistakes are found, please let me know and I'll correct them asap).

I'll be honest, the staff has went from Professional to amateur in the last few years. That's mostly what has been happening.

Many reviews in the last two years have been terrible or really short on content. I usualy get more information from the community itself then from the staff.

I don't dislike the current team but in my opinion, it's greatly lacking.

 I'm no journalist and I'm pretty sure none of these guys are paid so I don't really care but if wanted a reason, well here's one.

Don't be surprise, the games have went from awesome to pill of trash in the last few years as well.

Originally posted by Ponico

I'll be honest, the staff has went from Professional to amateur in the last few years. That's mostly what has been happening.
Many reviews in the last two years have been terrible or really short on content. I usualy get more information from the community itself then from the staff.

I don't dislike the current team but in my opinion, it's greatly lacking.

 

Agreed.  I like Jon Wood and some of the others the way they write, but I think their scoring is just aweful.  I know myself and Jon have gone round and round on this issue, but in my heart I believe advertising dollars from the publishers and developers artificially inflats scores.  A site to that is more favorable to games in general is going to get more business than a site that writes hard reviews with lower scores.

Case in point, look at the hype meter fron page.  Other than the first two listed, I don't think 99% of the subscribers on the forums have heard of any of those games, but yet they rate over 8.0 on the hype meter.  I guess I just don't understand it.

daoc came out before 04, they sure did take a while to review it lol

Reviews are one guy's opinion, so I never understood people who give them more than a passing glance.  (Making a thread based on review scores falls in the "more than a passing glance" category.)

Reviewers' opinions aren't worth more than any random forumite's opinion.  Do you hold random forumite opinions in high regard?  No?  Then why make a fuss about random reviewers' opinions?

 Best year if you like games that are pretty much identical to eachother

Originally posted by Axehilt

Reviewers' opinions aren't worth more than any random forumite's opinion.  Do you hold random forumite opinions in high regard?  No?  Then why make a fuss about random reviewers' opinions?

 

You are wrong and here is why.

Because, the reviewers are employees of MMORPG.com.  As such, what they write and how they write it influences the revenue generated by the site.  If they had hard nosed writers that wrote games down, it would drive advertisers and their advertising money away.

Just ask gamespot what happens to revenue when you have a writer that writes down a game about to release.

Hasn't been an MMO better than an 8 at launch in the past 5 years, no reason for any of the games on this list to have such scores.

Grade inflation is everywhere, and not just on this site.  Look at the reviews that rate games in 9+ category.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Reviews are one guy's opinion, so I never understood people who give them more than a passing glance.  (Making a thread based on review scores falls in the "more than a passing glance" category.)

Reviewers' opinions aren't worth more than any random forumite's opinion.  Do you hold random forumite opinions in high regard?  No?  Then why make a fuss about random reviewers' opinions?

 

It's still the reviewers job to word the information and pass it on to his readers. I agree with what you say but you still have a certain vibe you want to give out. If you give 8.0 to every single games then how are your readers suppose to know when a really good game comes out?

Look at Rottentomato.com, it's a site that seems to just hate every movies in the world. I mean, seriously, some of my favorit movies have awfull ratings on that site. However, when you suddenly see a 90% positive rating, it's often a really good movie. In the sense of cinema though, perhaps not in my tastes but still.

Politics aside, expecting consistency from a host of reviewers may be a bit unrealistic. Many of the games listed are niche offerings and as such their scores should be viewed with some skepticism right off the bat. Editorial policy should demand greater consistency from scores in profesional reviews however, and those which the players can influence on each games miniportal really need a tweak so hyped fans dont have as much influence.

Regardless i thank you for bringing this up. Yes, this is something of an issue, but a reviews true value is to be found on the written text, not on scores or headlines which might be paying lip service to game developers.

Man, you guys take this number way too seriously.

It's just a pointless number to me.

Nah best year of MMOs was the stretch of time where UO AC and EQ got released.

I think a lot of what folks here have said is true, but add that game dev's know how to play the reviews as well, or what reviewers are looking at and make sure thier games pass those marks even if thier are mack truck size holes in other areas.

"Nah best year of MMOs was the stretch of time where UO AC and EQ got released."
 

While I agree, its also true graphical MMO's were still new and shiny. We didn't know what to expect ie see EQ's epic horror of a death penalty and corpse runs deep in nasty dungeons,  which would never fly in this day and age.

1999 was the best year of MMO's IMO.

AC1, EQ, both on the heels of the awesomeness that was UO.

The MMO world has been downhill ever since, again IMO.

 the best year of MMO´s has yet to come, in 2010, when SW:TOR will solo-capture the title for best year of MMO's !

:P

Originally posted by blakavar

I think a lot of what folks here have said is true, but add that game dev's know how to play the reviews as well, or what reviewers are looking at and make sure thier games pass those marks even if thier are mack truck size holes in other areas.

"Nah best year of MMOs was the stretch of time where UO AC and EQ got released."
 

While I agree, its also true graphical MMO's were still new and shiny. We didn't know what to expect ie see EQ's epic horror of a death penalty and corpse runs deep in nasty dungeons,  which would never fly in this day and age.

Don't want to start that whole debate, again,  on these forums but I will say I would kill for a new MMO that had a severe death penalty.

All I have to say to this is : HA!

This site knows how to grade mmorpgs like I know how to grade a physics test, I hope they're at least getting paid for that.

edit: This year was even worse than 2008, MMORPG genre is in worst state ever.

Guild Wars is not a MMO.

Why wasnt Diablo on this list?

You people shouldn't give too much credit to the score anyway.

The reality is this is what happened.  A random person like you and me applied to become a reviewer for a game on this site.  The random person submit his review, MMORPG.com receive it, pays the reviewer some money,  post the review.  That's it.

The reviewer is just a random person like you and me who visist this websites.  That's it. 

The site has become more popular, and is generating more and more revenue over the years from advertisements as such. Could there be a correlation?

Thats one theory. Not necessarily mine by the way. It could also just be that the weight of a score has changed based on the community. Let me explain. How many gamers on MMORPG.com actually rate a game anything other than a 10 or less than 5? Far fewer than appropriate. Most people, if they like the game, will give it 10 to inflate the score. And those who don't like it find it satisfying to rate it a 1 or something else ridiculously low. The actually reviewers are perhaps trying to scale the weights of their rating system parallel to the general communty's.

I wonder how the scores of games by the community would change if they disincluded all ratings at 10 and 1? If they did this without telling anyone (so people couldn't just start doing 9.9's and 1.1's) I think we would have some pretty interesting - and more accurate - scores on the games here at MMORPG.com.