| 278 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
10/22/09 3:24:59 PM#161
Originally posted by Bhawke21
Oh my god. Guys. RAM. Does. Not. Equate. To. Lag. Period. You could run a game with onboard graphics and no ram, and still not get any lag. It's possible. Also, fps issues and lag are very, very different problems. They're very, very easy to differentiate. If he says he is getting lag, I'll assume he means exactly what he says, without proof to sway me in either direction. Therefor, the logical conclusion is that he was playing when the server was having issues and was getting lag. There has been plenty of that problem in FE from time to time since release. Yet again. I don't agree with his score. I don't think it was fair to a relatively good game. But please, please stop spewing this junk about his ram causing the lag, and how you can't run a game properly on 2 gigs of ram, and blah blah blah. That's utterly retarded.
Yes but lots of people get lousy fps/studder and call it lagg so its hard to tell if it really is lagg or bad fps due to his poor amount of ram |
|
|
10/22/09 3:27:43 PM#162
Originally posted by Shannia
Ok, uhm? So if you bother to read the review. And then think for awhile. Then just shortly explain how a positive review like this one would give the game a 6.9 score and yours... albeit a short review but really a negative one would give it 6.5. Just don't add up. :/
I'll answer that question. Did AION have paid advertising on this site? Yes they did. Did Fallen Earth have paid advertising on this site? Not that I saw. Could that be why there is such a huge difference in the score? Most likely not, but it does make a person wonder.
Yea, FE did, actually. That is, if this site requires payment for header and footer banners. Edit: Though, after this..."review", I don't see a real reason for Icarus to maintain such a relationship. You pay for advertising with the hope that it will draw in players. That's business. If a site doesn't give you a fair review, well, what would be the point in continuing to pay them? And I'm not saying that a fair review can't be a low score. I'm just saying this review does not match the score given. "Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..." |
|
|
Shannia
Novice Member
Joined: 11/06/05
"World of WarCraft is held alive solely by the mediocrity of competing products." RendRegen |
10/22/09 3:29:16 PM#163
Originally posted by Khalathwyr
Ok, uhm? So if you bother to read the review. And then think for awhile. Then just shortly explain how a positive review like this one would give the game a 6.9 score and yours... albeit a short review but really a negative one would give it 6.5. Just don't add up. :/
I'll answer that question. Did AION have paid advertising on this site? Yes they did. Did Fallen Earth have paid advertising on this site? Not that I saw. Could that be why there is such a huge difference in the score? Most likely not, but it does make a person wonder.
Yea, FE did, actually. That is, if this site requires payment for header and footer banners.
Rules out that theory then. =)
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware "Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product." |
|
10/22/09 3:31:14 PM#164
Originally posted by Shannia
Ok, uhm? So if you bother to read the review. And then think for awhile. Then just shortly explain how a positive review like this one would give the game a 6.9 score and yours... albeit a short review but really a negative one would give it 6.5. Just don't add up. :/
I'll answer that question. Did AION have paid advertising on this site? Yes they did. Did Fallen Earth have paid advertising on this site? Not that I saw. Could that be why there is such a huge difference in the score? Most likely not, but it does make a person wonder.
It almost sounds that you would agree that the reviewer would have given the game a higher score. So I'm slightly confused if you read my question wrong. Ok that you gave the game 6.5 (that's up to you) but the tone in the review was well over 6.9? I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention. |
|
|
blakavar
 Apprentice Member
Joined: 7/22/06
Troll says, "I'm a troll bitches. Dance!" |
10/22/09 3:32:41 PM#165
I think most folks can see his system wasn't really up to min requirements. Everyone else playing the game doesn't have the lag issues described by the reviewer. Either that or he is so sensitive to the minor lag people get in major congested cities at peak hours that he felt the need to slam FE this hard, which brings up questions of his ability to review products objectively and honestly. |
|
DonnieBrasco
 Novice Member
Joined: 7/25/06
Achiever 80.00% |
10/22/09 3:32:44 PM#166
Originally posted by Euphoryk
They are. However, reviews are not to be meant to reflect personal taste, but a fair evaluation sir. 6.9 for this game is parsec's away from even being remotely fair. DB
Thank you DB, for summing it up perfectly. This is exactly the point I was attempting to make.
No problem:) Doesn't really matter anymore, as it has been clearly proven that the reviewer had been bulshitting about his specs, but Stradden has already made a standup to him, so he won't take it back. They might do a re-review soon (or later), with a much fairer score, so we can forget this worthless pos of a "review" asap. DB Denial makes one look a lot dumber than he/she actually is. |
|
10/22/09 3:33:53 PM#167
Wow........ that score is a kick in the balls to Icarus. As I look at some of the scores of the games on this list I just can't help but shake my head.
6.9 ........ wow ....... good job guys.
Pffft ........ *rolls eyes and leaves the thread
~Hairysun
http://www.straightdope.com/ |
|
|
Shannia
Novice Member
Joined: 11/06/05
"World of WarCraft is held alive solely by the mediocrity of competing products." RendRegen |
10/22/09 3:36:16 PM#168
Originally posted by Orphes
Ok, uhm? So if you bother to read the review. And then think for awhile. Then just shortly explain how a positive review like this one would give the game a 6.9 score and yours... albeit a short review but really a negative one would give it 6.5. Just don't add up. :/
I'll answer that question. Did AION have paid advertising on this site? Yes they did. Did Fallen Earth have paid advertising on this site? Not that I saw. Could that be why there is such a huge difference in the score? Most likely not, but it does make a person wonder.
It almost sounds that you would agree that the reviewer would have given the game a higher score. So I'm slightly confused if you read my question wrong. Ok that you gave the game 6.5 (that's up to you) but the tone in the review was well over 6.9? I will say that yes, it is true, the written write up and the score the reviewer gave do not match. It should have been much higher. Based on the write up, definately in the 8.0-8.5 range. Definately not the 6.5. I stand on my own 6.5 for the game because the reasons I stated already.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware "Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product." |
|
10/22/09 3:36:28 PM#169
Originally posted by DonnieBrasco
Thank you DB, for summing it up perfectly. This is exactly the point I was attempting to make.
No problem:) Doesn't really matter anymore, as it has been clearly proven that the reviewer had been bulshitting about his specs, but Stradden has already made a standup to him, so he won't take it back. They might do a re-review soon (or later), with a much fairer score, so we can forget this worthless pos of a "review" asap. DB Wouldn't hold my breath for that one. Icarus doesn't have a "Tasos" on staff and wouldn't act in such a manner. And then sites like these have the gaul to point fingers at others as to why noone is marching away from the Aion/WoW method of making games, lol! "Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..." |
|
|
10/22/09 3:36:51 PM#170
Pls be nice now.
|
|
|
10/22/09 3:38:14 PM#171
Originally posted by Shannia
I'll answer that question. Did AION have paid advertising on this site? Yes they did. Did Fallen Earth have paid advertising on this site? Not that I saw. Could that be why there is such a huge difference in the score? Most likely not, but it does make a person wonder.
It almost sounds that you would agree that the reviewer would have given the game a higher score. So I'm slightly confused if you read my question wrong. Ok that you gave the game 6.5 (that's up to you) but the tone in the review was well over 6.9? I will say that yes, it is true, the written write up and the score the reviewer gave do not match. It should have been much higher. Based on the write up, definately in the 8.0-8.5 range. Definately not the 6.5. I stand on my own 6.5 for the game because the reasons I stated already.
And when you have people who vehemently don't like the game agreeing with this point...yeah... "Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..." |
|
|
10/22/09 3:38:59 PM#172
Originally posted by ste2000
Very well said. +1 to you sir |
|
|
10/22/09 3:41:30 PM#173
Originally posted by Thillian Amen to this post. Giving FE a 6.9 and labeling it "mediocre" simply because your "very mediocre" computer/OS combination couldn't cut it, is a terrible way to review. I'm seriously amazed the other staff members of mmorpg allowed you to give it that score, especially considering that you barely listed any other negatives about the game (and rightly so since there really aren't many). And then, to top it off, you guys give Aion an 8.9?! Seriously? Did you even play it? It's got to be one of the most generic mmos I've played in years. I've played F2P games that had more innovation, no joke. I hate to have to assume this about mmorpg, considering that I've been a member for a good 5 years now, but it really seems like you guys are becoming a "bought and sold" kind of site. Some of the high scores that you've given to mainstream mmos, that clearly didn't deserve it, make it painfully clear. This little instance here is just icing on the cake. As a gamer, I'm truly ashamed. FE, in no way, deserved such a rating and you guys know it. It's a damn good game, possibly one of the best I've played in the last 5 years, and Icarus has got my deepest respect for bringing out a good, solid product despite being a tiny, indy company. That's a hell of a lot more than you can say for mainstream companies like Funcom, SOE, Mythic, and even NCsoft, who have had more than their fair share of lackluster titles and unstable releases, despite having way more money to spend. That alone speaks for itself. I really hope you guys consider righting the wrong here and give FE (and by association, Icarus) a score that it/they actually deserve.  |
|
|
10/22/09 3:42:28 PM#174
Originally posted by Khalathwyr
Reviews are not opinions they are reviews and opinions are opinions... I refer you to Skatty2007's post on page 3 of this thread : My review of the Review of Fallen Earth: --The reviewer suggests that starting off in a non-pistol oriented town is too difficult. This is far too much personal opinion. What works good for you "by starting off in a pistol town" may not work for someone else. It should be stated, "you can start off in a pistol, rifle, or melee town depending on what fits your initial playstyle, but neither of them are so conforming to a single combat form". Leave your opinion out of it, I have a functional brain and can make my own opinion thank you very much. --It states that crafting in the game is extremely intensive and is worthy of its own article. But two sentences later is states "it works like most crafting systems." To me this is contradictory. If it is just like all the other crafting systems, why does it merit its own article? --"I found it a little unwieldy with a keyboard and a mouse." Well thanks for your opinion, I found it to work best with a keyboard and a mouse. Everyone has their own way of what controls works best for them. Say something to the effect that you can use a keyboard\mouse combination or control pad depending on what gives you better control. But the way it is stated has far too much personal opinion in it. This is a review, not "Joe Schmoe's Personal Playstyle Reference Guide." --It goes on to give advice on how to perform combat. Such as hit and move and take your time targeting. Is this an advice column? Later on he says how much he died (albeit due to lag). I'm not exactly feeling the validity of the advice here since he ended up dyeing so much. Not only that's, but this is a review , not a playguide or advice column (gee, see a recurring theme here?). If he dies cause of lag all the time, how can you properly employ hit and move to see if it is a valid combat technique? Again, leave your own expert advice out of a review please - I have a brain and will find my own technique that serves me well. --It states the UI is fairly standard. That's just not the case. It failed to mention you can minimize everything in different positions than they are maximized, everything is resizable\adjustable (how many MMO's have you played that have the typical immovable hotbar at the bottom of the screen?) While I don't consider his write-up of the UI an opinion so I can't speak negatively about that, the review leaves out aspects of the UI that are not 'fairly standard' --"Fast paced combat is not for everyone." Well guess what? There is no MMO or facet of an MMO that everyone is going to like. To say some people will like it and some people wont is incredibly obvious and can be said for every single game ever made in the history of gaming. --"Fallen earth players are passionate about the game" This implies other people are not passionate about their other games. Also, are you reviewing their forums or the game? Putting a blurb in about your review of the forum is not relevant and highly subjective. Overall score of the review of Fallen Earth: 6.9 His review only re-affirms of why I come here: Forum entertainment only.
Ahh, I smell what you're cooking. Your saying a review should, in essence, be (in no particular order): 1) You press enter to access the chat line. 2) The inventory is access by pressing the "I" key or clicking on the UI link marked "Inventory". Kinda of a step by step of what does what. A mechanical or technical review as opposed to an impression or opinion review.
Those are a bit simplistic examples, but yes. A review should be about how the game presents itself, not the experience that the review had while playing the game. For instance the game may have a rich story line. One may not like the actual story details that the game reviewer experiences, but it can be well done. Therefore the review should say the game has a well developed story and rate the game in part on how well that story is developed, rather than the experience that reviewer had while playing out that story. It should say something to the effect that if you one feels a rish story is important, the game may fit you well. --------------- There is in inherent conflict of interest in making a review of a game. You are either going to like the game or not like the game. But one has to separate those emotions in making an unbaised review - and that has to be hard to do, I'll definitely admit that. That's why not everyone is qualified to write a review because some people are unable to do that. In my opinion, that was not the case for this review, therefore this review is meaningless regardless of whatever score was given. I'm not creative enough to have a signature |
|
|
Shannia
Novice Member
Joined: 11/06/05
"World of WarCraft is held alive solely by the mediocrity of competing products." RendRegen |
10/22/09 3:44:49 PM#175
I've solved the problem for Jon. It was a simple type-o. It wasn't suppose to be a 6.9 it was suppose to be a 9.6! There, now everyone is happy and we can all go about our business!
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware "Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product." |
|
10/22/09 3:46:19 PM#176
Lets not let this get out of hand - lets keep the personal attacks and what not out of this thread.
I understand Stradden's points about having some editorial control over the scores. I understand why editors would prefer the hands off approach. However, at the same time, this is a publication. In a review such as this, it becomes MMORPG.com's review of Fallen Earth and that is how most readers are going to see it. Yes, it was written by so-and-so, and it may be so-and-so's review, but we (the readers) will see it as MMORPG.com's review. With that said, because I see it as MMORPG.com's review, I expect it to go through an editing process to keep it in line with other reviews. As someone pointed out, what is the point of having a score if the scores themselves don't relate to one another.
And frankly, this hasn't been the first review I've questioned and it probably won't be the last, but if I was an editor and this was submitted to me, the first bit of feedback I would have given the writer is that the writeup doesn't exactly line up with the score. The writeup was mostly positive with the only negative being lag. Yeah, as a player, I might agree with the score, but as an editor, I would understand readers enough that at the minimum, either score or write up be changed to better reflect the other. If the writer's experience was truly 6.9 then he left something out or didn't describe other problems appropriately. If not, then he may be putting too much emphasis on the one issue described.
And as for review guidelines....
For example, when evaluating the art behind a game, a good reviewer will separate his/her artistic preference from how well the art in the game was made. The quality of the animations? The detail of the textures? Is the aesthetic consistent? Etc...
You would go through other aspects and evaluate them similarly, separating your personal taste from quantifiable aspects.
And then of course, the overall evaluation would be based on how well these aspects come together. A good reviewer should be able to play a game he or she does not or would not want to play but still provide readers with a useful review and completely remove him/herself from that preferential bias. |
|
|
10/22/09 3:49:58 PM#177
Originally posted by Skatty2007
Reviews are not opinions they are reviews and opinions are opinions... I refer you to Skatty2007's post on page 3 of this thread : My review of the Review of Fallen Earth: --The reviewer suggests that starting off in a non-pistol oriented town is too difficult. This is far too much personal opinion. What works good for you "by starting off in a pistol town" may not work for someone else. It should be stated, "you can start off in a pistol, rifle, or melee town depending on what fits your initial playstyle, but neither of them are so conforming to a single combat form". Leave your opinion out of it, I have a functional brain and can make my own opinion thank you very much. --It states that crafting in the game is extremely intensive and is worthy of its own article. But two sentences later is states "it works like most crafting systems." To me this is contradictory. If it is just like all the other crafting systems, why does it merit its own article? --"I found it a little unwieldy with a keyboard and a mouse." Well thanks for your opinion, I found it to work best with a keyboard and a mouse. Everyone has their own way of what controls works best for them. Say something to the effect that you can use a keyboard\mouse combination or control pad depending on what gives you better control. But the way it is stated has far too much personal opinion in it. This is a review, not "Joe Schmoe's Personal Playstyle Reference Guide." --It goes on to give advice on how to perform combat. Such as hit and move and take your time targeting. Is this an advice column? Later on he says how much he died (albeit due to lag). I'm not exactly feeling the validity of the advice here since he ended up dyeing so much. Not only that's, but this is a review , not a playguide or advice column (gee, see a recurring theme here?). If he dies cause of lag all the time, how can you properly employ hit and move to see if it is a valid combat technique? Again, leave your own expert advice out of a review please - I have a brain and will find my own technique that serves me well. --It states the UI is fairly standard. That's just not the case. It failed to mention you can minimize everything in different positions than they are maximized, everything is resizable\adjustable (how many MMO's have you played that have the typical immovable hotbar at the bottom of the screen?) While I don't consider his write-up of the UI an opinion so I can't speak negatively about that, the review leaves out aspects of the UI that are not 'fairly standard' --"Fast paced combat is not for everyone." Well guess what? There is no MMO or facet of an MMO that everyone is going to like. To say some people will like it and some people wont is incredibly obvious and can be said for every single game ever made in the history of gaming. --"Fallen earth players are passionate about the game" This implies other people are not passionate about their other games. Also, are you reviewing their forums or the game? Putting a blurb in about your review of the forum is not relevant and highly subjective. Overall score of the review of Fallen Earth: 6.9 His review only re-affirms of why I come here: Forum entertainment only.
Ahh, I smell what you're cooking. Your saying a review should, in essence, be (in no particular order): 1) You press enter to access the chat line. 2) The inventory is access by pressing the "I" key or clicking on the UI link marked "Inventory". Kinda of a step by step of what does what. A mechanical or technical review as opposed to an impression or opinion review.
Those are a bit simplistic examples, but yes. A review should be about how the game presents itself, not the experience that the review had while playing the game. For instance the game may have a rich story line. One may not like the actual story details that the game reviewer experiences, but it can be well done. Therefore the review should say the game has a well developed story and rate the game in part on how well that story is developed, rather than the experience that reviewer had while playing out that story. It should say something to the effect that if you one feels a rish story is important, the game may fit you well. --------------- There is in inherent conflict of interest in making a review of a game. You are either going to like the game or not like the game. But one has to separate those emotions in making an unbaised review - and that has to be hard to do, I'll definitely admit that. That's why not everyone is qualified to write a review because some people are unable to do that. In my opinion, that was not the case for this review, therefore this review is meaningless regardless of whatever score was given. The highlighted in an opinion. My wife is a many times published author and what for you would be a well-developed storyline for her may very well not be. If you stand by your example, then opinion is indeed apart of the review, and review contain opinion. For then not to contain opinion they need only to present cold hard facts. Basically what you get in a game manual minus the fluff/background story. And yeah, the only thing I learned here was not to read another Joe Iuliani review or post. "Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..." |
|
|
Shannia
Novice Member
Joined: 11/06/05
"World of WarCraft is held alive solely by the mediocrity of competing products." RendRegen |
10/22/09 3:51:22 PM#178
Even that is subjective and leads to inflated scores and across the nation we have high schools students graduating with 3.5-4.0 GPAs yet then can't gain a passing score on a college entrance exam much less pass their exams to graduate high school, thus they simple drop out. Did you know 2008/2009 school year was the first time since they started keeping records that over 50% of the high school seniors dropped out vs completing their high school education?
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware "Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product." |
|
10/22/09 3:53:25 PM#179
Originally posted by Shannia
Heck know. For those that like to use the term, I guess you might consider me a FE "fanboy". That said, I wouldn't give it a 9.0 in it's current state (though, for full discluse I may have hyped it at 9.0 and you should duly note that I only bother with the hype meter after I've been drinking). No, anywhere between 7.5 and 8.5 (with the latter being generous) would reflect the review written. Nobody wants an "aion" review score. Most just want a fair review score that matches the darn review. "Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..." |
|
|
10/22/09 3:59:55 PM#180
Originally posted by Khalathwyr Ahh, I smell what you're cooking. Your saying a review should, in essence, be (in no particular order): 1) You press enter to access the chat line. 2) The inventory is access by pressing the "I" key or clicking on the UI link marked "Inventory". Kinda of a step by step of what does what. A mechanical or technical review as opposed to an impression or opinion review.
Those are a bit simplistic examples, but yes. A review should be about how the game presents itself, not the experience that the review had while playing the game. For instance the game may have a rich story line. One may not like the actual story details that the game reviewer experiences, but it can be well done. Therefore the review should say the game has a well developed story and rate the game in part on how well that story is developed, rather than the experience that reviewer had while playing out that story. It should say something to the effect that if you one feels a rish story is important, the game may fit you well. --------------- There is in inherent conflict of interest in making a review of a game. You are either going to like the game or not like the game. But one has to separate those emotions in making an unbaised review - and that has to be hard to do, I'll definitely admit that. That's why not everyone is qualified to write a review because some people are unable to do that. In my opinion, that was not the case for this review, therefore this review is meaningless regardless of whatever score was given. The highlighted in an opinion. My wife is a many times published author and what for you would be a well-developed storyline for her may very well not be. If you stand by your example, then opinion is indeed apart of the review, and review contain opinion. For then not to contain opinion they need only to present cold hard facts. Basically what you get in a game manual minus the fluff/background story. And yeah, the only thing I learned here was not to read another Joe Iuliani review or post.
But a story can have lots of twists and turns, in-depth, well developed, and what not. The reader may not buy into details and the development and think it is not a very entertaining story. In this example, the review would state the writer wrote a well developed storyline, but the opinion would state the story was not captivating and boring. I'm not creative enough to have a signature |
|
