Originally posted by Euphoryk

Originally posted by majinant

 Fact that the game will run like shit if you do not have enough ram, just as the reviewer found!

 

Not a fact at all.

I run fine with a system that is UNDER min reqs. You are just spouting garbage that you read somewhere, when you have no actual knowledge of how the game performs ingame.

Ridiculous.

Not only that, but he is attempting to afflict his words with "Just as the reviewer found!" in order to use emotion to strengthen his non-argument in order to make others feel for and believe what he has to say even though it is a matter of opinion.

Originally posted by daylight01

Originally posted by superslaya

 

Reducing my duo core to a single would have a drastic affect on my over all computing experience. Reducing my ram from 3 to 1? I would hardly feel a bump.

Thanks for that...never laughed so much when it came to be would be PC experts..great stuff.

My advice go buy a PS3 or an XBOX..

Please, please, go read more about computer parts before trying to discredit me without stating, in any form, evidence.

You are basically saying... "I don't agree and you are an idiot! Get an xbox!" As a reply to what I said.

Originally posted by superslaya

Originally posted by Euphoryk

Originally posted by majinant

 Fact that the game will run like shit if you do not have enough ram, just as the reviewer found!

 

Not a fact at all.

I run fine with a system that is UNDER min reqs. You are just spouting garbage that you read somewhere, when you have no actual knowledge of how the game performs ingame.

Ridiculous.

 

Not only that, but he is attempting to afflict his words with "Just as the reviewer found!" in order to use emotion to strengthen his non-argument in order to make others feel for and believe what he has to say even though it is a matter of opinion.

Well, I now know that you are just trolling me. No one with any computer experience could be saying the stuff you are and believe it. Go umm, good day to you, wont be seeing any more of you garbage!

Originally posted by daylight01

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Hmm, this was surprising to see. I didn't expect it to be pulled, though admittedly I'm not sad that it happened.

 

All I want is a written review that matches with the numerical score given. I believe the game is a 7.5 to 8.5 (I'd give it an 8.0 myself). Will be interested to see this new review. I hope they incorporate some of the ideas being tossed around on the other thread for review suggestions.

Tbh mate I agree a solid 8,though even if the new reviewer gives it a 6.9(the same as the other reviewer) then that is fair enough.

At least this time it will be a fair 6.9 and I have no problems with that.

Amen brother, amen.

Oh, and it should have a written review baring some teeth to go along with the 6.9 too.

Originally posted by superslaya

Originally posted by daylight01

Originally posted by superslaya

 

Reducing my duo core to a single would have a drastic affect on my over all computing experience. Reducing my ram from 3 to 1? I would hardly feel a bump.

Thanks for that...never laughed so much when it came to be would be PC experts..great stuff.

My advice go buy a PS3 or an XBOX..

Please, please, go read more about computer parts before trying to discredit me without stating, in any form, evidence.

You are basically saying... "I don't agree and you are an idiot! Get an xbox!" As a reply to what I said.

Well here is the basic requirements needed also do not forget to take any other programs you need memory for,also then look to the game requirements and make sure you have enough spare memory to run the game/program...as you will see 1gb as you stated would jst be enough to run your basic programs never mind the game you are trying to play.

Home Basic		Home Premium / Business / Ultimate
1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor 512 MB of system memory 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space Support for DirectX 9 graphics and 32 MB of graphics memory DVD-ROM drive Audio Output Internet access (fees may apply) Additional requirements Actual requirements and product functionality may vary based on your system configuration. Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor can help you determine which features and edition of Windows Vista will run on your computer. While all editions of Windows Vista can support multiple core CPUs, only Windows Vista Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise can support dual processors.		1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor 1 GB of system memory 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space Support for DirectX 9 graphics with: WDDM Driver 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum) Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware 32 bits per pixel DVD-ROM drive Audio Output

I swear to god I have never seen any one place filled with as many unsubstantiated claims as I am here today!

"You are an idiot because we aren't agreeing!" Is the main property shared throughout most of your arguments and it is ludacris, pure insanity.

I built my computer from the ground up. I have plenty of computer experience because I have worked extensively with them since I was 8 years old. I am turning 20 on the third of November.

Time of this report: 10/24/2009, 22:10:26
Machine name: ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.090804-1435)
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: EVGA__
System Model: nForce 750i SLI
BIOS: Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz (2 CPUs)
Memory: 3070MB RAM
Page File: 1286MB used, 3669MB available
Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.5512 32bit Unicode

There is my setup and I have worked with it on many different ram configurations ranging from 512 to as you see now, 3070.

Each setup was capable of running and sustaining Age of Conan.

I have 3 1 gig sticks of OCZ inside of it right now.

PC 8500 1066 dual channel memory.

I am not some chump over here trying to short change you people. I am telling you that you cannot run about saying this or that as truth when you have no real evidence. Suspicion does not qualify as evidence and as it stands that is all you have.

 ---------------
Display Devices
---------------
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX/9800 GTX+
Manufacturer: NVIDIA
Chip type: GeForce 9800 GTX/9800 GTX+

Forgot my GPU.

Originally posted by superslaya

I swear to god I have never seen any one place filled with as many unsubstantiated claims as I am here today!

"You are an idiot because we aren't agreeing!" Is the main property shared throughout most of your arguments and it is ludacris, pure insanity.

I built my computer from the ground up. I have plenty of computer experience because I have worked extensively with them since I was 8 years old. I am turning 20 on the third of November.

Time of this report: 10/24/2009, 22:10:26
Machine name: ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.090804-1435)
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: EVGA__
System Model: nForce 750i SLI
BIOS: Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz (2 CPUs)
Memory: 3070MB RAM
Page File: 1286MB used, 3669MB available
Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.5512 32bit Unicode

There is my setup and I have worked with it on many different ram configurations ranging from 512 to as you see now, 3070.

Each setup was capable of running and sustaining Age of Conan.

I have 3 1 gig sticks of OCZ inside of it right now.

PC 8500 1066 dual channel memory.

I am not some chump over here trying to short change you people. I am telling you that you cannot run about saying this or that as truth when you have no real evidence. Suspicion does not qualify as evidence and as it stands that is all you have.

 

For a start you are using XP not Vista and XP uses alot less RAM and since the reviewer was using Vista I am still not sure you know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by superslaya

Yes, indeed, I am suggesting that RAM is one of the least important features of a computer. Just above gigs remaining on your harddrive. More is good up until a certain point and at the point no more will help you.

As I have previously said, I have read both this thread and the one before it.

You are essentially saying that because I do not agree with you I must misunderstand the situation or perhaps I have no even begun to read about it.

Show me one ounce of proof beyond the shadow of a doubt that this man is guilty of conducting a review on a faulty system and then, after having been corrected, proceeded to lie about it.

Do this and then I will agree with him losing his job over such a situation, if that is even the actual end result.

 

There is no proof of deceit, just the original review, the amendment and a set of posts from the editor about the system used that taken together aren't very convincing. I agree people throwing the word "liar" around need to take it down a notch. The real issue is the doubt that the reviewer *did* use a system that meets the minimum system requirements as set out by Icarus on the FE website. That doubt is definitely there, and fits both the extensive lag that the reviewer reported for FE (in and out of the busy towns) and the pattern of reporting extensive lag for other games reviewed using the same set up.

A second issue is the gap between the text of the review and the final score. This is quite clear too.

So, on both counts, the retraction was a good decision, despite the absence of "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt".

Originally posted by Strap

Originally posted by superslaya

Yes, indeed, I am suggesting that RAM is one of the least important features of a computer. Just above gigs remaining on your harddrive. More is good up until a certain point and at the point no more will help you.

As I have previously said, I have read both this thread and the one before it.

You are essentially saying that because I do not agree with you I must misunderstand the situation or perhaps I have no even begun to read about it.

Show me one ounce of proof beyond the shadow of a doubt that this man is guilty of conducting a review on a faulty system and then, after having been corrected, proceeded to lie about it.

Do this and then I will agree with him losing his job over such a situation, if that is even the actual end result.

 

 

There is no proof of deceit, just the original review, the amendment and a set of posts from the editor about the system used that taken together aren't very convincing. I agree people throwing the word "liar" around need to take it down a notch. The real issue is the doubt that the reviewer *did* use a system that meets the minimum system requirements as set out by Icarus on the FE website. That doubt is definitely there, and fits both the extensive lag that the reviewer reported for FE (in and out of the busy towns) and the pattern of reporting extensive lag for other games reviewed using the same set up.

 

A second issue is the gap between the text of the review and the final score. This is quite clear too.

 

So, on both counts, the retraction was a good decision, despite the absence of "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt".

 

 

 

I agree for the most part.

As far as the difference in RAM consumption between both XP and Vista goes, I am well aware of it. I was merely trying to inform you that RAM was not the biggest component in why he had lag.

Regardless, if indeed he was not using the recommended setup for the game the review should be redone and a system of checks set into place so that you know for sure that the Reviewer has, at best, at setup of an average player that the game seeks to draw in.

Originally posted by Euphoryk

Originally posted by korndog22

I am intrigued by how many have come out now that have played Fallen Earth and posted on these new forums about  How they feel about the game.With this controversy past us, alot have been saying that they don't like the game or that it is Junk.I have played it and while I don't think its Junk, I don't thing its that good either.WHAT ARE ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO RAVED ABOUT THIS REVIEW BEING CRAP GONNA SAY IF THE NEW REVIEWER GIVES IT AN EVEN LOWER SCORE?

Are you guys gonna leave it alone or try to get that one Thrown out...Hey 3rd time is a charm.

PS i do know there is controversy about the review and the sys req.But I am one that agreed with the score and not the actual review.

 

You have three posts since registering in 07.

Hello trolling account.

Not a trolling account.I just rarely respond to anything on these forums.I think My question here is as valid as any other one here.
As a matter of fact I barely check these forums .When i have spare time to play games I like to play games .Not troll forums.And I have played FE for about 2 weeks , and I am sticking by my guns .It may be a great game to alot of people.But not to myself.If i wanted to play a well done sandboxish style game i would play EvE again.I am really Curious as what the response will be if they give the game a lower score or almost the same score.I mean heck,out of all these post here 90% of them are just repeating what  everyone has already witnessed about this review.And the fact is the longer it went on the more people came out saying that the game isn't  as good as people are hyping it to be including myself.I think that alot of people are just upset that there Game didn't get the score they wanted.As i read more someone here made an extremely valid point.That there is no real proof that this reviewer is lying.There are alot of things working against him, But its really no ones place to judge him as harsh as they do based on hear say.I didn't agree with the review myself.and I will tell you why.I think he was being overly nice about the game.Maybe he was trying to please people who are fans while still letting them know the game isn't  that great.

I mean I have read several reviews on MMO's that have low scores because of ther lack of ability to run smooth.Which in my opinion is a hell of a reason to not like it.the game can be the greatest thing since sliced bread and yet if its subscribers can't even play it in a comfortable manner then all of that means squat.Maybe FE will be great at some point.It does have alot of potential,But more games in the MMO world that have been said to have tons of potential have failed than succeeded.Hell maybe there will be a review after the game works out its kinks and gets an 8.But for now I feel the score is fair.I think the review should have went  more in depth than it did though.So if the new reviewer feels the same will you accept it, is my question.

Originally posted by korndog22

Originally posted by Euphoryk

Originally posted by korndog22

I am intrigued by how many have come out now that have played Fallen Earth and posted on these new forums about  How they feel about the game.With this controversy past us, alot have been saying that they don't like the game or that it is Junk.I have played it and while I don't think its Junk, I don't thing its that good either.WHAT ARE ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO RAVED ABOUT THIS REVIEW BEING CRAP GONNA SAY IF THE NEW REVIEWER GIVES IT AN EVEN LOWER SCORE?

Are you guys gonna leave it alone or try to get that one Thrown out...Hey 3rd time is a charm.

PS i do know there is controversy about the review and the sys req.But I am one that agreed with the score and not the actual review.

 

You have three posts since registering in 07.

Hello trolling account.

Not a trolling account.I just rarely respond to anything on these forums.I think My question here is as valid as any other one here.
As a matter of fact I barely check these forums .When i have spare time to play games I like to play games .Not troll forums.And I have played FE for about 2 weeks , and I am sticking by my guns .It may be a great game to alot of people.But not to myself.If i wanted to play a well done sandboxish style game i would play EvE again.I am really Curious as what the response will be if they give the game a lower score or almost the same score.I mean heck,out of all these post here 90% of them are just repeating what  everyone has already witnessed about this review.And the fact is the longer it went on the more people came out saying that the game isn't  as good as people are hyping it to be including myself.I think that alot of people are just upset that there Game didn't get the score they wanted.As i read more someone here made an extremely valid point.That there is no real proof that this reviewer is lying.There are alot of things working against him, But its really no ones place to judge him as harsh as they do based on hear say.I didn't agree with the review myself.and I will tell you why.I think he was being overly nice about the game.Maybe he was trying to please people who are fans while still letting them know the game isn't  that great.

I mean I have read several reviews on MMO's that have low scores because of ther lack of ability to run smooth.Which in my opinion is a hell of a reason to not like it.the game can be the greatest thing since sliced bread and yet if its subscribers can't even play it in a comfortable manner then all of that means squat.Maybe FE will be great at some point.It does have alot of potential,But more games in the MMO world that have been said to have tons of potential have failed than succeeded.Hell maybe there will be a review after the game works out its kinks and gets an 8.But for now I feel the score is fair.I think the review should have went  more in depth than it did though.So if the new reviewer feels the same will you accept it, is my question.

Yeah, well, apparently you didn't read the review he wrote. The only negative thing he said about the game in the written portion of the review was that he had lag. Then I guess they figured out, by looking at his past reviews and his listing of his sytem specs, that the 2GB Ram he had with Vista was indeed his system setup, and that it's 2 GB short of what FE lists on its website is a requirement. That would explain some lag, yeah.

I have 4GB OCZ ram and Vista -32 and I run FE just fine. I don't have "mindnumbing lag" as the reviewer put it, to where I get killed. 

My beef, again, was that the written portion didn't match the number assigned. Plain and simple. If it was to be a 6.9 he'd have to have said many more negative things than just lag. He didn't. If the new reviewer doesn't like it, writes a negative review and gives a low score, so be it. That person just may not like the game that FE is, which is cool. For those that do like this kind of MMO, it's assuredly a 7.5 to 8.5 game. Solid with room for improvement and polish. Certainly no worse than any of the so-called AAA efforts released of late.

Originally posted by superslaya

I built my computer from the ground up. I have plenty of computer experience because I have worked extensively with them since I was 8 years old. I am turning 20 on the third of November.

There is my setup and I have worked with it on many different ram configurations ranging from 512 to as you see now, 3070.

Each setup was capable of running and sustaining Age of Conan.

You are the first one that actually said the the amount of RAM in a computer is the most forgiving part when it comes to performance. And I've spent time with the PC platform, it's hardware and discussing things with people IRL, longer then you have lived... :S

You ran AoC with 512MB RAM?
It worked well?

Originally posted by Orphes

Originally posted by superslaya

I built my computer from the ground up. I have plenty of computer experience because I have worked extensively with them since I was 8 years old. I am turning 20 on the third of November.

There is my setup and I have worked with it on many different ram configurations ranging from 512 to as you see now, 3070.

Each setup was capable of running and sustaining Age of Conan.

 

You are the first one that actually said the the amount of RAM in a computer is the most forgiving part when it comes to performance. And I've spent time with the PC platform, it's hardware and discussing things with people IRL, longer then you have lived... :S

You ran AoC with 512MB RAM?
It worked well?

LMFAO

Excellent move to redo this review and set up a system of how the scores will be done.  10/10

Originally posted by Chach

Lol 9 pages already... 

Dana and staff:

I enjoy this site very much, feeds my addiction while at work.  I think many people miss the big picture.  Is it fair to write a review on a game after playing it for 2 weeks?  Does someone write a book review after reading 4 chapters?  If they did, they would probably be out of a job.

These kinds of "reviews" have affected consumers.  Case in point for me was Warhammer, without even having to go into detail about it.

Your "reviews" should be called "First Impressions" or "2 Week review."  Only when your "reviewer" has experienced the MMO from beginning to end game activities, then I do believe it can be called an "Official review."

"Wow, this game got high ratings on MMORPG and several forums agreeing. (2 weeks later).  "This game suxorz."

 On this one, we're between a rock and a hard place.

Reviews are generally most useful to people making purchasing decisions. Our general policy on big launches is to do a preview within a week of launch based on Beta play, a first impressions a week after launch and then a review 3 to 4 weeks out. This one came out about a month after launch because Aion launched on the same day and that review ran last week.

Is four weeks enough time to give a complete and total opinion on an MMO? Probably not, but it is enough time to let people know whether or not it is worth buying. Normally, the first month of gameplay should be indicative, although that has fallen apart on us in the past. Take Age of Conan, which was awesome for 20 levels, got huge review scores out of the gate and then went all to hell.

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by grunt187

yes because leaving that mistake of a review well alone would have been the right move

/sarcasm off

Well, yeah. It would have. Now those of us who haven't read it, never can. Post a disclaimer if you wish, but leave it up. If it is flawed, then other posters can point that out quite ably.

Stifling speech is very rarely a good thing. This is a bad precedent.

 We took it down because there is no proper way to archive it without it displaying the score all over the site. Had this been a random editorial, we likely would have done as you said, but given the nature of our backend when it comes to review it's an all or nothing proposition.

Plus, we were not trying to hide it. We're not idiots, we know Google remembers everything ;)

Originally posted by Banquetto

Looks perfectly reasonable to me, mmorpg.com have really damaged their credibility by retracting this review just because the publishers of Fallen Earth cried about it. Pretty hard to have any faith in the accuracy of anything they publish here in the future.

 Not that anyone who makes this kind of tinfoil hat post will believe this, but I figure I should say it anyway:

Icarus and I never discussed this review prior to me pulling it. Not once.

It stayed up until Friday mostly due to my travel schedule, unfortunately.

Originally posted by Orphes

Originally posted by superslaya

I built my computer from the ground up. I have plenty of computer experience because I have worked extensively with them since I was 8 years old. I am turning 20 on the third of November.

There is my setup and I have worked with it on many different ram configurations ranging from 512 to as you see now, 3070.

Each setup was capable of running and sustaining Age of Conan.

 

You are the first one that actually said the the amount of RAM in a computer is the most forgiving part when it comes to performance. And I've spent time with the PC platform, it's hardware and discussing things with people IRL, longer then you have lived... :S

You ran AoC with 512MB RAM?
It worked well?

By all means, tell me what you think to be the most forgiving part.

And yes, it worked well enough, but I couldn't run anything else at the same time and I never participated in the big 80 man keep sieges like that. However, those things could even bog down my system under 3 gigs unless I took the settings way down.

Why are people having a hard time understanding that the review wasn't taken down because of the score but because of the under-performing rig of the reviewer? He simply did not have a computer that matched the minimum specs of the game then complained about issues that were well within the realm of being caused by his under-performing computer.

An analogy might be a book reviewer that has dyslexia and is an ESL. Sure, they might be able to read the book, but do you think it'll be a fair review because they can't understand some of the words and they don't take the effort to research those words, then complain that some sections of the book were incomprehensible and didn't make any sense, though overall the book was ok?

Reviewers are  not all objective nor will they agree with popular opinion. All you can do is read many different reviews to get a general feel for the game, user as well as 'professional'. The game isn't for everyone, just as Eve isn't for everyone. Wow is certainly not for everyone and yet is popularly regarded as the best game out there. What it boils down to is that it doesn't matter what other people think, but what /you/ think.

Double Post.

Please, stop making claims when there is no solid evidence to support it. We do not know one way or the other if the man had a proper computer or not. At this point it is all hear say.

Originally posted by Dana

 Not that anyone who makes this kind of tinfoil hat post will believe this, but I figure I should say it anyway:

I consider this to be a flame. Is it appropriate for a member of staff to be writing things like this?