Originally posted by Paragus1

  You are able to browse through reviews written by their members, that are rated as helpful or bad.   This enables someone seeking information about a game to get a wide range of viewpoints about the game they are reading on. 

 

Given the number of self-submitted user reviews in any game's forums, I think this is a pretty good idea. Once you get into the rating as "helpful" or "bad" you still get the potential for abuse that any rating system is open to, but I imagine that could be mitigated. What better way to serve the site community then to consider community generated content as something useful?

It'd be nice to see the review tab of a game split into staff review and reader reviews and let people take it from there. Could be really interesting to see where that idea would go. People would still complain about the staff review, but thats why they would be there right? :P That said, I tend to put more stock in what a sampling of players have to say then what a single review might say, so the player submitted reviews would be a great addition. 

---

Originally posted by bluebawles
 
Because it is my right of free speech while I dont break the terms of service on this website.

---

That does not answer why you do it but how.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by bluebawles
 
Because it is my right of free speech while I dont break the terms of service on this website.

---

 

That does not answer why you do it but how.

Why? Because I want Stradden to re-review the game before the 1 year mark since the first review, and I want a competent avid PVPer who enjoys political meta games to do the reviewing

That's why.

---

Originally posted by Izure
I can tell you this, this site  is based on reviewers that NEED hand holding carebear devs to help them, and cant figure anything out for themselves.
 
The reason why they gave it a low score is because, most of the people on this site are "Kids" who cant figure games out for themselves and need the real themepark( like wow) to tell them what to do, so if they give DFO a good score, and then a kid comes and say it was to hard and had no direction, they would get flamed, so they are doing what kids would do.
 
But they need to review it, a lot has changed. It will probably get reviewed by the same kid-carebear and will get a 6-7 again. Sandbox is a dying breed for the most part.

---

Need a hug?

---

Originally posted by Gdemami

It is amazing how some people can think that they are 'better' than others because they can 'handle' a PVP with full loot in a videogame and as such imply the game itself is 'good' because only 'better' people can play it...

Simply amazing.

---

---

Originally posted by bluebawles
 
Why? Because I want Stradden to re-review the game before the 1 year mark since the first review, and I want a competent avid PVPer who enjoys political meta games to do the reviewing
 
That's why.

---

That does not answer why but what.

This is getting difficult :)

Note:
The objection that the game can be reviewed at early release and the rating will remain unchanged is valid, I think.

Not that the game should be re-reviewed again but having a date of review right next to rating number seems reasonable.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by ste2000
[
On the contrary, you look like the one out of touch with reality by giving your interpretation of what an average player rappresents which is out of sink what the reality is.  

---

 

If subscriber drops after release is the only fact your assumptions are based on, I have to disappoint you since this is very natural and common appereance in business practice.

This is common practice because your assumption is based on all the games I listed before (Aion, AoC, WAR, CO etc), which failed to meet what the industry thinks an average player wants.
The drop in subscription of those games was sudden and dramatic not slow and steady as it should be normally.

Which further prove my point that the average Joe don't want those kind of games.............look WoW didn't drop any subs in fact it got even more over the years, because it is a good and fairly challenging game, it is not completely shallow.
So it is not common practice...........it is common practice for games that have been created for a player base which doesn't really exist.

I believe that for the average player WoW is the mimun of a "no brainer" gameplay they are willing to deal with, they don't want anything less challenging than that.
They might not want DF, but certainly isn't STO or WAR they are looking for.
So it is time to reflect those trends on the games reviews and be a little bit more balanced on the scores (I won't even use the word fair), and assume less.

Originally posted by Zionnax

Originally posted by Loktofeit

If Chess Online came out, it would probably get a really crappy score.

 

The lobby system, all the instancing and how the ladder is dominated by seasoned veterans.

The issues with it would probably be

- a lack of a PvE element

- no auction house

- no housing

- no plans to add new pieces in future expansions

- limited game world

- no casting or ranged classes

 

For those who specifically like an arena to test one's personal skill against another in a strategic game, Chess Online is probably an amazing game. Chess itself is an amazing game - it is a classic that has stood the test of time far longer than most games.

 

As an MMO, it's a piece of crap that Joe MMO Gamer would consider unpolished and boring. As an MMO, it would probably get a score of 4.0 out of 10 or less.

 

"How can you rate Chess a 4 out of 10? The PvP is great! The combat is balanced! WTF?"

 

Rating Chess Online a 10.0 because of the solid design of its PvP element doesn't offer an accurate score for the average gamer. The average gamer would seriously wonder how such an incomplete and limited game would even get half that score.

 

 

 

I was waffling back and forth; I could see both sides of the argument here... UNTIL I read this post.

Excellent analogy Loktofeit.  This analogy, to me, makes Stradden's statement make sense.

Just a note:   Chess online is out!  http://www.chess.com/

And it always gets a 10 out of 10!!

=)~

IMHO:

It's seems that if you make a game, and it's good, they will play. With the way online gaming has evolved over the past 10 years,   I would have to say Guild Wars is heading in the right direction when it comes to the MMO experience. 

First; and foremost; they created a FINISHED and POLISHED game in one package. No CONTINUING FEES!, addons or expansions needed to enjoy the full extent of the game.

Second; they put together an adventure that is flexible for most if not all gaming styles, without compromising the integrity or gameplay.  One that you can start, learn, enjoy, and finish; or if you choose, put away for another day, without penalty. 

Third; they  followed the GOLDEN RULE!  Keep your PvP out of my RPG

However they give players the option.  Pause your RPG adventure with ease, and partake in the wonderfull  world of Player vs Player as just that, an EQUAL vs EQUAL  (Like in Chess, you and your opponent have everything needed to compete on an open even battlefield.)

 In closing:

Reviews should be taken with a grain of salt. (back to the chess analogy, just because you hate chess doesn't mean it's a bad game) If you can't gather enough information to make your own informed decision then purchase the game for yourself, and make your own call.  It's good for the industry , you become more in-tuned about what you like and dislike, which will ensure a more enjoyable choice in the future.

Originally posted by Uzleb

 

Just a note:   Chess online is out!  http://www.chess.com/

And it always gets a 10 out of 10!!

=)~

 

IMHO:

It's seems that if you make a game, and it's good, they will play. With the way online gaming has evolved over the past 10 years,   I would have to say Guild Wars is heading in the right direction when it comes to the MMO experience. 

First; and foremost; they created a FINISHED and POLISHED game in one package. No CONTINUING FEES!, addons or expansions needed to enjoy the full extent of the game.

Second; they put together an adventure that is flexible for most if not all gaming styles, without compromising the integrity or gameplay.  One that you can start, learn, enjoy, and finish; or if you choose, put away for another day, without penalty. 

Third; they  followed the GOLDEN RULE!  Keep your PvP out of my RPG

However they give players the option.  Pause your RPG adventure with ease, and partake in the wonderfull  world of Player vs Player as just that, an EQUAL vs EQUAL  (Like in Chess, you and your opponent have everything needed to compete on an open even battlefield.)

 

 In closing:

Reviews should be taken with a grain of salt. (back to the chess analogy, just because you hate chess doesn't mean it's a bad game) If you can't gather enough information to make your own informed decision then purchase the game for yourself, and make your own call.  It's good for the industry , you become more in-tuned about what you like and dislike, which will ensure a more enjoyable choice in the future.

 

 

GW may have been polished but i put it away cause of its design flaws. After having played it i don't think it fits a MMORPG definition (at least my not).

Yes there is a lobby for all the players to meet but if you wanna hunt together you can join some maps that reset after u have visited them and are at  zero condition for everyone, a set path for everyone in the same condition require from everyone to do same steps to go through the same story.(in each map you also have to take almost same road to exit)

Then the PvP happen on preset maps on PvP server involving usual classes having the same level and skills.

From my experience thats not indicating RPG, there is no world player progress their character, create and build stuff, fight and conquer CHANGING the world.

For me GW is a multiplayer game to meet and have fun for some hours if you like to play something for relax (you could also play some FPS shooter ) but its not a MMORPG where you enter a world and progress and build it.

 Whereas Darkfall IS such a world.

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

GW may have been polished but i put it away cause of its design flaws. After having played it i don't think it fits a MMORPG definition (at least my not).

Yes there is a lobby for all the players to meet but if you wanna hunt together you can join some maps that reset after u have visited them and are at  zero condition for everyone, a set path for everyone in the same condition require from everyone to do same steps to go through the same story.

Then the PvP happen on preset maps on PvP server involving usual classes having the same level and skills.

From my experience thats not indicating RPG, there is no world player progress their character, create and build stuff, fight and conquer CHANGING the world.

For me GW is a multiplayer game to meet and have fun for some hours if you like to play something for relax (you could also play some FPS shooter ) but its not a MMORPG where you eneter a world and progress and build it.

 Whereas Darkfall IS such a world. 

Well put, I agree completely.

That being said, it is important to remember that ArenaNet has never said Guild Wars was an MMORPG. They have always hailed it as a CO-RPG, or Co-Op Roleplaying Game, which is exactly what it is.

Just a small clarification.

---

Originally posted by ste2000

So it is not common practice...........it is common practice for games that have been created for a player base which doesn't really exist.

---

Darkfall got how much, 15k subs?
Aion got how much, 400k subs?

Yeah, tell me more about creating games for non existant playerbase...

MMO subs are rapidly globaly raising over the years and new games released are 'WoW clones' only so I am not worried about the trend.

Originally posted by bluebawles

 Ladies and gentlemen of the Fora'

 

I glanced the way of MMORPGs newest review and saw a 5.8 rating for Alganon

 

www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/388/view/news/read/16257/Alganon-Alganon-Review.html

 

So are you telling me that an alpha version of a clone of WoW that constantly crashes, plenty of bugs and 1/4 the content WoW had at release received almost the same score as Darkfall Online (6.0)?

 

I mean even at the time of the DF review it had a solid game engine, did not crash, very very few bugs, the graphics were/are much better, the features:

Role-playing, strategy, and shooter action in a MMOGThe largest handcrafted online world of its kind.Over 10 thousand concurrent players per game world.The largest MMORPG battles ever - involving thousands.Ultimate PvP action, the #1 choice of top players and clans.Seamless, zoneless, non-instanced world. No invisible walls.No safe zones. Full loot. PvP everywhere with accountability.No more leveling. Improve the skills you use.Fight on mounts, ships, man cannons and vehicles.Siege and conquer cities, build and protect your own.Craft any item in the world and put your name on it, Personal Housing, Trade routes etc etc etc

 

I understand most of the piece written is personal opinion, and as such should not matter much....but it does to anyone willing to try the game

And you guys at MMORPG.com write about "innovation" or "breath of fresh air" and give these kind of scores?

 

 

Time for a re-review of Darkfall guys, and get someone competent to do this (aka a PVPer)

It's painfully obvious you didn't play Darkfall at launch. The first few days of gameplay, mobs were not synched and ran around killing everyone while invisible. Characters in the human starting zone got bugged and could not be logged in after logging out, forcing people to delete their characters and not be able to use their names (a huge deal in a game all about people e-cred). Almost all the high level mobs were so easy to bug out that they were exploited for weeks, if not months, before Aventurine bothered to try to fix them. It's still possible to get within the walls of buildings and be untouchable. The skills are highly imbalanced. Character's skills mattered as much, if not more, than levels in a traditional level game (contrary to what the devs said, there's no way 4 fresh characters could beat one with max skills unless the guy was taking a nap). The skill grind was so high and so boring that everyone macroed just to get it over with. Don't invent shit about a game just because you like it, get the facts right.

Originally posted by Rainstorme

Originally posted by bluebawles

 Ladies and gentlemen of the Fora'

 

I glanced the way of MMORPGs newest review and saw a 5.8 rating for Alganon

 

www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/388/view/news/read/16257/Alganon-Alganon-Review.html

 

So are you telling me that an alpha version of a clone of WoW that constantly crashes, plenty of bugs and 1/4 the content WoW had at release received almost the same score as Darkfall Online (6.0)?

 

I mean even at the time of the DF review it had a solid game engine, did not crash, very very few bugs, the graphics were/are much better, the features:

Role-playing, strategy, and shooter action in a MMOGThe largest handcrafted online world of its kind.Over 10 thousand concurrent players per game world.The largest MMORPG battles ever - involving thousands.Ultimate PvP action, the #1 choice of top players and clans.Seamless, zoneless, non-instanced world. No invisible walls.No safe zones. Full loot. PvP everywhere with accountability.No more leveling. Improve the skills you use.Fight on mounts, ships, man cannons and vehicles.Siege and conquer cities, build and protect your own.Craft any item in the world and put your name on it, Personal Housing, Trade routes etc etc etc

 

I understand most of the piece written is personal opinion, and as such should not matter much....but it does to anyone willing to try the game

And you guys at MMORPG.com write about "innovation" or "breath of fresh air" and give these kind of scores?

 

 

Time for a re-review of Darkfall guys, and get someone competent to do this (aka a PVPer)

It's painfully obvious you didn't play Darkfall at launch. The first few days of gameplay, mobs were not synched and ran around killing everyone while invisible. Characters in the human starting zone got bugged and could not be logged in after logging out, forcing people to delete their characters and not be able to use their names (a huge deal in a game all about people e-cred). Almost all the high level mobs were so easy to bug out that they were exploited for weeks, if not months, before Aventurine bothered to try to fix them. It's still possible to get within the walls of buildings and be untouchable. The skills are highly imbalanced. Character's skills mattered as much, if not more, than levels in a traditional level game (contrary to what the devs said, there's no way 4 fresh characters could beat one with max skills unless the guy was taking a nap). The skill grind was so high and so boring that everyone macroed just to get it over with. Don't invent shit about a game just because you like it, get the facts right.

I played at launch and you are correct.

MMORPG.com reviewed the game after the NA1 launch when those problems were gone

thankyouowned

Originally posted by Paragus1

Finding someone to rereview this game fully will be extremely difficult.   Spending 30 hours is simply not enough time given how long it takes to experiences all the aspects of this game.  At the same time you need to find a reviewer who is open to the idea of an open ended style game, not adverse to PvP, and has the right amount of balance.  I've played this game literally off and on for a year, and there still new things aspects of the game I get exposed to.   Aside from whatever the game mechanics are, there is an entire meta game with politics that goes on in vent servers and on the forums.  Even if a new reviewer was going to start playing today, I don't see how they could experience all of the various parts of the game and write about it for at least a few months.

It's a difficult game to review imo as any potential reviewers experience is mainly going to be influebnced by their individual experience.

Should a game be reviewed solely on it's inherant merits, or should it include it's less tangible assets?

It is so easy to have the most wretched experience of all time in DF as the semi-sandbox style means there is very little content comparatively when lined-up alongside the bigger theme-park mmo's. In the same breath it's just as easy to have the most amazing experience due to player content, i.e. clan wars, vent politics, forum tactics etc. This was always a bone of contention with EvE reviews as every players experience can differ from one polar opposite to the other.

Bottom line, a review has to be impartial, so everything you say here should be reasonably irrelevant in an impartial review or should certainly be no more than a foot note as the only way a review can be relevant and impartial is to review the core mechanics and system interractions above player interractions.

The problem is player interractions make this game what it is, far more than many mmorpg's.

As i say, it's tough to review these kind of games. I don't think i have read a single review which mirrors my personal opinion or experience in DF, not even close.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by ste2000

So it is not common practice...........it is common practice for games that have been created for a player base which doesn't really exist.

---

 

Darkfall got how much, 15k subs?
Aion got how much, 400k subs?

Yeah, tell me more about creating games for non existant playerbase...

 

MMO subs are rapidly globaly raising over the years and new games released are 'WoW clones' only so I am not worried about the trend.

 

 You are supporting my theory and you don't even realise it.

First of all Darkfall have almost 50K players in 2 servers and Aion have less 400k subs in US/EU, a figure of 200K is more likely.
Considering one is made with lifetime savings and did  zero marketing, while the other is made by one of the biggest MMO developers, I believe the difference is not that huge.
If you add to this that thanks to sites like MMORPG.com which rated the game with a 6 (and Aion with a 9), people won't even try Darkfall.................everyone can see that my point has double strenght.

Anyway my argument is more generic, it is not about Darkfall vs Aion score, but more about judging a game for what it is and not for what the reviewer think it is, and I explained this concept very well in my previous posts if you care to read them.
 

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by ste2000

 

Unless they willingly decide they want to just take care of "Average Joe" players who only play Theme Park games, they should tutelate other players who play other subgenres of MMOs too.

---

 

You are missing the point here, not me or Stradden.

The rating works like this:

If any MMORPG.COM reader comes along the article, the rating is kind of supposed to tell him wheter he might lik ethe game or not, and this reader is 'average Joe' so it is very much OK to make rating focused towards general playerbase.

Everytime you write something, you need to bear a reader in mind and adjust the writing accordingly, same goes with MMORPG.COM rating.

 

It is not unproffesional, it is a one way how to rate/make reviews. You might not like it but that is where it ends.

EDIT:

Doh, almost missed this gem:

 

---

Originally posted by ste2000
But you are a free person not a reviewer, which should base its judgement more on firm objective points and fewer subjective ones.

---

 

Seems like you are the only person who knows what 'objective points' are which sort of defeating the objectivity in principle...

You are wrong.  Let me explain why.

I don't like racing games.  No reason in particular, I just don't like them.  If I were to review a racing game I would give it low marks.  Why?  Because I don't "get" them.  I don't know what makes a racing game good,  I don't know what a racing game fan looks for in a racing game.  And so I have absolutely no business writing a review for a racing game.

Now on the flip side.  I don't like racing games... and so I don't go looking for racing games to play.  I don't read racing game reviews.  I don't give a rats ass what any reviewer has to say about any racing game on that planet... because I'm probably going to disagree with it unless that reviewer also doesn't like racing games... and whats the point of that?

The same thing goes for MMOs.  MMOs shouldn't be lumped into a singular group, because much like single player games they are vastly different from eachother.  Some are sandboxes, some are themeparks, some are instanced to hell, some are seamless, some are PvP oriented, some are PvE oriented, some are deep and complicated, some are shallow and arcady... etc etc etc.  These difference should be catorgorized the same way a single player racing game is vs a FPS.

If I love open ended PvP sandboxes (which I do)... there is a fair chance I'm probably not a big fan of a game like STO or Champions Online.  And that goes vise-versa for a fan of those types of games.  Now if I were to post a topic about the virtues(or lack thereof) of STO... individuals who enjoys those types of games would likely heavily disagree with me.   And individuals looking for a arcady themepark who read my review will likely be needlessly put off.

The point being, the only people who have any business writing a review for a racing game is a person who likes racing games.  Otherwise the review is needlessly biased from the get-go.  "Average Joes who may or may not like racing games" aren't the target audience... the target audience would be people who do enjoy racing games... those are the people who are actually going to be invested enough to read the review and give a rat's ass.

---

Originally posted by ste2000
 
You are supporting my theory and you don't even realise it.
First of all Darkfall have almost 50K players in 2 servers and Aion have less 400k subs in US/EU, a figure of 200K is more likely.
Considering one is made with lifetime savings and did  zero marketing, while the other is made by one of the biggest MMO developers, I believe the difference is not that huge.
If you add to this that thanks to sites like MMORPG.com which rated the game with a 6 (and Aion with a 9), people won't even try Darkfall.................everyone can see that my point has double strenght.

Anyway my argument is more generic, it is not about Darkfall vs Aion score, but more about judging a game for what it is and not for what the reviewer think it is, and I explained this concept very well in my previous posts if you care to read them.
 

---

AoC, WAR and Aion being able to grasp about 400-500k(estimate) subscribers on so competitive market is impressive, such result hardly speaking for developers not being able to please their audience. MMO subscription numbers are growing as same pace as new 'WoW clones' are being released but sure, that is only because the indy companies do not have large marketing campaigns...

Sure, w/e. Invalid logic can provide any conclusions.

50k subs for Darkfall? Oh, tell me what your source is.

---

Originally posted by Draemos

Let me explain why.

---

If I had to rate WoW, I would rate it 9/10 regardles who is going to read my review. I do not prefer themeparks, I do not like the grind, I do dislike item dependency and I would never paid for such game.

How can I rate it so high then? This is what you can explain to me.

If I had to rate WoW, I would rate it 9/10 regardles who is going to read my review. I do not prefer themeparks, I do not like the grind, I do dislike item dependency and I would never paid for such game.

How can I rate it so high then? This is what you can explain to me.

 

 

Because you want to cater to general consensus instead of providing a review that mirrors your true feelings about the game?  That's pretty much whats wrong with reviewers in general.

If you didn't like WoW and reviewed it a 9/10 I wouldn't want to read your review, because your basing your score off of some lame point system that isn't reflective of your actual experience.  That's why games like Aion get high scores. 

Instead, I want to read the review by the guy who loves themeparks... but is practical enough to point out imperfections that are important to him.  Any reviewer, no matter how enamored with a game, is capable of finding flaws and reviewing and scoring a game appropriately.  That's a guy I can relate to.  That's a guy who has an opinion I value.

I want a reviewer that is passionate about his review subject... not someone who is going to spout facts or observations at me with no relavance to their actual enjoyment experience.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by ste2000
 
You are supporting my theory and you don't even realise it.
First of all Darkfall have almost 50K players in 2 servers and Aion have less 400k subs in US/EU, a figure of 200K is more likely.
Considering one is made with lifetime savings and did  zero marketing, while the other is made by one of the biggest MMO developers, I believe the difference is not that huge.
If you add to this that thanks to sites like MMORPG.com which rated the game with a 6 (and Aion with a 9), people won't even try Darkfall.................everyone can see that my point has double strenght.

 

Anyway my argument is more generic, it is not about Darkfall vs Aion score, but more about judging a game for what it is and not for what the reviewer think it is, and I explained this concept very well in my previous posts if you care to read them.
 

---

 

AoC, WAR and Aion being able to grasp about 400-500k(estimate) subscribers on so competitive market is impressive, such result hardly speaking for developers not being able to please their audience. MMO subscription numbers are growing as same pace as new 'WoW clones' are being released but sure, that is only because the indy companies do not have large marketing campaigns...

Sure, w/e. Invalid logic can provide any conclusions.

50k subs for Darkfall? Oh, tell me what your source is.

 

 

Your numbers are very far from the truth, none of the games you mentioned has 400K, not even close, and for games who have a generous marketing budget and a certain power on magazines and specialised sites (who give those games scores over the odds), that is a poor result indeed.
Aion might be the only one who gets closer to that number but that's because it is relatively new, but don't worry in the next few months it will align with the other mediocre games, while Darkfall, like EvE, will keep growing, without marketing and without the help of the specialised media such as this site.

My arguments make perfect sense, you decided to ignore them completely, but that's your problem.
I am sure other people understood perfectly well what my point is, which again is not Darfall review vs Themepark reviews, but more like alternative MMOs vs mainstream MMOs (or better, perceived as mainstream), but you seem to have missed completely the overall issue and you are focus on a small detail because apparently is more convenient for your argument (although I fail to see how does this help you).

Again if a magazine talk about cars and you have a solid and multitask offroad car like a Jeep to review, it would be a scandal if the reviewer marks down a perfectly made and useful car for its target market, just because it is not main stream enough and it will sell surely less than a Toyota Camry.
You score the Jeep for what it is, not on the perception that the average buyer would not buy it or could be better off with a Toyota.
This is valid for any other industry in the real world................so why not for the MMORPGs media?
My guess is probably that in truth they all are amateurs (no offense), not paid professionals, so they do what they can.
But I believe it is time the MMORPG media to come out of mediocrity and step up their effort to get in line with any other media which cover other industries.

  Why do people assume that if you like sandbox and you like pvp you must like DF? Even if they had got those elements spot on (they haven't imho) there was enough general stuff that had been poorly implemented to warrant caution and a relatively low score. maybe that's all fixed now, when the promised free trial is out I guess we all will find out. Incidentally I love PVP + love Sandbox - did not care for DF.

DF is is a niche but that is not why it scores low. Of course if you don't like your gameplay in space and do not want to play a 10 year old game it's probably all you have right now. Personally I just hope something that gets more right comes along before long.