Hello there.

I'll be doing many more writing assignments related to this title. Thus far, I've done a bit of a flashback, and an interview with the developers.

What more would you guys like to see/hear about?

Would you like to hear war stories from PS1 (to give newcomers a better idea of some of the mechanics)?

Screenshots, previews?

Give me some topics you'd like to know about, and I'll do my best to deliver what I can :)

http://kotaku.com/5863096/a-peek-inside-the-home-of-skyrims-first-serial-killer

I'm not sure whether I'm a horrible person or not, but god this made me laugh out loud.

On the one hand, it's kind of hilarious that someone out there is this disturbed. On the other hand, doesn't it sort of make you wonder what OTHER weird fantasies people are having in-game?

Originally posted by Nerf09

Tribes is a lighthearted goofy FPS, not a game for barely semi-serious simmers or anyone interested in anything that remotely resembles strategic and/or tactical FPS gameplay.

Jetpacks on the Vanu MAX is a different thing, they sacrificed shields and firepower for that ability, and their range was pretty small, they couldn't jet all over the place like in that goofy tribes game.  They could barely make it to the top of the tower.  That was the Vanu max's niche, bu tyou give infantry a jetpack and it will no longer be a niche it will be over-used like the retarded ORbital STrike and Reveal enemies.

And again, a big reason BFR's were hated because they were flying around all th etime and you couldn't hit them.

Spoken like a person who never played the game.

Tribes 2 was probably one of, if not THE, highest skill ceiling capped FPS ever made. ANYONE can aim down sight whilst camping and get a head shot; a select few can land a 2000m away shot while factoring in the speed of the fall from gravity, spin, rotation, angle of descent, and forward progression.

Go back to Call of Duty if you're looking for ez mode FPS; but don't sit here and hate on a game for adding in extraordinary depth to a genre that hasn't evolved hardly at all in a decade.

I'm glad this got you guys excited!

I'll be getting more articles out too; be it a war story, some more history + explanation of the first game,  or maybe even an interview with some of the devs :D

Absolutely! Cymdai, from the Johari server, will be rolling TR as soon as he's able!

:)

On the desktop (I.e. The overpriced Alienware) I don't think I even so much as dipped below 80 FPS on MAX settings with a 1900/1200 resolution. It was spectacular.

My laptop is around 2 years old though... and that thing was incapable of pumping out more than 30 FPS, while dropping as low as -13.

I'm hoping that it simply hasn't been optimized for all cards yet, and that some drivers will ultimately be released for the game... but if not, I won't be touching it from my laptop. 

And again, thanks for the compliment!

Compliments appreciated :)

*tips hat*

Believe it or not, I used to write for this site!

The Good

- The story-telling system is cool. I like the voice-overs, despite them being unnecessary, because I don't think anyone *ever* reads quest dialog in MMO's. Now, instead of a 4 paragraph explanation, I get a 3 sentence dialogue with some choices at the end. Hurray! Immersion!

- The looting system for raid gear is nice. No more endless repeating of the end-game 1000x over.

- The community. I haven't enjoyed an MMO community in nearly 5 years. Everyone playing is friendly and a Star Wars fan, which really lightens the mood. I generally found people to be polite and helpful!

- The Micro-instancing is a nice touch. It transitions relatively seamlessly from the main world to a cutscene, with minimal load times between scenes.

- I have yet to experience a serious game-breaking bug, a crash, or a freeze-up. This is pleasing to see, after the slew of failed MMO's over the last decade (Age of Conan, Vanguard, etc)

- The crafting, gathering, and companion system are excellent. While some may frown upon the "dumbing down" of the gme mechanics, NOT having to walk around in small semi-circles looking for resource nodes for hours at a time is a step in the RIGHT direction. I really liked being able to customize wardrobes that I liked with upgrades as well

The Bad

- There's really nothing that separates this game from WoW, other than the Lore and the system requirements. With that being said, I found myself getting bored within the first 4 hours of gameplay, with a lingering feeling of "...I've been here before"

- The differences in performance. On one computer, I can run this game at max FPS with minimal lag, yet with a slightly older computer model I find myself piking from "playable" to "completely unacceptable". This huge fluctuation between my desktop and my laptop has me concerned about launch day performance issues.

- The lack of texture collision makes ranged combat seem broken. If you can shoot someone who is hiding on the other side of a tree, what's the point of taking cover? Dynamic environments, please.

- Classes seem like carbon-copies of nearly every other MMO to date. The seemingly total lack of originality is very, very "Meh" when it comes to class design (I found Imperial Agent to be painfully boring)

- The dungeons are flat out boring. All the enemies are just sitting around, waiting for you to kill them. It takes out all the immersion when you're slowly walking along through an alarm of what appears to be a crashing ship. The lack of panic, interest in what's going on by the NPC crews, etc, I found it very disheartening. If you're going to make the game story-based, keep the story-based mood; you can't go halfway and then decide to go back to MMO roots of "blind deaf and dumb NPCs" when everything is supposed to be so meaningful.

Overall...

..... I wasn't really blown out of the water. I searched and searched for what I like to call "The Magic Hook", i.e. the point /part of the game where you become hooked on it, and just want to see more and more and more... but it never came for me. Despite switching classes repeatedly, trying out various play styles, and progressing the story, I just kept coming to a point where I was, at best, indifferent about the game. I'm sure it will be successful, and by no means do I think it a bad game, but I feel like we're at a point where MMO's need to start taking chances and evolving into new directions, not simply repeating what has been done successfully in the past and then adding a new coat of paint to the top layer. SWtoR is a fairly polished game, but it's lack of innovation leaves me waiting patiently for the next MMO on the list.

Modern Warfare will never lead the way in teamplay games, ever.

That franchise has single-handedly dismantled the concept of teamwork in exchange for rambo mechanics, kill streaks, and spray and pray.

The topic seems self-explanatory.

I think Planetside 2 would be a billion dollar profit generating title (over time, of course) given the current trends in gaming.

Hear me out before hating.

While the original Planetside was infested with bugs, imbalance, and programming flaws, let's also consider the time period in which it came out. Computers weren't nearly as powerful then, internet connectivity wasn't as fast or as stable, graphics cards and mother boards were most certainly not able to handle the payload they can handle now. Online games were also extremely uncommon in terms of the MMO scale, which, love it or hate it, World of Warcraft has helped grow to magnanimous proportions. 

However, people are getting tired of the standard "Elf, dwarf, human; sword and board, staff, dagger" set up. It is demonstrated by the incredible failure of retention by nearly all MMORPG's that come out these days; even the mighty monopoly that is WoW is starting to lose subscriptions. On the contrary, let's consider what has become mightily popular; first-person shooters. Call of Duty, Battlefield, Gears of Wars, Halo; these titles have rabid fanbases that drool at the thought of word "Kill" and phrases like "K/D R". Team Fortress 2 and old-school Counterstrike demonstrate how much people love being able to upgrade their weapons, character, etc. League of Legends demonstrates how much people like theorycrafting different builds, and battling online against other people.

So, in my mind, this is where Planetside 2 becomes the unparalleled cashcow of tomorrow.

For those of you who played the original, tell me you didn't have great fun in the game. Who remembers the days of the mighty MAX crash at the backdoor of a base? Who loved the air strikes where you dropped from the skies, with well-coordinated air-cover from Reavers and Mosquitoes? Do you remember the open-field basilisk + lightning duels? The Prowler vs. Vanguard armored platoons? How about the notorious-yet-hated Mag-Mower? And what of the stealth captures in a  room guarded by 9 MAX's and 300 infantry? I certainly do remember those days, and they were jolly good times.

Imagine now, if you will, what could be done with that game's premise with TODAY'S technology? You could capitalize on the desire to engage in intense FPS style combat, while appealing to the RPG elment of character development via level-gaining, all while solving the "I'm bored of the normal MMO scene" dilemma at once. You'd have up to 5 million new players who weren't around during the original's launch who were looking for something fresh to play, coupled with the new die-hard market for FPS shooters and competitive gameplay. All the while, you'd have people who wanted to create competitive outfits/guilds to compete amongst one another online.

Does anyone agree with this?

Hey all. I was considering buying this game, and I heard something about a 50% off code, along with an additional 15% off code. I don't know how to get them, but if anyone has a spare one, I was wondering if you could PM me it? Getting the CE for 29.99 sounds fantastic :D

On a side note, if for whatever reason someone bought the game and can't run it or has access to their own code to unlock the full game (I'm on the trial mode right now) I would love to grab that from you!

This got a lot of buzz on GameFAQS too.

My general thoughts on the subject are this:

1) RMT was a game-breaking issue in FFXI. I think they're simply trying the bazaar system out to see if it helps them spot botters quicker and easier than they were able to with the AH in FFXI.

2) The "surplus" system needs to go, period. I'm perfectly alright with only allowing so many guildleves at a time, but telling a player that they can't actually gain experience after they've completed their guildleves? Ridiculous.

3) SE is probably not worried too much with negative publicity. This game is going live in a month, for better or worse. I think they've probably already committed to any decisions that have been made by now, and are going to stick with them until release. If they find out they were wrong, they'll start making the necessary adjustments then, but it's crunch time, and there's probably not enough time or manpower available to start changing their inds at this point in the game.

I'm not sure if any of you even remember who I am. I played this game a lot at release, capped out, got all the epic gear, etc etc.

When I left this game (after the first month of paid-play) this game was a broken, staggering mess. Nothing worked, FotD crashed if you didn't turn your sound off, classes were completely and utterly imbalanced, end-game bosses were so broken you could solo them, and there were hundreds, if not thousands, of other problems.

How is this game looking now? Did Funcom ever fix this game into something playable and fun?

What's changed in the last year?

Originally posted by toddze

Lot of good points in this thread.

I just hope SE makes FFXIV an MMORPG, and not an online rpg like AoC, WAR, and Aion. Thats what this genre has degraded to is simple online RPG's.

 

This is such a concern I have for this game.

Having played AoC and WAR, I have seen exactly what I did *not* like about MMO's.

- 100% solo-oriented

- Poor class design/balance issues

- Non-existential content, cattle-herding level-based zone systems

- No community present at all.

My biggest fear with FFXIV is that they are going to neglect the thing that made FFXI so great; the community! I loved running into players at level 40 that I grouped with at 20, and seeing them again at 65. The partying system made FFXI somewhat painful at times (if you rolled a DRG, for example) but at the end of the day, it ensured that players actually played WITH each other, and not just alongside each other.

I'm excited about the weapon skill system being based on how you play, but I'm also nervous that it's ultimately going to devolve into everyone running around with a great sword and a staff as an alternate gear setup. Aka, mass damage -> mass damage -> mass damage -> equipment change to staff -> heal -> heal -> buff -> heal -> equipment change great sword. Hopefully you get the gist.

The thing that would worry me further is if cookie cutter combo's come forward, and parties devolve into "exp set ups" vs "casual setups". Example: Exp set-up = 5 people with greatswords and staves, all doing mass dps and then mass healing. Skill setup = people leveling up all different weapons, with your typical MMO party setup with the goal of capping out various weapon skills. Think back to FFXI and the skillup parties at later levels, and you've got it.

I suppose I'm a bit of a pessimist when it comes to the genre these days. I've seen too many cool ideas on paper translated poorly into the actual gameplay in the past few games. Examples?
- The PQ system in WAR. It was really exciting. At first. Then you realize how dead these get later in the game. A brilliant idea that allows unguilded players to get high-quality gear.

- The Siege system in AoC. Totally broken, laggy, and seemingly untested. Player cities having bonuses was stellar, yet it didn't work properly.

So while I am still sipping the Kool-Aid...I'm going to hold my tongue until I see/hear some feedback about this game before I get my hopes up again, solely to be disappointed.

I can't express how excited I am for this game.

I was a die-hard FFXI fan, through the good, the bad, and the ugly. Ever since FFXI, I've gone through multiple MMO's (Vanguard, AoC, WAR LotRO for starters), and all of them left me very disheartened. AoC and Vanguard were by far the most inexcusable failures of the bunch...

I'm really looking forward to this one. I hope they do keep the group mechanics involved in this game.

It wasn't until WAR and AoC, where I essentially solo'd until the last 5 levels before cap, that I realized "This is not an MMO experience". I don't consider grinding to level cap, and then teaming up for raids a "community" by any means.

One of FFXI's strongest qualities was always that it had a superior in-game community, because you HAD to interact with everyone. I hope to see SE replicate that setting with this game.

 I can't help but agree with the notion, even if it is somewhat inaccurate, that the pro-solo play MMO's are destroying the genre.

In general, I look at the lack of community in most of the modern day MMO's, and it just causes me to shake my head in disbelief. The last several MMO's I have played have had a very dismal, weak community (Age of Conan, Vanguard, Warhammer Online). Most people are so focused on just advancing their own character's gear that they forget that there are other people in the world to mingle with. When I played these games, the only reason people spoke was if 1) They were in the same area as me, and needed to team up to complete a quest, 2) If someone was lost/had a question on directions to a place/questgiver, or 3) If there was someone talking trash in the regional chat.

I personally attribute a lot of it to the fact that everything is solo-capable these days. Want raid-class gear? Solo/small group some tough mobs. Want exp? Turn in some delivery quests on your own for a large exp + item reward. Since grouping seems to be a strategy of the past, it seems people rarely opt for the partying experience these days.

Now maybe I'm just too old and crabby for the genre, but I enjoyed the days of sitting around in SWG at the camp sites while we all mended our injuries to the dancer, just interacting and socializing with other players in the world. I liked grouping in FFXI, where the same 6 of us would hack-and-slash at crabs for hours at a time, making fun of how the Clippers were far greater than the Snippers, or which Goblin was easy prey, and which one would whip your tail.

While I am not a person who loathes the idea of being able to get things done on your own... I have yet to see a game company succeed at doing it properly. Most MMO's are so simplistic these days... it's just a matter of slow-and-steady wins the race. I suppose you could classify me as a bit of a hardcore in my outlook on the way a game should be played, but that's not because I have a self-loathing complex or anything. It's more that, when I take a look at the MMO's that are coming out nowadays in comparison to the ones that came out back in the day... well, I will choose the older games any day of the year.

Honestly though, community is the most underrated aspect of every MMO on the market these days, and it's painful to see developer after developer overlook this critical factor time and time again.

I know my guild deliberately rolled Order because we wanted to step away from the zerg that has become the Chaos side. We figured it would pin us up against tougher competition, as a lot of notorious guilds have gone to the Chaos faction.

I love my class on the order side; it's probably one of the only reasons I keep playing Order. Archmage is just that enjoyable to me. However, I 100% agree on the cosmetic differences being downright outlandish. You can't even look remotely interested as an Elf Priest. The customization options for the Elves were so limited and bland, it's almost as if Order was an afterthought. I mean seriously, it's bad enough having to wear a frilly man-dress, but couldn't there at least be some cool accessories for my character?

However, it seems to me that the Order side is usually out-manned. I'm on the Badlands, and while we definitely hold our own, even the battles we win aren't usually evenly matched...

I personally feel as though PQ's are the best feature of this game, in my lowly level 10 character's experience.

It gives players without guilds, massive chunks of time, and a distaste for organized raids a chance to get competitive equipment.

I, personally, hate raiding, and the concept of sinking hour upon hour into one for some gear is both tedious and irritating. So I think it's fantastic that I can walk into a zone, follow a few simple directions, and with a little luck and some skill at my class, I can pull in some respectable gear.

However, I will say that the UI feels a bit cluttered... and I don't particularly like that grinding is completely ineffective (at least not as an Archmage at my level).

I'll probaby write my own comprehensive review when I get to 40.

Originally posted by gestalt11

Originally posted by Cymdai

I have SEVERAL thoughts regarding this particular issue.

I'd like to start off by posting my original review here: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/186176

Now, I wrote that within a month of purchasing and playing Age of Conan, and it is what I felt to be a hard-hitting review. I touched on numerous points that I felt were specific to those playing at the time, as well as general concerns to the population of the game. I would not consider myself a biased person at all, either.

The problem with reviewing MMO's is that, as the reviewer, you have to generally make an educated guess at the future of the game, while still highlighting the pros and cons of the present state of the game. At the time that was written, I felt the game was lacking in many areas, HOWEVER, Funcom is a company with a large customer base, experience in the MMO field, and some deep pockets. I felt that, given those variables, all the problems I mentioned in my initial review would be quickly remedied over the next few months. Hence, why I warned people against buying the game until I felt an appropriate amount of time had passed.

What a reviewer can not do is account for the general incompetence/unwillingness of the game's company. I would never have guessed Funcom to hire volunteer fanboy-GM's on their boards, such as Lufkin. I didn't think Funcom would allow rampant exploiting and duping to go unpunished for such a long period of time. I expected patches would be tested before hitting the live server, and tested thoroughly. All of my personal mistakes in assessing this game were based on basic observations and calculations that led me to believe the game would dramatically improve over time.

Sometimes, you're right, and you're praised as a king. Other times, you're wrong, and you're flamed like a troll. As the reviewer, as a GOOD reviewer, it's your job to put personal feelings aside, to look at the facts, to highlight relevant information that the consumers would like to know about, and to do the best you can to give a balanced view of the game.

In my opinion, you can't do that easily unless you can dedicate LOADS of time to the game. I disagree with the remark about the whole "Just give me a level 50 and let me see the game" remark. By doing so, all you'd have done is seen the worst part of the game (especially at the time of release; Field of the Dead was a total nightmare). Jon's review got a lot of criticism, but there was no way to know that 1-25 were nearly flawless at the time. It's just like how, when I hit 80 and prepared to raid and siege and everything else that is AoC end-game, there was no way for me to know Yahkmar's Cave was 100% exploitable, or that Sieges improperly ejected people from one team to balance out the number of competitors in the zone. We couldn't have guessed that cities weren't providing bonuses, or that raid gear was wholly pitiful, or that Kylikki's Krypt has an epic zoning problem. However, I wouldn't have been able to see this if I hadn't gotten there on my own, with my guild.

On the other hand, I can't help but agree in many senses regarding the industry as a whole.

I'll add more to this post a little later. I want to make sure my thoughts are organized for part 2 of this post.

 

That might be true if they only gave you a level 50.

 

But if you had created your account on the first day with 1 level 1, 1 level 20, 1 level 40, 1 level 60, and 1 level 80.  And then played each for 2 days.

 

Then you would have had a much better idea of what the game was like in a much much shorter time.  No one is claiming you can have an intimate knowledge of a game in 5 minutes or without a decent play through.  But at the very least the content issues at level 60 could have been fleshed out in a days worth of playing.

 

The only major issue there is there may be no one around at level 80 when you are there.  And in that case for AoC you still could not have done the sieges.

 

But so what?  Funcom could have created a fake guild of pre-mades to show off their seiging.  But they didn't to that.  Nor wouldthey because thier seiging was broken.

 

As journalists you should assume the worst.  And then prove that its the best.  Not assume its ok and see what happens.  Until these guys prove that what they have is good you should act like it is probably crap but you don't have enough information to say so.

 

Seiging was and still has many barriers for the normal player.  And that is fine.  Funcom is under no obligation to change that and in fact it would be a bad idea.  But you as a reviewer have a responsibility to NOT take them at their word that it actually works and if you want to give a verdict on say sieging then you need to have done it. 

 

You do not need to have worked through all the crap and barries they put in to give a verdict on the seiging itself.  You would need to do so tell us what its like to run a guild that wants to siege.

 

BUT you do not need to do this to tell us how buggy and laggy the first seiges were.  That can be ascertained in less than one day's worth of play time.

 

Yes it is true that certain things, mainly social and community based things, will always take time.  But there are a host of other things that can be ascertained and AND WERE NOT that can be done very quickly if the developers actually wished to do so.

 

You and Enigma wrote very good and comprehensive reviews.  It took both of you about a month.  That is fine.  But 80% of the stuff you wrote could have been figured out in the first week if various barriers had been lifted.

 

Yes it would be impossible to write your actual review without that month of gameplay with a real guild.  But that is not really the issue.  We do not need 100% comprehensive review.  What we need is a good survey of the entire game.  Which we are not getting anywhere close to and which is feasible.

 

Again these are excuses or at least partial excuses.  There may be some valid points to be made about what can't be done quickly or easily.  But there are TONS things that can be done and are not.  And in the case of AoC it shows just how badly not doing those things is mesleading people.  And causing scores to be WILDLY inaccurate.

 

Most us who are fairly reasonable do not expect a reviewer to be able to give us a good picture of what a community will be like or how guild interact or other extended social things.  Most people know that the seiging and whether it worked well was a real "wait and see" tyoe deal. 

 

But come on, there is no excuse for not having some idea about performance and bugginess.  Any objective party could have figured that out very quickly and reported on it.  But that didn't happen and does not happen.  Well that is just plain negligent.

 

But if they can't tell us the content dries up half way through the game?  Seriously wtf?

 

You told us that.  It took you a month and as a normal player and a non-official reviewer kudos to you, man.  But a professional reviewer with the weight of the press behind them and the driving desire of the companies for good reviews.  All they needed was to a get a survey of what was avaialbe at each tier and then do the normal play through to have some idea of what was in store.

 

Again that is not the full picture but there are a whole list of things you do not know from playing 1-25 in AoC and if a person as a professional reviewer is not aware of those things then they are incompetent.  And as a professional they should try to shore those things up.  And if they can get the developers to give them a shortcut to at least have some idea what that is like then they should.  And if there are strings attached on that shortcut they should think long and hard about whether they even use that data.

 

 

No one expects every little bit to be fleshed out in a review.  But the stratling lack of any real information about things that are simply trivial to find out like the amount of content at level 60. 

 

That is why AoC reviews are such an obvious epic failure.  The only reason that anyone can give for the lack of such an easy to obtain bit of information is MMO's take time.  Oh really?  Come on I can do to MMODB and tell you exactly how many quest sare in LOTRO at level 50.

 

Obviously that resource won't be avialable on release day but the point is you really do not need to play an MMO for months to find out the sort of important information that was lacking in so many reviews.

 

Basically Tortage took long enough that it messed with deadlines and the reviewers cut corners and got played.  Its that simple.

 

If all the reviewers had a level 60 as well and tried to quest for a day.  And they all had a level 80 in a premade sieging guild what would have happened?

 

They would at least have known content was much different and probably been appaled when they tried a siege.

 

yeah they could not have given an informed opinion about what it would be like to run that actual guild.  But they certainly would have had more information and had it in a reasonable time.  And that information is pretty darn important.

 

But no.  They just take what is shoveled at them and ignore the rest.  Anyone familiar with politics and how to lie well knows that what you DO NOT SAY is as important or more important than what you DO SAY.

 

The reviewers are not truly guilty of lying.  They are however being unintentionally misleading through laziness and venality  (I use venal in the sense of refusing to be virtuous rather than being for sale, ie. passivity and weakness).

 

The sad thing is they cannot really admit to the parts they don't ahve good enough information on because they are so broad that the worthlessness of their review would be made evident.

 

If we sat down and ticked off each of the key features in AoC that most of the early reviews failed to examine or garner meaningful information about, how many people would take them seriously?  Not many people.

 

Now if 80% of those features could have been examined in a reasonable amount time would that change?  Yes it would.  The key factor is the devs would have to give you access for it to be a reasonable amount of time.  Because as we all know MMO are fraught with time sinks.

Alright, I'd like to continue my original post here.

There are a few things in particular that you're neglecting here about the industry as well.

Unlike MMORPG.com, which specializes solely in MMO reviews, most major gaming sites have multiple game genres on multiple platforms which they have to review at a time. It's very, very easy to attack said websites as a result because 1) reviews tend to see MUCH less time per game, and 2) as has already been said, they generate most of their revenue off of ads and hits. Essentially, as sad as it may seem, the site/magazine that releases the first review about a new, hyped game will generate a LOT of attention, whether it's accurate or not.

I feel like you have somewhat of a chip on your shoulder regarding journalists in general. We're taught from the get-go never to assume anything; it gets you in trouble in the field. You can't decide to assume everything works, nor that everything doesn't. While I doubt I'd ever get in trouble for libel in this field from a gaming company, when you practice outside of just video game reviews, you have to go only on what you can prove, or what you have experienced. I have not and will not ever start off playing a game with the thought of "...this is going to be one huge, heaping pile of garbage", because if I'm going into the game with that mindset, I'm not going to enjoy myself at all.

Another particular issue that is present with reviewing games like Age of Conan in a timely manner is the fact you mentioned regarding performance issues. In light of this game, I don't think it's really possible for us to have known that 10 people, all of whom have the same exact specs, could have run the game on the same settings with entirely different results. Age of Conan, from a technical perspective, is an anomaly. Some people were running this game lag-free, 40 fps, on the highest settings possible; others couldn't even get above 10 fps without turning their sound off, and running it on medium settings, because the "low" video settings actually damper performance. It's not possible for one reviewer to know that this would happen, professional reviewer or not.

I also personally believe that you're giving the developers entirely too much credit. It's hard to write a timely review when the NDA isn't even removed until the day of release. On top of that, I don't believe in writing a forced, half-assed review immediately post-release. Look at how many people pre-ordered AoC in the first month; some 400,000 if I'm not mistaken, no? That means that before I could have posted any sort of competent review, 400,000 people had already bought the game anyway. My opinion wasn't going to sway that chunk of the consumer base, regardless. So I did what I felt was most beneficial; I took the time to dissect the game for the people who were, in fact, waiting for the comprehensive reviews.

Lastly, I can not think of a single developer who would willingly give you a quick peak to all levels of their game post-release for the sake of writing a review. The free level 20,40,60,80 idea sounds good on paper, but in a practical sense it's a bit idealistic. By that same standard, they should also give game reviewers 1, 10, and 100 gold so that we can test out mounts, mounted combat, crafting, and all the other elements of the game. However, this is where the line is drawn between BETA and release. However, Funcom was particularly devious, and as mentioned before, would not break their NDA until the game was released.

This industry is a dirty business. It's not unusual to see genuine, sincere reviews edited for being too harsh/honest on a major gaming website. While I haven't had it happen here, on other websites (which I will not cite nor reference) I have submitted reviews and been told outright that my wording was "a little too harsh", and then shown a re-write that they would have been willing to run. In other cases, you'll submit a review to see whole chunks of what was originally produced MIA in the posted review, often times done so without your approval. You have to work around all the PR, spin, and hype amongst major game developers as well (for example, Vanguard in the MMO community, and say... Fable among the console community).

Compliment these already troublesome hurdles with the rampant wars between obvious "fanboys" (the ones who blatantly misrepresent facts about the game in a positive light) and "haters" (the ones who blatantly misrepresent facts about the game in a negative light) and it gets even more difficult to discern which writers are credible, and which ones generally have a hidden agenda. I personally follow a person who is consistent, and try to dodge the polar-style writers (extreme highs and lows).

A final thought regarding this industry though. If you follow the trend of major MMO releases in the past year or so, they tend to have a similar issue. They release prematurely, while hyping their game up to epic proportions. They fail to include all of their promised content and lack functionality. The developers pretend there isn't a problem for anywhere from 1-3 months. The game begins to nose-dive in terms of subscriptions as more and more comprehensive reviews begin to surface. The game developers come out and apologize, and admit their game has more problems than initially reported. The game fails.

I think the trend above shows what a lack of scruples there are by a lot of the companies we reviewers deal with these days. A lot of the time, what we're privileged enough to see isn't what we needed to see to make an accurate review. So we're left with the choice; quit the industry, and walk away from the business (because we're not indispensible), or give it our best effort to see through all the fog, and give it our best shot at presenting a review to the public using what we have available.

These are my thoughts on the matter...

...and I'm still here

I have SEVERAL thoughts regarding this particular issue.

I'd like to start off by posting my original review here: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/186176

Now, I wrote that within a month of purchasing and playing Age of Conan, and it is what I felt to be a hard-hitting review. I touched on numerous points that I felt were specific to those playing at the time, as well as general concerns to the population of the game. I would not consider myself a biased person at all, either.

The problem with reviewing MMO's is that, as the reviewer, you have to generally make an educated guess at the future of the game, while still highlighting the pros and cons of the present state of the game. At the time that was written, I felt the game was lacking in many areas, HOWEVER, Funcom is a company with a large customer base, experience in the MMO field, and some deep pockets. I felt that, given those variables, all the problems I mentioned in my initial review would be quickly remedied over the next few months. Hence, why I warned people against buying the game until I felt an appropriate amount of time had passed.

What a reviewer can not do is account for the general incompetence/unwillingness of the game's company. I would never have guessed Funcom to hire volunteer fanboy-GM's on their boards, such as Lufkin. I didn't think Funcom would allow rampant exploiting and duping to go unpunished for such a long period of time. I expected patches would be tested before hitting the live server, and tested thoroughly. All of my personal mistakes in assessing this game were based on basic observations and calculations that led me to believe the game would dramatically improve over time.

Sometimes, you're right, and you're praised as a king. Other times, you're wrong, and you're flamed like a troll. As the reviewer, as a GOOD reviewer, it's your job to put personal feelings aside, to look at the facts, to highlight relevant information that the consumers would like to know about, and to do the best you can to give a balanced view of the game.

In my opinion, you can't do that easily unless you can dedicate LOADS of time to the game. I disagree with the remark about the whole "Just give me a level 50 and let me see the game" remark. By doing so, all you'd have done is seen the worst part of the game (especially at the time of release; Field of the Dead was a total nightmare). Jon's review got a lot of criticism, but there was no way to know that 1-25 were nearly flawless at the time. It's just like how, when I hit 80 and prepared to raid and siege and everything else that is AoC end-game, there was no way for me to know Yahkmar's Cave was 100% exploitable, or that Sieges improperly ejected people from one team to balance out the number of competitors in the zone. We couldn't have guessed that cities weren't providing bonuses, or that raid gear was wholly pitiful, or that Kylikki's Krypt has an epic zoning problem. However, I wouldn't have been able to see this if I hadn't gotten there on my own, with my guild.

On the other hand, I can't help but agree in many senses regarding the industry as a whole.

I'll add more to this post a little later. I want to make sure my thoughts are organized for part 2 of this post.