Admittedly, DDO is probably for the more patient and cerebral-minded gamer as it takes some time to get into before you understand all the nuances. But, if you’re willing to take the time to peel back its layers, there is no more flexible, fun, and rewarding MMO on the market.

@fallenlords

/applauds ... way to stick to your guns.

Though it'll always be an uphill battle to try to convince a certain segment of the disillusioned MMO population (especially on these boards) that it's OK to like a game that the 'elite' have labelled as a failure, I have to applaud your patience in explaining in a clear, articulate manner why it's irrelevant what others' think about your opinion.

For some as yet unexplained reason, people have this misguided belief that if someone doesn't believe the same way as the "majority" then they must be some misinformed neanderthal in need of some serious counseling.

Folks, he likes the game. He wants to share his reasonable, well-articulated thoughts with others who may have been dissuaded from trying the game because of others' biased opinions. There is nothing wrong with that. It's OK to disagree but it's disingenuous to try to convince him he's wrong. It's his opinion!

Originally posted by Dana

Originally posted by Dragonalf

Have to agree here. This a positive step for the site in addressing and acknowledging inconsistencies in one of this sites reviews. But the same needs to be done for the Aion review to further address inconsistencies of reviews on this site lately.

Jon, why no response or comment on the strong arguments brought forth about the inconsistencies in the Aion review? It has been consistently pointed out that the score and tone of the review for Aion do not mesh. Couple this with the score being the highest reviewed MMO on this site ever and we have evidence that there is no uniformity in the review process.

As I've claimed in the Aion thread, along with well-defined criteria for writing a review, the scoring of a review must take into account previous review scores from this site for there to be any long-term relevance to all the reviews on this site.

  

Originally posted by Xondar123

This reminds me of the Champions Online review. It read like a 6.5 review, but the reviewer gave it an 8.

 If you're going to slam us, please check your facts.

Aion was not the highest ever review on the site. It was tied for 4th. However, consistency has been a large issue generally I will grant that. Too many years, too many standards, too many editors and only one scoring system.

And, Champions got 7.5, not 8.

I applaud your acknowledgment of the flaws in your current review system and your effort to revamp your review criteria and standards.

That said, I will quibble with your claims that Aion was only the 4th highest review on the site. Technically, you are correct because when you take into account re-reviews and reviews of expansions, then your claim is accurate.

However, the claims that myself and others were making were in reference to "first-time" reviews, i.e. the first review of a game after it was originally released. When this is taken into account, our statements are accurate ... it is 0.2 points higher than the next two highest original reviews (for Eve and Lotro).

FYI ... when you sort reviews in your review section by clicking on the Scores heading it doesn't seem to work quite right. It seems to rank more recent scores (from mid-2008 through 2009) in chronologically descending order but then the rest of the older reviews are lumped into several chronological mini-groups thereafter.

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Zzulu

*writes a review*

 

*community nerdrages about review*

 

*retracts review*

 

Somehow I feel even less respect for you guys now. I guess you can never win on the internet.

 

Community was justified in their rage, reviewer's machine did not meet minimum specs and much of the score was based on the games performance.  Wasn't fair and should be addressed.

Now, if they'd only do something about that ridiculous Aion review.

 

Have to agree here. This a positive step for the site in addressing and acknowledging inconsistencies in one of this sites reviews. But the same needs to be done for the Aion review to further address inconsistencies of reviews on this site lately.

Jon, why no response or comment on the strong arguments brought forth about the inconsistencies in the Aion review? It has been consistently pointed out that the score and tone of the review for Aion do not mesh. Couple this with the score being the highest reviewed MMO on this site ever and we have evidence that there is no uniformity in the review process.

As I've claimed in the Aion thread, along with well-defined criteria for writing a review, the scoring of a review must take into account previous review scores from this site for there to be any long-term relevance to all the reviews on this site.

Originally posted by mmaize

Originally posted by Dragonalf

Originally posted by mmaize

Originally posted by mmaize

This question is to Jon Wood: Is the intent of this site to let every review stand on it's own? Or do you guys shoot for a score that compares the new games merits to those that have come before it ... i.e. a relative scoring approach?

Based on the data posted by xyzax, it appears you guys are using a "vacuum" approach to reviews. The reviewer fairly admits that the game does nothing new which screams "average", 7 out of 10, a 'C' grade to most people. He unabashedly admits he likes the art style and there is a general overly-enthusiastic tone to the whole piece. A neutral reader can't help but come away from the review thinking that the meat of the review does not match the tone and final score of the review.

I believe in order for reviews to mean something beyond being a fanboy or hater dissertation corroborating their point of view, there has to be meaning to the scale. A relational approach is more useful in that one can, at a glance, look at the rating of a new game and be able to compare it to the highest (and lowest) rated games to get a relative feel of it's place in the MMO universe.

From the body of evidence around the web and within the MMORPG review itself, the consensus is that Aion is a solid but generic MMO title but certainly not a trendsetter as the MMORPG rating portends.

 

Answer these questions.  And no I'm not being smart@ss.  What other major MMO title has done aerial combat/character flight (meaning no mount.)  What other major MMO has a combat system that allows for chains to be connected in such a way that you don't have to worry about putting them all into your tool bar?  What other MMO has a world that is comprised in layers and has an abyss that is also comprised of layers and a multiple artifact system that can turn the tide of a pvp raid?  Personal hand crafted guild icons?  The rift system? 

Again I'm not being smart I'm really asking what else is out there that does some of these things really?  Because if not then I'd call some of these things if not all in it's entire package trend setting for it's genre.

 

Still waiting on answers...

Not meaning to be flippant here but what you're asking is really irrelevant to the discussion about the validity of the rating as pertaining to the content of the MMORPG review and then comparing it to other MMO reviews on this site.

You may feel these are exceptional points to make but apparently the MMORPG reviewer did not feel the same way. I can only assume that if he personally felt these were worthy of mention, he would have. Yet, he does go out of his way to point out that, in general, Aion does nothing really new or spectacular ...

 

The point is completely relevant considering the fact that people keep mentioning innovation as a sticking point.  So if there's no contest to the questions of what Aion brings to the table then obviously it is innovative and therefore should contribute to the rating regardless if the reviewer that is being critiqued did so or not.  In otherwords if someone is going to use that against the reviewer then they better be able to answer to the things that are indeed innovative.

 

I disagree. Also, where did you get the impression that no one contests whether it is innovative or not. I hadn't got that impression from some other comments in this thread (as well as other sites). But that's not really the point under discussion ...

It seems your saying that one should have beforehand knowledge about Aion and apply that through the appropriate filter when reading a new review. That's a little dubious to assume. What if it's the first review that someone happens to read on the game? If the reviewer didn't mention these points then we can't necessarily assume he meant to or not. You have to take the review for what it is and not filter it through assumption-filtered glasses. 

In the end, you're arguing about whether Aion, in general, is innovative not on the relevancy of the review as written on this site. They're two different points ...

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Dragonalf

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Dragonalf

Have to agree with everyone else questioning the scoring of this review.

This question is to Jon Wood: Is the intent of this site to let every review stand on it's own? Or do you guys shoot for a score that compares the new games merits to those that have come before it ... i.e. a relative scoring approach?

Based on the data posted by xyzax, it appears you guys are using a "vacuum" approach to reviews. The reviewer fairly admits that the game does nothing new which screams "average", 7 out of 10, a 'C' grade to most people. He unabashedly admits he likes the art style and there is a general overly-enthusiastic tone to the whole piece. A neutral reader can't help but come away from the review thinking that the meat of the review does not match the tone and final score of the review.

I believe in order for reviews to mean something beyond being a fanboy or hater dissertation corroborating their point of view, there has to be meaning to the scale. A relational approach is more useful in that one can, at a glance, look at the rating of a new game and be able to compare it to the highest (and lowest) rated games to get a relative feel of it's place in the MMO universe.

From the body of evidence around the web and within the MMORPG review itself, the consensus is that Aion is a solid but generic MMO title but certainly not a trendsetter as the MMORPG rating portends.

 

Whoa, wait a minute.

 

Not doing something new equals average? really? You are then saying that if a game does nothing new but there are bugs all over the place and the writing is sub par and the combat is the same type of combat but just doesn't capture any sense of excitement then that is average? Not bad?

And to further that point, if a game uses the same techniques and same types of story telling and combat types but the writing is sharp and exemplary, the combat, though the same type of combat, is fast and exciting and The game is very polished then that is also average?

Reviews should be based around what the game is trying to accomplish and whether or not it does that.

If I review a newly released rock album I'm not going to say "music is in the same stale key signatures, all 4/4 time, maybe something in compound time thrown in, the obligatory quarter note equals 120 which should make you all want to jump out a window, same whiney subject matter about teen angst and rarely modulates to anything other than the dominant. Grade C.

I'm going to say "ok, here is a rock song. It falls in the genre of a rock song so how does it stand up to what a rock song should be?"

I think you're reading a little more into my point than was intended ...

But, anyway, I agree with what you say about a review being based around what the game is trying to accomplish and whether or not it does that. But it should also be relatable to what has already come before in the genre.

If a new MMO breaks no new ground in any appreciable way and a review of the game essentially states this, then the game should not be rated above it's peers. To be fair, I probably should have worded my initial statement to indicate this rather than imply I think Aion should be rated a '7'. I honestly don't know since I haven't played it but from the tone of the review and by relative comparison to it's peers I don't believe it should be rated any higher than an 8.5.

 

But most music and movies don't really break any appreciable new ground. And they get decent to even rave reviews all the time. Well, the good ones anyways.

If a game does not break any new ground but does everything right then it should get a good review. If a game were to completely turn the genre on top of its head and do it the right way it should get an amazing review.

Conversely, if a game were to completely turn the genre on top of it's head but it isn't fun, it's buggy, and the art design is not enough to draw the player in (not saying it has to be high level graphics now, just convincing, even it it's 2D) then it should get a bad review.

In my opinion, being that the total is greater than the sum of its parts, Aion deserves anwhere within 7.5 to somewhere in the 8's. No higher. And I'm a fan with 2 accounts.

it does fall back on old style gameplay. Luckily it does it well enough and incorporates a vareity of features in an inspiring (for those who can be inspired by this type of art design and world) world.

It is a good solid fun game that is cast in the light of a traditional mmo. None of the "new" features they touted made it in the game that I can see so it falls squarely in the wow, lotro, eq 2 school of games. or even Everquest. (though was never able to get far in eq as it was too old for my taste so I can't exactly comment on that to any detail).

I think we agree then on a more reasonable score though our reasons for this new score come from different rationales. =)

Originally posted by FastTx

Originally posted by Dragonalf

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Dragonalf

Have to agree with everyone else questioning the scoring of this review.

This question is to Jon Wood: Is the intent of this site to let every review stand on it's own? Or do you guys shoot for a score that compares the new games merits to those that have come before it ... i.e. a relative scoring approach?

Based on the data posted by xyzax, it appears you guys are using a "vacuum" approach to reviews. The reviewer fairly admits that the game does nothing new which screams "average", 7 out of 10, a 'C' grade to most people. He unabashedly admits he likes the art style and there is a general overly-enthusiastic tone to the whole piece. A neutral reader can't help but come away from the review thinking that the meat of the review does not match the tone and final score of the review.

I believe in order for reviews to mean something beyond being a fanboy or hater dissertation corroborating their point of view, there has to be meaning to the scale. A relational approach is more useful in that one can, at a glance, look at the rating of a new game and be able to compare it to the highest (and lowest) rated games to get a relative feel of it's place in the MMO universe.

From the body of evidence around the web and within the MMORPG review itself, the consensus is that Aion is a solid but generic MMO title but certainly not a trendsetter as the MMORPG rating portends.

 

Whoa, wait a minute.

 

Not doing something new equals average? really? You are then saying that if a game does nothing new but there are bugs all over the place and the writing is sub par and the combat is the same type of combat but just doesn't capture any sense of excitement then that is average? Not bad?

And to further that point, if a game uses the same techniques and same types of story telling and combat types but the writing is sharp and exemplary, the combat, though the same type of combat, is fast and exciting and The game is very polished then that is also average?

Reviews should be based around what the game is trying to accomplish and whether or not it does that.

If I review a newly released rock album I'm not going to say "music is in the same stale key signatures, all 4/4 time, maybe something in compound time thrown in, the obligatory quarter note equals 120 which should make you all want to jump out a window, same whiney subject matter about teen angst and rarely modulates to anything other than the dominant. Grade C.

I'm going to say "ok, here is a rock song. It falls in the genre of a rock song so how does it stand up to what a rock song should be?"

I think you're reading a little more into my point than was intended ...

But, anyway, I agree with what you say about a review being based around what the game is trying to accomplish and whether or not it does that. But it should also be relatable to what has already come before in the genre.

If a new MMO breaks no new ground in any appreciable way and a review of the game essentially states this, then the game should not be rated above it's peers. To be fair, I probably should have worded my initial statement to indicate this rather than imply I think Aion should be rated a '7'. I honestly don't know since I haven't played it but from the tone of the review and by relative comparison to it's peers I don't believe it should be rated any higher than an 8.5.

 

So you haven't played Aion and you are criticizing the score of the game.

Yep, exactly! 

I'm criticizing the score of the game ... NOT the game itself.

My contention is with how the score, tone of the review, and comparison to genre scores of other MMOs don't relate on this site.

Originally posted by mmaize

Originally posted by mmaize

This question is to Jon Wood: Is the intent of this site to let every review stand on it's own? Or do you guys shoot for a score that compares the new games merits to those that have come before it ... i.e. a relative scoring approach?

Based on the data posted by xyzax, it appears you guys are using a "vacuum" approach to reviews. The reviewer fairly admits that the game does nothing new which screams "average", 7 out of 10, a 'C' grade to most people. He unabashedly admits he likes the art style and there is a general overly-enthusiastic tone to the whole piece. A neutral reader can't help but come away from the review thinking that the meat of the review does not match the tone and final score of the review.

I believe in order for reviews to mean something beyond being a fanboy or hater dissertation corroborating their point of view, there has to be meaning to the scale. A relational approach is more useful in that one can, at a glance, look at the rating of a new game and be able to compare it to the highest (and lowest) rated games to get a relative feel of it's place in the MMO universe.

From the body of evidence around the web and within the MMORPG review itself, the consensus is that Aion is a solid but generic MMO title but certainly not a trendsetter as the MMORPG rating portends.

 

Answer these questions.  And no I'm not being smart@ss.  What other major MMO title has done aerial combat/character flight (meaning no mount.)  What other major MMO has a combat system that allows for chains to be connected in such a way that you don't have to worry about putting them all into your tool bar?  What other MMO has a world that is comprised in layers and has an abyss that is also comprised of layers and a multiple artifact system that can turn the tide of a pvp raid?  Personal hand crafted guild icons?  The rift system? 

Again I'm not being smart I'm really asking what else is out there that does some of these things really?  Because if not then I'd call some of these things if not all in it's entire package trend setting for it's genre.

 

Still waiting on answers...

Not meaning to be flippant here but what you're asking is really irrelevant to the discussion about the validity of the rating as pertaining to the content of the MMORPG review and then comparing it to other MMO reviews on this site.

You may feel these are exceptional points to make but apparently the MMORPG reviewer did not feel the same way. I can only assume that if he personally felt these were worthy of mention, he would have. Yet, he does go out of his way to point out that, in general, Aion does nothing really new or spectacular ...

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Dragonalf

Have to agree with everyone else questioning the scoring of this review.

This question is to Jon Wood: Is the intent of this site to let every review stand on it's own? Or do you guys shoot for a score that compares the new games merits to those that have come before it ... i.e. a relative scoring approach?

Based on the data posted by xyzax, it appears you guys are using a "vacuum" approach to reviews. The reviewer fairly admits that the game does nothing new which screams "average", 7 out of 10, a 'C' grade to most people. He unabashedly admits he likes the art style and there is a general overly-enthusiastic tone to the whole piece. A neutral reader can't help but come away from the review thinking that the meat of the review does not match the tone and final score of the review.

I believe in order for reviews to mean something beyond being a fanboy or hater dissertation corroborating their point of view, there has to be meaning to the scale. A relational approach is more useful in that one can, at a glance, look at the rating of a new game and be able to compare it to the highest (and lowest) rated games to get a relative feel of it's place in the MMO universe.

From the body of evidence around the web and within the MMORPG review itself, the consensus is that Aion is a solid but generic MMO title but certainly not a trendsetter as the MMORPG rating portends.

 

Whoa, wait a minute.

 

Not doing something new equals average? really? You are then saying that if a game does nothing new but there are bugs all over the place and the writing is sub par and the combat is the same type of combat but just doesn't capture any sense of excitement then that is average? Not bad?

And to further that point, if a game uses the same techniques and same types of story telling and combat types but the writing is sharp and exemplary, the combat, though the same type of combat, is fast and exciting and The game is very polished then that is also average?

Reviews should be based around what the game is trying to accomplish and whether or not it does that.

If I review a newly released rock album I'm not going to say "music is in the same stale key signatures, all 4/4 time, maybe something in compound time thrown in, the obligatory quarter note equals 120 which should make you all want to jump out a window, same whiney subject matter about teen angst and rarely modulates to anything other than the dominant. Grade C.

I'm going to say "ok, here is a rock song. It falls in the genre of a rock song so how does it stand up to what a rock song should be?"

I think you're reading a little more into my point than was intended ...

But, anyway, I agree with what you say about a review being based around what the game is trying to accomplish and whether or not it does that. But it should also be relatable to what has already come before in the genre.

If a new MMO breaks no new ground in any appreciable way and a review of the game essentially states this, then the game should not be rated above it's peers. To be fair, I probably should have worded my initial statement to indicate this rather than imply I think Aion should be rated a '7'. I honestly don't know since I haven't played it but from the tone of the review and by relative comparison to it's peers I don't believe it should be rated any higher than an 8.5.

Originally posted by Xantheous

Originally posted by xzyax

Originally posted by Dana

Remember everyone, 8.7 is the school equivalent to a B+.

A good score, but not epic.

 

True, an 8.7 might very well be the equivalent of a B+...

But I challenge anyone to find a higher rated game reviewed from MMORPG.COM

 

Just for point of reference; here is the score MMORPG.COM gave some other fairly popular MMOs:

MMORPG.COM Review Scores

Game Title	Review Score
Aion	8.7
EvE	8.5
LoTRo	8.5
DAoC	8.4
CoH	8.3
WoW	8.1
Guild Wars	8.1
EQ	8.0
UO	7.8
FFXI	6.5

 

From the review score at least... it would appear that MMORPG.COM is endorsing that Aion is the best MMO currently available.  I haven't tried it, so I can't say one way or the other. 

I just thought it fair to point out that for a MMORPG.COM review score; an 8.7 IS  Epic!

 

Nice! That is exactly what I was saying.

Have to agree with everyone else questioning the scoring of this review.

This question is to Jon Wood: Is the intent of this site to let every review stand on it's own? Or do you guys shoot for a score that compares the new games merits to those that have come before it ... i.e. a relative scoring approach?

Based on the data posted by xyzax, it appears you guys are using a "vacuum" approach to reviews. The reviewer fairly admits that the game does nothing new which screams "average", 7 out of 10, a 'C' grade to most people. He unabashedly admits he likes the art style and there is a general overly-enthusiastic tone to the whole piece. A neutral reader can't help but come away from the review thinking that the meat of the review does not match the tone and final score of the review.

I believe in order for reviews to mean something beyond being a fanboy or hater dissertation corroborating their point of view, there has to be meaning to the scale. A relational approach is more useful in that one can, at a glance, look at the rating of a new game and be able to compare it to the highest (and lowest) rated games to get a relative feel of it's place in the MMO universe.

From the body of evidence around the web and within the MMORPG review itself, the consensus is that Aion is a solid but generic MMO title but certainly not a trendsetter as the MMORPG rating portends.

Another vote for Turbine here.

I've play almost all the major MMOs since DAoC including at least one title from each of the studios on the list and Turbine has impressed me the most  by far.

DDO is a unique take on the MMO genre and succeeds in being different but fun in today's "copy me" MMO space. Lotro is quite simply the best, most polished, fun, casual friendly, and story-driven solo/small-group PvE experience on the market.

Couple this with their constant presence in the company-provided forums, their true willingness to listen to and engage the community, and their unequaled pace of releasing new content, they are the clear favorite.

I just started playing SWG "on the side" because of years of curiosity of how bad SWG supposedly was. I'm commenting not so much to agree or disagree with Jef's comments (though I think for the most part he hit the nail on the head from what I've experienced so far), but to comment more on MMORPG's efforts to become a more "full-bodied" MMO site.

Frankly, if all future reviews (or re-reviews) can be this informative and unbiased, then MMORPG may finally establish itself as the legitimate "voice" of  the MMO community. This re-review and most other recent reviews and re-reviews are starting to show the level of honestly and integrity that I (and I believe most "regular" MMO players) expect to see. I want to hear the straight scoop on a game; I don't want to think that I'm reading a company press release in review form or some fanboi gushing dissertation to the godliness of their MMO of choice or the ranting of some pissed-off  player disguised as a on-line journalist who feels some company/game has ruined their life for the rest of their existence.  Leave the emotion out of it and just report the facts and let the reader decide if the game is for them ... flaws and all. This is what I'm starting to see more from MMORPG.

Kudos to Jef for an imformative and unbiased re-review and kudos to John Wood and his staff for continuing to turn around this site from being the cesspool of hater (and to a lesser degree fanboi) rants it had become only a few short years ago!

Keep the revolution coming!

 Thanks for the link! Gogamer is a great site for deals like these.

I was ready to give this game a pass after some of the post beta feedback. But now that I'm seeing a lot of the positive initial reaction from gamers and press alike, I'm intrigued again.

I was planning on waiting and getting it nearer to the end of the year as I'm busy with other games at the moment. But it won't hurt to pick it up for cheap now and then fire it up later =)

I'm the leader of a small kinship of five on Landroval which has been around since launch.

We're rank 8 and were able to get a kin house and an individual house (standard) for all five of us in the same instance. We chose the Man homestead and actually got all our houses (including kinship) on the same street (Chestnut). It's actually kind of cool to "own" the street.

We had to camp the housing brokers to make this happen. We figured out that once a particular kind of house (standard, deluxe, or kin) was not available in ANY currently open homestead, new ones would open. And we were right. In the case of the Men homesteads, it is the standards that sell out before the others.

My main reason for wanting my own personal house (as well as the kinship one, actually) is for the extra storage space. My main is a level 40 Captain who is a Scholar/Weaponsmith/Farmer (Historian). I also have a level 19 alt who is a Jeweler/Cook. I need tons of space to support these "habits" in addition to all my bank slots. I've even gone and "rented" a buddies personal house chest for my own use because the additional chests from my personal house and the two we currently have for the kinship is STILL not enough for this ol' packrat. =)

As another poster said, you folks in the camp looking for more a more open and integrated PvP element in LOTRO are reading too much into that quote.

I guarantee that Turbine will not implement PvP in the manner that some of you are thinking is implied by that statement in the Dev chat for a very long time, if ever. They have PvMP and may add the ability to adventure in ME as a evil character in the far future but I'm pretty confident that it'll never play out in the manner of WoW and other current and future PvP-heavy MMO's. PvMP is the only PVP model that currently fits into the parameters they are bound to.

Turbine is truly bound by the lore and license and take that seriously when entertaining changes to gameplay. A number of us applaud them for this stance (myself included) and frankly would be concerned if they approached the growth of the game in any other manner. I like PvP elements in a game but not at the expense of the overall package. PvP in the more open manner that some are envisioning would rob LOTRO of the uniqueness that it brings to the genre and would truly make it a cookie cutter fantasy MMO like so many of you like to decry.

You all can continue to hope and read into everything the Devs say but it's better to face the fact that Turbine will never turn it into the open PvP experience some are clamoring for. And that will keep me a happy LOTRO player for a long time to come. 

I just came back about a week ago after a four year absence and I'm having a blast.

I played many MMOs during that time and saw and experienced many iterations of PvP but I soon realized that I always kept comparing them to the best PvP experience I had had up to that point - Planetside. The others were always missing something that I couldn't put my finger on.

So I originally stopped playing PS because though I was having fun, none of my friends played and there were times that it could be tough to find a good battle.

Well, after playing yet another game with PvP that was lacking, I finally decided to check up on PS to see what was happening. The population had certainly dwindled but there seemed to be a solid core of players that still actively played. My biggest concern was if there were really enough players to sustain some good battles.

I finally took the plunge and found to my delight that the PvP was as good as ever with the tweaks and balances they made to encourage focused battles (Lattices, continent locks, etc.). I've been "re"-playing for a week now and every night I've logged on I've had no problem finding action. Base captures, base defenses, tower battle, large open field manuevers, small outdoor skirmishes, etc. The population seems healthy for all three factions on my server (Markov) as evidenced by the size of some of the battles I've been in already. I certainly never have to look far for a good battle which was my biggest concern when deciding whether to come back or not.

I've already had two friends join me and a third just d/led yesterday. We've been having a blast running around as a small squad supporting our empire and we feel the best is yet to come.

Oh, and if you're still on the fence after my testimonial, there are a couple of fansites offering 30 day Full Free Trial promotional keys. There are no strings or limits attached. Check out this link for the site where I got my free trial:

http://planetsidesyndicate.com/

Malac BR6, Vanu Sovereignty

First off, I've never played the game so I don't have first-hand experience of how  all the "versions" of SWG played before.That being said, I followed the game from before it launched and realized fairly early on that I would not being playing the game. It sounded too "sand-boxish" for me.

I consider myself a MMO vet (been playing since just after DAoC launched), so I'm familiar with the many MMO's out there, past and present. At this point in my "career", I know quite confidently what "features" and gameplay I need to look for in an MMO to assure that I'll be playing it for longer than the trial period.

I state all this because I know the next thing I say will sound blastphemous to many of you old "hardcore" SWG players but here it is; I've been intrigued again with SWG since I heard about the NGE. A tighter, quest-based focus in an MMO is what will always attract my interest in a game. Plus, the thought of providing this kind of experience in the rich mythos of the Star Wars universe was too appealing to not at least follow its progress. I knew after they first dropped the NGE on everybody that they still had a lot to do to get the game back into a reasonably playable shape. Balancing and polishing the classes and cleaning up other things from the old game (like abandoned houses and towns) were the two big things I saw needed doing.

 The last of the big balance/addition changes for the classes has happened already and now with this announcement that their cleaning up the landscape, I think I just may be able to jump in fresh.

You see, that's the key. MMO vets like me who are more open-minded and aren't easily swayed by by melodramatic rhetoric about the good 'ol days of SWG can actually look at the NGE SWG as a new experience all together. I could care a less about the history ... if the game is fun for me now then that's all that matters.

Certainly, it'll never enjoy the subscriber numbers it saw in it's early days, but that's not because the old game was better or the new game has a bad reputation. It's because the MMO space is so much bigger and more crowded that unless you're new and do things right from the start (can we say LOTRO) an old game will never really draw the level of interest and subscribers that it saw when it was "fresh".

Still, as far as I'm concerned, I've always been interested in a good space game and now tha the NGE SWG is more like I had hoped it would be when the game was released, it will still feel new and fresh to me ... so what have I or any one else new to the game got to lose by giving it a try.

Originally posted by LordDraekon

With all the pain and suffering happening around the globe everyday, it amazes me to see what some people think is earth-shattering. I read the original article. It was no better or worse than a lot of the drivel that passes for "news" on this site and can't comprehend why the embracers of the newest "Big Thing" felt it necessary to make such a fuss over what was obviously a "first impression" article. It almost seemed that the detractors wanted the thing squelched before it had some negative effect on the impulse cash infusion Turbine seems to need for this game. I played the beta. It's decent, but it's not the blasted Second Coming of Christ! Let's see where some of you promoters are six months from now when you get tired of playing the same classes and races in the very limited corner Turbine has painted themselves into with this product.

What I find even more repulsive are the actions of the MMORPG.com editors toward one of their own writers. There may have been errors made, but the public dressing down of staff members is not acceptable anywhere. It smells like MMORPG.com, like so many other entities is trying to curry favor with the Squeaky-Wheel Mob who will have something new to complain about tomorrow. In the process, you chose to publicly embarrass one of your staff writers. How long does she have to stay in the pillory in the town square?

It would serve you well if your writers became reluctant to work for you because of this. This is a friggin' gaming site, not the Associated Press.

Actually, it clearly took more integrity for this site to admit (rightfully so) that 1) there were internal procedural issues at MMORPG.com allowing it to be posted in the manner it was and 2) the article was misrepresenting what it was, i.e. a review versus a "first look". It was not a clear case of them "caving to the whiners". An unbiased individual would be able to see and at least admit that ...

 If this site wants to be taken seriously by the non-jaded, unbiased, level-headed gamers this is clearly a step in the right direction.

Originally posted by Blurr

I'd compare LOTRO to DDO.

Infact it's exactly like DDO.

Infact I thought I was still playing DDO when I played beta.

Honestly, it feels like they took the DDO engine and just slapped the LOTR logo on it.

 Comments like this do nothing but create false impressions. Aside from the graphical style and look, LOTRO is nothing like DDO.

I've been playing DDO for almost a year and have played the LOTRO Stress Test/Beta for about three weeks and I can tell you the similarities end there. The combat is night and day between the two. If anything, the combat (and gameplay, in general) in LOTRO is much more similiar to WoW than DDO. Ironically, I enjoy DDO combat better but that's for another discussion ...

Next time try and provide some feedback that is at least somewhat useful and not just pointless, unsubstantiated opinion.