This review proves once again just how different a game's rating can turn out depending on who writes the article.  Overall I have to give you kudos for the information you provide in your review.  It was fair without leaning too far in either direction.  The lag can be reduced by making some 'tweak's' to your system settings to optimize the game but even then there's still some lag issues.  I know there are those that are not having this problem right now but the larger player base still has trouble.  The game has a steep learning curve to some degree and will take time for players to 'figure out'.  I still think it deserves better than a 6.9 rating but I won't hammer your review based on just that number.

"I am running AoC with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem."  thats great, now what are you playing fallen earth with??

ok, joking aside, that review actually had a decent amount of info. the more i read about the game, the more i want to try it. i was pretty confused with the rating, until i got to the paragraph about the lag.... i hope icarus can get that cleared up, because this is really starting to sound like my alternate mmo, for when i need some time out of middle earth....

Good review(EDITED: Bad review, see his system specs.), however I disagree with 6.9 because you can tell he purposely avoided giving it a 7 (lol).

An indie company took on the challenge of making an original, sandbox game (which is SO rare) and the game actually had a good launch. This is already quite remarkable. The difference in the community score and the reviewer`s score leaves a bad taste in my mouth, its as if the reviewer didn`t like the game much and scored according to that rather than the relatively neutral review he wrote.

Waaaait a minute... so Aion is the best MMORPG that was ever reviewed here, while FE is mediocre? Oh my... What probably happened, in my opinion, was that they read the complains about the Aion review, and then decided to give the next game a worse rating, to show they can't be bribed by each company (especially not by smaller ones).

Seriously:
The only thing the author actually complained about is lag he experienced and that he considered the game to be too difficult for him. Well, about the lag: I play from Europe, and even during times when lots of people are online I have no latency problems since they implemented the server performance patches. Sometimes I even upload stuff to youtube and still play FE at the same time without problems. So I don't know what the author was doing with his computer.
Maybe he is confusing latency with FPS, because sometimes 2GB RAM can be a bit on the low end.

And about the game difficulty:
Not everyone likes to mindlessly grind through hordes of monsters without paying attention, while actually watching tv at the same time. If you don't like a challenging game then that doesn't mean that the game is bad.

I don't say FE is perfect, it got it's issues. But it is the only MMORPG since years that really keeps me motivated to play on, and many other people feel that way. Saying it is worse than Aion, Champions Online and the other stuff simply doesn't do the game justices. Maybe it is because FE targets an audience a bit more mature than the typical MMORPG crowd, I don't know.

Yeah, I don't judge a review based on the number given either. The number is something that is highly relative and subjective, whereas a review if written right contains factual information that can help people decide if the game is right for them. This was a good review. Everything seemed spot on. I would have mentioned that crafting is done in real time, because that's a big deal to some, but it's not a major ommission.

Originally posted by Goob

Good review, however I disagree with 6.9 because you can tell he purposely avoided giving it a 7 (lol).

An indie company took on the challenge of making an original, sandbox game (which is SO rare) and the game actually had a good launch. This is already quite remarkable. The difference in the community score and the reviewer`s score leaves a bad taste in my mouth, its as if the reviewer didn`t like the game much and scored according to that rather than the relatively neutral review he wrote.

FE isn't a sandbox game.

MMORPG.com calls it one. Read the OP, first line. It`s MMORPG.com`s review, and they`re calling it a sandbox MMO, so therefore with respect to the game and the review, it is a sandbox MMO. If you want to get in a debate about this, start a thread and I`ll come dance with you over there.

The final score made me LOL a bit. A game like Fallen Earth has ten times the staying power as a game like Aion or Champions. Icarus seems to understand what makes a MMOG tick unlike so many failed attempts in recent years.

From a purely game design standpoint FE is a significant release. Its been a long time since we have seen a game with compelling crafting, an open world with no zoning, multiple factions with open world PvP between them, classless characters, and persistent vehicles/mounts. Its one the few MMOG's that seems to allow and encourage different play styles such as exploring while not requiring that the game be played in a specific way. We have certainly had enough acheivement focused games in recent years!

Depending on how Icarus handles post-release features and content this could be one of those steadily growing games like Eve. Even now it seems to be doing well and getting a lot of player recomendations. This is definitely the sleeper hit of 2009.

Much like Mokoleus I am starting to get interested in this game.  I played Project: Entropia for a while and it took some getting used to but I liked the skill-based system.  Another thing for me is the crafting!  Wow do I drool every time I read about the crafting in this game.  Good review that I felt was unbiased - just another player's perspective of their first foray into the game.

Please keep the FE information coming - I may be purchasing it soon.

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by Goob

Good review, however I disagree with 6.9 because you can tell he purposely avoided giving it a 7 (lol).

An indie company took on the challenge of making an original, sandbox game (which is SO rare) and the game actually had a good launch. This is already quite remarkable. The difference in the community score and the reviewer`s score leaves a bad taste in my mouth, its as if the reviewer didn`t like the game much and scored according to that rather than the relatively neutral review he wrote.

 

FE isn't a sandbox game.

sanbox-ish / hybrid-sandbox but ya not a sandbox if it was i prolly wouln't play it but thats me

FE sucks! I would not give it more than 4.0.

Originally posted by Markusan

FE sucks! I would not give it more than 4.0.

What an insightful and informative post.

The reviewer can call a sheep a dog, but it will still be a dog. Fallen Earth is not a sandbox game and the economy is not player-driven. I'm having a blast in FE currently, but if you are going to put a label on it, to me, FE is a theme park. An open world, off the rails, theme park, but still a theme park. Your main mechanic for character progression are quests, so you have quest progression, quest hubs, open world exploration on a map that is divided into level ranges, all the characteristics of a theme park game. So, what about FE makes it more of a sandbox?

I would have to agree with IGN's review of 8.1, Impressive.

Originally posted by Markusan

FE sucks! I would not give it more than 4.0.

Translation "look at me, someone pay attention to me"

Yeah, the rating in no way matches what the review states.  Aside from the lag, it was all positive.

When I played in the beta, it seemed difficult at first.  But once you figure out how dual wield works, it seems on par with most MMO's.

My biggest issue was the animations.  Seemed very "money for nothing".  Fantasy settings, where the characters are more toony can get away with that sorta stuff, but more realistic games... it just doesn't work.

When they do a trial, I'll probably give it a shot.  But for me, $60 was just way too much for this game.  They should have gone the way Eve did, with a cheap, direct download client.

 So the reviewer enjoys the game until he experiences lag, and then gives it a mediocre score? Reviews like this one is why I continue to rely on reviews from other sites instead of MMORPG.com. Every MMO reviewer should have to post in their first paragraph, MMO experience, age, education level, PC and internet specs, time spent playing and current MMO which they play.

Originally posted by Ikonic

So the reviewer enjoys the game until he experiences lag, and then gives it a mediocre score? Reviews like this one are why I continue to rely on reviews from other sites.

Have to agree with others posting here... the review does not match the score. Out of nine different "points," the author thought that 8 of them were either okay or very good.

It's too bad that a lot of people out there will only look at the score, because the review is really well written and says a hell of a lot more (obviously) than what the score and blips say.

Mediocre should be the rating for the reviewer, not the game.  The 2 negatives is the lag, lag has been a problem on launch yes, but right now it's almost a non-issues.

Review was fair .. score a bit off.

And one thing:

"I am running AoC with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem."

Your system has not the Minimum Hardware Requirements for Vista:

http://www.fallenearth.com/node/16

So this is definitelly something you shoudl ahve mentioned in your Review!

Cu

Rascil

I am a bit curious about the author's performance issues.

For one, his terminology is a bit misleading. Most people consider "lag" to be associated with server or internet performance. It was clear that his issue had to do with client performance more than anything else. Client performance is something that we have some control over.

Looking at his system he has Crossfire for two mediocre video cards. Does FE support Crossfire? If not then his system is performing much worse than a standard Nvidia 8800 GTX would provide. That is pretty low by today's standards. Also, two gigs of ram is also on the low side of today's standards. In other words he is using a system that would have been good two years ago on a game released very recently. Most up to date systems can perform twice as good as his system.

I know that not everyone has the luxory of a modern system and that FE's graphic detail doesn't necessarily warant high end systems, but Icarus didn't licence a major 3D engine, they are a smaller dev studio, and there is nothing particularly wrong with assuming that people upgrade their system every couple years.

Originally posted by Rascil

Review was fair .. score a bit off.

And one thing:

"I am running AoC with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem."

Your system has not the Minimum Hardware Requirements for Vista:

http://www.fallenearth.com/node/16

So this is definitelly something you shoudl ahve mentioned in your Review!

Cu

Rascil

 

 

When does that matter in a MMORPG.com review?

I still think the Alpha version of the game was much better.

"As boasted on the website and mentioned a numerous times, the best items in game are crafted. "

this is not true at all,  the best items in game come from death toll npc merchants. The pvp items they sell are far better then anything that can be  crafted, even at the highest lvl of crafting.

Originally posted by Ikonic

Originally posted by Rascil

Review was fair .. score a bit off.

And one thing:

"I am running AoC with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem."

Your system has not the Minimum Hardware Requirements for Vista:

http://www.fallenearth.com/node/16

So this is definitelly something you shoudl ahve mentioned in your Review!

Cu

Rascil

 

 

When does that matter in a MMORPG.com review?

Heh...the man does have a point.

When a reviewer doesnt even meet the minimum system requirements to play the game, and then issues a low score do to perfotmance issues...well...

Originally posted by Rascil

Review was fair .. score a bit off.

And one thing:

"I am running AoC with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem."

Your system has not the Minimum Hardware Requirements for Vista:

http://www.fallenearth.com/node/16

So this is definitelly something you shoudl ahve mentioned in your Review!

Cu

Rascil

  

Good catch!

In Vista, 2 gig is bare minimum...

Odd how your review was decent but you had just basic information on the crafting, nothing on the pvp and your complaint was lag but it dropped the score so far.

I installed the game from digital download and all I did was change the video to 1900x1200 on the game, I rarely ever have lag unless I run into a bank with 50+ horses and people in it and then I get a bit.

Maybe we can get a review with a little more in depth information with someone who has met the requirements to run it...

Pulled from fallenearth.com

Minimum Hardware Requirements

* CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHz or Athlon 64X2 2.4 GHz
* RAM: 2.0 GB for XP, 3.0 GB for Vista
* Video Card: nVidia GeForce 6600/ATI Radeon X1300
* RAM (dedicated): 256 MB
* Free hard-drive space: 10 GB

Recommended Hardware Requirements

* CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.40 GHz or equivalent
* RAM: 3 GB for XP, 4 GB for Vista
* Video Card: nVidia GeForce 8800GTS/ ATI Radeon 3870
* RAM (dedicated): 512 MB
 

Thanks for the effort I guess...

Originally posted by Rascil

"I am running AoC with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem."

Your system has not the Minimum Hardware Requirements for Vista:

http://www.fallenearth.com/node/16

So this is definitelly something you shoudl ahve mentioned in your Review!

Cu

Rascil

 

 

This.

This person is dumb enough to run Vista with only 2g of ram.   That tells me all I need to know.  They need to learn how software and hardware work together before they review anything.

This is like putting diesel fuel in your gasoline powered car and then getting on the audobon and saying the road is why you couldn't perform well.

Rascil pretty much said everything else.  This reviewer is not very bright and their opinion lost all validity when they showed the HUGE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING in what constitutes a computer capable of gaming.

Hell 2g is almost not enough to run background apps much less a game.  The fact they ran the game at all shows just how well it was designed.

Since the performance patch, i have zero lag, even at prime time, even in populated towns. 

Leatrix Latency Fix did most of this for me before the server performance patch.  Check it out before you shred another review with BAD information.

I'm a little confused about how the review matches to the number score as well.   The only thing the reviewer sounded nonplussed about was the lag... which makes me wonder when he actually played the game.  Fallen Earth has been making updates to this game constantly (I'd say at least once a week) fixing all sorts of things, and I haven't had any issues with lag for a couple weeks now.

Another thing that seems to have been left out of this review is the company involvement with the players. Much more than other games I have played, (WoW, SWG, CoH/CoV, WAR, CO), GMs seem to be active in the in-game chat with the players, and the devs seem to keep the community well informed on the forums. I'm not sure however if it only seems that way b/c Icarus is a smaller company

My review score of the review:  6.1

Honestly Aion 8.7 and this 6.9? Is this supposed to be a way of telling publishers that you give a game 8.0 and better rating only if they pay you, or you really think that FE is worse than 90% of all the games you reviewed lately? If I compare the text from Aion and the text from FE, FE is much more positively described, yet still the rating is the other way around.

No wonder that metacritic, and gamerankings ignore your ratings and reviews completely.

Reviews are one persons opinion of a game in a given time frame.

Most people that post on this forum know what they like and what they dont like and as such these reviews are of little help to, what i consider,  hardcore players. They help give an view of the game but should not really be taken as Gospel.

Originally posted by Thillian

Honestly Aion 8.7 and this 6.9? Is this supposed to be a way of telling publishers that you give a game 8.0 and better rating only if they pay you, or you really think that FE is worse than 90% of all the games you reviewed lately? If I compare the text from Aion and the text from FE, FE is much more positively described, yet still the rating is the other way around.

No wonder that metacritic, and gamerankings ignore your ratings and reviews completely.

First time I have ever agreed with this troll, but miracles do happen. 

I agree  to give Aion an 8.7?  This whole site and its rating system is just way of key.  Nobody can take anything seriuos on this board regarding their rating systems mechanics.    Whetther it be user rating or mmorpg.com raing both systems are flawed and need to be removed form this site.  Infact aion should have been given a 6.9 as it is very mdeioce at best.

Im still a bit perplexed as to how the staff here didn't realize the reviewers machine didnt meet specs to run the game? 

If lag is such a big part of your scoring system, then shouldn't you at least have the minumum required ram to run the client?

That's a scandal if he runs the game with 2gb RAM on vista OS -> and then compains about LAG. In addition, LAG is a term for connection issues -> yet he clearly meant spikes and low FPS in the review. What a laugh!

Im a little confused as well. As a writer for mmorpg.com shouldnt you have to submit your system specs to them, and in doing so shouldnt mmorpg be handing out assignments to people who meet at least the minimum specs for the game?

Seeing this, it almost calls into question reviews on other games now, for as it stands now they are giving reviews out to people whos system isnt even up to par. And lets face it, 2 gigs of ram is way under what most people run for a gaming rig now, I mean I got 4 gigs of corsair ram for $30, so its not like its expensive. This whole review seems rather odd to me, especially if he did give it a 6.9 due to his computer not even meeting the standards. It almost sounds to me like the game was unplayable for him, so he just based his review off the little he did get to play.

The people at Icarus Studios have simply done great work here. It's obviously attracting players who can appreciate good game design and longevity.

I'm sure its going to continue to improve over time. Each patch has lots of fixes and tweaks. Crazy amounts of work going into the game for such a small studio. I'm sincerely impressed.

I do not understand why the score isn't at the very least in the 7's with the way the review read.

Reviewer should probably crunch the numbers again or just pull another one out of thin air.

Reviews on MMORPG get more and more confusing. Where as there wasn't much in the recent Aion review to warrant the highest score ever on MMORPG, in this review the only thing warranting the rather low score is the lag.

So I take it without the lag the game is good or.....?

Confusing....

Originally posted by Thillian

That's a scandal if he runs the game with 2gb RAM on vista OS -> and then compains about LAG. In addition, LAG is a term for connection issues -> yet he clearly meant spikes and low FPS in the review. What a laugh!

Yeah it is strange. It clearly says on the official site:

Recommended Hardware Requirements

* CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.40 GHz or equivalent
* RAM: 3 GB for XP, 4 GB for Vista
* Video Card: nVidia GeForce 8800GTS/ ATI Radeon 3870
* RAM (dedicated): 512 MB

Not sure that is why he got that massive lag but it does say he needs more RAM to reach recommended hw reqs.

I'm playing from Poland mainly in EU prime time but also in US prime time. I have some lag (which is obvious considering distance) but comparing to other US servers lag is not a problem at all. I have worse system specs (besides 3 GB RAM and XP), 2 SQL servers running in backgroung and game is doing fine.

As for review it is pile of bull... . I think it all depends on how much money companies are willing to spend on commercials on this page. Same happened with Darkfall game is really good (company is crap) but they never paid for banner here - review was crap also.

My final words: no wings here!!! so game must be bad...

As others have said, the reviewer's rig is what was causing his lag issues.  I have no problems to speak of running the game with most of the settings maxed at 1680 x 1050 with the following rig:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 at stock 2.66 GHz
EVGA 790i Ultra motherboard
4GB OCZ Reaper DDR3 running at 1066MHz (looking to upgrade to more and faster RAM in the future)
2 EVGA 9800GTX graphics cards in SLI
Vista Ultimate 64 bit

I would like to see him re-review it with a computer that meets or exceeds the minimum specs.

I can't understand how you can rate AoC above Fallen Earth.

Fallen Earth is finally something different done right.

Then running Vista with only 2GB RAM and a dual ATI Radeon 3850 VGA on a memory intensive game like Fallen Earth is just ... not well though out. A single VGA card with 4GB would have been alot better.

I don't know where you experienced lag, perhaps it was at launch, because I haven't had any lag yet ( only playing for a few days now ).

MMORPG.com should simply stop putting reviews on their website. I mean news? Ok. Discussion forum? Fine too. But reviews? They are horrible. I'm not sure if the reviewers are incompetent, bribed, or if they think that expressing their prejudices / assumptions about games is the same as writing a review.

 Well to be honest, each player has their own experiences of FE.  The thing I found kinda interesting about the review was the lack of actual in game player screen shots, I mean most of what was said could've been easily read off of the original site and a quick play through the tutorial.  Not to discredit the review, just an observation. 

I'm running an amd 6000+ dual core with 1 88000gts and I don't have any lag (except for yesterdays patch... gave me a lot of lag)  but normally I don't get any lag unless I'm in a very heavily populated town like oilville.  I also run on medium settings for the game with a 75% draw distance across the board.

Have learned to take reviews here with the grain of salt as the score almost never matches up with the tone of the review.

Read one review where it was very positive up until the last paragraph and the game ended up with something between 5-6.  Here it was very similar.  And as of late, I have been very let down by the quality of writing founding on a variety of gaming sites - glaring issues that shouldn't have made it past an editor.  I remember writing an article for HorizonsVault way way way way way back when and submitted an article that I had written on my own regard.  The editor at the time gave me a lot of feedback as how to write for an internet audience and I learned a lot.  I see a lot of the mistakes that I made then continued to be made time and time again - and I'm not talking about just grammar issues.  

I'm surprised no one looked at this and said, "Wait, the score here just doesn't match up with what is going on with the writing.  If your experience is really a high six, we need to look at your writing.  If your writing reflects very much the experience the score needs to be adjusted."  Having read the review, I'd say I would have expected at the very least a 7.5. 

Edited: And as for not meeting minimum requirements - that just discredits the review and some of its contents, but it mostly hurts the developer, especially when it is never stated that minimum requirements weren't met.  It could have very well been the reviewer's machine that is responsible for the lag (and therefore noted in the review).  Until someone pointed it out, I would have assumed like every Joe Schmoe that the lag problems were an inherent problem with the game. Come on MMORPG.com, you can do so much better!  And yes, I am being harsh. 

I would like to add to the complaints towards the reviewer's system. I did not notice his RAM before.

Are you serious? Vista, 2GB of RAM, and an MMO? Lol. Thats awful, I think this deserves an explanation and FE deserves a another look from someone who won't deduct points because their system has barely enough RAM to play Counter-Strike 1.6 in Vista.

Originally posted by maji

MMORPG.com should simply stop putting reviews on their website. I mean news? Ok. Discussion forum? Fine too. But reviews? They are horrible. I'm not sure if the reviewers are incompetent, bribed, or if they think that expressing their prejudices / assumptions about games is the same as writing a review.

 

   Totally true
 

I  am running this game on a AMD Dual Core 3.0ghz machine, 4 gig, with a NvIdia GTS 250 512 video card.. I am far from an computer expert but it sounds to me like this reviewers system is superior to my own atleast with the video cards. I yet have never had the kind of lag issues he has had. I have played at all different times of the day, and only once approached anything close to lag, and that involved a motor vehicle entering a highly populated town, the vehicle was moving to fast for the frame rate to keep up. But that only lasted about 5 seconds.

Do not base your opinion on this game on this review, check other sources, this guy had a bad connection for one reason or another, and based his review on that.

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by Thillian

That's a scandal if he runs the game with 2gb RAM on vista OS -> and then compains about LAG. In addition, LAG is a term for connection issues -> yet he clearly meant spikes and low FPS in the review. What a laugh!

 

Yeah it is strange. It clearly says on the official site:

Recommended Hardware Requirements

* CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.40 GHz or equivalent
* RAM: 3 GB for XP, 4 GB for Vista
* Video Card: nVidia GeForce 8800GTS/ ATI Radeon 3870
* RAM (dedicated): 512 MB

Not sure that is why he got that massive lag but it does say he needs more RAM to reach recommended hw reqs.

 

We can't know for sure wether he suffered from graphics lag or internet lag, either way, this review is indeed a joke.

Complaining about performance when your computer does not meet minimum requirements ...

This game should definatly get re-reviewed.

Ok guys,

Obviously this was an oversight on my part in terms of the minimum requirements.

I've pulled the review while we look into this. I certainly don't want to see a game get saddled with a score that it doesn't deserve. My apologies for this mistake.

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

Obviously this was an oversight on my part in terms of the minimum requirements.

I've pulled the review while we look into this. I certainly don't want to see a game get saddled with a score that it doesn't deserve. My apologies for this mistake.

This is why you are so good at what you do. Cheers

What qualifies a person to write a review on MMORPG?

Since the impact on the game can be massive, the reviewer has to have some accountability no?

Originally posted by VultureSkull

What qualifies a person to write a review on MMORPG?

 

Since the impact on the game can be massive, the reviewer has to have some accountability no?

Nope.  I've written extensively on that on the forums and Jon has assured me that each review is independent and honest without any undue influence from the community or advertising dollars that MMORPG.com may receive. 

Stradden,

I'm glad to see you guys take reader feedback seriously.  I've always seen reviews as a way to help both developers and gamers - let them know what works and what doesn't. 

You will always have companies such as CD Projekt that take this feedback seriously and address the criticism with a much improved product.  I would like to give Icarus the benefit of the doubt and say they're more than willing to listen and biased reviews(be it technical or preferential in origin) really don't help anyone - especially the developer.

If the game still comes out with the score that it did, it needs to be reflected better within the review.

Originally posted by maji

MMORPG.com should simply stop putting reviews on their website. I mean news? Ok. Discussion forum? Fine too. But reviews? They are horrible. I'm not sure if the reviewers are incompetent, bribed, or if they think that expressing their prejudices / assumptions about games is the same as writing a review.

 

I agree, people who come here do not need another's opinion about a game(we get enough of that  already from all the numerous posts on the forums!), they need facts, about what the game contains, features, hardware requirements, even a walk through of the first few levels to show how the game plays etc.

No thoughts or opinions, and at the very least a score should not be awarded as this gives it a rank which can then be compared to other games, reviewed perhaps by another reviewer, and since reviews are not an exact science it becomes unfair in a way.

MMORPG.com IMHO should be for all mmos and hence seemingly approving of one and not another does not seem right.

These are my own thoughts and may not necessary be the mission of MMORPG

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

Obviously this was an oversight on my part in terms of the minimum requirements.

I've pulled the review while we look into this. I certainly don't want to see a game get saddled with a score that it doesn't deserve. My apologies for this mistake.

Thank you sir. I think it's only fair to Icarus that the reviewers system at least meet the min requirements. Especially when they have done such a great job with there product.

Originally posted by VultureSkull

What qualifies a person to write a review on MMORPG?

I'm curious about this myself, after a debacle like this who wouldn't be?

The standard of quality has dropped exponentially here over the last few months, leading me to believe that the standard for selecting staff writers has dropped as well. It is quite apparent when, as pointed out in this very thread, games like Aion receive very high scores that the majority of reader opinion seems to think are undeserved, and games like FE that have actually done something different for a change and taken a leap of faith with there product seem to get a lowball score.

When I read a review on a product, I expect facts, not just the reviewers personal opinion. Which, unfortunately, is what many of the more recent reviews and articles have been comprised of - strictly personal opinions and very little in the way of facts related to the product itself.

Don't get me wrong, I personally have always thought the site was biased to a certain degree, but to see things like this starting to slip through the cracks (seriously, reviewing on a system unable to run the game....tsk tsk gentlemen) it definitely raises more than just a few eyebrows.

 

Cracks me up, some idiot reviewer gives Aion a 8.7 and this nut gives Fallen Earth a 6.9.  Neither game is as good or as bad as the reviewer assigned numbers indicate.

What is with these ridiculous numbers Stradden?  I think you need a personal disclaimer that these clueless reviewers don't have a clue when assigning numbers to a review of a game.  What we have basically had here lately is a bunch of reviewers without a standard scale for assigning a review number to a game.  Perhaps you should educate your reviewers before they make a fool of themselves.

Personally I would give both games a 7.5.  Aion for the beautiful world and Fallen Earth for at least attempting some innovation in the genre. 

Pretty sad when entire threads get devoted to discussion of bad choices when assigning review numbers, instead of talking about the review itself.

Taking the time to re-evaluate your own review based on new information is an amicable task and I applaud you for it sir.

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

Obviously this was an oversight on my part in terms of the minimum requirements.

I've pulled the review while we look into this. I certainly don't want to see a game get saddled with a score that it doesn't deserve. My apologies for this mistake.

Big up for you, Stradden.

Game should be reviewed by those who are actually able to judge a game on it's merrits.

And this particular one isn't the nr. 1 released game according to MMORPG.com members for no reason ;-)

Yo Stradden,  I'm happy for you and all and Ima let you finish, but Eurogamer had the best low score review of an independent MMO of all time.

Ok guys,

I've spoken extensively with the reviewer. There was actually a mistake made in the original text. Originally, he was talking about the RAM in the dual video cards, and neglected to mention system RAM. His machine, on top of the video cards, has 4 Gb RAM, more than enough to meet the minimum requirements.

He also assures me that the offending lag comes at peak times and the game does run more smootly when there are fewer players online.

My sincere apologies for any problems that this caused to people. As you can imagine, this has been a bit of an embarasing situation for me. I really should have caught this on my edit of the review. So, continue to crucify me if you want to, but that was my bad and I'm sorry.

As for the score: That's the score that the reviewer chose to give the game. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it but in the end when asked that the game was worth, he told me 6.9. Not everyone is going to like the same kinds of game. In the end, a reviewer scores a game based on his or her own opinions of it.

Originally posted by Goob

MMORPG.com calls it one. Read the OP, first line. It`s MMORPG.com`s review, and they`re calling it a sandbox MMO, so therefore with respect to the game and the review, it is a sandbox MMO. If you want to get in a debate about this, start a thread and I`ll come dance with you over there.

Fair enough. However, consider this. You're looking at a dog, however, a website calls it a cat, and the review calls it a cat. Do you see a cat or a dog? I challenge you to think for yourself and come up with your own reasons, based on sound reasoning and logic, on why you believe what you believe.

From my experience and definiton set by precedent, Fallen Earth does not fit the sandbox description.

Fallen Earth requires you to do quests to advance your character, because those quests grant AP, which is how you progress your character.

You can't wonder into areas where higher level monsters live, because you'll die.

There are level and skill level requirements to do quests, and equip gear.

No housing or city building.

As the reviewer pointed out, crafting follows the same routine as other games. The only notable exception is that you can craft the best gear, and crafting is in real-time.

Being able to pick and choose where to spend skills makes it a skill-based game, not a sandbox game. That's just the method you advance your character.

Being able to craft the best gear in the game does not make it a sandbox game, it's just the method you gain upgrades.

I've stated that Fallen Earth is not a sandbox game, and have defended that with sound reasoning. My examples of a sandbox game is UO and SWG.

---

Originally posted by Stradden
Ok guys,
I've spoken extensively with the reviewer. There was actually a mistake made in the original text. Originally, he was talking about the RAM in the dual video cards, and neglected to mention system RAM. His machine, on top of the video cards, has 4 Gb RAM, more than enough to meet the minimum requirements.
He also assures me that the offending lag comes at peak times and the game does run more smootly when there are fewer players online.
My sincere apologies for any problems that this caused to people. As you can imagine, this has been a bit of an embarasing situation for me. I really should have caught this on my edit of the review. So, continue to crucify me if you want to, but that was my bad and I'm sorry.
As for the score: That's the score that the reviewer chose to give the game. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it but in the end when asked that the game was worth, he told me 6.9. Not everyone is going to like the same kinds of game. In the end, a reviewer scores a game based on his or her own opinions of it.
 

---

Yeah, seriously, I'm giving my video card RAM when someone asks me about the system specification. Always.

Hi Stradden,

Far from me to be telling you how to perform your role, but in my opinion you are the one to give final sanction to the overall score, not the reviewer.

This is because you have to keep all scores awarded to reviews in line with each other. As you vet all reviews before they go out you can correlate them against each other, and keep the relation between them in line. As people are already comparing this score aginst the Aion score and since both come from MMORPG.com there should be some relationship between the two.

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Hi Stradden,

Far from me to be telling you how to perform your role, but in my opinion you are the one to give final sanction to the overall score, not the reviewer.

This is because you have to keep all scores awarded to reviews in line with each other. As you vet all reviews before they go out you can correlate them against each other, and keep the relation between them in line. As people are already comparing this score aginst the Aion score and since both come from MMORPG.com there should be some relationship between the two.

Here's the thing: If I, or any other paid employee of the site, starts being able to dictate the scores that opens us up to more accusations of bias on the behalf of advertisers. While we wouldn't do that, we prefer to keep the scores in the hands of the independent freelancers who write the reviews to insure that the game is given the score that they choose with no intererence from us. That way, there isn't even the slightest rational indication that we monkeyed around with the score for profit.

Now, I completely see your point of view and argument, and it's just as valid, but this is the way that MMORPG.com has been doing things since we started. I know that recently, in our Staff Blog, Dana Massey asked for input on our reviewing policies. I'd suggest you take this suggestion there. :) Put it in front of the right eyes.

Seriously, the effect this score can have on a game is a rather large one. I am rather shocked MMORPG doesn't have some ruleset for developing scores or some form of criteria that needs to be met by all INDEPENDANT reviewers.

It could be this sites way of stopping horrendous reviews and creating a much better standard for reviews to come on this site

Is there any way we can have a second review of this game ? The community here obviously has more than a problem with this one.

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

I've spoken extensively with the reviewer. There was actually a mistake made in the original text. Originally, he was talking about the RAM in the dual video cards, and neglected to mention system RAM. His machine, on top of the video cards, has 4 Gb RAM, more than enough to meet the minimum requirements.

So predictable.

Originally posted by Stradden

 

Here's the thing: If I, or any other paid employee of the site, starts being able to dictate the scores that opens us up to more accusations of bias on the behalf of advertisers. While we wouldn't do that, we prefer to keep the scores in the hands of the independent freelancers who write the reviews to insure that the game is given the score that they choose with no intererence from us. That way, there isn't even the slightest rational indication that we monkeyed around with the score for profit.

Now, I completely see your point of view and argument, and it's just as valid, but this is the way that MMORPG.com has been doing things since we started. I know that recently, in our Staff Blog, Dana Massey asked for input on our reviewing policies. I'd suggest you take this suggestion there. :) Put it in front of the right eyes.

Thanks for your response, and i see your point, very valid. Consider this also:

"What value does a score add to a review anyway, to appear more impartial it is something that can easily be left off a review."
 

EDIT: This is, or should be the definitive MMO site on the Internet, ie the whole world comes here to read and discuss MMOs, as such certain standards need to be in place so that it remains to be independent and objective in what it does. Awarding scores to games is too subjective to remain in line with being independent (more so when there is no uniformly set standard and no accountability or previous experience is required to review).

OK so Aion being the million WoW clone is the best MMO ever and Fallen Earth which, although not for every taste, at least have an hint of originality just 6.9?

MMORPG.com should give up on reviewing games, there is lack of consistency throughout the board.
I am not actually contesting Fallen Earth score, rather Aion one.
I played both of the games, and I would have given both a 6.5/7 for different reasons.
They are both decent games which have pros and cons in different departments.

Aion is not 2 points better than Fallen Earth, it is made for a different audiance but it ain't so much better.

On a scale of 1-10, wouldn't a 5.0 be average? A 6.9 is to the right of 5.0 and was graded a "Mediocre". If you are going to allow independent reviews and advertise them on your front page, some form of uniformity is required. Do you accept individual reviews of this website?  

Give an ORIGINAL SOLID INDIE GAME a bad score....

Give an onoriginal Asian grinder best score on website.....

these "reviews" are starting to make me not like this website.

6.9 seriously

I bet the reviewer is quite content with himself for starting such a ruckus. I'm sure his scoring isn't completely innocent.

Why can't people get this in their heads? A score out of ten should be based on the quality of the game, not the amount you enjoy it. For example, I truly despise WAR, there is no fun to be had for me. I give it a 3/10 in that respect. There are so many mechanical flaws in the structure of the gameplay, it actually upsets me to think of how badly they wasted its potential. However, there are lots of good things in the game too that I can RECOGNIZE others will enjoy, and there is lots of commendable work to be recognized in the game that is been done by the developers. Let me tell you, my review of the game FOR OTHERS TO READ would definitely not be as hard as my 3/10. Thats just unrealistic.

Think above yourself when rating the time and effort that has been spent on something you can so easily strike down with a bad score. FE deserves that extra 0.1 for what it has accomplished (and I am basing that up against the rest of the genre, not against my preferences). It wouldn't have cost you much, Mr. Reviewer, but you selfishly wanted to wound the game.

What baffles me more than anything, is how they could include FE among the 10 Best MMOs Since WoW (which, lets be frank, says ALOT about just how solid this recently launched indy mmo really is) and then let an independent reviewer score it as mediocre.

Ok, so the reviewers score is his own, we get that.

However, is there not some final say or needed approval by the "senior staff" before these reviews are frontpaged? and if so, why do reviews like this ever make it to the frontpage to begin with? especially when they seem to contradict this own sites opinion (as presented in the 10 Best MMOs since... article mentioned above) of said game in question.

Originally posted by Euphoryk

What baffles me more than anything, is how they could include FE among the 10 Best MMOs Since WoW (which, lets be frank, says ALOT about just how solid this recently launched indy mmo really is) and then let an independent reviewer score it as mediocre.

Ok, so the reviewers score is his own, we get that. However, is there not some final say or needed approval by the "senior staff" before these reviews are frontpaged? and if so, why do reviews like this ever make it to the frontpage to begin with? especially when they seem to contradict this own sites opinion (as presented in the 10 Best MMOs since... article mentioned above) of said game in question.

This is the exact reaon why i said that they should really leave scores and opinions off their reviews!!!

Because taking this further implies:

According to MMORPG.com: "There have only been 9 games released to date since WoW that are NOT mediocre!"

You guys just can't be giving numerical scores to games, then, if it just ends up being the subjective opinion "a finger in the air" of whomever is doing the review. People come here and want to see game ratings, but they mean nothing since you obviously don't have a standardized scoring system for your reviewers to follow. It definitely isn't professional to do things in this fashion.

I've not noticed lag (from the UK), but since the reviewer mentioned prime time, I can't discount that I guess. My prime time is obviously quite different from a US one.

Originally posted by Euphoryk

However, is there not some final say or needed approval by the "senior staff" before these reviews are frontpaged? and if so, why do reviews like this ever make it to the frontpage to begin with? especially when they seem to contradict this own sites opinion (as presented in the 10 Best MMOs since... article mentioned above) of said game in question.

Because Dana Massey's opinion differs from Joe Iuliani's? Different people are different.

 Well heres the thing.  Does this score dictate the entirety of the views of MMORPG.com?  Its the reviewers own score, to that i can understand. Now is it just some guys review? Or does this reflect the view of MMORPG.com? 

Now thats fine if 6.9 was what the reviewer decided on.  Its also okay that the review was positive up until the "lag"  issue which is only rebuked later in the thread when it was actually said the game runs "more smoothly"  when less players are on. (lag goes by region mainly, it could be laggy in odenville but smooth in pass chris).   Anyways, I'm not trying to debunk a reviewer of their review.  Obviously something strange seemed off.  No this game shouldn't be a 9 or anything, but 6.9 just seemed to be right on the cusp but purposely falling short due to unforseen reasons.

IGN gave Fallen earth an 8.1(impressive) they gave Aion an 8.5(Great). Yes there's a gap between them but not nearly as much. This is at least consistent, though they roughly give all MMO's about the same rating. For a little contrast both sites also reviewed WOW, IGN gave it a 9.1. Where MMORPG gave it a 7.0.

Now arguably Aion is simply wow with an asian theme. If you go by your reviews Aion was a much better game than wow, better than any other as well. I understand you guys don't want to sound bias or bribed, but something is wrong here. Your reviews are advertised as your score, as in MMORPG's. It's not really stated as our affiliate's score. Definitely something that you should think about changing.

I think Mediocre sums FE quite good.

Originally posted by Goob

Think above yourself when rating the time and effort that has been spent on something you can so easily strike down with a bad score. FE deserves that extra 0.1 for what it has accomplished (and I am basing that up against the rest of the genre, not against my preferences). It wouldn't have cost you much, Mr. Reviewer, but you selfishly wanted to wound the game.

 

That's exactly the problem my friend.
These so called reviewers score the game thinking that their taste in games will be shared by everyone....................how bloody naive.

When you review a game the most important thing is to acknowledge if OTHER people will like it, not if YOU like it.

Following your logic I would have given Aion a 4, but knowing some people will like it and acknowledging that the game has some solid features I would have given it a 7 as a reviewer.
How difficult it is to put yourself in other people shoes?

C'mon get quality reviewers or give up all together.

Originally posted by Stradden

Because Dana Massey's opinion differs from Joe Iuliani's? Different people are different.

Obvious answer is obvious. What a cop out.

I'll be using TTH or Massively for my info from now on.

What a terrible review. After Aion's overinflated review it calls into question every other review from mmorpg.

Its pretty obvious to anyone who has played the game the reviewer has either not tweeked his system per recommendations or has some issue with hardware. The lag (even at primetime) he describes is not the experiance for the majority of the playerbase. Logic dictates if the lag was this bad the playerbase would not be there at all, certainly would't post such high player reviews.

The reviewer has obviously not spent a lot of time in the game as well. He said himself his lag issue made it unplayable for him, so its fairly apparent he spent a minimum amount of time actually playing the game.

On the whole the review reads like the reviewer had a hardware issue that frustrated them and slapped a knee jerk reationary review.

Originally posted by ste2000

 

These so called reviewers score the game thinking that their taste in games will be shared by everyone....................how bloody naive.

 

A 1000 times more naive than 'bloody' since 50% of MMORPG forum posts are arguments about what people's opinions are on different games.

So his/her machine was above the minimum, why was there so much lag? States they checked the internet speed, though it could have been a router in between the client and server.

2 gig of video ram with 4 gig of system ram should have been plenty even with running 3850s, at optimum settings there should have been minimal lag even at peak times.

Something is not right there unless this review was done prior to the performance patch.

what was the res played at?  2560 x 1600 d-dvi?

EDIT...NM I see the light...j/k

reviewed other games all above rating he gave FE and all lower in hype/rating and none of which are in the top 20 of this same site.

Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures  -  Re-Review -  07/23/09  - Joe Iuliani  -  7.0
World of Warcraft Wrath of the Lich King  - Review -  01/02/09  - Joe Iuliani -  9.2
Hellgate: London -  Review  - 04/15/08  - Joe Iuliani -  7.0
Dungeon Runners -  Review - 04/08/08 -  Joe Iuliani - 7.9

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by Euphoryk

However, is there not some final say or needed approval by the "senior staff" before these reviews are frontpaged? and if so, why do reviews like this ever make it to the frontpage to begin with? especially when they seem to contradict this own sites opinion (as presented in the 10 Best MMOs since... article mentioned above) of said game in question.

Because Dana Massey's opinion differs from Joe Iuliani's? Different people are different.

Agree, but you should allow only people who is unbiased to review game ( or at least who tries to)

We all agree people is different and being completely objective is impossible, but the credibility of a reviewer is built on the ability to rate different kind of products with a certain degree of objectivity.

In the case of Aion, it is obvious the lad was a fanboy, even what he writes in the review contraddicts his own rating score.
I am still laughing my ass at Aion score, and no I do not hate Aion which is actually a decent game, but objectively it is not the best MMO out there, not even close.

Sorry Jon, you need to pick people who plays different genres of MMORPG and knows what people is looking in that particular genre.

If 1) the largest complaint the reviewer has is the lag and 2) the vast majority of other players are not experiencing the lag then 3) you'd think the reviewer would do more research to see who's fault the lag is. Especially with the whole "does not meet system specs" thing floating around (the reviewer's comments/complaints passed on here clearly indicate they don't have enough RAM, regardless of the reviewer saying they meet system specs), it just seems weird that a game would be dis'ed for something that it can't control.

But, hey, it is generating activity (I'm posting something). Kudos. :)

Originally posted by Stradden

As for the score: That's the score that the reviewer chose to give the game. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it but in the end when asked that the game was worth, he told me 6.9. Not everyone is going to like the same kinds of game. In the end, a reviewer scores a game based on his or her own opinions of it.

 

I don't really agree with that. To me a review should be an objective report on a game, using pre-defined scoring categories and a standardized scoring scale. Now, that's certainly a bit optimistic, but I think the recent reviews published here don't do this otherwise great site justice....

My review of the Review of Fallen Earth:

--The reviewer suggests that starting off in a non-pistol oriented town is too difficult. This is far too much personal opinion. What works good for you "by starting off in a pistol town" may not work for someone else. It should be stated, "you can start off in a pistol, rifle, or melee town depending on what fits your initial playstyle, but neither of them are so conforming to a single combat form". Leave your opinion out of it, I have a functional brain and can make my own opinion thank you very much.

--It states that crafting in the game is extremely intensive and is worthy of its own article. But two sentences later is states "it works like most crafting systems." To me this is contradictory. If it is just like all the other crafting systems, why does it merit its own article?

--"I found it a little unwieldy with a keyboard and a mouse." Well thanks for your opinion, I found it to work best with a keyboard and a mouse. Everyone has their own way of what controls works best for them. Say something to the effect that you can use a keyboard\mouse combination or control pad depending on what gives you better control. But the way it is stated has far too much personal opinion in it. This is a review, not "Joe Schmoe's Personal Playstyle Reference Guide."

--It goes on to give advice on how to perform combat. Such as hit and move and take your time targeting. Is this an advice column? Later on he says how much he died (albeit due to lag). I'm not exactly feeling the validity of the advice here since he ended up dyeing so much. Not only that's, but this is a review , not a playguide or advice column (gee, see a recurring theme here?). If he dies cause of lag all the time, how can you properly employ hit and move to see if it is a valid combat technique? Again, leave your own expert advice out of a review please - I have a brain and will find my own technique that serves me well.

--It states the UI is fairly standard. That's just not the case. It failed to mention you can minimize everything in different positions than they are maximized, everything is resizable\adjustable (how many MMO's have you played that have the typical immovable hotbar at the bottom of the screen?) While I don't consider his write-up of the UI an opinion so I can't speak negatively about that, the review leaves out aspects of the UI that are not 'fairly standard'

--"Fast paced combat is not for everyone." Well guess what? There is no MMO or facet of an MMO that everyone is going to like. To say some people will like it and some people wont is incredibly obvious and can be said for every single game ever made in the history of gaming.

--"Fallen earth players are passionate about the game" This implies other people are not passionate about their other games. Also, are you reviewing their forums or the game? Putting a blurb in about your review of the forum is not relevant and highly subjective.

Overall score of the review of Fallen Earth: 6.9

His review only re-affirms of why I come here: Forum entertainment only.

How is this game considered sandbox when the world itself is linear? (s1, s2, s3)

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

I've spoken extensively with the reviewer. There was actually a mistake made in the original text. Originally, he was talking about the RAM in the dual video cards, and neglected to mention system RAM. His machine, on top of the video cards, has 4 Gb RAM, more than enough to meet the minimum requirements.

He also assures me that the offending lag comes at peak times and the game does run more smootly when there are fewer players online.

My sincere apologies for any problems that this caused to people. As you can imagine, this has been a bit of an embarasing situation for me. I really should have caught this on my edit of the review. So, continue to crucify me if you want to, but that was my bad and I'm sorry.

As for the score: That's the score that the reviewer chose to give the game. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it but in the end when asked that the game was worth, he told me 6.9. Not everyone is going to like the same kinds of game. In the end, a reviewer scores a game based on his or her own opinions of it.

 

That's odd, as the card listed never had a 1gb model. only a 512. Its only 1GB when in dual mode, meaning it has a max of 1GB. And at this time FE does not support dual cards, so, hes back down to 512 again, and a old card that is no longer sold.

Now, everyone has performance issues in some of the major cities, but clearly, this is not the only place he is referring to, and I suspect, again... His system is to blame if it was worth putting in the cons two times.

i'm not sure where the review "rating" came from

from what i read it sounded darn close to an 8 and got me interested in seeing if there is a trial - - - i guess the lag is so bad the game slid to its 6.9

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

I've spoken extensively with the reviewer. There was actually a mistake made in the original text. Originally, he was talking about the RAM in the dual video cards, and neglected to mention system RAM. His machine, on top of the video cards, has 4 Gb RAM, more than enough to meet the minimum requirements.

He also assures me that the offending lag comes at peak times and the game does run more smootly when there are fewer players online.

My sincere apologies for any problems that this caused to people. As you can imagine, this has been a bit of an embarasing situation for me. I really should have caught this on my edit of the review. So, continue to crucify me if you want to, but that was my bad and I'm sorry.

As for the score: That's the score that the reviewer chose to give the game. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it but in the end when asked that the game was worth, he told me 6.9. Not everyone is going to like the same kinds of game. In the end, a reviewer scores a game based on his or her own opinions of it.

 

That's odd, as the card listed never had a 1gb model. only a 512. Its only 1GB when in dual mode, meaning it has a max of 1GB. And at this time FE does not support dual cards, so, hes back down to 512 again, and a old card that is no longer sold.

Now, everyone has performance issues in some of the major cities, but clearly, this is not the only place he is referring to, and I suspect, again... His system is to blame if it was worth putting in the cons two times.

 

ooooo  Thems' fightin' words.  can't wait to see where this goes. :)

Originally posted by Lasastard

Originally posted by Stradden

As for the score: That's the score that the reviewer chose to give the game. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it but in the end when asked that the game was worth, he told me 6.9. Not everyone is going to like the same kinds of game. In the end, a reviewer scores a game based on his or her own opinions of it.

 

 

I don't really agree with that. To me a review should be an objective report on a game, using pre-defined scoring categories and a standardized scoring scale. Now, that's certainly a bit optimistic, but I think the recent reviews published here don't do this otherwise great site justice....

Totally agree with you mate.

If there is not a standarised structure on the review system, then any average Joe can review a MMO, and as lately there are too many average Joe reviewing stuff in MMORPG.com

Stradden, will you accept my review of Aion as well?
It can't be any worse than the "official" one.
Or are you willing to leave a 9.3 score to a game which in 2 months will have less than 300K subs? (anyone who has a minimun of experience in MMORPGs can predict that easily)

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

I've spoken extensively with the reviewer. There was actually a mistake made in the original text. Originally, he was talking about the RAM in the dual video cards, and neglected to mention system RAM. His machine, on top of the video cards, has 4 Gb RAM, more than enough to meet the minimum requirements.

He also assures me that the offending lag comes at peak times and the game does run more smootly when there are fewer players online.

My sincere apologies for any problems that this caused to people. As you can imagine, this has been a bit of an embarasing situation for me. I really should have caught this on my edit of the review. So, continue to crucify me if you want to, but that was my bad and I'm sorry.

As for the score: That's the score that the reviewer chose to give the game. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it but in the end when asked that the game was worth, he told me 6.9. Not everyone is going to like the same kinds of game. In the end, a reviewer scores a game based on his or her own opinions of it.

 

That's odd, as the card listed never had a 1gb model. only a 512. Its only 1GB when in dual mode, meaning it has a max of 1GB. And at this time FE does not support dual cards, so, hes back down to 512 again, and a old card that is no longer sold.

Now, everyone has performance issues in some of the major cities, but clearly, this is not the only place he is referring to, and I suspect, again... His system is to blame if it was worth putting in the cons two times.

 

They just keep digging that hole deeper.

I must say, the most interesting and troubling thing i see about this, is that people give any relevance or importance to a MMORPG.com "review" to begin with ......

I mean come on.Even looking beyond that most of the reviews seem myoptic,amateurish, and nonsensical...You have that each reviewer uses his own personal scoring method...What the heck is the point of keeping score,if the scores are decided by different rules based on an individuals personal feelings...

Grain of salt ? A whole salt mine wont fix or cover this.

And yes, if you dont know it yet...IF for some reason its escaped you...mmorpg is just a site for advertising mmos,where the developers can get things said thru a proxy.Do the "news" articles read like PR releases ? Of course they do.Its just advertising.

If it wasnt for the forums where the customers can actually put up what they think, this site would be absolutely useless for the customer base.

Originally posted by Tethered

Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures  -  Re-Review -  07/23/09  - Joe Iuliani  -  7.0  - Decent tile, at best mediation.
World of Warcraft Wrath of the Lich King  - Review -  01/02/09  - Joe Iuliani -  9.2 - 800Lb gorilla
Hellgate: London -  Review  - 04/15/08  - Joe Iuliani -  7.0 - Shut down
Dungeon Runners -  Review - 04/08/08 -  Joe Iuliani - 7.9  - Shut down

 

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

I've spoken extensively with the reviewer. There was actually a mistake made in the original text. Originally, he was talking about the RAM in the dual video cards, and neglected to mention system RAM. His machine, on top of the video cards, has 4 Gb RAM, more than enough to meet the minimum requirements.

He also assures me that the offending lag comes at peak times and the game does run more smootly when there are fewer players online.

My sincere apologies for any problems that this caused to people. As you can imagine, this has been a bit of an embarasing situation for me. I really should have caught this on my edit of the review. So, continue to crucify me if you want to, but that was my bad and I'm sorry.

As for the score: That's the score that the reviewer chose to give the game. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it but in the end when asked that the game was worth, he told me 6.9. Not everyone is going to like the same kinds of game. In the end, a reviewer scores a game based on his or her own opinions of it.

 

That's odd, as the card listed never had a 1gb model. only a 512. Its only 1GB when in dual mode, meaning it has a max of 1GB. And at this time FE does not support dual cards, so, hes back down to 512 again, and a old card that is no longer sold.

Now, everyone has performance issues in some of the major cities, but clearly, this is not the only place he is referring to, and I suspect, again... His system is to blame if it was worth putting in the cons two times.

 

Very interesting.
 

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by Tethered

Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures  -  Re-Review -  07/23/09  - Joe Iuliani  -  7.0  - Decent tile, at best mediation.
World of Warcraft Wrath of the Lich King  - Review -  01/02/09  - Joe Iuliani -  9.2 - 800Lb gorilla
Hellgate: London -  Review  - 04/15/08  - Joe Iuliani -  7.0 - Shut down
Dungeon Runners -  Review - 04/08/08 -  Joe Iuliani - 7.9  - Shut down

 

 

 

BAM. He's a WoW player. Explains some, and I find it funny that AoC was ranked on par or below HGL and DR, hahahaha. There he goes again completely neglecting good aspects of a game just because of his own dissatisfaction. AoC had beautiful graphics, sound, and was quite unique. Give it some credit there. HGL launch was disastrous.

Although, AoC didnt deserve much more than 7, but thats on my own scale. And because of the at-launch end-game. Which I'm sure he didn't get to.

To be fair, he is still in the range of minimum settings. But anyone with a lick of computing knowledge, or even gaming experience knows, minimum settings means "It will boot", it has ZERO to do with playability.

Also, lag is network latency, Performance is Frames per second and rendering.

I've been coming here for years.  Just about every review or article I've read by Dana I have agreed with to some degree.

I think we see eye to eye on a lot of things.

I completely disagree with his score on this game.  I cannot believe that his true review could be summed up

with the score that was provided.  I can only assume there was a secondary issue affecting his judgement while writing and

scoring this particular game.  It was easy to believe his system was far below the required specs for the game.  It is even more

difficult to believe he gave this review using a system that meets or exceeds the specs required.

I hate to say it but I will not be taking Dana's future reviews as seriously because of this.

Originally posted by GreenWidow

I've been coming here for years.  Just about every review or article I've read by Dana I have agreed with to some degree.

I think we see eye to eye on a lot of things.

I completely disagree with his score on this game.  I cannot believe that his true review could be summed up

with the score that was provided.  I can only assume there was a secondary issue affecting his judgement while writing and

scoring this particular game.  It was easy to believe his system was far below the required specs for the game.  It is even more

difficult to believe he gave this review using a system that meets or exceeds the specs required.

I hate to say it but I will not be taking Dana's future reviews as seriously because of this.

Dana Massey did not write, or having anything to do with, this FE review. Thanks for coming.

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

To be fair, he is still in the range of minimum settings. But anyone with a lick of computing knowledge, or even gaming experience knows, minimum settings means "It will boot", it has ZERO to do with playability.

Also, lag is network latency, Performance is Frames per second and rendering.

I think he stated his true specs in the original post.

"I am running AoC with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem."

Ive never met anyone call their video ram "Corsair ", only their system ram.

Seriously, I think the reviewer needs to be reviewed.

I know it's a given, but all reviews should have a disclaimer on the bottom stating that the views expressed in the review do not represent the views of MMORPG.  That said MMORPG needs to be held somewhat accountable for what they have posted on their site.

A review is opinion and therefore can't be 'wrong' and as Dana has stated the review is the opinion of the reviewer only, I see his point. However Dana has should be held responsible for ensuring the review was fair, how can you take the word of someone on the rating of a game when they personally state they couldn't play it most of the time. Hello?

Wether he likes it or not Dana has to realise that people look at the ratings of games when they come to this site and when they look at that current list of review scores how can you expect to have an ounze of respect? There is absolutely no consistency at all, so what's the point in having it there? In the end it's hard not to believe this was a Eurogamer caper, maybe the hits per month had dropped or something?

Originally posted by Malickie

Your reviews are advertised as your score, as in MMORPG's. It's not really stated as our affiliate's score. Definitely something that you should think about changing.

^^ THIS!

Stradden, don't pull that 'independent reviewer' excuse when you embrace those independent reviewers scores as the "our rating" mmorpg scores.

Kind of a disgrace for mmorpg.com to crush such a great addition to the genre. It isn't perfect yet but it has certain very appealing qualities over other games. I'm really dissappointed in my mmorpg hometurf right now.

Also; the player rating of this game should have rang some bells with the mmorpg.com crew.

Please get some better, objective reviewers and/or give your whole system of reviewing games a solid overhaul. Invite some players to the table as well, and discuss what the 'our rating' will be before you hand out the final verdict.
 

Fallen Earth clearly deserves a higher rating then 6.9. With all the work and polish going on, it will soon be a masterpiece. Keep it up devs!

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

That's odd, as the card listed never had a 1gb model. only a 512. Its only 1GB when in dual mode, meaning it has a max of 1GB.

 

Interesting.

So the gist of this all is that we had a biased reviewer assigned to the game (this is undeniable, especially when one looks at the writers past reviews and scores), he barely reviews the game at all and then scores it mediocre.

It is shortly after determined that the Reviewer's PC doesn't even meet the minimum requirements, then we are fed some halfbaked excuse by the sites Managing Editor about the reviewers system actually being fine, which is later proven to be false by a forum user.

What a fiasco.

Who cares for what MMORPG says? IGN gave it 8.1 and that was a well written and professional review. Good enough for me. Majority of players know that FE deserves rating between 7 and 8.

Also the lag reviewer mentioned is hardware side and not the server. 2gb ram? really?

Originally posted by mmo4life

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

To be fair, he is still in the range of minimum settings. But anyone with a lick of computing knowledge, or even gaming experience knows, minimum settings means "It will boot", it has ZERO to do with playability.

Also, lag is network latency, Performance is Frames per second and rendering.

 

I think he stated his true specs in the original post.

"I am running AoC with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem."

Ive never met anyone call their video ram "Corsair ", only their system ram.

What?

That kind of set up was barely good to run AoC 2 years ago..................buy more RAM for the win (not that the rest of the system is up for it either)
And then he complains about the lag...................Jeez

 

Originally posted by GreenWidow

I've been coming here for years.  Just about every review or article I've read by Dana I have agreed with to some degree.

I think we see eye to eye on a lot of things.

I completely disagree with his score on this game.  I cannot believe that his true review could be summed up

with the score that was provided.  I can only assume there was a secondary issue affecting his judgement while writing and

scoring this particular game.  It was easy to believe his system was far below the required specs for the game.  It is even more

difficult to believe he gave this review using a system that meets or exceeds the specs required.

I hate to say it but I will not be taking Dana's future reviews as seriously because of this.

Whats up GreenWidow,

Apparently the reviewer was Joe Iuliani.

And was also the reviewer of these games as well.

Dungeon Runners got a 7.9

Age of Conan (Levels 1-20) got a 7.9

Hellgate London a 7.0

Here is the link to other reviewers from mmorpg.com

www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3164970/Is-this-really-the-best-year-of-MMOs-EVER-Really.html#3164970

Just a couple of things to throw out there.  All the people whining about 'omg 2 gigs on vista? lawl' are being moronic.  2 gigs on vista is plenty if you set it up right.

Second, it's very, very possible that the reviewer played the game right after release, and based the review on the lag troubles that they had with some locations and connections then.  This doesn't necessarily mean that he was having fps problems.  It very well could have been lag.

Having said that, I currently run FE on a system that has a slightly worse processor, slightly better ram (still only 2 gigs), same OS, /and/ a much worse graphics card (single X1650 pro) than him, and it works just fine.  This is why I'm led to believe he really did have problems with lag, not fps issues.

Now, all that said, I don't agree with the final score.  I think it's much, much too harsh for just lag and nothing else.

Just felt I needed to throw my voice out there, to show some of the people on this forum how much they're frothing at the mouth currently.  Now, feel free to flame me for my honest post, frothers!

Dear reviewer, ofcourse you suffered so much lag since you are running 2gb ram gaming rig. However, you forgot to differentiate between system and server lag. I would like to review you and give you -1/10 for not even meeting the minimum requirements before attempting to review FE.

Originally posted by Bhawke21

Just a couple of things to throw out there.  All the people whining about 'omg 2 gigs on vista? lawl' are being moronic.  2 gigs on vista is plenty if you set it up right.

 

Most important is, it's below min. requirement listed on FE website here: 

http://www.fallenearth.com/node/16

Minimum Hardware Requirements
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHz or Athlon 64X2 2.4 GHz
RAM: 2.0 GB for XP, 3.0 GB for Vista
 

Stradden response was predictable -> Oh he said 2gb corsair ram? He meant 2gb GPU and 4GB ram.

The reviews were always silly here, but now this is extreme.

I think AION's score was way too high, 7.2 maybe.  But obviously, some people around here like much more than I do.

To me, FE's score was a bit to HIGH.  I wouldn't give this game more than a 6.5.  That's right, I'm not afraid to admit it.  This is 2009 and there is absolutely no excuse for the graphics looking like something from around 2002.  The gameplay is HORRIBLE.  The only saving grace about the entire game is the crafting.  It is unique and fun.  I wouldn't play this game continously for F2P much less subscription.

Originally posted by Bhawke21
blah blah.... i want to start flame war.. i am so desperate

No you are not worth it. And yes 2GB ram might be minimum what is required for Vista but not for playing games on Vista.

Originally posted by Bhawke21

Just a couple of things to throw out there.  All the people whining about 'omg 2 gigs on vista? lawl' are being moronic.  2 gigs on vista is plenty if you set it up right.

Second, it's very, very possible that the reviewer played the game right after release, and based the review on the lag troubles that they had with some locations and connections then.  This doesn't necessarily mean that he was having fps problems.  It very well could have been lag.

Having said that, I currently run FE on a system that has a slightly worse processor, slightly better ram (still only 2 gigs), same OS, /and/ a much worse graphics card (single X1650 pro) than him, and it works just fine.  This is why I'm led to believe he really did have problems with lag, not fps issues.

Now, all that said, I don't agree with the final score.  I think it's much, much too harsh for just lag and nothing else.

 

Just felt I needed to throw my voice out there, to show some of the people on this forum how much they're frothing at the mouth currently.  Now, feel free to flame me for my honest post, frothers!

I think you have ok points.

But a Reviewer should always 100% of the time review with a machine that meets the games minumum specs. Most review sites/mags will review at  recommended  specs.

Originally posted by Thillian

Most important is, it's below min. requirement listed on FE website here: 

http://www.fallenearth.com/node/16

Minimum Hardware Requirements
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHz or Athlon 64X2 2.4 GHz
RAM: 2.0 GB for XP, 3.0 GB for Vista
 

Stradden response was predictable -> Oh he said 2gb corsair ram? He meant 2gb GPU and 4GB ram.

The reviews were always silly here, but now this is extreme.

I know it's below min.  Just saying, that that doesn't necessarily account for the 'lag' he was having, like all the screaming people on here seem to think.  I run it just fine on 2 gigs of ram.

Originally posted by Shannia

I think AION's score was way too high, 7.2 maybe.  But obviously, some people around here like much more than I do.

To me, FE's score was a bit to HIGH.  I wouldn't give this game more than a 6.5.  That's right, I'm not afraid to admit it.  This is 2009 and there is absolutely no excuse for the graphics looking like something from around 2002.  The gameplay is HORRIBLE.  The only saving grace about the entire game is the crafting.  It is unique and fun.  I wouldn't play this game continously for F2P much less subscription.

 

Since when good gameplay has anything to do with shiny graphics? and if you can crank your setting all the way up, FE looks damn good. People like you only care for fluff where as for us who enjoy FE gameplay is what matters.

Originally posted by Getalife

Originally posted by Shannia

I think AION's score was way too high, 7.2 maybe.  But obviously, some people around here like much more than I do.

To me, FE's score was a bit to HIGH.  I wouldn't give this game more than a 6.5.  That's right, I'm not afraid to admit it.  This is 2009 and there is absolutely no excuse for the graphics looking like something from around 2002.  The gameplay is HORRIBLE.  The only saving grace about the entire game is the crafting.  It is unique and fun.  I wouldn't play this game continously for F2P much less subscription.

 

 

Since when good gameplay has anything to do with shiny graphics? and if you can crank your setting all the way up, FE looks damn good. People like you only care for fluff where as for us who enjoy FE gameplay is what matters.

Also, Icarus' patch yesterday cleaned up a bunch of their models/meshes that were messed up.  It also added a ton of ... er ... very mature voice-overs. ;)

Originally posted by Bhawke21

Originally posted by Thillian

Most important is, it's below min. requirement listed on FE website here: 

http://www.fallenearth.com/node/16

Minimum Hardware Requirements
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHz or Athlon 64X2 2.4 GHz
RAM: 2.0 GB for XP, 3.0 GB for Vista
 

Stradden response was predictable -> Oh he said 2gb corsair ram? He meant 2gb GPU and 4GB ram.

The reviews were always silly here, but now this is extreme.

 

I know it's below min.  Just saying, that that doesn't necessarily account for the 'lag' he was having, like all the screaming people on here seem to think.  I run it just fine on 2 gigs of ram.

But unless you meet the specs , how can you says its the game on a review? 

 it's a sad day when crap like aion out scores games like fallen earth

Since when did I say I like graphics over game play?  I'm saying that the graphic style there is crap.  They could have done a much better job on the graphic style.  I'm not talking about system performance because of said graphics.  There is a difference.  Also, game play is a lot more important to me than mature voice overs.   To me, FE devs focused on the wrong things in creating this game.  That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

I've spoken extensively with the reviewer. There was actually a mistake made in the original text. Originally, he was talking about the RAM in the dual video cards, and neglected to mention system RAM. His machine, on top of the video cards, has 4 Gb RAM, more than enough to meet the minimum requirements.

He also assures me that the offending lag comes at peak times and the game does run more smootly when there are fewer players online.

My sincere apologies for any problems that this caused to people. As you can imagine, this has been a bit of an embarasing situation for me. I really should have caught this on my edit of the review. So, continue to crucify me if you want to, but that was my bad and I'm sorry.

As for the score: That's the score that the reviewer chose to give the game. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it but in the end when asked that the game was worth, he told me 6.9. Not everyone is going to like the same kinds of game. In the end, a reviewer scores a game based on his or her own opinions of it.

 

Spent all day looking at this thread while at the university on my phone. Finally got home to respond.

Appreciate you looking at it. That said, the only thing this review is good for in my opinion...and apparently alot of others, is a good identifier that Joe Iuliani is not someone for which I will read future reviews. To submit the writeup that he did, with one issue, the last issue, being the only real negative and then slap a 6.9 on it...well let's just say that he isn't in any danger of winning any literary or gaming awards. Indeed, he has lost a tremendous amount of respect from a great deal of gamers. 

Not that I for one second believes he gives a damn about our respect, mind you. That there, though, is the crux of the problem. Anyone who is capable of writing in an objective manner would put Fallen earth in the 7.5 to 8.2 out of 10 scale range.

The one good thing this does is quantify and qualify the full measure of Mr. Iuliani's ability to measure a game and give an opinion. On that I'd rate him around 3.1 on a 10 point scale.

As for crucifying you, there's no point in it. You did nothing wrong...save maybe higher someone that has since proven incapable of giving an objective review and a score that matches (granted, he pulled the review part off, it's matching the latter to the former where he's proven wanting).

Maybe you or another senior staff member should be the one reading the reviews and assigning a score based on the review that was written?

Originally posted by mmo4life

But unless you meet the specs , how can you says its the game on a review? 

But how can you not say it's the game when the game has had known lag issues right after it's release?  Also, it's not clear that he's talking about fps problems, like people are screaming about.  And if he's talking about actual lag, then how much ram he has doesn't matter in the slightest.

Just saying that people need to lay off on their knee-jerk reactions.

Originally posted by Shannia

That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

We are talking 'reviews' here not opinions i am afraid.

Now I remember why I stopped reading reviews on this site... they are all biased and senseless garbage. Aion cut pastes the MMO formula and gets wicked scores, indie sandbox games get trashed.

The guy doesn't meet the min specs and trashes the game for lag? Are you kidding me? MMORPG should pull this review for that alone.

Originally posted by Shannia

I think AION's score was way too high, 7.2 maybe.  But obviously, some people around here like much more than I do.

To me, FE's score was a bit to HIGH.  I wouldn't give this game more than a 6.5.  That's right, I'm not afraid to admit it.  This is 2009 and there is absolutely no excuse for the graphics looking like something from around 2002.  The gameplay is HORRIBLE.  The only saving grace about the entire game is the crafting.  It is unique and fun.  I wouldn't play this game continously for F2P much less subscription.

 

Shannia, I don't think people is puzzled too much by the 6.9 given to FE, rather the reasons why and the huge difference between FE and Aion review.
The 2 games are very different but similar in quality, again for different reasons.

The point is, how can you give Aion a 9.3, when lots oof people already quit after the first month, and then give FE which is much more innovative than AION just a 6.9?

I would have given FE a 6,5 myself, but I would have given a 6.5 to Aion too.

The problem is that in MMORPG.com there is no structure in the review system, I don't even think they have a system really............

Originally posted by Shannia

Since when did I say I like graphics over game play?  I'm saying that the graphic style there is crap.  They could have done a much better job on the graphic style.  I'm not talking about system performance because of said graphics.  There is a difference.  Also, game play is a lot more important to me than mature voice overs.   To me, FE devs focused on the wrong things in creating this game.  That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

Thankfully, you aren't in a position to review it that will change the opinions of the masses.  They did a lot more than just add mature voice-overs in the last patch, that was supposed to be an amusing aside, but I guess that was lost over the internet.  My bad.  Sorry. >.>

As far as the game play goes, it's much better than hack and slash snore-fests like in most games.  And yes, that's my opinion.  Thankfully, I'm allowed to have one too.

MMorpg.com gives crapy ass AION a 8.7 or whatever it was, and you give this game a 6.9. Fallen Earth is way better then AION. MMORPG.COM is starting to look like the msnbc of mmo reviews

Originally posted by Shannia

Since when did I say I like graphics over game play?  I'm saying that the graphic style there is crap.  They could have done a much better job on the graphic style.  I'm not talking about system performance because of said graphics.  There is a difference.  Also, game play is a lot more important to me than mature voice overs.   To me, FE devs focused on the wrong things in creating this game.  That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

I just love other players on this forum that throw out numbers for ratings.

Shannia, since your using the Shannia grading scale as well. please let us know how you got to 6.5 and maybe, just maybe, I will take you seriously.

Originally posted by Bhawke21

Originally posted by mmo4life

But unless you meet the specs , how can you says its the game on a review? 

 

But how can you not say it's the game when the game has had known lag issues right after it's release?  Also, it's not clear that he's talking about fps problems, like people are screaming about.  And if he's talking about actual lag, then how much ram he has doesn't matter in the slightest.

Just saying that people need to lay off on their knee-jerk reactions.

See thats just it. I'm not says it is the game or is not the game. What im saying is that as a reveiwer you must review the item in question with at least the minimum specs put forth by the develpment team when making your review.

Then is said item doesnt work properly, you have a basis to work from. 

Come on,no one outside of  these forums takes mmorpg.com reviews seriously,they are a joke when it comes to reviews.

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Shannia

That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

 

We are talking 'reviews' here not opinions i am afraid.

Reviews are opinions. It's Mr. Iuliani's call to write the review he did and give it a score that does not reflect what he has written. It's also our good fortune to be able to respond on a linked forum and state that his score is off base. We can then only hope that anyone reading the review, then looking at the score (with the subsequent thought of "WTF") will then refer to the various posts related to that thread.

Knowing that the majority of people post when they dislike something and seeing the overwhelming positive replies here for the game, and mixing that with other game sites giving more realistic scores, anyone looking for information can conclude that the score here isn't right and not to give it much credence.

Worry not. Joe Iuliani won't be the downfall of Fallen Earth. It'll do just fine without his endorsement or patronage.

Originally posted by Shannia

Since when did I say I like graphics over game play?  I'm saying that the graphic style there is crap.  They could have done a much better job on the graphic style.  I'm not talking about system performance because of said graphics.  There is a difference.  Also, game play is a lot more important to me than mature voice overs.   To me, FE devs focused on the wrong things in creating this game.  That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

ofcourse, i think your whole perspective is suxors and you should stick to shiny fluff MMOS. Hey i am also entitled to my opinion. However, i am glad they didn't listen to you and focused more on polishing graphics instead of gameplay.

Originally posted by Netzoko

Now I remember why I stopped reading reviews on this site... they are all biased and senseless garbage. Aion cut pastes the MMO formula and gets wicked scores, indie sandbox games get trashed.

The guy doesn't meet the min specs and trashes the game for lag? Are you kidding me? MMORPG should pull this review for that alone.

Actually to be fair to FE, MMORPG.COM should pull the review immediately as it has been proven that the reviewer did not meet minimum spec and renders the review void.

Further to they should consider deleting this thread as well.

Originally posted by mmo4life

Originally posted by Bhawke21

Originally posted by mmo4life

But unless you meet the specs , how can you says its the game on a review? 

 

But how can you not say it's the game when the game has had known lag issues right after it's release?  Also, it's not clear that he's talking about fps problems, like people are screaming about.  And if he's talking about actual lag, then how much ram he has doesn't matter in the slightest.

Just saying that people need to lay off on their knee-jerk reactions.

 

See thats just it. I'm not says it is the game or is not the game. What im saying is that as a reveiwer you must review the item in question with at least the minimum specs put forth by the develpment team when making your review.

Then is said item doesnt work properly, you have a basis to work from. 

I know...and don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying you're wrong.  My only major point in coming in here was to tell the 'omg 2 gigs' frothers that they need to chill out, because they're wrong.  And also to say that people are jumping to assumptions about what he meant by 'lag' in his review.  I don't think, personally, that his score was fair to give the game.  But I know if I had major lag issues, it'd color my opinion of a 100% online game, too.  Especially if it wasn't lag on my end.  ;)

Alright so I actually read every post and now see that his specs were a typo.

Ok, So he doesn't like FE.

No biggie, its not for everyone.

I believe it's slightly better than a 6.9 but its all opinion so whatever.

Originally posted by Bhawke21

Originally posted by mmo4life

Originally posted by Bhawke21

Originally posted by mmo4life

But unless you meet the specs , how can you says its the game on a review? 

 

But how can you not say it's the game when the game has had known lag issues right after it's release?  Also, it's not clear that he's talking about fps problems, like people are screaming about.  And if he's talking about actual lag, then how much ram he has doesn't matter in the slightest.

Just saying that people need to lay off on their knee-jerk reactions.

 

See thats just it. I'm not says it is the game or is not the game. What im saying is that as a reveiwer you must review the item in question with at least the minimum specs put forth by the develpment team when making your review.

Then is said item doesnt work properly, you have a basis to work from. 

 

I know...and don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying you're wrong.  My only major point in coming in here was to tell the 'omg 2 gigs' frothers that they need to chill out, because they're wrong.  And also to say that people are jumping to assumptions about what he meant by 'lag' in his review.  I don't think, personally, that his score was fair to give the game.  But I know if I had major lag issues, it'd color my opinion of a 100% online game, too.  Especially if it wasn't lag on my end.  ;)

The main problem with this is again, unless the min requirements are met, there is no way to even justify a lag issue not being on the users end. 

After reading his review, and then seeing his only major gripe as lag, one has to wonder if this issue would be present for him with a proper spec machine.

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

Obviously this was an oversight on my part in terms of the minimum requirements.

I've pulled the review while we look into this. I certainly don't want to see a game get saddled with a score that it doesn't deserve. My apologies for this mistake.

Excellent!

However, review is still up there.

And seriously. FE currently has the best player review score of ALL released games. I would say that we need a different reviewer as well, not just a capable system.

DB

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Shannia

That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

 

We are talking 'reviews' here not opinions i am afraid.

 

Reviews are opinions. It's Mr. Iuliani's call to write the review he did and give it a score that does not reflect what he has written. It's also our good fortune to be able to respond on a linked forum and state that his score is off base. We can then only hope that anyone reading the review, then looking at the score (with the subsequent thought of "WTF") will then refer to the various posts related to that thread.

Knowing that the majority of people post when they dislike something and seeing the overwhelming positive replies here for the game, and mixing that with other game sites giving more realistic scores, anyone looking for information can conclude that the score here isn't right and not to give it much credence.

Worry not. Joe Iuliani won't be the downfall of Fallen Earth. It'll do just fine without his endorsement or patronage.

Reviews are not opinions they are reviews and opinions are opinions...

I refer you to Skatty2007's post on page 3 of this thread :

My review of the Review of Fallen Earth:

--The reviewer suggests that starting off in a non-pistol oriented town is too difficult. This is far too much personal opinion. What works good for you "by starting off in a pistol town" may not work for someone else. It should be stated, "you can start off in a pistol, rifle, or melee town depending on what fits your initial playstyle, but neither of them are so conforming to a single combat form". Leave your opinion out of it, I have a functional brain and can make my own opinion thank you very much.

--It states that crafting in the game is extremely intensive and is worthy of its own article. But two sentences later is states "it works like most crafting systems." To me this is contradictory. If it is just like all the other crafting systems, why does it merit its own article?

--"I found it a little unwieldy with a keyboard and a mouse." Well thanks for your opinion, I found it to work best with a keyboard and a mouse. Everyone has their own way of what controls works best for them. Say something to the effect that you can use a keyboard\mouse combination or control pad depending on what gives you better control. But the way it is stated has far too much personal opinion in it. This is a review, not "Joe Schmoe's Personal Playstyle Reference Guide."

--It goes on to give advice on how to perform combat. Such as hit and move and take your time targeting. Is this an advice column? Later on he says how much he died (albeit due to lag). I'm not exactly feeling the validity of the advice here since he ended up dyeing so much. Not only that's, but this is a review , not a playguide or advice column (gee, see a recurring theme here?). If he dies cause of lag all the time, how can you properly employ hit and move to see if it is a valid combat technique? Again, leave your own expert advice out of a review please - I have a brain and will find my own technique that serves me well.

--It states the UI is fairly standard. That's just not the case. It failed to mention you can minimize everything in different positions than they are maximized, everything is resizable\adjustable (how many MMO's have you played that have the typical immovable hotbar at the bottom of the screen?) While I don't consider his write-up of the UI an opinion so I can't speak negatively about that, the review leaves out aspects of the UI that are not 'fairly standard'

--"Fast paced combat is not for everyone." Well guess what? There is no MMO or facet of an MMO that everyone is going to like. To say some people will like it and some people wont is incredibly obvious and can be said for every single game ever made in the history of gaming.

--"Fallen earth players are passionate about the game" This implies other people are not passionate about their other games. Also, are you reviewing their forums or the game? Putting a blurb in about your review of the forum is not relevant and highly subjective.

Overall score of the review of Fallen Earth: 6.9

His review only re-affirms of why I come here: Forum entertainment only.

Originally posted by HiGHPLAiNS

Originally posted by Shannia

Since when did I say I like graphics over game play?  I'm saying that the graphic style there is crap.  They could have done a much better job on the graphic style.  I'm not talking about system performance because of said graphics.  There is a difference.  Also, game play is a lot more important to me than mature voice overs.   To me, FE devs focused on the wrong things in creating this game.  That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

 

I just love other players on this forum that throw out numbers for ratings.

Shannia, since your using the Shannia grading scale as well. please let us know how you got to 6.5 and maybe, just maybe, I will take you seriously.

 

 

Where do you want me to start, with 10 and mark down or 0 and mark my way up.  Either way, you will find fault with my logic.  My whole point is, other than the fun and unique crafting system of FE, the game leaves me wanting to uninstall, and quickly.  Combine the pour tutorial, ugly graphic stylization and the HORRIBLE game play, and I come up with a 6.5.  You can thank the crafting system or I would write it down lower than that.   So yes, the crafting system lifts the innovation score for me.

Without going into all the stuff that has already been discussed, after reading the review which seemed very positive and upbeat towards the game. The review and the 6.9 rating's score seem to contradict themselves.

5 Pro's and only 1 Con+very positive article does not seem to equal a 6.9 rating.

Originally posted by Bhawke21

Originally posted by mmo4life

Originally posted by Bhawke21

Originally posted by mmo4life

But unless you meet the specs , how can you says its the game on a review? 

 

But how can you not say it's the game when the game has had known lag issues right after it's release?  Also, it's not clear that he's talking about fps problems, like people are screaming about.  And if he's talking about actual lag, then how much ram he has doesn't matter in the slightest.

Just saying that people need to lay off on their knee-jerk reactions.

 

See thats just it. I'm not says it is the game or is not the game. What im saying is that as a reveiwer you must review the item in question with at least the minimum specs put forth by the develpment team when making your review.

Then is said item doesnt work properly, you have a basis to work from. 

 

I know...and don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying you're wrong.  My only major point in coming in here was to tell the 'omg 2 gigs' frothers that they need to chill out, because they're wrong.  And also to say that people are jumping to assumptions about what he meant by 'lag' in his review.  I don't think, personally, that his score was fair to give the game.  But I know if I had major lag issues, it'd color my opinion of a 100% online game, too.  Especially if it wasn't lag on my end.  ;)

In that case i can say i get no lag at all? does that make everything ok?  and yes i have 4gb ram. A person especially someone in position of a reviewers atleast got to meet the minimum requirements. Different people will have different issues with MMOS and sometimes its their own system but its easier to just blame the game. However, in case of reviewers the whole situtaion becomes unreliable since he is running his system on 2 gig of rams.

You need atleast 4gb ram to run game smoothly, then maybe he will be able to better differentiate between graphical lag and server lag.

Originally posted by kb056

Without going into all the stuff that has already been discussed, after reading the review which seemed very positive and upbeat towards the game. The review and the 6.9 rating's score seem to contradict themselves.

5 Pro's and only 1 Con+very positive article does not seem to equal a 6.9 rating.

 i don't think they were paid off for the review like they were for aion 

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

I've spoken extensively with the reviewer. There was actually a mistake made in the original text. Originally, he was talking about the RAM in the dual video cards, and neglected to mention system RAM. His machine, on top of the video cards, has 4 Gb RAM, more than enough to meet the minimum requirements.

He also assures me that the offending lag comes at peak times and the game does run more smootly when there are fewer players online.

My sincere apologies for any problems that this caused to people. As you can imagine, this has been a bit of an embarasing situation for me. I really should have caught this on my edit of the review. So, continue to crucify me if you want to, but that was my bad and I'm sorry.

As for the score: That's the score that the reviewer chose to give the game. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it but in the end when asked that the game was worth, he told me 6.9. Not everyone is going to like the same kinds of game. In the end, a reviewer scores a game based on his or her own opinions of it.

 

That's odd, as the card listed never had a 1gb model. only a 512. Its only 1GB when in dual mode, meaning it has a max of 1GB. And at this time FE does not support dual cards, so, hes back down to 512 again, and a old card that is no longer sold.

Now, everyone has performance issues in some of the major cities, but clearly, this is not the only place he is referring to, and I suspect, again... His system is to blame if it was worth putting in the cons two times.

 

The reviewer is just flat out lying, and trying to cover his tracks.

1st he tells that he got 2GB Corsair RAM, then he tells that was his Video RAM ... I didn't know Corsair made video RAM ... furthermore the regular 3850 cards never had a 1GB version, there were a few customized cards with 1GB, but I really doubt the reviewer has these.

No, it is MUCH more likely that the reviewer indeed only had 2GB Corsair RAM and that he is just bulshitting us.

It is a damn shame that this fine game gets nuked because of an incompetent reviewer on a respected site.

Originally posted by Bhawke21

Originally posted by mmo4life

Originally posted by Bhawke21

Originally posted by mmo4life

But unless you meet the specs , how can you says its the game on a review? 

 

But how can you not say it's the game when the game has had known lag issues right after it's release?  Also, it's not clear that he's talking about fps problems, like people are screaming about.  And if he's talking about actual lag, then how much ram he has doesn't matter in the slightest.

Just saying that people need to lay off on their knee-jerk reactions.

 

See thats just it. I'm not says it is the game or is not the game. What im saying is that as a reveiwer you must review the item in question with at least the minimum specs put forth by the develpment team when making your review.

Then is said item doesnt work properly, you have a basis to work from. 

 

I know...and don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying you're wrong.  My only major point in coming in here was to tell the 'omg 2 gigs' frothers that they need to chill out, because they're wrong.  And also to say that people are jumping to assumptions about what he meant by 'lag' in his review.  I don't think, personally, that his score was fair to give the game.  But I know if I had major lag issues, it'd color my opinion of a 100% online game, too.  Especially if it wasn't lag on my end.  ;)

It would not be an issue if the score of the reviewer wsn't highly influenced by that.
Of course you can still play modern games with 2 gigs, but that is not the point.

The point was that you cannot review a game with a system below the MINIMUM requested and then complain about the lag.
Lag in particular is due by lack of RAM, and FE states clearly that you need 2 giga with XP.................with Vista which takes more than a giga itself, 2 giga of RAM is clearly not enough.

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by Euphoryk

However, is there not some final say or needed approval by the "senior staff" before these reviews are frontpaged? and if so, why do reviews like this ever make it to the frontpage to begin with? especially when they seem to contradict this own sites opinion (as presented in the 10 Best MMOs since... article mentioned above) of said game in question.

Because Dana Massey's opinion differs from Joe Iuliani's? Different people are different.

They are. However, reviews are not to be meant to reflect personal taste, but a fair evaluation sir.

6.9 for this game is parsec's away from even being remotely fair.

DB

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by Euphoryk

However, is there not some final say or needed approval by the "senior staff" before these reviews are frontpaged? and if so, why do reviews like this ever make it to the frontpage to begin with? especially when they seem to contradict this own sites opinion (as presented in the 10 Best MMOs since... article mentioned above) of said game in question.

Because Dana Massey's opinion differs from Joe Iuliani's? Different people are different.

 

They are. However, reviews are not to be meant to reflect personal taste, but a fair evaluation sir.

6.9 for this game is parsec's away from even being remotely fair.

DB

Thank you DB, for summing it up perfectly. This is exactly the point I was attempting to make.

I totally agree with the write up, but not so much the score...for me, I'd rate it at about an 8 to an 8.5 for me. I do run into major major lag in the cities, but its explainable and my fault do to having a 2yr old system. As a matter of fact I run FE on an HP dv9339US laptop running Vista with only 2 gb of ram and a GeForce Go 7600 series card and for me it runs just fine when i'm out in the boonies but once i get into town I want to die by stabbing myself repeatedly in my eyes with a spoon. I mean so bad it litterally takes me about 10 minutes to cross the street (roughtly 40-50 ft in game)....

again, this is explainable though due to my running this game on a 2yo laptop 2gb ram and vista but hey it runs...and it runs well when out of the cities...I love the crafting in this game, I have fun killing the combat system is tough using a laptop with no mouse but doable..the world looks awesome to me on full settings but due to the lag issues, I have to turn down all the levels to about 25% so it doesn't bog me down so much and I can play efficiently without dieing to lag....now i just die to those stupid ganking marauders... :D

Originally posted by Getalife

In that case i can say i get no lag at all? does that make everything ok?  and yes i have 4gb ram. A person especially someone in position of a reviewers atleast got to meet the minimum requirements. Different people will have different issues with MMOS and sometimes its their own system but its easier to just blame the game. However, in case of reviewers the whole situtaion becomes unreliable since he is running his system on 2 gig of rams.

You need atleast 4gb ram to run game smoothly, then maybe he will be able to better differentiate between graphical lag and server lag.

Oh my god.  Guys.  RAM. Does. Not. Equate. To. Lag.  Period.  You could run a game with onboard graphics and no ram, and still not get any lag.  It's possible.  Also, fps issues and lag are very, very different problems.  They're very, very easy to differentiate.  If he says he is getting lag, I'll assume he means exactly what he says, without proof to sway me in either direction.  Therefor, the logical conclusion is that he was playing when the server was having issues and was getting lag.  There has been plenty of that problem in FE from time to time since release.  

Yet again.  I don't agree with his score.  I don't think it was fair to a relatively good game.  But please, please stop spewing this junk about his ram causing the lag, and how you can't run a game properly on 2 gigs of ram, and blah blah blah.  That's utterly retarded.

Originally posted by ste2000

Originally posted by Shannia

I think AION's score was way too high, 7.2 maybe.  But obviously, some people around here like much more than I do.

To me, FE's score was a bit to HIGH.  I wouldn't give this game more than a 6.5.  That's right, I'm not afraid to admit it.  This is 2009 and there is absolutely no excuse for the graphics looking like something from around 2002.  The gameplay is HORRIBLE.  The only saving grace about the entire game is the crafting.  It is unique and fun.  I wouldn't play this game continously for F2P much less subscription.

 

 

Shannia, I don't think people is puzzled too much by the 6.9 given to FE, rather the reasons why and the huge difference between FE and Aion review.
The 2 games are very different but similar in quality, again for different reasons.

The point is, how can you give Aion a 9.3, when lots oof people already quit after the first month, and then give FE which is much more innovative than AION just a 6.9?

I would have given FE a 6,5 myself, but I would have given a 6.5 to Aion too.

The problem is that in MMORPG.com there is no structure in the review system, I don't even think they have a system really............

Everyone has their own opinion, of course, but overall IGNs review was spot on, and no its not because they gave it an 8.1 (which I do believe FE deserved, but I'm absolutely smitten with the game)  its because they got it.  They understood the review process.. and they pointed out pitfalls that were real, and true.  Throughout the review they presented the good with the bad, and ultimately in the end, they just got it and easily summed it up in the last line "This game isn't for everyone, and that may be the most compelling reason to try it for yourself."        

Like it or hate it, if you are truly going to review it, let it stand on its own merits.

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by HiGHPLAiNS

Originally posted by Shannia

Since when did I say I like graphics over game play?  I'm saying that the graphic style there is crap.  They could have done a much better job on the graphic style.  I'm not talking about system performance because of said graphics.  There is a difference.  Also, game play is a lot more important to me than mature voice overs.   To me, FE devs focused on the wrong things in creating this game.  That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

 

I just love other players on this forum that throw out numbers for ratings.

Shannia, since your using the Shannia grading scale as well. please let us know how you got to 6.5 and maybe, just maybe, I will take you seriously.

 

 

Where do you want me to start, with 10 and mark down or 0 and mark my way up.  Either way, you will find fault with my logic.  My whole point is, other than the fun and unique crafting system of FE, the game leaves me wanting to uninstall, and quickly.  Combine the pour tutorial, ugly graphic stylization and the HORRIBLE game play, and I come up with a 6.5.  You can thank the crafting system or I would write it down lower than that.   So yes, the crafting system lifts the innovation score for me.

 

Ok, uhm?

So if you bother to read the review. And then think for awhile.

Then just shortly explain how a positive review like this one would give the game a 6.9 score and yours... albeit a short review but really a negative one would give it 6.5.

Just don't add up. :/

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by HiGHPLAiNS

Originally posted by Shannia

Since when did I say I like graphics over game play?  I'm saying that the graphic style there is crap.  They could have done a much better job on the graphic style.  I'm not talking about system performance because of said graphics.  There is a difference.  Also, game play is a lot more important to me than mature voice overs.   To me, FE devs focused on the wrong things in creating this game.  That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

 

I just love other players on this forum that throw out numbers for ratings.

Shannia, since your using the Shannia grading scale as well. please let us know how you got to 6.5 and maybe, just maybe, I will take you seriously.

 

 

Where do you want me to start, with 10 and mark down or 0 and mark my way up.  Either way, you will find fault with my logic.  My whole point is, other than the fun and unique crafting system of FE, the game leaves me wanting to uninstall, and quickly.  Combine the pour tutorial, ugly graphic stylization and the HORRIBLE game play, and I come up with a 6.5.  You can thank the crafting system or I would write it down lower than that.   So yes, the crafting system lifts the innovation score for me.

 

Nice review there..

I guess I will not take your posts seriously from this point on.

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Shannia

That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

 

We are talking 'reviews' here not opinions i am afraid.

 

Reviews are opinions. It's Mr. Iuliani's call to write the review he did and give it a score that does not reflect what he has written. It's also our good fortune to be able to respond on a linked forum and state that his score is off base. We can then only hope that anyone reading the review, then looking at the score (with the subsequent thought of "WTF") will then refer to the various posts related to that thread.

Knowing that the majority of people post when they dislike something and seeing the overwhelming positive replies here for the game, and mixing that with other game sites giving more realistic scores, anyone looking for information can conclude that the score here isn't right and not to give it much credence.

Worry not. Joe Iuliani won't be the downfall of Fallen Earth. It'll do just fine without his endorsement or patronage.

 

Reviews are not opinions they are reviews and opinions are opinions...

I refer you to Skatty2007's post on page 3 of this thread :

My review of the Review of Fallen Earth:

--The reviewer suggests that starting off in a non-pistol oriented town is too difficult. This is far too much personal opinion. What works good for you "by starting off in a pistol town" may not work for someone else. It should be stated, "you can start off in a pistol, rifle, or melee town depending on what fits your initial playstyle, but neither of them are so conforming to a single combat form". Leave your opinion out of it, I have a functional brain and can make my own opinion thank you very much.

--It states that crafting in the game is extremely intensive and is worthy of its own article. But two sentences later is states "it works like most crafting systems." To me this is contradictory. If it is just like all the other crafting systems, why does it merit its own article?

--"I found it a little unwieldy with a keyboard and a mouse." Well thanks for your opinion, I found it to work best with a keyboard and a mouse. Everyone has their own way of what controls works best for them. Say something to the effect that you can use a keyboard\mouse combination or control pad depending on what gives you better control. But the way it is stated has far too much personal opinion in it. This is a review, not "Joe Schmoe's Personal Playstyle Reference Guide."

--It goes on to give advice on how to perform combat. Such as hit and move and take your time targeting. Is this an advice column? Later on he says how much he died (albeit due to lag). I'm not exactly feeling the validity of the advice here since he ended up dyeing so much. Not only that's, but this is a review , not a playguide or advice column (gee, see a recurring theme here?). If he dies cause of lag all the time, how can you properly employ hit and move to see if it is a valid combat technique? Again, leave your own expert advice out of a review please - I have a brain and will find my own technique that serves me well.

--It states the UI is fairly standard. That's just not the case. It failed to mention you can minimize everything in different positions than they are maximized, everything is resizable\adjustable (how many MMO's have you played that have the typical immovable hotbar at the bottom of the screen?) While I don't consider his write-up of the UI an opinion so I can't speak negatively about that, the review leaves out aspects of the UI that are not 'fairly standard'

--"Fast paced combat is not for everyone." Well guess what? There is no MMO or facet of an MMO that everyone is going to like. To say some people will like it and some people wont is incredibly obvious and can be said for every single game ever made in the history of gaming.

--"Fallen earth players are passionate about the game" This implies other people are not passionate about their other games. Also, are you reviewing their forums or the game? Putting a blurb in about your review of the forum is not relevant and highly subjective.

Overall score of the review of Fallen Earth: 6.9

His review only re-affirms of why I come here: Forum entertainment only.

 

Ahh, I smell what you're cooking. Your saying a review should, in essence, be (in no particular order):

1) You press enter to access the chat line.

2) The inventory is access by pressing the "I" key or clicking on the UI link marked "Inventory".

Kinda of a step by step of what does what. A mechanical or technical review as opposed to an impression or opinion review.

Originally posted by Bhawke21

Originally posted by Getalife

In that case i can say i get no lag at all? does that make everything ok?  and yes i have 4gb ram. A person especially someone in position of a reviewers atleast got to meet the minimum requirements. Different people will have different issues with MMOS and sometimes its their own system but its easier to just blame the game. However, in case of reviewers the whole situtaion becomes unreliable since he is running his system on 2 gig of rams.

You need atleast 4gb ram to run game smoothly, then maybe he will be able to better differentiate between graphical lag and server lag.

 

Oh my god.  Guys.  RAM. Does. Not. Equate. To. Lag.  Period.  You could run a game with onboard graphics and no ram, and still not get any lag.  It's possible.  Also, fps issues and lag are very, very different problems.  They're very, very easy to differentiate.  If he says he is getting lag, I'll assume he means exactly what he says, without proof to sway me in either direction.  Therefor, the logical conclusion is that he was playing when the server was having issues and was getting lag.  There has been plenty of that problem in FE from time to time since release.  

Yet again.  I don't agree with his score.  I don't think it was fair to a relatively good game.  But please, please stop spewing this junk about his ram causing the lag, and how you can't run a game properly on 2 gigs of ram, and blah blah blah.  That's utterly retarded.

This is misleading,  not having sufficient memory can cause stuttering also known as lag, visually.  If you don't think so, pull up some back end processes that sap RAM but not CPU like a couple web browsers and let them take away from your resources while you're in game.  It can make the difference between playing smoothly and playing choppy.  Now thats not to say he doesn't have enough RAM to play the game, but lets be honest,  Vista is a memory hog, and even something as simple as the windows search on vista indexing can seem like a chore.

I run the game on Windows 7.. plays like a dream and I only have 2 Gigs of RAM, but any type of multitasking can create issues in towns.

Originally posted by Orphes

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by HiGHPLAiNS

Originally posted by Shannia

Since when did I say I like graphics over game play?  I'm saying that the graphic style there is crap.  They could have done a much better job on the graphic style.  I'm not talking about system performance because of said graphics.  There is a difference.  Also, game play is a lot more important to me than mature voice overs.   To me, FE devs focused on the wrong things in creating this game.  That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

 

I just love other players on this forum that throw out numbers for ratings.

Shannia, since your using the Shannia grading scale as well. please let us know how you got to 6.5 and maybe, just maybe, I will take you seriously.

 

 

Where do you want me to start, with 10 and mark down or 0 and mark my way up.  Either way, you will find fault with my logic.  My whole point is, other than the fun and unique crafting system of FE, the game leaves me wanting to uninstall, and quickly.  Combine the pour tutorial, ugly graphic stylization and the HORRIBLE game play, and I come up with a 6.5.  You can thank the crafting system or I would write it down lower than that.   So yes, the crafting system lifts the innovation score for me.

 

 

Ok, uhm?

So if you bother to read the review. And then think for awhile.

Then just shortly explain how a positive review like this one would give the game a 6.9 score and yours... albeit a short review but really a negative one would give it 6.5.

Just don't add up. :/

I'll answer that question.  Did AION have paid advertising on this site?  Yes they did.  Did Fallen Earth have paid advertising on this site?  Not that I saw.  Could that be why there is such a huge difference in the score?  Most likely not, but it does make a person wonder.

Originally posted by Bhawke21

Originally posted by Getalife

In that case i can say i get no lag at all? does that make everything ok?  and yes i have 4gb ram. A person especially someone in position of a reviewers atleast got to meet the minimum requirements. Different people will have different issues with MMOS and sometimes its their own system but its easier to just blame the game. However, in case of reviewers the whole situtaion becomes unreliable since he is running his system on 2 gig of rams.

You need atleast 4gb ram to run game smoothly, then maybe he will be able to better differentiate between graphical lag and server lag.

 

Oh my god.  Guys.  RAM. Does. Not. Equate. To. Lag.  Period.  You could run a game with onboard graphics and no ram, and still not get any lag.  It's possible.  Also, fps issues and lag are very, very different problems.  They're very, very easy to differentiate.  If he says he is getting lag, I'll assume he means exactly what he says, without proof to sway me in either direction.  Therefor, the logical conclusion is that he was playing when the server was having issues and was getting lag.  There has been plenty of that problem in FE from time to time since release.  

Yet again.  I don't agree with his score.  I don't think it was fair to a relatively good game.  But please, please stop spewing this junk about his ram causing the lag, and how you can't run a game properly on 2 gigs of ram, and blah blah blah.  That's utterly retarded.

I am sorry but you are not getting the point. And yes ram does make a big difference whether you want to agree to it or not. What i and others are trying to say is that he gotto to meet the minimum requirements before he can review so that he gets some validity towards his lag issues. He may still get lag after 8 gb of ram but how would we know when he doesn't even meet minimum requirements? i hope you understand what i am trying to say here.

Originally posted by Bhawke21

Originally posted by Getalife

In that case i can say i get no lag at all? does that make everything ok?  and yes i have 4gb ram. A person especially someone in position of a reviewers atleast got to meet the minimum requirements. Different people will have different issues with MMOS and sometimes its their own system but its easier to just blame the game. However, in case of reviewers the whole situtaion becomes unreliable since he is running his system on 2 gig of rams.

You need atleast 4gb ram to run game smoothly, then maybe he will be able to better differentiate between graphical lag and server lag.

 

Oh my god.  Guys.  RAM. Does. Not. Equate. To. Lag.  Period.  You could run a game with onboard graphics and no ram, and still not get any lag.  It's possible.  Also, fps issues and lag are very, very different problems.  They're very, very easy to differentiate.  If he says he is getting lag, I'll assume he means exactly what he says, without proof to sway me in either direction.  Therefor, the logical conclusion is that he was playing when the server was having issues and was getting lag.  There has been plenty of that problem in FE from time to time since release.  

Yet again.  I don't agree with his score.  I don't think it was fair to a relatively good game.  But please, please stop spewing this junk about his ram causing the lag, and how you can't run a game properly on 2 gigs of ram, and blah blah blah.  That's utterly retarded.

Yes but lots of people get lousy fps/studder and call it lagg so its hard to tell if it really is lagg or bad fps due to his poor amount of ram

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by Orphes

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by HiGHPLAiNS

Originally posted by Shannia

Since when did I say I like graphics over game play?  I'm saying that the graphic style there is crap.  They could have done a much better job on the graphic style.  I'm not talking about system performance because of said graphics.  There is a difference.  Also, game play is a lot more important to me than mature voice overs.   To me, FE devs focused on the wrong things in creating this game.  That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

 

I just love other players on this forum that throw out numbers for ratings.

Shannia, since your using the Shannia grading scale as well. please let us know how you got to 6.5 and maybe, just maybe, I will take you seriously.

 

 

Where do you want me to start, with 10 and mark down or 0 and mark my way up.  Either way, you will find fault with my logic.  My whole point is, other than the fun and unique crafting system of FE, the game leaves me wanting to uninstall, and quickly.  Combine the pour tutorial, ugly graphic stylization and the HORRIBLE game play, and I come up with a 6.5.  You can thank the crafting system or I would write it down lower than that.   So yes, the crafting system lifts the innovation score for me.

 

 

Ok, uhm?

So if you bother to read the review. And then think for awhile.

Then just shortly explain how a positive review like this one would give the game a 6.9 score and yours... albeit a short review but really a negative one would give it 6.5.

Just don't add up. :/

 

I'll answer that question.  Did AION have paid advertising on this site?  Yes they did.  Did Fallen Earth have paid advertising on this site?  Not that I saw.  Could that be why there is such a huge difference in the score?  Most likely not, but it does make a person wonder.

 

Yea, FE did, actually. That is, if this site requires payment for header and footer banners.

Edit: Though, after this..."review", I don't see a real reason for Icarus to maintain such a relationship. You pay for advertising with the hope that it will draw in players. That's business. If a site doesn't give you a fair review, well, what would be the point in continuing to pay them? And I'm not saying that a fair review can't be a low score. I'm just saying this review does not match the score given.

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by Orphes

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by HiGHPLAiNS

Originally posted by Shannia

Since when did I say I like graphics over game play?  I'm saying that the graphic style there is crap.  They could have done a much better job on the graphic style.  I'm not talking about system performance because of said graphics.  There is a difference.  Also, game play is a lot more important to me than mature voice overs.   To me, FE devs focused on the wrong things in creating this game.  That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

 

I just love other players on this forum that throw out numbers for ratings.

Shannia, since your using the Shannia grading scale as well. please let us know how you got to 6.5 and maybe, just maybe, I will take you seriously.

 

 

Where do you want me to start, with 10 and mark down or 0 and mark my way up.  Either way, you will find fault with my logic.  My whole point is, other than the fun and unique crafting system of FE, the game leaves me wanting to uninstall, and quickly.  Combine the pour tutorial, ugly graphic stylization and the HORRIBLE game play, and I come up with a 6.5.  You can thank the crafting system or I would write it down lower than that.   So yes, the crafting system lifts the innovation score for me.

 

 

Ok, uhm?

So if you bother to read the review. And then think for awhile.

Then just shortly explain how a positive review like this one would give the game a 6.9 score and yours... albeit a short review but really a negative one would give it 6.5.

Just don't add up. :/

 

I'll answer that question.  Did AION have paid advertising on this site?  Yes they did.  Did Fallen Earth have paid advertising on this site?  Not that I saw.  Could that be why there is such a huge difference in the score?  Most likely not, but it does make a person wonder.

 

 

Yea, FE did, actually. That is, if this site requires payment for header and footer banners.

Rules out that theory then.  =)

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by Orphes

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by HiGHPLAiNS

Originally posted by Shannia

Since when did I say I like graphics over game play?  I'm saying that the graphic style there is crap.  They could have done a much better job on the graphic style.  I'm not talking about system performance because of said graphics.  There is a difference.  Also, game play is a lot more important to me than mature voice overs.   To me, FE devs focused on the wrong things in creating this game.  That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

 

I just love other players on this forum that throw out numbers for ratings.

Shannia, since your using the Shannia grading scale as well. please let us know how you got to 6.5 and maybe, just maybe, I will take you seriously.

 

 

Where do you want me to start, with 10 and mark down or 0 and mark my way up.  Either way, you will find fault with my logic.  My whole point is, other than the fun and unique crafting system of FE, the game leaves me wanting to uninstall, and quickly.  Combine the pour tutorial, ugly graphic stylization and the HORRIBLE game play, and I come up with a 6.5.  You can thank the crafting system or I would write it down lower than that.   So yes, the crafting system lifts the innovation score for me.

 

 

Ok, uhm?

So if you bother to read the review. And then think for awhile.

Then just shortly explain how a positive review like this one would give the game a 6.9 score and yours... albeit a short review but really a negative one would give it 6.5.

Just don't add up. :/

 

I'll answer that question.  Did AION have paid advertising on this site?  Yes they did.  Did Fallen Earth have paid advertising on this site?  Not that I saw.  Could that be why there is such a huge difference in the score?  Most likely not, but it does make a person wonder.

 

It almost sounds that you would agree that the reviewer would have given the game a higher score. So I'm slightly confused if you read my question wrong.

Ok that you gave the game 6.5 (that's up to you) but the tone in the review was well over 6.9?

I think most folks can see his system wasn't really up to min requirements. Everyone else playing the game doesn't have the lag issues described by the reviewer.

Either that or he is so sensitive to the minor lag people get in major congested cities at peak hours that he felt the need to slam FE this hard, which brings up questions of his ability to review products objectively and honestly.

Originally posted by Euphoryk

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by Euphoryk

However, is there not some final say or needed approval by the "senior staff" before these reviews are frontpaged? and if so, why do reviews like this ever make it to the frontpage to begin with? especially when they seem to contradict this own sites opinion (as presented in the 10 Best MMOs since... article mentioned above) of said game in question.

Because Dana Massey's opinion differs from Joe Iuliani's? Different people are different.

 

They are. However, reviews are not to be meant to reflect personal taste, but a fair evaluation sir.

6.9 for this game is parsec's away from even being remotely fair.

DB

 

Thank you DB, for summing it up perfectly. This is exactly the point I was attempting to make.

No problem:)

Doesn't really matter anymore, as it has been clearly proven that the reviewer had been bulshitting about his specs, but Stradden has already made a standup to him, so he won't take it back.

They might do a re-review soon (or later), with a much fairer score, so we can forget this worthless pos of a "review" asap.

DB

Wow........ that score is a kick in the balls to Icarus.

As I look at some of the scores of the games on this list I just can't help but shake my head.

MMORPG.COM GAME REVIEWS

6.9 ........ wow ....... good job guys.

Pffft ........

 *rolls eyes and leaves the thread

~Hairysun

Originally posted by Orphes

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by Orphes

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by HiGHPLAiNS

Originally posted by Shannia

Since when did I say I like graphics over game play?  I'm saying that the graphic style there is crap.  They could have done a much better job on the graphic style.  I'm not talking about system performance because of said graphics.  There is a difference.  Also, game play is a lot more important to me than mature voice overs.   To me, FE devs focused on the wrong things in creating this game.  That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

 

I just love other players on this forum that throw out numbers for ratings.

Shannia, since your using the Shannia grading scale as well. please let us know how you got to 6.5 and maybe, just maybe, I will take you seriously.

 

 

Where do you want me to start, with 10 and mark down or 0 and mark my way up.  Either way, you will find fault with my logic.  My whole point is, other than the fun and unique crafting system of FE, the game leaves me wanting to uninstall, and quickly.  Combine the pour tutorial, ugly graphic stylization and the HORRIBLE game play, and I come up with a 6.5.  You can thank the crafting system or I would write it down lower than that.   So yes, the crafting system lifts the innovation score for me.

 

 

Ok, uhm?

So if you bother to read the review. And then think for awhile.

Then just shortly explain how a positive review like this one would give the game a 6.9 score and yours... albeit a short review but really a negative one would give it 6.5.

Just don't add up. :/

 

I'll answer that question.  Did AION have paid advertising on this site?  Yes they did.  Did Fallen Earth have paid advertising on this site?  Not that I saw.  Could that be why there is such a huge difference in the score?  Most likely not, but it does make a person wonder.

 

It almost sounds that you would agree that the reviewer would have given the game a higher score. So I'm slightly confused if you read my question wrong.

Ok that you gave the game 6.5 (that's up to you) but the tone in the review was well over 6.9?

I will say that yes, it is true, the written write up and the score the reviewer gave do not match.  It should have been much higher.  Based on the write up, definately in the 8.0-8.5 range.  Definately not the 6.5.
 

I stand on my own 6.5 for the game because the reasons I stated already.

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by Euphoryk

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by Euphoryk

However, is there not some final say or needed approval by the "senior staff" before these reviews are frontpaged? and if so, why do reviews like this ever make it to the frontpage to begin with? especially when they seem to contradict this own sites opinion (as presented in the 10 Best MMOs since... article mentioned above) of said game in question.

Because Dana Massey's opinion differs from Joe Iuliani's? Different people are different.

 

They are. However, reviews are not to be meant to reflect personal taste, but a fair evaluation sir.

6.9 for this game is parsec's away from even being remotely fair.

DB

 

Thank you DB, for summing it up perfectly. This is exactly the point I was attempting to make.

 

No problem:)

Doesn't really matter anymore, as it has been clearly proven that the reviewer had been bulshitting about his specs, but Stradden has already made a standup to him, so he won't take it back.

They might do a re-review soon (or later), with a much fairer score, so we can forget this worthless pos of a "review" asap.

DB

Wouldn't hold my breath for that one. Icarus doesn't have a "Tasos" on staff and wouldn't act in such a manner.

And then sites like these have the gaul to point fingers at others as to why noone is marching away from the Aion/WoW method of making games, lol!

Pls be nice now.
Let's not go there (Aion paid MMORPG.com review)

FE has advetisement as well (it has a FE giveaway right in the front page......), and when AoC launched they had every banner slot filled with AoC adverts, yet they gave AoC just a 7..............

The reason why Aion got such an high score is
1) The reviewer was a fanboy
2) The game plays like WoW (hence very intuitive interface+combat), everyone can play it, although that doesn't mean that everyone will enjoy it (reviewer needs to understand this distinction)

The reason why FE got a bad review is:
1) The reviewer is not a fan of the genre (sandbox)
2) The reviewer didn't have a system which will run the game at a rate which could make it more enjoyable

But the main reason why all this mess happened is that MMORPG.com do not have a comprehensive review system in place.
 

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by Orphes

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by Orphes

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by HiGHPLAiNS

Originally posted by Shannia

Since when did I say I like graphics over game play?  I'm saying that the graphic style there is crap.  They could have done a much better job on the graphic style.  I'm not talking about system performance because of said graphics.  There is a difference.  Also, game play is a lot more important to me than mature voice overs.   To me, FE devs focused on the wrong things in creating this game.  That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

 

I just love other players on this forum that throw out numbers for ratings.

Shannia, since your using the Shannia grading scale as well. please let us know how you got to 6.5 and maybe, just maybe, I will take you seriously.

 

 

Where do you want me to start, with 10 and mark down or 0 and mark my way up.  Either way, you will find fault with my logic.  My whole point is, other than the fun and unique crafting system of FE, the game leaves me wanting to uninstall, and quickly.  Combine the pour tutorial, ugly graphic stylization and the HORRIBLE game play, and I come up with a 6.5.  You can thank the crafting system or I would write it down lower than that.   So yes, the crafting system lifts the innovation score for me.

 

 

Ok, uhm?

So if you bother to read the review. And then think for awhile.

Then just shortly explain how a positive review like this one would give the game a 6.9 score and yours... albeit a short review but really a negative one would give it 6.5.

Just don't add up. :/

 

I'll answer that question.  Did AION have paid advertising on this site?  Yes they did.  Did Fallen Earth have paid advertising on this site?  Not that I saw.  Could that be why there is such a huge difference in the score?  Most likely not, but it does make a person wonder.

 

It almost sounds that you would agree that the reviewer would have given the game a higher score. So I'm slightly confused if you read my question wrong.

Ok that you gave the game 6.5 (that's up to you) but the tone in the review was well over 6.9?

I will say that yes, it is true, the written write up and the score the reviewer gave do not match.  It should have been much higher.  Based on the write up, definately in the 8.0-8.5 range.  Definately not the 6.5.
 

I stand on my own 6.5 for the game because the reasons I stated already.

 

And when you have people who vehemently don't like the game agreeing with this point...yeah...

Originally posted by ste2000

Pls be nice now.
Let's not go there (Aion paid MMORPG.com review)

FE has advetisement as well (it has a FE giveaway right in the front page......), and when AoC launched they had every banner slot filled with AoC adverts, yet they gave AoC just a 7..............

The reason why Aion got such an high score is
1) The reviewer was a fanboy
2) The game plays like WoW (hence very intuitive interface+combat)

The reason why FE got a bad review is:
1) The reviewer is not a fan of the genre (sandbox)
2) The reviewer didn't have a system which will run the game at a rate which could make it more enjoyable

But the main reason why all this mess happened is that MMORPG.com do not have a comprehensive review system in place.
 

Very well said.

+1 to you sir

Originally posted by Thillian

Honestly Aion 8.7 and this 6.9? Is this supposed to be a way of telling publishers that you give a game 8.0 and better rating only if they pay you, or you really think that FE is worse than 90% of all the games you reviewed lately? If I compare the text from Aion and the text from FE, FE is much more positively described, yet still the rating is the other way around.

No wonder that metacritic, and gamerankings ignore your ratings and reviews completely.

Amen to this post.

Giving FE a 6.9 and labeling it "mediocre" simply because your "very mediocre" computer/OS combination couldn't cut it, is a terrible way to review. I'm seriously amazed the other staff members of mmorpg allowed you to give it that score, especially considering that you barely listed any other negatives about the game (and rightly so since there really aren't many). And then, to top it off, you guys give Aion an 8.9?! Seriously? Did you even play it? It's got to be one of the most generic mmos I've played in years. I've played F2P games that had more innovation, no joke. 
 

I hate to have to assume this about mmorpg, considering that I've been a member for a good 5 years now, but it really seems like you guys are becoming a "bought and sold" kind of site. Some of the high scores that you've given to mainstream mmos, that clearly didn't deserve it, make it painfully clear. This little instance here is just icing on the cake.

As a gamer, I'm truly ashamed. FE, in no way, deserved such a rating and you guys know it. It's a damn good game, possibly one of the best I've played in the last 5 years, and Icarus has got my deepest respect for bringing out a good, solid product despite being a tiny, indy company. That's a hell of a lot more than you can say for mainstream companies like Funcom, SOE, Mythic, and even NCsoft, who have had more than their fair share of lackluster titles and unstable releases, despite having way more money to spend. That alone speaks for itself.

I really hope you guys consider righting the wrong here and give FE (and by association, Icarus) a score that it/they actually deserve. 

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Shannia

That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

 

We are talking 'reviews' here not opinions i am afraid.

 

Reviews are opinions. It's Mr. Iuliani's call to write the review he did and give it a score that does not reflect what he has written. It's also our good fortune to be able to respond on a linked forum and state that his score is off base. We can then only hope that anyone reading the review, then looking at the score (with the subsequent thought of "WTF") will then refer to the various posts related to that thread.

Knowing that the majority of people post when they dislike something and seeing the overwhelming positive replies here for the game, and mixing that with other game sites giving more realistic scores, anyone looking for information can conclude that the score here isn't right and not to give it much credence.

Worry not. Joe Iuliani won't be the downfall of Fallen Earth. It'll do just fine without his endorsement or patronage.

 

Reviews are not opinions they are reviews and opinions are opinions...

I refer you to Skatty2007's post on page 3 of this thread :

My review of the Review of Fallen Earth:

--The reviewer suggests that starting off in a non-pistol oriented town is too difficult. This is far too much personal opinion. What works good for you "by starting off in a pistol town" may not work for someone else. It should be stated, "you can start off in a pistol, rifle, or melee town depending on what fits your initial playstyle, but neither of them are so conforming to a single combat form". Leave your opinion out of it, I have a functional brain and can make my own opinion thank you very much.

--It states that crafting in the game is extremely intensive and is worthy of its own article. But two sentences later is states "it works like most crafting systems." To me this is contradictory. If it is just like all the other crafting systems, why does it merit its own article?

--"I found it a little unwieldy with a keyboard and a mouse." Well thanks for your opinion, I found it to work best with a keyboard and a mouse. Everyone has their own way of what controls works best for them. Say something to the effect that you can use a keyboard\mouse combination or control pad depending on what gives you better control. But the way it is stated has far too much personal opinion in it. This is a review, not "Joe Schmoe's Personal Playstyle Reference Guide."

--It goes on to give advice on how to perform combat. Such as hit and move and take your time targeting. Is this an advice column? Later on he says how much he died (albeit due to lag). I'm not exactly feeling the validity of the advice here since he ended up dyeing so much. Not only that's, but this is a review , not a playguide or advice column (gee, see a recurring theme here?). If he dies cause of lag all the time, how can you properly employ hit and move to see if it is a valid combat technique? Again, leave your own expert advice out of a review please - I have a brain and will find my own technique that serves me well.

--It states the UI is fairly standard. That's just not the case. It failed to mention you can minimize everything in different positions than they are maximized, everything is resizable\adjustable (how many MMO's have you played that have the typical immovable hotbar at the bottom of the screen?) While I don't consider his write-up of the UI an opinion so I can't speak negatively about that, the review leaves out aspects of the UI that are not 'fairly standard'

--"Fast paced combat is not for everyone." Well guess what? There is no MMO or facet of an MMO that everyone is going to like. To say some people will like it and some people wont is incredibly obvious and can be said for every single game ever made in the history of gaming.

--"Fallen earth players are passionate about the game" This implies other people are not passionate about their other games. Also, are you reviewing their forums or the game? Putting a blurb in about your review of the forum is not relevant and highly subjective.

Overall score of the review of Fallen Earth: 6.9

His review only re-affirms of why I come here: Forum entertainment only.

 

Ahh, I smell what you're cooking. Your saying a review should, in essence, be (in no particular order):

1) You press enter to access the chat line.

2) The inventory is access by pressing the "I" key or clicking on the UI link marked "Inventory".

Kinda of a step by step of what does what. A mechanical or technical review as opposed to an impression or opinion review.

Those are a bit simplistic examples, but yes.  A review should be about how the game presents itself, not the experience that the review had while playing the game.

For instance the game may have a rich story line.  One may not like the actual story details that the game reviewer experiences, but it can be well done.  Therefore the review should say the game has a well developed story and rate the game in part on how well that story is developed, rather than the experience that reviewer had while playing out that story.  It should say something to the effect that if you one feels a rish story is important, the game may fit you well.

---------------

There is in inherent conflict of interest in making a review of a game.  You are either going to like the game or not like the game.  But one has to separate those emotions in making an unbaised review - and that has to be hard to do, I'll definitely admit that.  That's why not everyone is qualified to write a review because some people are unable to do that.

In my opinion, that was not the case for this review, therefore this review is meaningless regardless of whatever score was given.

I've solved the problem for Jon.

It was a simple type-o.  It wasn't suppose to be a 6.9 it was suppose to be a 9.6!

There, now everyone is happy and we can all go about our business!

Lets not let this get out of hand - lets keep the personal attacks and what not out of this thread.

I understand Stradden's points about having some editorial control over the scores.  I understand why editors would prefer the hands off approach.  However, at the same time, this is a publication.  In a review such as this, it becomes MMORPG.com's review of Fallen Earth and that is how most readers are going to see it.  Yes, it was written by so-and-so, and it may be so-and-so's review, but we (the readers) will see it as MMORPG.com's review.  With that said, because I see it as MMORPG.com's review, I expect it to go through an editing process to keep it in line with other reviews.  As someone pointed out, what is the point of having a score if the scores themselves don't relate to one another.

And frankly, this hasn't been the first review I've questioned and it probably won't be the last, but if I was an editor and this was submitted to me, the first bit of feedback I would have given the writer is that the writeup doesn't exactly line up with the score.  The writeup was mostly positive with the only negative being lag.  Yeah, as a player, I might agree with the score, but as an editor, I would understand readers enough that at the minimum, either score or write up be changed to better reflect the other.  If the writer's experience was truly 6.9 then he left something out or didn't describe other problems appropriately.  If not, then he may be putting too much emphasis on the one issue described.  

And as for review guidelines....

For example, when evaluating the art behind a game, a good reviewer will separate his/her artistic preference from how well the art in the game was made.  The quality of the animations?  The detail of the textures?  Is the aesthetic consistent? Etc...

You would go through other aspects and evaluate them similarly, separating your personal taste from quantifiable aspects.

And then of course, the overall evaluation would be based on how well these aspects come together.  A good reviewer should be able to play a game he or she does not or would not want to play but still provide readers with a useful review and completely remove him/herself from that preferential bias. 

Originally posted by Skatty2007

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Shannia

That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

 

We are talking 'reviews' here not opinions i am afraid.

 

Reviews are opinions. It's Mr. Iuliani's call to write the review he did and give it a score that does not reflect what he has written. It's also our good fortune to be able to respond on a linked forum and state that his score is off base. We can then only hope that anyone reading the review, then looking at the score (with the subsequent thought of "WTF") will then refer to the various posts related to that thread.

Knowing that the majority of people post when they dislike something and seeing the overwhelming positive replies here for the game, and mixing that with other game sites giving more realistic scores, anyone looking for information can conclude that the score here isn't right and not to give it much credence.

Worry not. Joe Iuliani won't be the downfall of Fallen Earth. It'll do just fine without his endorsement or patronage.

 

Reviews are not opinions they are reviews and opinions are opinions...

I refer you to Skatty2007's post on page 3 of this thread :

My review of the Review of Fallen Earth:

--The reviewer suggests that starting off in a non-pistol oriented town is too difficult. This is far too much personal opinion. What works good for you "by starting off in a pistol town" may not work for someone else. It should be stated, "you can start off in a pistol, rifle, or melee town depending on what fits your initial playstyle, but neither of them are so conforming to a single combat form". Leave your opinion out of it, I have a functional brain and can make my own opinion thank you very much.

--It states that crafting in the game is extremely intensive and is worthy of its own article. But two sentences later is states "it works like most crafting systems." To me this is contradictory. If it is just like all the other crafting systems, why does it merit its own article?

--"I found it a little unwieldy with a keyboard and a mouse." Well thanks for your opinion, I found it to work best with a keyboard and a mouse. Everyone has their own way of what controls works best for them. Say something to the effect that you can use a keyboard\mouse combination or control pad depending on what gives you better control. But the way it is stated has far too much personal opinion in it. This is a review, not "Joe Schmoe's Personal Playstyle Reference Guide."

--It goes on to give advice on how to perform combat. Such as hit and move and take your time targeting. Is this an advice column? Later on he says how much he died (albeit due to lag). I'm not exactly feeling the validity of the advice here since he ended up dyeing so much. Not only that's, but this is a review , not a playguide or advice column (gee, see a recurring theme here?). If he dies cause of lag all the time, how can you properly employ hit and move to see if it is a valid combat technique? Again, leave your own expert advice out of a review please - I have a brain and will find my own technique that serves me well.

--It states the UI is fairly standard. That's just not the case. It failed to mention you can minimize everything in different positions than they are maximized, everything is resizable\adjustable (how many MMO's have you played that have the typical immovable hotbar at the bottom of the screen?) While I don't consider his write-up of the UI an opinion so I can't speak negatively about that, the review leaves out aspects of the UI that are not 'fairly standard'

--"Fast paced combat is not for everyone." Well guess what? There is no MMO or facet of an MMO that everyone is going to like. To say some people will like it and some people wont is incredibly obvious and can be said for every single game ever made in the history of gaming.

--"Fallen earth players are passionate about the game" This implies other people are not passionate about their other games. Also, are you reviewing their forums or the game? Putting a blurb in about your review of the forum is not relevant and highly subjective.

Overall score of the review of Fallen Earth: 6.9

His review only re-affirms of why I come here: Forum entertainment only.

 

Ahh, I smell what you're cooking. Your saying a review should, in essence, be (in no particular order):

1) You press enter to access the chat line.

2) The inventory is access by pressing the "I" key or clicking on the UI link marked "Inventory".

Kinda of a step by step of what does what. A mechanical or technical review as opposed to an impression or opinion review.

 

Those are a bit simplistic examples, but yes.  A review should be about how the game presents itself, not the experience that the review had while playing the game.

For instance the game may have a rich story line.  One may not like the actual story details that the game reviewer experiences, but it can be well done.  Therefore the review should say the game has a well developed story and rate the game in part on how well that story is developed, rather than the experience that reviewer had while playing out that story.  It should say something to the effect that if you one feels a rish story is important, the game may fit you well.

---------------

There is in inherent conflict of interest in making a review of a game.  You are either going to like the game or not like the game.  But one has to separate those emotions in making an unbaised review - and that has to be hard to do, I'll definitely admit that.  That's why not everyone is qualified to write a review because some people are unable to do that.

In my opinion, that was not the case for this review, therefore this review is meaningless regardless of whatever score was given.

The highlighted in an opinion. My wife is a many times published author and what for you would be a well-developed storyline for her may very well not be. If you stand by your example, then opinion is indeed apart of the review, and review contain opinion. For then not to contain opinion they need only to present cold hard facts. Basically what you get in a game manual minus the fluff/background story.

And yeah, the only thing I learned here was not to read another Joe Iuliani review or post.

Even that is subjective and leads to inflated scores and across the nation we have high schools students graduating with 3.5-4.0 GPAs yet then can't gain a passing score on a college entrance exam much less pass their exams to graduate high school, thus they simple drop out.

Did you know 2008/2009 school year was the first time since they started keeping records that over 50% of the high school seniors dropped out vs completing their high school education?

Originally posted by Shannia

I've solved the problem for Jon.

It was a simple type-o.  It wasn't suppose to be a 6.9 it was suppose to be a 9.6!

There, now everyone is happy and we can all go about our business!

 

Heck know. For those that like to use the term, I guess you might consider me a FE "fanboy". That said, I wouldn't give it a 9.0 in it's current state (though, for full discluse I may have hyped it at 9.0 and you should duly note that I only bother with the hype meter after I've been drinking).

No, anywhere between 7.5 and 8.5 (with the latter being generous) would reflect the review written. Nobody wants an "aion" review score. Most just want a fair review score that matches the darn review.

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by Skatty2007

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Shannia

That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

 

We are talking 'reviews' here not opinions i am afraid.

 

Reviews are opinions. It's Mr. Iuliani's call to write the review he did and give it a score that does not reflect what he has written. It's also our good fortune to be able to respond on a linked forum and state that his score is off base. We can then only hope that anyone reading the review, then looking at the score (with the subsequent thought of "WTF") will then refer to the various posts related to that thread.

Knowing that the majority of people post when they dislike something and seeing the overwhelming positive replies here for the game, and mixing that with other game sites giving more realistic scores, anyone looking for information can conclude that the score here isn't right and not to give it much credence.

Worry not. Joe Iuliani won't be the downfall of Fallen Earth. It'll do just fine without his endorsement or patronage.

 

Reviews are not opinions they are reviews and opinions are opinions...

I refer you to Skatty2007's post on page 3 of this thread :

My review of the Review of Fallen Earth:

--The reviewer suggests that starting off in a non-pistol oriented town is too difficult. This is far too much personal opinion. What works good for you "by starting off in a pistol town" may not work for someone else. It should be stated, "you can start off in a pistol, rifle, or melee town depending on what fits your initial playstyle, but neither of them are so conforming to a single combat form". Leave your opinion out of it, I have a functional brain and can make my own opinion thank you very much.

--It states that crafting in the game is extremely intensive and is worthy of its own article. But two sentences later is states "it works like most crafting systems." To me this is contradictory. If it is just like all the other crafting systems, why does it merit its own article?

--"I found it a little unwieldy with a keyboard and a mouse." Well thanks for your opinion, I found it to work best with a keyboard and a mouse. Everyone has their own way of what controls works best for them. Say something to the effect that you can use a keyboard\mouse combination or control pad depending on what gives you better control. But the way it is stated has far too much personal opinion in it. This is a review, not "Joe Schmoe's Personal Playstyle Reference Guide."

--It goes on to give advice on how to perform combat. Such as hit and move and take your time targeting. Is this an advice column? Later on he says how much he died (albeit due to lag). I'm not exactly feeling the validity of the advice here since he ended up dyeing so much. Not only that's, but this is a review , not a playguide or advice column (gee, see a recurring theme here?). If he dies cause of lag all the time, how can you properly employ hit and move to see if it is a valid combat technique? Again, leave your own expert advice out of a review please - I have a brain and will find my own technique that serves me well.

--It states the UI is fairly standard. That's just not the case. It failed to mention you can minimize everything in different positions than they are maximized, everything is resizable\adjustable (how many MMO's have you played that have the typical immovable hotbar at the bottom of the screen?) While I don't consider his write-up of the UI an opinion so I can't speak negatively about that, the review leaves out aspects of the UI that are not 'fairly standard'

--"Fast paced combat is not for everyone." Well guess what? There is no MMO or facet of an MMO that everyone is going to like. To say some people will like it and some people wont is incredibly obvious and can be said for every single game ever made in the history of gaming.

--"Fallen earth players are passionate about the game" This implies other people are not passionate about their other games. Also, are you reviewing their forums or the game? Putting a blurb in about your review of the forum is not relevant and highly subjective.

Overall score of the review of Fallen Earth: 6.9

His review only re-affirms of why I come here: Forum entertainment only.

 

Ahh, I smell what you're cooking. Your saying a review should, in essence, be (in no particular order):

1) You press enter to access the chat line.

2) The inventory is access by pressing the "I" key or clicking on the UI link marked "Inventory".

Kinda of a step by step of what does what. A mechanical or technical review as opposed to an impression or opinion review.

 

Those are a bit simplistic examples, but yes.  A review should be about how the game presents itself, not the experience that the review had while playing the game.

For instance the game may have a rich story line.  One may not like the actual story details that the game reviewer experiences, but it can be well done.  Therefore the review should say the game has a well developed story and rate the game in part on how well that story is developed, rather than the experience that reviewer had while playing out that story.  It should say something to the effect that if you one feels a rish story is important, the game may fit you well.

---------------

There is in inherent conflict of interest in making a review of a game.  You are either going to like the game or not like the game.  But one has to separate those emotions in making an unbaised review - and that has to be hard to do, I'll definitely admit that.  That's why not everyone is qualified to write a review because some people are unable to do that.

In my opinion, that was not the case for this review, therefore this review is meaningless regardless of whatever score was given.

The highlighted in an opinion. My wife is a many times published author and what for you would be a well-developed storyline for her may very well not be. If you stand by your example, then opinion is indeed apart of the review, and review contain opinion. For then not to contain opinion they need only to present cold hard facts. Basically what you get in a game manual minus the fluff/background story.

And yeah, the only thing I learned here was not to read another Joe Iuliani review or post.

But a story can have lots of twists and turns, in-depth, well developed, and what not.  The reader may not buy into details and the development and think it is not a very entertaining story. In this example, the review would state the writer wrote a well developed storyline, but the opinion would state the story was not captivating and boring. 

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by Shannia

I've solved the problem for Jon.

It was a simple type-o.  It wasn't suppose to be a 6.9 it was suppose to be a 9.6!

There, now everyone is happy and we can all go about our business!

 

 

Heck know. For those that like to use the term, I guess you might consider me a FE "fanboy". That said, I wouldn't give it a 9.0 in it's current state (though, for full discluse I may have hyped it at 9.0 and you should duly note that I only bother with the hype meter after I've been drinking).

No, anywhere between 7.5 and 8.5 (with the latter being generous) would reflect the review written. Nobody wants an "aion" review score. Most just want a fair review score that matches the darn review.

Except for Aion fanboys who are allowed to review it................

See that's why Aion review is so absurd...........not even Aion fanboys would have given the game such an high score (just out of self respect), so how the reviewer came up with 9.3 is anyone guess

Originally posted by Skatty2007

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by Skatty2007

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Shannia

That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

 

We are talking 'reviews' here not opinions i am afraid.

 

Reviews are opinions. It's Mr. Iuliani's call to write the review he did and give it a score that does not reflect what he has written. It's also our good fortune to be able to respond on a linked forum and state that his score is off base. We can then only hope that anyone reading the review, then looking at the score (with the subsequent thought of "WTF") will then refer to the various posts related to that thread.

Knowing that the majority of people post when they dislike something and seeing the overwhelming positive replies here for the game, and mixing that with other game sites giving more realistic scores, anyone looking for information can conclude that the score here isn't right and not to give it much credence.

Worry not. Joe Iuliani won't be the downfall of Fallen Earth. It'll do just fine without his endorsement or patronage.

 

Reviews are not opinions they are reviews and opinions are opinions...

I refer you to Skatty2007's post on page 3 of this thread :

My review of the Review of Fallen Earth:

--The reviewer suggests that starting off in a non-pistol oriented town is too difficult. This is far too much personal opinion. What works good for you "by starting off in a pistol town" may not work for someone else. It should be stated, "you can start off in a pistol, rifle, or melee town depending on what fits your initial playstyle, but neither of them are so conforming to a single combat form". Leave your opinion out of it, I have a functional brain and can make my own opinion thank you very much.

--It states that crafting in the game is extremely intensive and is worthy of its own article. But two sentences later is states "it works like most crafting systems." To me this is contradictory. If it is just like all the other crafting systems, why does it merit its own article?

--"I found it a little unwieldy with a keyboard and a mouse." Well thanks for your opinion, I found it to work best with a keyboard and a mouse. Everyone has their own way of what controls works best for them. Say something to the effect that you can use a keyboard\mouse combination or control pad depending on what gives you better control. But the way it is stated has far too much personal opinion in it. This is a review, not "Joe Schmoe's Personal Playstyle Reference Guide."

--It goes on to give advice on how to perform combat. Such as hit and move and take your time targeting. Is this an advice column? Later on he says how much he died (albeit due to lag). I'm not exactly feeling the validity of the advice here since he ended up dyeing so much. Not only that's, but this is a review , not a playguide or advice column (gee, see a recurring theme here?). If he dies cause of lag all the time, how can you properly employ hit and move to see if it is a valid combat technique? Again, leave your own expert advice out of a review please - I have a brain and will find my own technique that serves me well.

--It states the UI is fairly standard. That's just not the case. It failed to mention you can minimize everything in different positions than they are maximized, everything is resizable\adjustable (how many MMO's have you played that have the typical immovable hotbar at the bottom of the screen?) While I don't consider his write-up of the UI an opinion so I can't speak negatively about that, the review leaves out aspects of the UI that are not 'fairly standard'

--"Fast paced combat is not for everyone." Well guess what? There is no MMO or facet of an MMO that everyone is going to like. To say some people will like it and some people wont is incredibly obvious and can be said for every single game ever made in the history of gaming.

--"Fallen earth players are passionate about the game" This implies other people are not passionate about their other games. Also, are you reviewing their forums or the game? Putting a blurb in about your review of the forum is not relevant and highly subjective.

Overall score of the review of Fallen Earth: 6.9

His review only re-affirms of why I come here: Forum entertainment only.

 

Ahh, I smell what you're cooking. Your saying a review should, in essence, be (in no particular order):

1) You press enter to access the chat line.

2) The inventory is access by pressing the "I" key or clicking on the UI link marked "Inventory".

Kinda of a step by step of what does what. A mechanical or technical review as opposed to an impression or opinion review.

 

Those are a bit simplistic examples, but yes.  A review should be about how the game presents itself, not the experience that the review had while playing the game.

For instance the game may have a rich story line.  One may not like the actual story details that the game reviewer experiences, but it can be well done.  Therefore the review should say the game has a well developed story and rate the game in part on how well that story is developed, rather than the experience that reviewer had while playing out that story.  It should say something to the effect that if you one feels a rish story is important, the game may fit you well.

---------------

There is in inherent conflict of interest in making a review of a game.  You are either going to like the game or not like the game.  But one has to separate those emotions in making an unbaised review - and that has to be hard to do, I'll definitely admit that.  That's why not everyone is qualified to write a review because some people are unable to do that.

In my opinion, that was not the case for this review, therefore this review is meaningless regardless of whatever score was given.

The highlighted in an opinion. My wife is a many times published author and what for you would be a well-developed storyline for her may very well not be. If you stand by your example, then opinion is indeed apart of the review, and review contain opinion. For then not to contain opinion they need only to present cold hard facts. Basically what you get in a game manual minus the fluff/background story.

And yeah, the only thing I learned here was not to read another Joe Iuliani review or post.

 

But a story can have lots of twists and turns, in-depth, well developed, and what not.  The reader may not buy into details and the development and think it is not a very entertaining story. In this example, the review would state the writer wrote a well developed storyline, but the opinion would state the story was not captivating and boring. 

Again, whether something is well-developed or not is an opinion. Just ask the TA that graded my last paper, lol. (Hey, I got a B, it wasn't that bad, lol!).

Now, if the reviewer stated that on average you can expect to read between 2 and 3 paragraphs, 5-6 sentences each, of dialogue per quest, then that would be factual and not an opinion. The player can then read those quests and determine for themselves if it is well-developed or not.

Wow.... this is pretty amateurish.

MMORPG.com might want to consider hiring a GROUP of PROFESSIONAL reviewers who have the capacity to review games in a manner which is unbiased and CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT when reviewing all games.

Folks who are aware of these gross inconsistencies in reviews (reviewers) will never be able to take MMORPG.com's reviews seriously, whilst at the same time, those less aware of these inconsistencies, will take these reviews as gospel--and both scenarios only end up doing the MMO genre a tremendous disservice.

I really dont care he doesnt even have the minimal specs ( and yes he is lying about the "graphic memory" , that model was 256/512 megs on standard versions and only LATE models modde'd by suppliers had 1 gig ) , i dont care about Aion getting a 8 something , i dont even care about the score FE got ... i just want to know when did we started calling a 69% Mediocre , cause i sure hell dont have a clue!

Okay, the Ortega Guacamole Style Dip (tm) has conveyed to me in it's yummy goodness that the reason the score didn't match the review was to generate the amount of attention for which it has successfully done. It's going under the premise of any press is good press, and playing on there the idea that passionate gamers will keep a thread rolling like a hamster on crack.

The dip is wise.

So, in a bit of recapitulation:

• Fallen Earth is considered by MMORPG.com to be among the 10 best MMOs since WoW. However, Fallen Earth only received a 6.9 (under "Our score" as stated by MMORPG.com), implying that only 8 games (I do believe Fallen Earth came 9th) scored over a 6.9 since WoW. This is clearly untrue if we look at the list of reviews since WoW.
• The reviewer writes a fairly nice bit of text about the game, but then doesn't match his review with a proper grade (to which we can assume there to be general consensus among the readers, it seems).
• The reviewer first states he has 2GB Corsair RAM, which cannot be video card RAM because Corsair doesn't produce video RAM. He also states his rig boasts dual ATI Radeon 3870s. 'Despite' playing on this 'awesome' rig, he experiences hefty lag. After receiving complaints that his specs are actually quite a bit below what the Fallen Earth website states is a minimum for his OS (i.e. Vista) and that Fallen Earth so far does not support Crossfire and therefore no dual graphics card setup, he reformulates into saying the 2GB was meant to indicate video RAM and that he actually has 4GB of RAM in his system. However, this is very accurately proven wrong by MrBloodworth, who noted that the graphics card specified in the review only came with 512MB video RAM max, meaning that a dual rig would result in a max. of 1GB video RAM and that is without taking into account that Fallen Earth doesn't support Crossfire in the first place. Furthermore, it is doubtful that the 2GB RAM were actually meant to indicate video RAM, because the review specifically states it to be Corsair RAM, while Corsair obviously doesn't make video RAM.

Pull the bloody review and sack the reviewer (whether he's a freelancer or even a volunteer; even they can be sacked). It is an utter shame to spoil your very informative and extensive game list (which I have often used to keep an eye on which games score well) with misinformed scores like this one. Suffice to say that, if I had relied on the MMORPG.com Games List for choosing MMOs here, Fallen Earth would probably have stayed safely off my radar, causing me to miss out on one of the top 10 games since WoW...

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

Obviously this was an oversight on my part in terms of the minimum requirements.

I've pulled the review while we look into this. I certainly don't want to see a game get saddled with a score that it doesn't deserve. My apologies for this mistake.

Excellent!

However, review is still up there.

And seriously. FE currently has the best player review score of ALL released games. I would say that we need a different reviewer as well, not just a capable system.

DB

It's not still up, it's back up, with an amendment to the computer spec section after the original error was detected.

Originally posted by Stradden

It's not still up, it's back up, with an amendment to the computer spec section after the original error was detected.

Wait... Am I correct in assuming you've just tried to cover up a fairly obvious lie by pretending it wasn't even there in the first place? The only thing worse than reviewing a game on an inferior rig and then complaining about performance issues would be to modify the review afterwards to disguise the problem with a lie about the reviewer's system specs...

Stradden had been responding within minutes of other users during the beginning of this thread, right up until the point where it was proven that his reviewer blatantly lied about his system to try and cover his own ass.

At that point, he mysteriously disappears and stops responding.

Coincidence? I think not.

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

Obviously this was an oversight on my part in terms of the minimum requirements.

I've pulled the review while we look into this. I certainly don't want to see a game get saddled with a score that it doesn't deserve. My apologies for this mistake.

Excellent!

However, review is still up there.

And seriously. FE currently has the best player review score of ALL released games. I would say that we need a different reviewer as well, not just a capable system.

DB

It's not still up, it's back up, with an amendment to the computer spec section after the original error was detected.

And you can honestly sit here, look me in the virtual eye and tell me that you personally are comfortable with the written review versus the numerical score it was given? All I'm searching for is an honest, man to man answer here. If you've read some of my posts you'd know I'm not "up to something" with this question.

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

Obviously this was an oversight on my part in terms of the minimum requirements.

I've pulled the review while we look into this. I certainly don't want to see a game get saddled with a score that it doesn't deserve. My apologies for this mistake.

Excellent!

However, review is still up there.

And seriously. FE currently has the best player review score of ALL released games. I would say that we need a different reviewer as well, not just a capable system.

DB

It's not still up, it's back up, with an amendment to the computer spec section after the original error was detected.

And you seriously believe that a score of 6.9 is fair, simply because the requirements are a bit more demanding than some? By that logic, EQ2 and Vanguard should have got scores of 2, respectively.
 

The only oversight here is of the quality of the game itself.

Originally posted by Haggis13

Wait... Am I correct in assuming you've just tried to cover up a fairly obvious lie about system specs by pretending the lie wasn't even there in the first place?

You certainly are,

Then there is also the issue that he has failed to address how his reviewer lied to him about the original error being a typo, when it most certainly was not. As proven time and time again throughout this thread.

Originally posted by Haggis13

Originally posted by Stradden

It's not still up, it's back up, with an amendment to the computer spec section after the original error was detected.

 

Wait... Am I correct in assuming you've just tried to cover up a fairly obvious lie about system specs by pretending the lie wasn't even there in the first place?

Wow. Ok.

Much earlier in the thread, I said that I was pulling the review until such time as I had straightened the issue out. After reaching the reviewer while he was at his day job, we discussed the matter. The specs were presented incorrectly in the first place. I don't know how to be any more clear about any of this.

So, once I had straightened that out, I re-enabled the review and informed everyone of what I understood the situation to be. If I misunderstood the man about the RAM in his video cards, that's completely possible. I'm not much of a technical guy. BUT I did ask him how much RAM the computer had. it's 4 Gigs. Which is consistent with what I knew of his system beforehand.

Now, on a personal note: I hear a lot from people who complain that developers give them the run-around and won't just tell them the truth  or will lie to appease them. While I'm not saying that I would do this, I am saying that I can see why someone, out of frustration, might resort to that when being open, honest and truthful results in stuff like this.

Disagree with the review all you want. That's completely fine. But, please check your conspiracy theories at the door.

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by Skatty2007

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by Skatty2007

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Shannia

That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

 

We are talking 'reviews' here not opinions i am afraid.

 

Reviews are opinions. It's Mr. Iuliani's call to write the review he did and give it a score that does not reflect what he has written. It's also our good fortune to be able to respond on a linked forum and state that his score is off base. We can then only hope that anyone reading the review, then looking at the score (with the subsequent thought of "WTF") will then refer to the various posts related to that thread.

Knowing that the majority of people post when they dislike something and seeing the overwhelming positive replies here for the game, and mixing that with other game sites giving more realistic scores, anyone looking for information can conclude that the score here isn't right and not to give it much credence.

Worry not. Joe Iuliani won't be the downfall of Fallen Earth. It'll do just fine without his endorsement or patronage.

 

Reviews are not opinions they are reviews and opinions are opinions...

I refer you to Skatty2007's post on page 3 of this thread :

My review of the Review of Fallen Earth:

--The reviewer suggests that starting off in a non-pistol oriented town is too difficult. This is far too much personal opinion. What works good for you "by starting off in a pistol town" may not work for someone else. It should be stated, "you can start off in a pistol, rifle, or melee town depending on what fits your initial playstyle, but neither of them are so conforming to a single combat form". Leave your opinion out of it, I have a functional brain and can make my own opinion thank you very much.

--It states that crafting in the game is extremely intensive and is worthy of its own article. But two sentences later is states "it works like most crafting systems." To me this is contradictory. If it is just like all the other crafting systems, why does it merit its own article?

--"I found it a little unwieldy with a keyboard and a mouse." Well thanks for your opinion, I found it to work best with a keyboard and a mouse. Everyone has their own way of what controls works best for them. Say something to the effect that you can use a keyboard\mouse combination or control pad depending on what gives you better control. But the way it is stated has far too much personal opinion in it. This is a review, not "Joe Schmoe's Personal Playstyle Reference Guide."

--It goes on to give advice on how to perform combat. Such as hit and move and take your time targeting. Is this an advice column? Later on he says how much he died (albeit due to lag). I'm not exactly feeling the validity of the advice here since he ended up dyeing so much. Not only that's, but this is a review , not a playguide or advice column (gee, see a recurring theme here?). If he dies cause of lag all the time, how can you properly employ hit and move to see if it is a valid combat technique? Again, leave your own expert advice out of a review please - I have a brain and will find my own technique that serves me well.

--It states the UI is fairly standard. That's just not the case. It failed to mention you can minimize everything in different positions than they are maximized, everything is resizable\adjustable (how many MMO's have you played that have the typical immovable hotbar at the bottom of the screen?) While I don't consider his write-up of the UI an opinion so I can't speak negatively about that, the review leaves out aspects of the UI that are not 'fairly standard'

--"Fast paced combat is not for everyone." Well guess what? There is no MMO or facet of an MMO that everyone is going to like. To say some people will like it and some people wont is incredibly obvious and can be said for every single game ever made in the history of gaming.

--"Fallen earth players are passionate about the game" This implies other people are not passionate about their other games. Also, are you reviewing their forums or the game? Putting a blurb in about your review of the forum is not relevant and highly subjective.

Overall score of the review of Fallen Earth: 6.9

His review only re-affirms of why I come here: Forum entertainment only.

 

Ahh, I smell what you're cooking. Your saying a review should, in essence, be (in no particular order):

1) You press enter to access the chat line.

2) The inventory is access by pressing the "I" key or clicking on the UI link marked "Inventory".

Kinda of a step by step of what does what. A mechanical or technical review as opposed to an impression or opinion review.

 

Those are a bit simplistic examples, but yes.  A review should be about how the game presents itself, not the experience that the review had while playing the game.

For instance the game may have a rich story line.  One may not like the actual story details that the game reviewer experiences, but it can be well done.  Therefore the review should say the game has a well developed story and rate the game in part on how well that story is developed, rather than the experience that reviewer had while playing out that story.  It should say something to the effect that if you one feels a rish story is important, the game may fit you well.

---------------

There is in inherent conflict of interest in making a review of a game.  You are either going to like the game or not like the game.  But one has to separate those emotions in making an unbaised review - and that has to be hard to do, I'll definitely admit that.  That's why not everyone is qualified to write a review because some people are unable to do that.

In my opinion, that was not the case for this review, therefore this review is meaningless regardless of whatever score was given.

The highlighted in an opinion. My wife is a many times published author and what for you would be a well-developed storyline for her may very well not be. If you stand by your example, then opinion is indeed apart of the review, and review contain opinion. For then not to contain opinion they need only to present cold hard facts. Basically what you get in a game manual minus the fluff/background story.

And yeah, the only thing I learned here was not to read another Joe Iuliani review or post.

 

But a story can have lots of twists and turns, in-depth, well developed, and what not.  The reader may not buy into details and the development and think it is not a very entertaining story. In this example, the review would state the writer wrote a well developed storyline, but the opinion would state the story was not captivating and boring. 

Again, whether something is well-developed or not is an opinion. Just ask the TA that graded my last paper, lol. (Hey, I got a B, it wasn't that bad, lol!).

Now, if the reviewer stated that on average you can expect to read between 2 and 3 paragraphs, 5-6 sentences each, of dialogue per quest, then that would be factual and not an opinion. The player can then read those quests and determine for themselves if it is well-developed or not.

I guess I just don't agree.  To me, there is a distinct difference between having a story be well structured\developed, and the entertainment value one gets from structure\development that the story presents to the reader.  The former pretty much takes the opinion out, and the latter is composed primarily of opinions.

Anywhoo, I see too much of the entertainment value that the reviewer got out of the game.

Geezus. Wow, yeah Jon? Swallow your pride and pull the review. Get another reviewer to review the game, and come up with a scoring which is CONSISTENT with how all other scores are given to games in MMORPG.com reviews.

But, perhaps that's the problem in and of itself: the CONSISTENCY of the reviews (and resultant reviewer scores) presented on MMORPG.com? Until then, you might want to pull this review and get that sorted out.

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by Haggis13

Originally posted by Stradden

It's not still up, it's back up, with an amendment to the computer spec section after the original error was detected.

 

Wait... Am I correct in assuming you've just tried to cover up a fairly obvious lie about system specs by pretending the lie wasn't even there in the first place?

Wow. Ok.

Much earlier in the thread, I said that I was pulling the review until such time as I had straightened the issue out. After reaching the reviewer while he was at his day job, we discussed the matter. The specs were presented incorrectly in the first place. I don't know how to be any more clear about any of this.

So, once I had straightened that out, I re-enabled the review and informed everyone of what I understood the situation to be. If I misunderstood the man about the RAM in his video cards, that's completely possible. I'm not much of a technical guy. BUT I did ask him how much RAM the computer had. it's 4 Gigs. Which is consistent with what I knew of his system beforehand.

Now, on a personal note: I hear a lot from people who complain that developers give them the run-around and won't just tell them the truth  or will lie to appease them. While I'm not saying that I would do this, I am saying that I can see why someone, out of frustration, might resort to that when being open, honest and truthful results in stuff like this.

Disagree with the review all you want. That's completely fine. But, please check your conspiracy theories at the door.

 

 I can understand everything you just said ... but really , when did we started calling 69% mediocre!? i know i left school way back , but this is just wrong!

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by Haggis13

Originally posted by Stradden

It's not still up, it's back up, with an amendment to the computer spec section after the original error was detected.

 

Wait... Am I correct in assuming you've just tried to cover up a fairly obvious lie about system specs by pretending the lie wasn't even there in the first place?

Wow. Ok.

Much earlier in the thread, I said that I was pulling the review until such time as I had straightened the issue out. After reaching the reviewer while he was at his day job, we discussed the matter. The specs were presented incorrectly in the first place. I don't know how to be any more clear about any of this.

So, once I had straightened that out, I re-enabled the review and informed everyone of what I understood the situation to be. If I misunderstood the man about the RAM in his video cards, that's completely possible. I'm not much of a technical guy. BUT I did ask him how much RAM the computer had. it's 4 Gigs. Which is consistent with what I knew of his system beforehand.

Now, on a personal note: I hear a lot from people who complain that developers give them the run-around and won't just tell them the truth  or will lie to appease them. While I'm not saying that I would do this, I am saying that I can see why someone, out of frustration, might resort to that when being open, honest and truthful results in stuff like this.

Disagree with the review all you want. That's completely fine. But, please check your conspiracy theories at the door.

 

I think some frustration over the article is leaking onto this thread becuse people (both familiar with the reviewers sys specs and those of us who aren't tech guru's) can see clearly there was a system/hardware issue with his fps. Since the negative review lists "lag" as the issue for the lower score most of us feel the review wasn't accurate.
 

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

And you can honestly sit here, look me in the virtual eye and tell me that you personally are comfortable with the written review versus the numerical score it was given? All I'm searching for is an honest, man to man answer here. If you've read some of my posts you'd know I'm not "up to something" with this question.

You're right, you deserve an answer, but the honest answer is that my opinion on the score doesn't matter. Our policy is and always has been to allow the individual reviewer complete autonomy over their score. That's our policy and will be until it's changed.

This isn't Jon's personal opinion of all games website, nor should it be.

Look, if the senior staff members and editors made the scores for all of the reviews apart from the reviewers, we'd have a whole different series of complaints to deal with.

In honor of this thread, I've created a new one in the Site Suggestions section so that people like you who have constructive suggestions for improvement, can voice them and we can collect them and assess: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/sticky/256840

Which may be true...but please explain why his system had so much trouble running this game?

I have the client on two computers

1. Win7U, quad@2.8,  8 gig Ram, 3870x2 1 gig split across 3 screens (not xfire mode) - runs 45-65fps outside of towns and 30-40fps in busy towns.

2. Vista 64bit, dual@2.83, 4 gig Ram, 3850 512mb - runs 35-40 fps outside of town and 25-30 in towns - can stutter some when I load into a town if there are tons of people/horses etc but it is still very playable.

That is without tweaking the settings and both running at 1900x1200 on 24" screens.

Originally posted by Stradden

Disagree with the review all you want. That's completely fine. But, please check your conspiracy theories at the door.

 

This is not about disagreing Stradden, but this look like a farce, with all due respect.
Of course the conspiracy theories are bullshit (I even defended you), yet it is clear you do not use a standard system to review your games..............reviews should not be just opinions of the reviewer, I hope we agree on that.

I am neither a fan or hater of FE or Aion.
Yet I played both of them and neither of them convinced me, so I don't play them.
It is not of course about my personal opinion, but the fact is that Aion is not 2.4 points better than FE.
Aion 9.3 is plain ridiculous, by any standards.

Of course you can tell us to suck it up, just because you mange the site........fair enough you are entitled to.
But it is obvious you have issues with your review system, and IMO you should address it or you should not bother at all.
What is the point of writing official reviews which the majority of people disagree with?

I hope you get my point.

Originally posted by Stradden

Wow. Ok.

Much earlier in the thread, I said that I was pulling the review until such time as I had straightened the issue out. After reaching the reviewer while he was at his day job, we discussed the matter. The specs were presented incorrectly in the first place. I don't know how to be any more clear about any of this.

So, once I had straightened that out, I re-enabled the review and informed everyone of what I understood the situation to be. If I misunderstood the man about the RAM in his video cards, that's completely possible. I'm not much of a technical guy. BUT I did ask him how much RAM the computer had. it's 4 Gigs. Which is consistent with what I knew of his system beforehand.

Now, on a personal note: I hear a lot from people who complain that developers give them the run-around and won't just tell them the truth  or will lie to appease them. While I'm not saying that I would do this, I am saying that I can see why someone, out of frustration, might resort to that when being open, honest and truthful results in stuff like this.

Disagree with the review all you want. That's completely fine. But, please check your conspiracy theories at the door.

Yes, I do apologise for being a bit eager there. I should have added I did not actually think this to be the intention. However, I DO still think the reviewer lied about his system specs. As stated time and time again in the previous posts, Corsair does not produce RAM for video cards, so if the reviewer first states he has 2GB Corsair RAM, this is very unlikely to be a mistake between video RAM and 'regular' RAM. Secondly, the video cards the reviewer has stated to have in his PC (i.e. 2x ATI Radeon 3870) have a maximum of 512MB RAM on them. Donning two of these would mean the reviewer had a max of 1GB RAM, of which, moreover, only 512MB RAM could have been actively used by Fallen Earth because the game does not support dual video cards. Those 512MB RAM are only a FOURTH of the amount listed on www.fallenearth.com as the minimum system specifications. There is no way the reviewer's system can match the minimum system requirements unless he did all of the following:

1. Made a typo in the description of his amount of RAM.
2. Mistook the manufacturer of his video RAM for the manufacturer of his RAM.
3. Posted completely inaccurate information regarding his graphics cards; it simply CANNOT be the case that he has these two video cards AND meets the minimum system requirements.

The only logical conclusion would be that this reviewer forgot to check his system specs versus the game's minimum system requirements and, when he found out about his folly, decided that a lie would be the easy way out.

Originally posted by Skatty2007

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by Skatty2007

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by Skatty2007

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by Shannia

That is the beauty of it all. We are all entitled to our own opinion and IMHO, FE is the suxors and gets a 6.5 at best.

 

 

We are talking 'reviews' here not opinions i am afraid.

 

Reviews are opinions. It's Mr. Iuliani's call to write the review he did and give it a score that does not reflect what he has written. It's also our good fortune to be able to respond on a linked forum and state that his score is off base. We can then only hope that anyone reading the review, then looking at the score (with the subsequent thought of "WTF") will then refer to the various posts related to that thread.

Knowing that the majority of people post when they dislike something and seeing the overwhelming positive replies here for the game, and mixing that with other game sites giving more realistic scores, anyone looking for information can conclude that the score here isn't right and not to give it much credence.

Worry not. Joe Iuliani won't be the downfall of Fallen Earth. It'll do just fine without his endorsement or patronage.

 

Reviews are not opinions they are reviews and opinions are opinions...

I refer you to Skatty2007's post on page 3 of this thread :

My review of the Review of Fallen Earth:

--The reviewer suggests that starting off in a non-pistol oriented town is too difficult. This is far too much personal opinion. What works good for you "by starting off in a pistol town" may not work for someone else. It should be stated, "you can start off in a pistol, rifle, or melee town depending on what fits your initial playstyle, but neither of them are so conforming to a single combat form". Leave your opinion out of it, I have a functional brain and can make my own opinion thank you very much.

--It states that crafting in the game is extremely intensive and is worthy of its own article. But two sentences later is states "it works like most crafting systems." To me this is contradictory. If it is just like all the other crafting systems, why does it merit its own article?

--"I found it a little unwieldy with a keyboard and a mouse." Well thanks for your opinion, I found it to work best with a keyboard and a mouse. Everyone has their own way of what controls works best for them. Say something to the effect that you can use a keyboard\mouse combination or control pad depending on what gives you better control. But the way it is stated has far too much personal opinion in it. This is a review, not "Joe Schmoe's Personal Playstyle Reference Guide."

--It goes on to give advice on how to perform combat. Such as hit and move and take your time targeting. Is this an advice column? Later on he says how much he died (albeit due to lag). I'm not exactly feeling the validity of the advice here since he ended up dyeing so much. Not only that's, but this is a review , not a playguide or advice column (gee, see a recurring theme here?). If he dies cause of lag all the time, how can you properly employ hit and move to see if it is a valid combat technique? Again, leave your own expert advice out of a review please - I have a brain and will find my own technique that serves me well.

--It states the UI is fairly standard. That's just not the case. It failed to mention you can minimize everything in different positions than they are maximized, everything is resizable\adjustable (how many MMO's have you played that have the typical immovable hotbar at the bottom of the screen?) While I don't consider his write-up of the UI an opinion so I can't speak negatively about that, the review leaves out aspects of the UI that are not 'fairly standard'

--"Fast paced combat is not for everyone." Well guess what? There is no MMO or facet of an MMO that everyone is going to like. To say some people will like it and some people wont is incredibly obvious and can be said for every single game ever made in the history of gaming.

--"Fallen earth players are passionate about the game" This implies other people are not passionate about their other games. Also, are you reviewing their forums or the game? Putting a blurb in about your review of the forum is not relevant and highly subjective.

Overall score of the review of Fallen Earth: 6.9

His review only re-affirms of why I come here: Forum entertainment only.

 

Ahh, I smell what you're cooking. Your saying a review should, in essence, be (in no particular order):

1) You press enter to access the chat line.

2) The inventory is access by pressing the "I" key or clicking on the UI link marked "Inventory".

Kinda of a step by step of what does what. A mechanical or technical review as opposed to an impression or opinion review.

 

Those are a bit simplistic examples, but yes.  A review should be about how the game presents itself, not the experience that the review had while playing the game.

For instance the game may have a rich story line.  One may not like the actual story details that the game reviewer experiences, but it can be well done.  Therefore the review should say the game has a well developed story and rate the game in part on how well that story is developed, rather than the experience that reviewer had while playing out that story.  It should say something to the effect that if you one feels a rish story is important, the game may fit you well.

---------------

There is in inherent conflict of interest in making a review of a game.  You are either going to like the game or not like the game.  But one has to separate those emotions in making an unbaised review - and that has to be hard to do, I'll definitely admit that.  That's why not everyone is qualified to write a review because some people are unable to do that.

In my opinion, that was not the case for this review, therefore this review is meaningless regardless of whatever score was given.

The highlighted in an opinion. My wife is a many times published author and what for you would be a well-developed storyline for her may very well not be. If you stand by your example, then opinion is indeed apart of the review, and review contain opinion. For then not to contain opinion they need only to present cold hard facts. Basically what you get in a game manual minus the fluff/background story.

And yeah, the only thing I learned here was not to read another Joe Iuliani review or post.

 

But a story can have lots of twists and turns, in-depth, well developed, and what not.  The reader may not buy into details and the development and think it is not a very entertaining story. In this example, the review would state the writer wrote a well developed storyline, but the opinion would state the story was not captivating and boring. 

Again, whether something is well-developed or not is an opinion. Just ask the TA that graded my last paper, lol. (Hey, I got a B, it wasn't that bad, lol!).

Now, if the reviewer stated that on average you can expect to read between 2 and 3 paragraphs, 5-6 sentences each, of dialogue per quest, then that would be factual and not an opinion. The player can then read those quests and determine for themselves if it is well-developed or not.

I guess I just don't agree.  To me, there is a distinct difference between having a story be well structured\developed, and the entertainment value one gets from structure\development that the story presents to the reader.  The former pretty much takes the opinion out, and the latter is composed primarily of opinions.

Anywhoo, I see too much of the entertainment value that the reviewer got out of the game.

That's cool. A "simple" example of my view is that you and I can both pick up a cup of coffee and take a sip. You may say it's too hot and wait and I may not think it is and drink it up. Both cups of coffee are measured at 100 F. That same concept, for me, can be applied to whether something is well-developed nor not. *shrug*

And yes, I can agree with you that the review was heavy on opinion and entertainment value. Some degree of opinion has to be there, though, I think, when stating how well a feature is implemented, as opposed to just stating that it is implemented.

Anyway, my whole issue was with the numerical score not matching the words written. Opinionated or not, that number should reflect what the guy wrote, and it doesn't.

i only say a thing FE is not a sandbox game

Originally posted by cyrana

 

 

On a different topic the reviewer should just post his dxdiag and we'll see if we can help him. ;)

LoL 
 

Originally posted by Aganazer

The final score made me LOL a bit. A game like Fallen Earth has ten times the staying power as a game like Aion or Champions. Icarus seems to understand what makes a MMOG tick unlike so many failed attempts in recent years.

Yeah... I think it just shows which way the site leans, as well as other sites. They *like* the easier/faster-paced MMOs, so they give them higher scores. Was reading an article from the creator of curse about Aion and he's pleading with NC to make leveling in Aion faster, increase xp rewards, etc.

I think the sum of player reviews speaks more about a game than individual reviewers' scores do, typically speaking.

From a purely game design standpoint FE is a significant release. Its been a long time since we have seen a game with compelling crafting, an open world with no zoning, multiple factions with open world PvP between them, classless characters, and persistent vehicles/mounts. Its one the few MMOG's that seems to allow and encourage different play styles such as exploring while not requiring that the game be played in a specific way. We have certainly had enough acheivement focused games in recent years!

Yep... and what gets me is how there are still people trying to shoe-horn their "race and power-level to endgame" playstyle into it. Some are becoming frustrated that the game isn't accomodating that playstyle as much as others they're used to.... and it's kinda funny to see the occasional frustrated comments from those folks in chat.

 

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

And you can honestly sit here, look me in the virtual eye and tell me that you personally are comfortable with the written review versus the numerical score it was given? All I'm searching for is an honest, man to man answer here. If you've read some of my posts you'd know I'm not "up to something" with this question.

You're right, you deserve an answer, but the honest answer is that my opinion on the score doesn't matter. Our policy is and always has been to allow the individual reviewer complete autonomy over their score. That's our policy and will be until it's changed.

This isn't Jon's personal opinion of all games website, nor should it be.

Look, if the senior staff members and editors made the scores for all of the reviews apart from the reviewers, we'd have a whole different series of complaints to deal with.

In honor of this thread, I've created a new one in the Site Suggestions section so that people like you who have constructive suggestions for improvement, can voice them and we can collect them and assess: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/sticky/256840

I get what you are saying. I was just curious if the tone and manner of those words translated to that numerical value in your mind. Not with any intent to then badger you to change it. What's done is done in my view. I was just searching for some...comfort I guess in that the ME wouldn't correlate the overly kind-worded written review with that 6.9 value.

I'd expect a 6.9 given score to have a written review that was significantly more harshly worded and with more tangible cons than "lag".

Que sera. Gonna go check out the forum you linked and then play some FE.

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

And you can honestly sit here, look me in the virtual eye and tell me that you personally are comfortable with the written review versus the numerical score it was given? All I'm searching for is an honest, man to man answer here. If you've read some of my posts you'd know I'm not "up to something" with this question.

Bite me, our web site our rules.

Why spout a thousand words when a few express your sentiments more accurately.

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by Haggis13

Originally posted by Stradden

It's not still up, it's back up, with an amendment to the computer spec section after the original error was detected.

 

Wait... Am I correct in assuming you've just tried to cover up a fairly obvious lie about system specs by pretending the lie wasn't even there in the first place?

Wow. Ok.

Much earlier in the thread, I said that I was pulling the review until such time as I had straightened the issue out. After reaching the reviewer while he was at his day job, we discussed the matter. The specs were presented incorrectly in the first place. I don't know how to be any more clear about any of this.

So, once I had straightened that out, I re-enabled the review and informed everyone of what I understood the situation to be. If I misunderstood the man about the RAM in his video cards, that's completely possible. I'm not much of a technical guy. BUT I did ask him how much RAM the computer had. it's 4 Gigs. Which is consistent with what I knew of his system beforehand.

Now, on a personal note: I hear a lot from people who complain that developers give them the run-around and won't just tell them the truth  or will lie to appease them. While I'm not saying that I would do this, I am saying that I can see why someone, out of frustration, might resort to that when being open, honest and truthful results in stuff like this.

Disagree with the review all you want. That's completely fine. But, please check your conspiracy theories at the door.

 

People typically throw around the "conspiracy theory" phrase when they have no argument. As if by saying those magic words, all is well. Sorry to break it to you, but we're not all that naive.

 If you're not going to rationalize why a relatively well-polished game like FE got a score of 6.9, while Aion (which is in no way any more innovative or substantially better of the two) somehow scored a 8.9, then I'm going to continue to suspect something isn't right here. I've played both games rather extensively since their release and there's no way that such an immense gap in score is merited.

I understand that everyone has their own opinion, and that much of what I've said is subjective, but if you look at the qualities of the game alone, and the relative stability of it's launch (which is even more emphasized considering it was developed by an indy company), it undoubtedly deserves a better score than what it's received, I don't care how you try to spin it. 
 

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

I guess I just don't agree.  To me, there is a distinct difference between having a story be well structured\developed, and the entertainment value one gets from structure\development that the story presents to the reader.  The former pretty much takes the opinion out, and the latter is composed primarily of opinions.

Anywhoo, I see too much of the entertainment value that the reviewer got out of the game.

That's cool. A "simple" example of my view is that you and I can both pick up a cup of coffee and take a sip. You may say it's too hot and wait and I may not think it is and drink it up. Both cups of coffee are measured at 100 F. That same concept, for me, can be applied to whether something is well-developed nor not. *shrug*

And yes, I can agree with you that the review was heavy on opinion and entertainment value. Some degree of opinion has to be there, though, I think, when stating how well a feature is implemented, as opposed to just stating that it is implemented.

Anyway, my whole issue was with the numerical score not matching the words written. Opinionated or not, that number should reflect what the guy wrote, and it doesn't.

Interesting point about the coffee example.

One thing is for sure - we both agree that this review of Fallen Earth isn't the highest quality review that this site has ever published!

And shame on you for making me hungry for guacamole dip earlier - I am on a diet! 

The tone and the descriptions of the review do not match the score. They are far more positive.

Giving 6.9 is very underhanded as it clearly goes for a psychological barrier, trying to make it look worse than it is. People focus on the first number. That why everyhing costs 9.99

While it is clearly valid point to bring up system performance this is a topic that needs to be carefully researched and proven that is a global issue rather than a local one.

Imagine the best game you ever played, but for some reason is extremely laggy on your computer. Does that warrant a negative review? I do not think it does. It may be just your computer.  A good reviewer needs to know that.

This review makes mmorpg.com look sad, I hate to say it but im very disappointed.

Myself i have Phenom X4 9950, 4 gig ram, nvidia 260GTX, playing on windows 7x64. I GET NO LAG,NO FPS STUTTERING, game runs just fine. I get in the range of 40+ in towns, and 120+ out in the wild.

I think you need to check reviewers specs to ensure he's not chocking your rock on his spec's.

 I registered on this site because of this review.

The author is a moron who has no business reviewing a PC game. First of all, he pines for a console controller IN AN FPS!

He complains about lag and lists it as the only CON. Yet that could be hiccups due to the launch or his own specs. MMORPG's score for the game for all time is based on this idiot's lag within a few weeks of launch when countless people are downloading the game/patches/etc?

Finally, as someone pointed out, the score is clearly designed to present a psychological barrier. We all know that the difference between a 6.9 and a 7.0 is essentially as big as a 6.0 and a 7.0. A 7 is a pretty god game. A 6.0-6.9 is a POS.

Joe Iuliani is a ****head.

I have to say the only thing I see that is mediocre when I read this review is the reviewer. The reason you are lagging so much is more or less your system settings rather than the game itself. I know plenty of people who play this game (I do not though) and they say it is a smooth running game. I am sorry, but this websites reviewers have gone downhill from being knowledgable to clueless.

This whole situation is hilarious.

I agree with the general sentiment of this thread, I really do. Considering the sheer multitude of games reviewed on this site, from a sheer probability standpoint, this score does not make any sense at all, let alone in the context of the (very) positive review.

To the Staff:

The frusteration stems from the fact that A) this game is the first unique MMO since AC, B) The review it's self is actally quite positive, and B) A lot of people like it the game a lot.

So much of what makes MMOs successfull is their population, and reviews like this have the capability to cause serious damage to the growth of the game, and when that is placed on the backdrop of score that seems ridiculous, it's incredibly frustrating.
 

Yes, he has every right to put down his opinion in the review. However, as the central discussion forum for an entire genre, reviewers (especially of smaller, independent games) have an incredible amount of power. 


On the flip side, most people in this thread should be ashamed. You've turned what is at worse, a mistake, and at best, is a difference of opinion into some sort of collossal affront to human decency. This stopped being a discussion, and started being a lynch mob a long time ago.

I want to see the game succeed as much as anyone else here, but some moderation needs to be employed.

Stradden, you've handled this very well, and I respect the way you've stuck up for your reviewers.
 

Originally posted by Stradden

"Ok guys,
Obviously this was an oversight on my part in terms of the minimum requirements.
I've pulled the review while we look into this. I certainly don't want to see a game get saddled with a score that it doesn't deserve. My apologies for this mistake."

I though this bullshit review was being pulled for further investigation? I guess the site editors are just as clueless as this reviewer.

Originally posted by LethalBurst

I guess the site editors are just as clueless as this reviewer.

Pretty Much

Ok here are my specs, which are below the reviewers:

3.6 ghz p4

ati 4850 Hd 500mb

3gb ram

7500 rpm raptor drive

XP pro

game running at 1900x1200,   AA x8, medium terrain and character texture, all other settings set to 80%

Now why is it with a system inferior to the reviewers I do not have the lag problems that he has?  Is there lag in the cities when they are crowded?  Yes there is.  BUT, it is comparable too, if not less than Aion and Champions Online which just launched also.  It runs better for me than AOC and Vanguard.  I get a range of fps of 20 to 50 typically.  Sometimes it will dip below that if it is really crowded.  Now when I get out into the wild it goes up to 30 to 70 depending on what I'm looking at.

Icarus could definitely improve performance, but the game has only been out about a month.  I remember how laggy Iron Forge was in WOW when it was new and sometimes, even with their very basic graphics I would lag out.  And that was WOW! Why is the game so heavily penalized for lag when other mmo's  with similar lag and performance issues scored much higher?

They have given us, the players who have been crying for something other than the standard WOW clone, something to enjoy.  It's an amazing game, and it does not deserve this score. 

I was a SWG vet.  Now this is not SWG (which was also imperfect).  I am only in S1 and I am still a newb.  But I find myself loving this game and I think it has something special.  Something intangible that other releases this year have been missing.   I have said it before with other games, I vote with my dollars. 

Well I am casting a vote of confidence in favor of Icarus. 

I fully agree that this makes mmorpg.com look pretty bad.

I really wish they would give games the reviewers they deserve. As in; people who have something going for the specific sub-genres, whether it is sandboxes, pve centered games, pvp centered games, space mmorpg's, etc. People who dive into a new release within their sub-genre of choice and try to give all they got to see what a game is all about. Not merely playing it to write a review, but playing it because they love playing games of a certain type.

Those kind of people might NOT be so easily put off by some client side latency issues and get to the bottom of it (and read up on the optimization guide on the Fallen Earth forums, for instance) instead of letting this very personal issue influence their final verdict that much.

I mean how hard is it to find out that your own problem is not something others are experiencing?

Bad,

Biased,

Bullsh*t

p.s.

Our Rating 6.9 (was signed, Joe Iuliani)

User Rating: 8.4 (Based on 323 total votes)

Says it all really ...

edit: there is a perfect system for user rating implemented on mmorpg.com (though it needs more different aspects to vote on), why even go for these random hit or miss 'independent reviewer' marks and highlight them anyway? Go for reviews without attached ratings and highlight the player ratings instead and be proud of it.

From a reviewers standpoint , I don't Think Aion deserved a 8.7.But I do agree that FE deserves a mid 6 or so.I Think FE is a great game if compared to games of its likeness.BUt as an MMO overall I think it is kinda mediocre,It didn't grab me and make me want to keep playing.I also have been experiencing some lag a bit , but even when the game is running smooth it doesn't strike me as even close to one of the better games i played.So I say Kudo's to the editor and the reviewer for standing there ground.

So my opinion is for it's style and type it's a great game.But for its actual gameplay,funfactor,and such I would say its mediocre.I have a feeling the reviewer has the same perception as I do.

Originally posted by korndog22

From a reviewers standpoint , I don't Think Aion deserved a 8.7.But I do agree that FE deserves a mid 6 or so.I Think FE is a great game if compared to games of its likeness.BUt as an MMO overall I think it is kinda mediocre,It didn't grab me and make me want to keep playing.I also have been experiencing some lag a bit , but even when the game is running smooth it doesn't strike me as even close to one of the better games i played.So I say Kudo's to the editor and the reviewer for standing there ground.

So my opinion is for it's style and type it's a great game.But for its actual gameplay,funfactor,and such I would say its mediocre.I have a feeling the reviewer has the same perception as I do.

Yeah man. Nothing better than a review site that has a completely different opinion about games than its own user base. That's sooo useful... 

 This is getting out of control,does anyone at MMORPG.com even proof read these review's now?or are they simply added to the site?

Why someone as a reviewer is using a gimped system for review's is bad enough,I mean come on 2gb RAM with Vista for game play!

But then they complain about the lag..it beg's belief. 

I honestly thought the Aion review was the bottom of the barrel but it seem's not,It would seem this site has become little more than a gossip column and advertising site.

The powers that be(yes Jon I am looking at you) get this sorted or the "delete account" will be getting used,A shameful and woeful review.

 In my humble opinion (though I know it wasn't asked - at least not in this thread)... I think mmorpg.com does need to seriously re-think how they present their reviews.... revise their review criteria, set a standard that every other reviewer has to follow... *something* to inject some kind of consistency into it.

Because, while I can understand when Stradden says "different people review the games and have different opinions than other reviewers"... that's great on its face. But...

Here's the the problem. When people see a review here, they see it as "MMORPG.com's review of XYZ game". When game websites cite reviews and comments and scores given here in their "accolades" section or whatever... It's cited as "MMORPG.COM"... not the name of the reviewer. I've seen ads for games in magazines and there will be quotes from this site (and others), cited as "MMORPG.COM"...

Do you see what's happening here?

Every review that's put out by this site is seen as being the official opinion of mmorpg.com as a whole - not merely the person who wrote it.

I think it's time you people at mmorpg.com realize this site's "grown up". You're not a small, upstart site like you were some years back. Your name (for better or worse) carries weight and anything you put out in terms of reviews is seen as being the collective opinion of the site... just like IGN's, or any gaming magazine. 

I think this is why people react the way they do to such all over the place reviews... You're trying to cling to that "individuals' reviews" approach, but your website has grown way beyond that. Beyond this site, MMORPG.com is a presence unto itself, it's beyond the individuals who edit or write for it. So when you defend the reviews by saying "well that's what those individuals think", it sounds very disingenuous.

Again.. just my thoughts... but I think you guys need to seriously reassess the way you handle reviews and rate games.

A good place to start might be what was suggested.... do away with number scores. Those seem to create the most uproar - unless that's what you're after.

Fire the reviewer, Did you seriously go there expecting some 100million budget game? Btw really nice computer you got there.

Let's put things straight here.

A review should be unbiased (or at least try), I am not getting why people are accepting the reviews are a personal matter.
They should not be a personal matter, in particular when they rappresent the official view of the site/magazine/paper.

The difference between a reviewer and average Joe is that the reviewer should base the review on objective points, and they should not score products based on their preference.

If a reviewer is writing just his opinion then what is the point of the review?
There are already thousands of people posting everyday their opinion in this forums, why should the reviewer opinion be more qualified than mine or the person next to me?

I played every major MMO released since UO, like many of us in this forum.
So why the opinion of this guy should be more valid than mine for example?
The only reason would be because he can discuss the game with more objectivity than most of us with equal if not better experience than him.
If it fails to do so and he bases his review on his opinion, then it defeats the point of the review, since his biased opinion might clash with the view of more experienced people, or people with more common sense than him.

In short reviewer should be able to say they do not like a particular feature, whilst at the same time admitting that the same feature can contribute to other people fun.
When you review Aion you need to put yourself in the shoes of the casual/themepark player, when you review FE you put yourself in the shoes of the sandbox player.
You do not evaluate both games with the same measure.
If you are not able to do so, it means the reviewer is not the job for you.
 

Originally posted by ste2000

Let's put things straight here.

A review should be unbiased (or at least try), I am not getting why people are accepting the reviews are a personal matter.
They should not be a personal matter, in particular when they rappresent the official view of the site/magazine/paper.

The difference between a reviewer and average Joe is that the reviewer should base the review on objective points, and they should not score products based on their preference.

If a reviewer is writing just his opinion then what is the point of the review?
There are already thousands of people posting everyday their opinion in this forums, why should the reviewer opinion be more qualified than mine or the person next to me?

I played every major MMO released since UO, like many of us in this forum.
So why the opinion of this guy should be more valid than mine for example?
The only reason would be because he can discuss the game with more objectivity than most of us with equal if not better experience than him.
If it fails to do so and he bases his review on his opinion, then it defeats the point of the review, since his biased opinion might clash with the view of more experienced people, or people with more common sense than him.

In short reviewer should be able to say they do not like a particular feature, whilst at the same time admitting that the same feature can contribute to other people fun.
When you review Aion you need to put your shoes to the casual/themepark player, when you review FE you put yourself in the shoes of the sandbox player.
You do not evaluate both games with the same measure.
If you are not able to do so, it means the reviewer is not the job for you.
 

STE he should also read the game requirements before he plays,his system is below the game requirements so I ask again why is this review on this site?

A joke it really is,I normally read reviews and see the reviewer's specs are well above the the game's specs,this has to be the 1st time a review has been done with below the game specs...I mean why even bother?

Originally posted by WSIMike

 In my humble opinion (though I know it wasn't asked - at least not in this thread)... I think mmorpg.com does need to seriously re-think how they present their reviews.... revise their review criteria, set a standard that every other reviewer has to follow... *something* to inject some kind of consistency into it.

Because, while I can understand when Stradden says "different people review the games and have different opinions than other reviewers"... that's great on its face. But...

Here's the the problem. When people see a review here, they see it as "MMORPG.com's review of XYZ game". When game websites cite reviews and comments and scores given here in their "accolades" section or whatever... It's cited as "MMORPG.COM"... not the name of the reviewer. I've seen ads for games in magazines and there will be quotes from this site (and others), cited as "MMORPG.COM"...

Do you see what's happening here?

Every review that's put out by this site is seen as being the official opinion of mmorpg.com as a whole - not merely the person who wrote it.

I think it's time you people at mmorpg.com realize this site's "grown up". You're not a small, upstart site like you were some years back. Your name (for better or worse) carries weight and anything you put out in terms of reviews is seen as being the collective opinion of the site... just like IGN's, or any gaming magazine. 

I think this is why people react the way they do to such all over the place reviews... You're trying to cling to that "individuals' reviews" approach, but your website has grown way beyond that. Beyond this site, MMORPG.com is a presence unto itself, it's beyond the individuals who edit or write for it. So when you defend the reviews by saying "well that's what those individuals think", it sounds very disingenuous.

Again.. just my thoughts... but I think you guys need to seriously reassess the way you handle reviews and rate games.

 

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/256840/Review-Policy-Suggestions.html

Jon (Stradden) put up this forum for such suggestions generated from this discussion. Please do jump on over and add to what is building there. Hopefully we, the site viewers, can provide a few good ideas they can incorporate into the current system. Hey, it's a start, right?

The issue here is not the quality of the reviewer, its the quality of the editor.  If this review had been properly proof read this poorly writen peice would never had made it online.  Bottom line is any low grade moron can write an article and send it to be presented to the public but a publication has Proofreaders and editors whos job it is to sift through all the crap.  Place this firmly in the lap of the editor, my gawd, he didnt even catch the typos.

System specs:

 Stradden, saying stop the conspiracy theories is a weak response to the minimum requirements discussion. Looking at some of the posts regarding the amount of RAMs in your reviewers video cards, his mentioning of his video RAM as being Corsair and all that, it is obvious that something fishy is likely to be going on with that reviewer. 

I am not saying he is definately lying, but if the stars have to align for a person to not be lying then its most likely that lying is indeed whats happening. And the stars would have had to align for all the errors the reviewer made in talking about his system specifications to be true. 

That being said it seems fairly obvious for you to ask him for a dxdiag, check it out, come back here and then either crush the conspiracy part of the discussion with hard evidence that makes sense in regards to his specs, or telling your community that you have terminated your lying employee. Only course of action with regards to the system specs part imo.

Second, the part about the score matching the review, and you wanting to give reviewers totally free hands in determining the score: 

Your scores are interpreted as mmorpg.coms scores even if done by freelancing writers. This means people will come to the site, see a list of games and think they can compare the scores the games in between. This should in my opinion be the case, but if you dont think it should, the lists and everywhere else with scores should definately clearly state that theres is no relationship in between scores. Although this direction would mean that you might aswell not feature scores as they are only usefull to make easy comparisons across a big list about which games are best.

Secondly giving direction and a sort of "scale" to your reviewers does not constitute you influencing the scores as long as every reviewer is given the same directions and scale. What I personally think a reviewer should be trying to do is objectively describe what the different aspects/game design of a game is, and in the end scoring it how the reviewer thinks people who like that kind of game would score it. What I mean here is not that he should give fanboi scores, but that he should write a review describing what type of game you are dealing with and then making a score that sort of sums up how well done the focus of the game is. Meaning that f.ex. if I like a WoW type game and see a review of EvE I should not necessarily think WoW is "better" if WoW got a better score. What I should be able to do though is see that WoW implemented the stuff that blizzard wanted to be the focus of their game better than CCP implemented the stuff that they wanted EvE to focus on. Still meaning that if I liked sandbox player driven content I would be better off choosing EvE even though EvE might have gotten a lower score. I should see this not by the score, but by the review. If however I have reviews of games that are fairly similar in what gameplay is focused on, then I want to be able to use the score to see which game its most likely that I would like the most. Meaning that comparing Aion/WoW/Everquest type  games on score should make sense. 

Meaning that reviewers should be given guidelines saying: Imagine you like PvE questgrinding/raiding whatever types of games, how good does this game cater to what you like ? Using the review text to "box in" the game where its sort of obvious which other games it can resonably be compared with in terms of features and focus, and then using the score to determine how likely it will be for a guy who thinks he will like the kind of game described in the review to actually want to keep plaiying it. Of course you should as a reader not be taken by surprise by the final grade, meaning that the review should match the grade in terms of pros and cons.

Just my points.(Edited for grammar)

Overall review was pretty good.

The score?  LOL I'm not one to 'troll', but Houston we have a problem.

The genre finally gets a different kind of MMO and the 'official' MMORPG.com reviewer has a problem with mouse and keyboard?  Really?  Anybody that has played just about every kind of game on the PC uses the mouse and keyboard...let's name a few shall we?  This list will include only games I've played and will not be indicative of every game I've played, but for example purposes only.  Again these are PC versions not console

Oblivion - check

LOTR - check

COD (any version) - check

Mouse and keyboard is pretty standard now a days and has been for some time for many mainstream games.

The overall review was great on the game but I think the reviewer let his/her personal opinion in, which pretty much seemed to have been getting owned in game and getting bad lagg because of his computer (btw i think they edited out the specs).

Great, now this site is allowing TROLLS to make its reviews? This just can't even make the difference between low FPS and lag. It's just idiot trying to play anything in Windows Vista with just 2 GB os memory. First i was upste becouse this site clearly sold its review to Aion's creators, becouse that game will never deserv 8.7 anyware, and will never be the best mmo released, its just an stupid grind fest.

The note is totally incompatible with the great game FE is, and even with the entire review, that has more good things to say about the game than bad things(the only complaint was the lag, that on truth was low FPS becouse the reviwer's bad system). This game for sure deserves another review, and by some one professional, that knows how to trully review a mmorpg.

Originally posted by Delphos

Great, know this site is allowing TROLLS to make its reviews? This just can't even make the difference between low FPS and lag. It's just idiot trying to play anything in Windows Vista with just 2 GB os memory.  First i was upste becouse this site clearly sold its review to Aion's creators, becouse that game will never deserv 8.7 anyware, and will never be the best mmo released, its just an stupid grind fest.

The note is totally incompatible with the great game FE is, and even with the entire review, that has more good things to say about the game than bad things(the only complaint was the lag, that on truth was low FPS becouse the reviwer's bad system).  This game for sure deserves another review, and by some one professional, that knows how to trully review a mmorpg. 

Agreed.

NVM

Originally posted by WSIMike

 In my humble opinion (though I know it wasn't asked - at least not in this thread)... I think mmorpg.com does need to seriously re-think how they present their reviews.... revise their review criteria, set a standard that every other reviewer has to follow... *something* to inject some kind of consistency into it.

Because, while I can understand when Stradden says "different people review the games and have different opinions than other reviewers"... that's great on its face. But...

Here's the the problem. When people see a review here, they see it as "MMORPG.com's review of XYZ game". When game websites cite reviews and comments and scores given here in their "accolades" section or whatever... It's cited as "MMORPG.COM"... not the name of the reviewer. I've seen ads for games in magazines and there will be quotes from this site (and others), cited as "MMORPG.COM"...

Do you see what's happening here?

Every review that's put out by this site is seen as being the official opinion of mmorpg.com as a whole - not merely the person who wrote it.

I think it's time you people at mmorpg.com realize this site's "grown up". You're not a small, upstart site like you were some years back. Your name (for better or worse) carries weight and anything you put out in terms of reviews is seen as being the collective opinion of the site... just like IGN's, or any gaming magazine. 

I think this is why people react the way they do to such all over the place reviews... You're trying to cling to that "individuals' reviews" approach, but your website has grown way beyond that. Beyond this site, MMORPG.com is a presence unto itself, it's beyond the individuals who edit or write for it. So when you defend the reviews by saying "well that's what those individuals think", it sounds very disingenuous.

Again.. just my thoughts... but I think you guys need to seriously reassess the way you handle reviews and rate games.

A good place to start might be what was suggested.... do away with number scores. Those seem to create the most uproar - unless that's what you're after.

Brilliant post. I think you've hit the nail on the head here.

6.9 is abit too low for this game. Especially compared to how high they rated Aion. But FE is laggy as hell indeed

He stated 2GB of Corsair system RAM in the AoC review in July and again in the WoW review earlier this year and over a year ago in the Hellgate review. Same system, same amount of RAM stated.
Look... I understand the ego and pride of writing a review piece and putting it up on a gaming site, but I don't think it's very fair to mislead. Just accept your system wasn't up to snuff and you made a little mistake. Remove the review and move on. These things can happen. You just learn and keep on going.

Fallen Earth makes the list of top ten since WoW, and the site's official reviewer gives it a 6.9...

Originally posted by Goob

 

An indie company took on the challenge of making an original, sandbox game (which is SO rare) and the game actually had a good launch. This is already quite remarkable. The difference in the community score and the reviewer`s score leaves a bad taste in my mouth, its as if the reviewer didn`t like the game much and scored according to that rather than the relatively neutral review he wrote.

Being an indie company does not excuse a game from the same review from the press that the big games get.  I'm tired of seeing this sentence thrown around.  Taking a chance is risky, but just being glowingly positive about something because it took that chance does more to damage a genre than being critical of it. 

What a JOKE!

Come on... MMORPG.com is a very well known gaming website but the best you can do is hire someone with a below average PC??

You have got to be kidding me... any gamer knows minimum requirements means "don't bother you are not going to have an enjoyable experience." and this guy is going to review the game for the masses?? wtf?

This is just laughable... and to argue oh he did meet minimum by a pubic hair or what not is an even bigger joke. Seriously if someone is going to take a Icarus studio's years of blood, sweat and tears and give it a score to a very commercial website they better have a damn good rig or even several to dispute if it was an actual problem from the user's end or the games.

Like someone else previously posted... MAKE THE REVIEWER send you a DXDIAG because this is some fishy sh!t with him stating oh ya I have 2gb crucial ram... wait I was referring video card ram... and then his model video card never even came in a 1gb model.... yaaaa this is not fishy at all.

Personally, I would like to see MMORPG.com change its review policies.  I would suggest that, every time a game is reviewed, it should be reviewed by a total of three people.  These people should not talk to each other about the game, and their scores should be averaged once the reviews are complete.  This would result in more realistic scores that prevent games from getting a poor rating just because they don't suit one person's playstyle.  I do understand that it might take longer and fewer games would be able to be reviewed, but I honestly believe it would result in better information for those trying to decide whether or not to go out and pick up the game.

Originally posted by Stradden

Ok guys,

I've spoken extensively with the reviewer. There was actually a mistake made in the original text. Originally, he was talking about the RAM in the dual video cards, and neglected to mention system RAM. His machine, on top of the video cards, has 4 Gb RAM, more than enough to meet the minimum requirements.

He also assures me that the offending lag comes at peak times and the game does run more smootly when there are fewer players online.

My sincere apologies for any problems that this caused to people. As you can imagine, this has been a bit of an embarasing situation for me. I really should have caught this on my edit of the review. So, continue to crucify me if you want to, but that was my bad and I'm sorry.

As for the score: That's the score that the reviewer chose to give the game. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it but in the end when asked that the game was worth, he told me 6.9. Not everyone is going to like the same kinds of game. In the end, a reviewer scores a game based on his or her own opinions of it.

 

"I am running Fallen Earth with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 4 Gigs of RAM and cable modem." nice edit but um still some things here hes runing crossfire with both those ATI Radeon HD 3850 whiich atm are of dubious ram 1 gig each 512?
 

an yes they made 1gig versions of those cards . www.amazon.com/PALIT-MULTIMEDIA-INC-38500-HD02/dp/B001CWCM0G/ref=sr_1_1 has one for 43 bucks. theirs a reson why their so cheep. as one site put it if one ATI Radeon HD 3850 is about 2/3rd of a 8800gtx then 2 would be..it could be the cards or crossfire thats the lag. oir he could have stayed in one area that bad for lag people have mentioned on this site./shrug cnet review mentions how that card in crossifre has problems with some games.another points out you wount be playing crysis with it..

either way thats his reson for the score is lag.an yet of all the reviews by players an forum posts only a few have lag problems most do not.now i dont play this game .but down the road i just might.are you sure he knows the difrence tween a 6 an 8?because reading the review then seeing the numbers they dont match the review.

again i dont play this game.dont realy have a dog in this fight so to speek other than haveing a poorly spelled opion .which aprently is all the review "finger in the wind" is as well. 6.9 for the review of the review. i expect better from this site in the future.

Originally posted by jdlamson75

Fallen Earth makes the list of top ten since WoW, and the site's official reviewer gives it a 6.9...

 

MMORPG.COM really screwed the pooch on this and I can say this since I started on this website back in 2004.

Honestly, as much as I like coming to this website to post my thoughts, I don't think I can ever take their reviews seriously now.

My rant goes as far back with Age of Conan and Warhammer Online.

They need to revamp the way they  review mmo's, if their going to use a numerical #s to rate a game.

I am starting to believe that bones gets thrown to the highest bidder who advertises with them. But money talks even more now.

Its best to use multiple sources to get the right information anyways about a game your interested in playing.

In my opinion, this score was a slap in the face to Icarus and the score doesn't even add up right...

????????   way better than a 6.9...geez

I can understand why players that like Aion or other pretty fantasy mmorpg wouldn´t like Fallen Earth, it is simply too different of a game; "too american" with dirty post apocalyptics surrounding and lots of weapons.

But reviewers are supposed to be genre neutral so I don´t understand the 6.9 rating at all. And looking at his conclusion:

"Fallen Earth will certainly find its niche with a particular type of player. The open advancement system certainly holds a great appeal for players tired of being pigeon holed by traditional class systems. The fast paced nature of the combat system is certainly not for everybody. I personally found the game a little difficult to play, perhaps it was the lag. For those looking for a solid challenge, Fallen Earth is for you. There is no cookie cutter format with this type of game play. You are what you make yourself in this game. Do you challenge yourself to be the ultimate warrior or the ultimate crafter? The greater the challenge the greater the reward for players. According to the folks at Fallen Earth, the best items in the game are player created. There is nothing standing between a player and their in game greatness other than the time and effort the player is willing to invest. There is less of a random element involved, but it will be up to the players to figure out what path they should follow."

Makes me wonder what rating he would give EvE online? His main issue for giving such low score to Fallen Earth, according to his conclusion, is that he finds the game too difficult? Eh? Both games are difficults and have the sandbox aspects and appeal to a "certain niche of players".

Ok, so have read the whole thread now and all I can see is that:

1. The reviewer didn't meet min specs.

2. Lied to Stradden about it being a mistake. Says he actually has 4 gigs of ram.

3. Says that the 2gb was for his "Corsair" Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, which disn't come out in 1gb cards (so another lie to try cover up the first).

4. It wont get changed or taken down becuase mmorpg allows people to review the games however they choose. They can give obvious unfair scores since it's only thier opinion, which is based off playing the game below min specs!

Originally posted by lestaticon

He stated 2GB of Corsair system RAM in the AoC review in July and again in the WoW review earlier this year and over a year ago in the Hellgate review. Same system, same amount of RAM stated.
Look... I understand the ego and pride of writing a review piece and putting it up on a gaming site, but I don't think it's very fair to mislead. Just accept your system wasn't up to snuff and you made a little mistake. Remove the review and move on. These things can happen. You just learn and keep on going.

Originally posted by Gabby-air

Fire the reviewer,

Perhaps they need to pass pink slips a bit higher up the chain as well.

I'll add to the chorus of dissent here, because this really is a poor performance from mmorpg.com. It is also a real shame that it happened to FE and Icarus.

For many of us, FE genuinely has an innovative, finally-something-a-bit-different quality. A quality which I've read calls for in plenty of articles that I've read on this site, since I started visiting a couple of years ago. The irony is incredible. Finally, something a little different does appear on the mmo scene and the standard of the review on the site that you would expect to treat the game more seriously than perhaps other gaming sites would, is just plain shoddy, and very unfair.

I see two serious mistakes on the part of *both* the reviewer and the editors with broader responsibility for what appears on mmporg.com. One, not making absolutely sure that the system requirements of the reviewer's computer meet the minimum requirements plainly stated by Icarus. This is just a basic competency that ought to go hand-in-hand with running a site like this and publishing reviews. It does not matter, Jon, that you are personally not an expert in the technology. It is then your responsibility to consult with someone who *is* an expert, and who you trust to give sound technical advice.

Two, defending the review by saying it is an opinion. Others have pointed out that at this point in its "lifetime" this is not a valid policy for mmporg.com, and nor is it particularly helpful to both publish a number (6.9 in this case) and *at the same time* take this attitude to reviews. The purpose of distilling the essence of a review by giving a single number is to enable direct comparison between games, ease of ranking, etc. so to argue that two reviews on this site simply represent two opinions and are not comparable, and to also give numbers, is just plain silly.

Overall, a hugely dissapointing "event" to read about here.

Originally posted by lestaticon

He stated 2GB of Corsair system RAM in the AoC review in July and again in the WoW review earlier this year and over a year ago in the Hellgate review. Same system, same amount of RAM stated.
Look... I understand the ego and pride of writing a review piece and putting it up on a gaming site, but I don't think it's very fair to mislead. Just accept your system wasn't up to snuff and you made a little mistake. Remove the review and move on. These things can happen. You just learn and keep on going.

Nice catch, Lestaticon!

I think at this point he should just come clean.  This game is by no means perfect.  No mmo is.  But Fallen Earth, Icarus, and mmo fans deserve another review, this time by someone with a bit more integrity and a gaming rig that atleast meets recommended specs.  Even my outdated rig runs the game better than his computer, if he is to be believed...

I dont post much on these forums, but in this case i just had to say something. 99% of all the MMORPGs out there are waaaay to easy and the reviewer is complaining that the game is hard??? The weird part is its not even that hard, you just have to search for some information before starting, or consider your first caracter a test one, then make a second one and you'll be fine. Whats so hard about the fact that you need to choose skills? Well DooH. MMOs are about having choices and people were craving for them for a long time now that we have them you want to cry about having too much choices??? The only one thing it was true in the review is the fact that the game has a steap learning curve, well yeah it has, so what? With the latest patch they added a lot more missions fro beginers to explain how everything works. I for one, wasent in beta, my first day of playing was on 9Sept. and learned the game, AND i only used the Help chanel ingame 2 or 3 times. I learned for myself and i'm doing fine.

Also, you had lag, oh my, well guess what, i dont have almost ANY lag, and i live in Poland (I guess i need to spewcify to you Poland is in Europe) No point in writing more here but this review HAS to be taken down and somebody who is NOT a WOW fan should write the review, or someone who can really be impartial.

I think you guys focus way to much on the score. Sure the Aion score was abit to high and the FE was maybe abit to low.

But...

Even if I enjoyed FE alot and havent even bothered to try Aion I can see that it deserves a highere score. This IS NOT about your personal opionion on what kind of features you like in a game but the overall quality of it.

Around 7-0 sounds fair for a game like FE where the combat, AI and graphics/performance are far from good.

Aion on the other hand is a solid game which seems (havent played it) to be of very high quality. 8.7 is still way to high for a korean version of WoW though but I guess around 8 would be good.

I think MMORPG.COM should change their scorig to just 1-5 stars to just reflect the overall quality of the game and make the score less controversial. But Im sure they want their reviews to be controversial just to generate traffic and get more money from adds.

This how I would like to see the score scale here:

1 Star - Some really bad asian grinder

2 Stars - Darkfall

3 Stars - Fallen Earth, Champions

4 Stars - Aion, LotrO

5 Stars - No MMO deserves it yet.

I got a lot of respect for MMORPG.com and i pretty much always look to it for reliable and informative advice on my favourite genre of computer games.

However i simply cant stand by without having a significant moan about this fallen earth review. i think youve gotten it VERY VERY wrong in this case and i really think you should consider a re-review. Ive been playing FE for 200+ hours now and im finding it one of the most original, exciting and innovative mmo's thats been out for a long time. the sort of mmo that a web site like this should be jubilant over purely because its trying to do something a little different!

Yes there is some technical issues with the game but they are easily overcome with a little research and tweaking which i suspect your reviewer didnt do either.

This is kinda reminding me of the whole Tasos/Darkfall/Eurogamer review scandal. The reviewer hasnt done his job properly AND FE DESERVES A RE-REVIEW!!

Originally posted by Terranah

Originally posted by lestaticon

He stated 2GB of Corsair system RAM in the AoC review in July and again in the WoW review earlier this year and over a year ago in the Hellgate review. Same system, same amount of RAM stated.
Look... I understand the ego and pride of writing a review piece and putting it up on a gaming site, but I don't think it's very fair to mislead. Just accept your system wasn't up to snuff and you made a little mistake. Remove the review and move on. These things can happen. You just learn and keep on going.

 

Nice catch, Lestaticon!

 

I think at this point he should just come clean.  This game is by no means perfect.  No mmo is.  But Fallen Earth, Icarus, and mmo fans deserve another review, this time by someone with a bit more integrity and a gaming rig that atleast meets recommended specs.  Even my outdated rig runs the game better than his computer, if he is to be believed...

/bump this info. Stradden still ignorant?

 I'm really curious about the lag comments, because while I've been expecting it as I keep hearing people go "oh boy Embry" and such because of the lag supposedly caused by all the people and horses and such, I actually haven't encountered any lag at all. I mean, I'm glad, I don't want lag, but I don't know where other people with somewhat similar systems are getting it from. The game does seem to be very picky about drivers, maybe it's related?

Joe Iuliani system specs: aoc re-review

I am running AoC with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem.

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/15/view/reviews/load/67/World-of-Warcraft-Wrath-of-the-Lich-King-Review.html

Joe Iuliani system specs Wotlk:

Performance/Lag:

I am running the game with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem.
 

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/15/view/reviews/load/67/World-of-Warcraft-Wrath-of-the-Lich-King-Review.html

Joe Iuliani Dungeon Runners:

I am running the game with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem.

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/247/view/reviews/load/59/Dungeon-Runners-Dungeon-Runners-Review.html

Joe Iuliania: Hellgate London

I am running the game with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem.

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/314/view/reviews/load/60/Hellgate-London-Review.html

Is this guy for real? After all these reviews where he wrote his system specs -> now he just lied he didn't mean 2GB ram but 4GB ram? And you stradden just accepts it and let it go? 

Originally posted by majinant

Ok, so have read the whole thread now and all I can see is that:

1. The reviewer didn't meet min specs.

2. Lied to Stradden about it being a mistake. Says he actually has 4 gigs of ram.

3. Says that the 2gb was for his "Corsair" Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, which disn't come out in 1gb cards (so another lie to try cover up the first).

4. It wont get changed or taken down becuase mmorpg allows people to review the games however they choose. They can give obvious unfair scores since it's only thier opinion, which is based off playing the game below min specs!

 

Originally posted by lestaticon

He stated 2GB of Corsair system RAM in the AoC review in July and again in the WoW review earlier this year and over a year ago in the Hellgate review. Same system, same amount of RAM stated.
Look... I understand the ego and pride of writing a review piece and putting it up on a gaming site, but I don't think it's very fair to mislead. Just accept your system wasn't up to snuff and you made a little mistake. Remove the review and move on. These things can happen. You just learn and keep on going.

 

 

As pointed out earlier in the thread since it has been shown that the reviewer did not meet the minimum spec the review should be declared void and removed with immediate effect. 

What an injustice to Ircarus and FE that a site such as MMORPG.com allows a void review to influence their readers.

I simply cannot understand why the review has not been pulled. In any other industry that has an ounce of self respect this would not happen.

It is a negative advert for FE based on incorrect information(if you do not use the correct insturment to measure readings all results are incorrect, I was taught that at school) which will result in loss of sales for Icarus, I am sure Icarus could be in a position to start some sort of legal proceedings against such mis-information being publically advertised about their product!

Originally posted by Thillian

Joe Iuliani system specs: aoc re-review

I am running AoC with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem.

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/15/view/reviews/load/67/World-of-Warcraft-Wrath-of-the-Lich-King-Review.html

Joe Iuliani system specs Wotlk:

Performance/Lag:

I am running the game with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem.
 

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/15/view/reviews/load/67/World-of-Warcraft-Wrath-of-the-Lich-King-Review.html

Joe Iuliani Dungeon Runners:

I am running the game with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem.

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/247/view/reviews/load/59/Dungeon-Runners-Dungeon-Runners-Review.html

Joe Iuliania: Hellgate London

I am running the game with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem.

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/314/view/reviews/load/60/Hellgate-London-Review.html

 

Is this guy for real? After all these reviews where he wrote his system specs -> now he just lied he didn't mean 2GB ram but 4GB ram? And you stradden just accepts it and let it go? 

QFT!

Look, I (we?) am (are?) not angry at the reviewer. He made a mistake, we all do. All we want is this unfair review taken down.

Originally posted by Thillian

Joe Iuliani system specs: aoc re-review

I am running AoC with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem.

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/15/view/reviews/load/67/World-of-Warcraft-Wrath-of-the-Lich-King-Review.html

Joe Iuliani system specs Wotlk:

Performance/Lag:

I am running the game with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem.
 

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/15/view/reviews/load/67/World-of-Warcraft-Wrath-of-the-Lich-King-Review.html

Joe Iuliani Dungeon Runners:

I am running the game with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem.

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/247/view/reviews/load/59/Dungeon-Runners-Dungeon-Runners-Review.html

Joe Iuliania: Hellgate London

I am running the game with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem.

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/314/view/reviews/load/60/Hellgate-London-Review.html

 

Is this guy for real? After all these reviews where he wrote his system specs -> now he just lied he didn't mean 2GB ram but 4GB ram? And you stradden just accepts it and let it go? 

I have to agree on this one.

2GB of RAM was even too low for Age of Conan last year. Especially if you ran Windows Vista Ultimate. Wich eats up over a Gig of RAM alone for itself already.

I had 2GB of RAM myself last year when playing Age of Conan and I had a lot of lag issues and DC's. Like many other people. Yet that game received a much higher score then FE!

Fallen Earth comes out more then a year later and this reviewer still runs the same hardware, OS and amount of RAM (2GB. As I don't believe his sudden statement that he now suddenly has 4GB in his rig. Now people have critized him.)

Having played both FE and AION. Both having it's major issues. Altho I personally think AION's issues are far worse.

MMORPG.com had so far the best overal reviews. But the AION and FE scores just don't match up. Sorry.

Cheers

Originally posted by majinant

Originally posted by Thillian

Joe Iuliani system specs: aoc re-review

I am running AoC with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem.

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/15/view/reviews/load/67/World-of-Warcraft-Wrath-of-the-Lich-King-Review.html

Joe Iuliani system specs Wotlk:

Performance/Lag:

I am running the game with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem.
 

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/15/view/reviews/load/67/World-of-Warcraft-Wrath-of-the-Lich-King-Review.html

Joe Iuliani Dungeon Runners:

I am running the game with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem.

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/247/view/reviews/load/59/Dungeon-Runners-Dungeon-Runners-Review.html

Joe Iuliania: Hellgate London

I am running the game with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem.

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/314/view/reviews/load/60/Hellgate-London-Review.html

 

Is this guy for real? After all these reviews where he wrote his system specs -> now he just lied he didn't mean 2GB ram but 4GB ram? And you stradden just accepts it and let it go? 

 

QFT!

 

Look, I (we?) am (are?) not angry at the reviewer. He made a mistake, we all do. All we want is this unfair review taken down.

If you look further into this, this guy's reviews are simply ridiculous:

Age of Conan performance: 

Cons

All Classes start the same
Slow Load Time
System Lag
 

"For the most part, the lag through game play was not frequent. Although when the lag struck, it struck hard. During these lag moments, both the game and my computer would freeze. Additionally there were the occasional moments of game lag during my play time. I couldn't discern a particular pattern of lag, i.e. severe "City Lag" or such, just random moments of annoyance."
 

Wotlk:

Cons

Customer Service Lacking
Gnome Death Knights (A personal pet peeve!)
Lag in Populated Areas
 

Hellgate London:

Performance/Lag : 5

"Unfortunately, there were times in densely populated multiplayer areas that the game hung up a quite a bit. This happened almost every time I logged into a zone. The situation would correct itself in time but it became very tedious very quickly"

He is playing games on Vista OS with 2GB ram and wonders about lag? I can't believe it. How could his reviews get past the editor?

Originally posted by Thillian

If you look further into this, this guy's reviews are simply ridiculous:

Age of Conan performance: 

Cons

All Classes start the same
Slow Load Time
System Lag
 

"For the most part, the lag through game play was not frequent. Although when the lag struck, it struck hard. During these lag moments, both the game and my computer would freeze. Additionally there were the occasional moments of game lag during my play time. I couldn't discern a particular pattern of lag, i.e. severe "City Lag" or such, just random moments of annoyance."
 

Wotlk:

Cons

Customer Service Lacking
Gnome Death Knights (A personal pet peeve!)
Lag in Populated Areas
 

Hellgate London:

Performance/Lag : 5

"Unfortunately, there were times in densely populated multiplayer areas that the game hung up a quite a bit. This happened almost every time I logged into a zone. The situation would correct itself in time but it became very tedious very quickly"

He is playing games on Vista OS with 2GB ram and wonders about lag? I can't believe it. How could his reviews get past the editor?

 

That is what I am wondering too. Even now I have 4GB of RAM since October last year.

The single most reason I immediately switched to Windows 7 when the first RC became available back in February, was because of the horrid performance and other issues with games on Windows Vista.

Everyone knows that Windows Vista is one of the worst Operating Systems for gaming. Especially if you just run with 2GB of RAM.

Originally posted by Kordesh

 I'm really curious about the lag comments, because while I've been expecting it as I keep hearing people go "oh boy Embry" and such because of the lag supposedly caused by all the people and horses and such, I actually haven't encountered any lag at all. I mean, I'm glad, I don't want lag, but I don't know where other people with somewhat similar systems are getting it from. The game does seem to be very picky about drivers, maybe it's related?

Well, I have AMD Phenom 2 X4 945/4Gb/8800gt. On main street in Embry it was a lagfest. Game def needs better optimization.
 

Originally posted by mindw0rk

Originally posted by Kordesh

 I'm really curious about the lag comments, because while I've been expecting it as I keep hearing people go "oh boy Embry" and such because of the lag supposedly caused by all the people and horses and such, I actually haven't encountered any lag at all. I mean, I'm glad, I don't want lag, but I don't know where other people with somewhat similar systems are getting it from. The game does seem to be very picky about drivers, maybe it's related?

 

Well, I have AMD Phenom 2 X4 945/4Gb/8800gt. On main street in Embry it was a lagfest. Game def needs better optimization.
 

No one says that. We all know it's a lagfest in busy Towns. Just like it's a total lagfest in the Capital Cities and Eltnen Fortress in AION for example.

But the reviewer claims this game was lagging everywhere. Even in the open world. Wich is simply not true.

I have been playing FE from the Friend and Family Alpha till the end of Closed Beta. And while this game can still use some serious performance optimisations. I never had any lag outside of towns. Sertainly not during the end of Beta.

Cheers

This would never have happened to a AAA review. I fear MMORPG.com has fallen victim to the Gamespot-syndrome. Major advertisers would never be butchered in this way.

In the opinion of this site, Fallen Earth is one of the worst MMORPG's released...

i'd give FE 5 personaly.

crap vehicles, laggy server, aweful FPS mode, STILL no fixes on alot of the expolits, bolted on PvP, skewwif pyshics (buggies/bikes come to dead stops if you hit a brick or a piece of wood on the floor, yet you shot a man and he flys like he was hit with by a train)

crafting was nice until you spent 1 week crafting a cycle/buggy only to find its utterly useless compared to a horse.

i did like scavaging, but even that became a bit of a chore, especially when they diddn't randomly respawn always the same place.

i won't even mention the bodies of water.. yeah real immersion there.

Fallen Earth is pretty awesome. It does not have nearly as pretty graphics as Aeon, but the environment feel is 10 times better than Aeon. I think early reviews are mostly just based on how pretty the game is. Not really enough time to see the real value of the game so soon after release.

Fallen Earths spent all their time pouring content into their game, and Aeon poured all their efforts into graphics (sux running out of quests 1/10th into each level after 25). I am not really marveled by either's PvP so far. Aeon is typical asian gank fest (little real RvR- forts are jokes), and I dont feel a real team play in FE either. 

---

Originally posted by Thillian
Joe Iuliani system specs: aoc re-review
I am running AoC with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem.
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/15/view/reviews/load/67/World-of-Warcraft-Wrath-of-the-Lich-King-Review.html
Joe Iuliani system specs Wotlk:
Performance/Lag:
I am running the game with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem.
 
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/15/view/reviews/load/67/World-of-Warcraft-Wrath-of-the-Lich-King-Review.html
Joe Iuliani Dungeon Runners:
I am running the game with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem.
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/247/view/reviews/load/59/Dungeon-Runners-Dungeon-Runners-Review.html
Joe Iuliania: Hellgate London
I am running the game with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 2 Gig Corsair RAM and cable modem.
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/314/view/reviews/load/60/Hellgate-London-Review.html
 
Is this guy for real? After all these reviews where he wrote his system specs -> now he just lied he didn't mean 2GB ram but 4GB ram? And you stradden just accepts it and let it go? 

---

Bump.
He said in all his reviews about lag. No wonder, vista alone lags with 2GB of RAM.

Hmmm, I see the unequivocal lie is still plastered to the front page of this site.  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*from the review

Performance/Lag

I am running Fallen Earth with Windows Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core E6750 @2.66, Dual ATI Radeon HD 3850, 4 Gigs of RAM and cable modem. The game installed without an issue and looked great. Unfortunately during game play is where I ran into considerable lag. By considerable I mean mind numbing, relentless lag. There were moments I would rather slam a part of me in a car door than try and move in the game. In the spirit of fairness, I tried a variety of Internet speed tests to check my connection, no problem there. From there I tried a couple of the more popular games out there, and they all worked just fine. Maybe it was just a glitch, but after multiple days of play, the lag just wouldn't quit. I pray I am in the minority and with luck perhaps I am the only one afflicted with this issue. Playing the game just became painful after awhile. It may be from the fact that there is only one server for the game. I expect a form of lag in the more populated areas, but not when I am running across a secluded wasteland with nothing more than a mutant chicken for company. I don't mind dying from a superior enemy, or even my inability to play a game. But death from lag is just plain unacceptable. I have to say that the folks at Fallen Earth have been making constant improvements from the game launch. Hopefully this issue will be addressed, or perhaps when the game settles into niche, the game may stabilize.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, that's it.  Read through the above paragraph and tell me if it would make more sense if the reviewer had 2 Gigs of RAM instead of 4 whilst running Vista Ultimate.  I am in disbelief that the only thing that's been done about it, is the review was edited to accommodate the lie.  Someone needs to man up and at the very least, state that you may experience some lag trying to run the game on a "World of Warcraft" rig. 

Unbelievable.........

For the record, The only lag I have experienced is an occasional hiccup in a highly populated area such as a city.

~Hairysun

same, i play the game on max settings and only get about a second or 2 of problems in a city.  i never lag anywhere else.  err get fps issues. 

 I read the whole review and the whole thread. I've played Fallen Earth up to level 10 and thought it was an ok game with a lot of potential. I never had any major performance lag issues as stated by the reviewer even in the most popular starting areas.

But the game is not what matters anymore. High reviews or low reviews have nothing to do with the most interesting part of this thread. It's the lie that matters and is interesting.

There was a lie about system specs at some point. It wasn't a mistake. It is now obvious that it was a lie. He ran this game with 2GB of RAM on a machine that runs Vista which is below the minimum specs. 

Now, I don't know when the lie happened. It could have been the reviewer lying to the editor. It could be both of them trying to cover it up together and just get past it. The editor may have even not called the reviewer at all.

But there is a lie here. And it is obvious. There should be consideration for pulling the review based on the circumstantial evidence provided by many up till this point.

Fairly sad.. I can have a machine that does not meet the specs of this "reviewer".  And I use the term loosely.  You can not be a very good reviewer if you can not figure out your issue.  My lower spec machine has no lag issues.  Sounds to me like your isp or network routing has an issue,  or maybe your drivers have an issue.  Not to mention you are running Vista Ultimate which just is not the best platform for pc gaming.  Any decent gamer knows   XP64  or Windows 7 will put Vista to shame in any flavor or configuration.  Sad sad reviewer.  Awesome game.  I give it a 9

Nice review. Solid facts about FE and some good info also.

About lag. Yeah there is lag, but it isn't near as awful as it is advertised here.

I have Athlon 64 X2 dual at 2.6GHZ, Geforce x260, 6gb RAM and Vista ultimate 64-bit.

The servers are in USA and I'm playing across the Atlantic from Finland and generally have FPS around 100 and in towns near 20-30. Sure some towns are more horrible than others, like each sectors big towns where everyone gather and smap nonsense in local. There I get down to 15FPS which is still really playable (there is no fighting in those towns).

So generally I would say the game has had a nice start and many of the common bugs have been cleared and the lag problem is getting better eventually.

Come and see it yourself if you don't believe us.

Dear MMORPG,

We love you and all that, but please stop this guy from ever writing reviews here, it's not good for your image.

Having lag as the only con and rating the game with 6.9 based on that, does not a professional make. A leet kid maybe. Or a frustrated person that finds the game too hard and blames it on lag. Or he could've just asked around in Regional chat how many people were lagging too, to the point of slamming private parts with a car door or whatever he said he was doing at the time.

Sincerely yours,

me

My prediction is that there will be a swarm of former wow players that will predict that this game will fail in FEs forum. Just becuse it has been reviewed and its one of the front topics atm. 

Fallen Earth - 7.5

The game has certainly sparked some controversy in the forums here, I try to take reviews with a grain of salt. I tend to look for information on the interweb before I spend my money and to tell you the truth mmorpg has led me to spend some cash on some games to try it even if I have my doubts, afterwards...well I had felt it was a waste of money.

Since I trusted their reviews to be unbiased (to a point) and certainly look at all available aspects of the game including future growth.

Fallen Earth has tons of potential, huge amounts, they are listening to their player base, they help in game quite a bit.

Are there issues, heck yes, but name any other mmo out there that does not have at least 1 problem.

Physics needs work and lots of cleaning. ATVs should be faster and if you hit a dirt clod it comes to a complete stop pity it does not throw you over the handle-bars for  a half a mile when it happens.

Crafting is nice, that unlike other mmo's I do not have to sit there and wait for it to complete before I can do anything else.  So while I am crafting items, I can and will be questing, harvesting etc. Some of the more complex items time to craft can be staggering. (I think as we get those higher skill levels our crafting skill should not only unlock the higher content but drop the crafting time as well)

Combat - I like the ability to pop a shot off through a scope, funny my main character is melee. The AI makes the pathing to you when they run harder to hit them, they tend to weave around but I think that is intentional. They still slide around you even in melee which can make them harder to hit. The AI itself seems to be very limited and things like Mutant chickens attack in the same way as a humanoid which does not feel right. I am sure something will be done about it in the future.

Graphics - Not top of the line, but certainly acceptable and even fun to play in. Do not get me wrong I have played in almost every major released mmo out minus a few Asian games and some are just awesome to look at but I can not get into for anything. The post apoc-look is there and you can feel the dusty air as you play the game.

Pvp - Have not gotten involved with any faction yet, I am still a lowbie in S1. But from what I have been told, people are having fun with it but like the rest of the game, it needs some tweaks.

Lag - Lag seems according to the "official reviewer" a deal breaker and with his spec's I can see why. Running Vista Ultimate on 2 gig just for normal use is ... well I can not write that here on the forums can I.   There is still lag in the game, does it make the game unplayable? Not to people I have spoken with and not to me. 

Overall, the game needs work, but it seems to have a great support team and there have already been some major work done in the patches and they still took the time to place in an event  as well. I am certainly looking forward to playing this game in the future and hope the team at Fallen Earth / Icarus keeps pounding away on the updates.

Why am I 0.6 over the "Official Review" because I have two systems that could actually run not only my operating system but  the game properly.

LoL

 A 6,9 just because of the lags at peek times? Please tell me that it is only a joke and its the april 1. The review as it is would be really fine and objective, I just can not explain this extremely low scoreline based on the text.

The point being, MMORPG needs to stop posting reviews by yahoo's like this author and the one who did the Aion review. 

Neither of those have one iota of idea how to rate a review.  All we end up with is 28 plus pages of irate readers posting how idiotic MMORPG was to post the articles with ratings, no one in their right mind will believe, in the first place.

Until MMORPG takes some actions to correct this rating travesty the critics will have a heyday with you.

Reinstating the review because the author claims he has extra memory now is farcical, it completely ignores the fact that the rating itself is ridiculous.  Time to get your act together MMORPG!

Well, looks like they finally took down that absurd 6.9 score (unless my internet is playing tricks on me). I just hope they give it a true re-evaluation (on a better system, for one thing) and give it a score that's more deserving. 

For further talk on this review... See here:

LINK