Again you fail to see it.. his position at TTH as the STO liaison is based up on the success or failure of STO .. IMO he shouldn't have given a review period.. good or bad.. He has a direct interest in the outcome of the review and game.. It's simple professional ethics..
So, TTH has a guy on staff who they have tasked with getting to know STO intimately. But this is not the guy we want reviewing it? Instead, we want a review from the guy who's job is knowing LOTR intimately? Or maybe the intern who gets coffee and has played the game for a week? You are correct, I don't follow the logic.
How about a guy with absolutely no experience with STO except for logging in and playing the game? This guy is too connected with STO to give any sort of unbiased review. "Site Lead - Star Trek Online Community " this is what the guy's been doing the past three months.
Dalmarus has worked for TTH since 2005, and lists that he is/was the "MAIN SITE WRITER" for TTH. He also lists that he is the "Site Lead" for STO, in which he creates content, manages the community, forums, etc. If you're familiar with TTH at all, you'll know that they create Sub-pages for almost every MMO. Dalmarus's job includes a heck of a lot more than just the STO section. If the game fails, he will have many other jobs at TTH to keep him busy. The conspiracy theory is bunk. In the end, everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Your opinion of the review, or your opinion of TTH, or even Dalmarus's opinion of STO. If you don't agree, fine, since that is your opinion.
There is no "conspiracy theory," as you put it, other than the guy is biased and the scoring of his review shows that. You prove my point when you show what one of his major duties for the past three months was managing everything to do with STO over at TTH. That means he probably did interviews, got to know the dev team, talked to and read all the posts on the game, , etc. etc.
He should not have done this review. He should have gotten someone else to play the game and give his review, like the guy in charge of the LOTRO section of the site for example.
Again you fail to see it.. his position at TTH as the STO liaison is based up on the success or failure of STO .. IMO he shouldn't have given a review period.. good or bad.. He has a direct interest in the outcome of the review and game.. It's simple professional ethics..
So, TTH has a guy on staff who they have tasked with getting to know STO intimately. But this is not the guy we want reviewing it? Instead, we want a review from the guy who's job is knowing LOTR intimately? Or maybe the intern who gets coffee and has played the game for a week? You are correct, I don't follow the logic.
How about a guy with absolutely no experience with STO except for logging in and playing the game? This guy is too connected with STO to give any sort of unbiased review. "Site Lead - Star Trek Online Community " this is what the guy's been doing the past three months.
So, you honestly believe that every other reviewer of this game has done nothing but log in and play? Or is it that his review has to be biased because he likes the game?
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
I actually thought the reviewer did a pretty good job, and his scores reflect his bias in rating it for the average casual player who just wants to have bit of fun. He specifically said
"If you're looking for something new and fun to keep you entertained for 30 days, Star Trek Online deserves a solid A+ for value."
That pretty much sums it up in a nutshell. He admits the content is light, and that those who were expecting a ST virtual universe to live in will be disappointed.
But that's not the slant the reviewer took. It is impossible to take a neutral stance on any game that you review, and like everything, there will be some low ones and some high ones.
No secret conspiracy that I can see from this end.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Again you fail to see it.. his position at TTH as the STO liaison is based up on the success or failure of STO .. IMO he shouldn't have given a review period.. good or bad.. He has a direct interest in the outcome of the review and game.. It's simple professional ethics..
So, TTH has a guy on staff who they have tasked with getting to know STO intimately. But this is not the guy we want reviewing it? Instead, we want a review from the guy who's job is knowing LOTR intimately? Or maybe the intern who gets coffee and has played the game for a week? You are correct, I don't follow the logic.
How about a guy with absolutely no experience with STO except for logging in and playing the game? This guy is too connected with STO to give any sort of unbiased review. "Site Lead - Star Trek Online Community " this is what the guy's been doing the past three months.
So, you honestly believe that every other reviewer of this game has done nothing but log in and play? Or is it that his review has to be biased because he likes the game?
Some probably did, some probably didn't. I don't see how that matters. Reviewers should give full disclosure of their past experiences with the game in their review, as well as a tally on what they did in the game and how many hours they played for.
I would trust a review by someone with no prior experiences with the game other than playing it over someone who conducted interviews with the devs, visited the game studio, administered game forums, etc. etc.
On that note the MMORPG.com review for STO is also fishy because it was written by Jon Wood, a senior editor here at this site. I know for a fact that he also conducted interviews for STO, visited Cryptic Studios, etc. etc. That's why his review comes off as trying to be as positive as possible while still trying to acknowledge the game's faults and giving it a low score. He then proceeded to give three scores at the end: his "personal" score, which in and of itself shows him to be biased, his "Trekkies" score where he deigns to speak for me and millions of other people, and finally what essentially amounts to an "MMO purist" score where he makes fans of MMOs look like elitists who will reject any game that doesn't live up to their standard (and maybe he's partly right.)
I would have vastly preferred reading a review by a different writer on the site who didn't have any involvement with STO at all. Whether that review was a good review or a bad review would be immaterial to whether or not it was a biased review.
I find it interesting that you don't seem to care at all about whether the review is biased at all, you just feel the need to defend it because overall it gives a favourable score. How would you feel if I wrote a review for STO? What if I wrote a negative review? Would you accuse me of being biased? I bet you would.
Good reviews certainly didn't help Warhammer.Does anyone really think that this or any other review is going to have any bearing whatsoever on who plays the game? I've never based my decision on a game from what a reviewer said and I doubt the majority cares more than I do. So really, why do you people care so much about reviews? Reviews mean jack squat when it comes to sales, whether your talking games or any other form of entertainment.
One thing that surprises me is what standards did they use to measure game play or other aspects of the game.. Normally any review has a checklist of things to go thru and what your impression was.. and facts.. Checklist could be simple things like length of attention the game will give.. Especially for an MMO.. MMOs are designed for long term play.. Did the review take that into account when giving his review.. Does the game have content to keep on playing regularly for a year? etc etc.. Having a checklist helps keep the reviewer fair as well.. bad or good.. It requires the reviewer to focus on the steak , not the sizzle
I disagree Kt.. I've read many reviews on many games I've played and not played for the PC or PS3 and there have been a number of games I have NOT bought because of reviews and forums discussions.. I like to research a little about anything I buy first, rather it be a car or computer game.. I'm just anal like that.. LOL Did I miss out on a good game.. maybe.. but if the game was that close to borderline, it's obviously no big deal.. Great game will always stand out eventually
I didn't buy the newest need for speed PS3 game because of the reviews it got and forum discussions.. I'm currently excited about Silent Hunter 5 that comes out this March.. and not sure if I should gamble on X3 PC game or not.. /shrug.. it has mixed reviews
Good reviews certainly didn't help Warhammer.Does anyone really think that this or any other review is going to have any bearing whatsoever on who plays the game? I've never based my decision on a game from what a reviewer said and I doubt the majority cares more than I do. So really, why do you people care so much about reviews? Reviews mean jack squat when it comes to sales, whether your talking games or any other form of entertainment.
Didn't Warhammer initially sell over a million units? I think that may indicate that the good reviews did help initial box sales, but they didn't prevent the bottom from falling out of subscriber numbers later on.
Reviews do definitely have an effect on how good a product does. Otherwise movie companies wouldn't put review blurbs on movie posters and universally panned movies would get better box office numbers (with the few exceptions that do exist.)
The only thing I found suspect about this review was the A+ for sound. Because 1) I refuse to support the notion that explosions make a sound in the vacuum of space; and 2) all games I play have A+ music, on account of I always turn the music off and stream pandora in the background.
Otherwise, he likes the game a little more than I do. It's bound to happen. That's why review aggregators like metacritic are so useful. As for being biased because he's the community manager for a third-party site. . . I don't buy it. There are far iffier things afoot in far more important media outlets than tentonhammer. Should employees of The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal be banned from reviewing television from FOX, books from HarperCollins, and movies from Twentieth Century Fox? They all have the same employer.
Not the same thing.. I always have to weigh the review with any personal agenda one might have.. Should New York Times, or any press give reviews? Sure, why not.. We all love reviews.. Some I agree with it, some i don't.. I have given some press newspapers hell for their review because it has the appearance of "ass kissing" just in order to get advertising dollars from the person they are giving the review about..
However, this review is directly connected to the outcome of STO being fail or success.. If STO folds up shop like Tabula Rasa, then Mr Reviewer is out of a job as Site Manager.. NO, this won't put him on food stamps, but it proves he has a direct relationship with Star Trek Online's ability to be successful. TTH should of had a different staff member do the review to avoid the appearance here..
The only thing I found suspect about this review was the A+ for sound. Because 1) I refuse to support the notion that explosions make a sound in the vacuum of space; and 2) all games I play have A+ music, on account of I always turn the music off and stream pandora in the background. Otherwise, he likes the game a little more than I do. It's bound to happen. That's why review aggregators like metacritic are so useful. As for being biased because he's the community manager for a third-party site. . . I don't buy it. There are far iffier things afoot in far more important media outlets than tentonhammer. Should employees of The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal be banned from reviewing television from FOX, books from HarperCollins, and movies from Twentieth Century Fox? They all have the same employer.
If you don't think Rupert Murdoch's media empire is biased in every way, then I'm not sure what to tell you. All media in the Western world is biased to a certain extent, the trick is to take it with a grain of salt.
I've never seen media more biased than what Murdoch owns anyway, and it is also why there used to be strong media ownership laws. i.e. it used to be illegal to own both a TV station and a newspaper. But that was before the media baron got their grubby paws on government and turned media into a mega-for-profit concern.
Didn't Warhammer initially sell over a million units? I think that may indicate that the good reviews did help initial box sales, but they didn't prevent the bottom from falling out of subscriber numbers later on. Reviews do definitely have an effect on how good a product does. Otherwise movie companies wouldn't put review blurbs on movie posters and universally panned movies would get better box office numbers (with the few exceptions that do exist.)
It's not just a few exceptions.If it's a summer blockbuster, it's usually panned by the critics and if it's a nominee for an academy award, it's usually got low box offfice.The real exception is if a movie has good box office along with good reviews. For example,
G.I Joe
Wolverine
Transformers 2
Terminator 4
Night at the Museum 2
Basically any movie that had great box office last summer was panned by the critics. The exception was Star Trek and Up. Far as what the critics liked, see all the best picture nominees for the last ten years. You'll have exceptions, but most of the time they were movies no one went to see.
It should also be noted that perceived bias in any medium is also based on the bias of the viewer/reader.For instance I have friends who tell me quite sincerely that fox news is "fair and balanced" and that CNN is clearly the work of the Democratic devil,others would reverse those sentiments.Still others see both as biased toward conservatism and some people think they are just both bad sources of news and opinion.
Not the same thing.. I always have to weigh the review with any personal agenda one might have.. Should New York Times, or any press give reviews? Sure, why not.. We all love reviews.. Some I agree with it, some i don't.. I have given some press newspapers hell for their review because it has the appearance of "ass kissing" just in order to get advertising dollars from the person they are giving the review about.. However, this review is directly connected to the outcome of STO being fail or success.. If STO folds up shop like Tabula Rasa, then Mr Reviewer is out of a job as Site Manager.. NO, this won't put him on food stamps, but it proves he has a direct relationship with Star Trek Online's ability to be successful. TTH should of had a different staff member do the review to avoid the appearance here..
And he'll be reassigned to become the site manager of another up and coming game. His future is not directly tied to the success of this game from where I stand and I don't think this factor had anything to do with his review score.
Maybe he wasn't the best choice for the review, but hey, we're just talking about video games here folks, its just not that important and worth losing sleep over.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
WoW.. interesting.. After reading this review www.tentonhammer.com/sto/features/reviews/fullreview I was like.. WTF, is this the same game that all the other major reviewers played? The scores I thought were very questionable, especially the content scores.. Music wise? WHO GIVES a shit.. NONE of that music was created by them, all they had to do was borrow all the music already out there.. It's not like they hired a songwriter composer and orchestra and start from scratch.. Player creation scores? Again.. Who really gives a shit.. How much weight did they give that A rating.. 25%? 30%.. As far as I'm concerned, player creation deserves about 10% of the overall rating.. IMO.. Then I come to find out the author is this person www.linkedin.com/in/dalmarus .. Take a look at what he's hired to do since January 2010.. Can you honestly say he's not biased.. OMG.. Good job Ten Ton for showing me your reviews can be extremely biased and skewed .. Next time why don't you have someone that isn't pushing an agenda do the game review..
So.....he likes the game, must be something wrong with him. As has been stated about every other review, all reviews are biased. This guy just happens to like the game. And since I like the game, I must have some nefarious ulterior motive as well, right?
He did say: Star Trek Online, like many an MMOG before it, is not complete. Things that need to be addressed the soonest to appease the masses would be more PvE content for the Klingon Empire, the ability to join fleet actions as a fleet, the ability to know at a glance what skills affect what, more ship customization, and (like every other game in the world) more content. So it's not like he's trying to hide the fact that he found the game lacking. He also gave a warning: The hardcore MMOG player that is hoping Star Trek Online will be that game that allows them to live the adventure of a lifetime for 4 to 8 hours a day is going to be sorely disappointed. Seems to me, he's not exactly pulling punches.
Did he score it rather high IMO? Yes. Although I somewhat agreed with his scoring breakdowns, I personally don't rate the overall score very high due to it being rushed and unfinished at launch. But that's my opinion.
Edit: And being the community lead for STO on the Ten Ton Hammer site means what, exactly? It means he is in charge of STO information on a third party web site. The linkedin profile doesn't show what you think it does.
Liking a game is NOT a review,that is why he says BIASED.I think so far in all the reviews i ever read they are either biased positive and negative never truth.I can give an example of a review unbiased,my favorite game in MMORPG is FFXI, i could write a book on it's flaws,i am not some little immature child who needs to lie about a game i play,i can face reality,the truth.I could tell you the economy design was the worst design i ever seen,the graphics are low poly,customer support is bad and they do not care about the NA player base,they are homies to the JPN player base ect ect.
I don't even care if other people play a game i like,well outside the fact you do need players to group with,i am not going to lie about a game,to get people to play it,i will just tell the facts as i saw in the game.I have yet to read a review where at least a couple points are outright lies OR they don't talk about specifics,just vague bla bla that is easy to lie about.An example of bla bla is a reviewer telling us the game is FUN lmao,ya no kidding wonder how many times we have heard that before?Or they talk about how massive the game world is ,yet don't mention it is near empty.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
If you don't think Rupert Murdoch's media empire is biased in every way, then I'm not sure what to tell you. All media in the Western world is biased to a certain extent, the trick is to take it with a grain of salt.
I think you'll find I called the practice "iffy," and then asked a rhetorical question. . . my opinions about the way reviews work in real publications comes from working in the industry -- and it's all too complicated to get into here. But something like tentonhammer? Is he even getting paid for his work there? Any amount of money for work that badly written is too much. But the opinion itself I have no problem with. I assume he's community manager for STO because he likes the game, rather than assuming he likes the game because he's the community manager.
not sure what the linkedin part says about him being biased or not. doesn't imply that he will give/should give a good review just for the sake of it.
aside from that, the score is a bit high, even for a biased person, especially one with mmo experience.
what i miss in the review, are some more details about obvious things, like the repetitiveness, the actually bad voice acting in the tutorial, things like that. even nimoy's voice acting isn't that great. I at times don't understand what he is mumbling.
so what is a biased score? isn't evey score biased? you like the game, you will rate it higher. an exception might be the review from this site, he (forgot his name, sorry), states he actually enjoys the game despite all the negatives, yet gives it the deserved medium score. if people start arguing that it should be 6 and not 6.4 is ridiculous, it's not like discussing 9 versus 5 or so.
at this point in time i much more upset about atari's/cryptic's behaviour with regards to the recent price slash with additional free game time and the deleted posts on the forums with banned people who want to comment on the issue.
Wow I don't think I've ever read more over-analyzation of a review than this thread presents in my entire life.
Someone should make a MMO where players deal out inane point/counterpoint arguements filled with pseudointellectual drivel at eachother instead of weapons, add pretty costumes, damage bars and hit numbers popping up over their toons, make all female characters with extra skimpy outfits and every cup size through HH ...spam it enough on forums for real games and you'd probably capture a large portion of the MMO crowd.
I find it interesting that you don't seem to care at all about whether the review is biased at all, you just feel the need to defend it because overall it gives a favourable score. How would you feel if I wrote a review for STO? What if I wrote a negative review? Would you accuse me of being biased? I bet you would.
I have not defended the review, only the reviewer. Mainly due to the fact that no one even bothered to question the reviewers who gave negative scores until several pages into this thread. I even stated that the reviewer gave the game a higher score than I did. I have read every review on this game I could find and I have appreciated them all, good or bad. Your review would be no different because I'm not the one throwing around "biased reviewer" claims.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
Maybe the reviewer just liked the game more than you. Seriously, getting mixed reviews for a game isn't totally unheard of. Probably the best thing to do is find a site that produces reviews you (for the most part) agree with. Plus, I'm sure there are people out there who would rate STO as a B+ or better.
To put it into perspective 1/7 of the people who played STO might think it was great while the other 6 thought it was mediocre at best (these are not real numbers, it's just an estimate). Also, 1/7 reviews thought STO was great while the other 6 thought it was mediocre at best.
EDIT: Just one more point I'd like to make. Not only is impossible to have an un-biased review, reviews=bias. Let's say a review rates a game 10/10. Whoever reviewed the game liked it a lot, so the reviewer gave it a 10. A totally unbiased review would mean NOT rating the game AT ALL and not having ANY opinion on the game or ANY of it's features. This is a topic I could go on for hours on, but honestly, I need to go to bed.
This, OP, is definately the worst thread you've ever started. You've lost some credibility in my eyes.
A review is biased by definition. Someone, giving their opinion on their game experience.
Some people like it, some people don't, but we all know, if he had given the game a three, you wouldn't have made this thread.
This should go out to all the ones 'STILL' bashing the game. (Feel free to bash the company for the 90 days crap.)
Nobody cares! The people who want to play the game will play the game, and the ones who don't, wont. All you guys do by jumping on this wagon of 'Its biast!, He's being paid!' are morons. Use your brains and determine that just because a majority thinks something isn't good, doesn't mean 'everyone'. I know for a fact it's a very watered down game, but for god sake, I don't go around saying it until I've lost all the blood circulation to my head. The fact of the matter is, those who still go around complaining after a month into launch about a review of a game, need a better hobby. Why did you even read the review when you don't like the game? Waste of time I think.
Please think more carefully before you make yourself look stupid. I swear they should just make a seperate section of the forum, like they do with Star wars galaxies veterens area (where they really just complain about what was and what will never change, sadly.), where all the people who are into this constant trolling can have their way.
It doesn't help the first threads I see as I log on are all yours and are all negatively bashing a company I could care less about, but it gets a little annoying when people would much rather be hearing about in game stuff.
Longing for Skyrim, The Old Republic and Mass Effect 3
It also was the first review where i, scoring aside, actually felt like the guy played the game. Most reviews just show a screeny of the tier 1 miranda class, talk abit about this and that, catchy phrases that are pretty general, talk about endgame(that they for sure havnt seen in their miranda), and then they go over to the scoring. Some even just take the official screenys from the gamesite when talking about the borg content that got added after release wonder why they didnt make their own screenshots ...
Rating aside, they guy was spot on and displayed a intimate knowledge of the game. That guy obviously actually spend time in the game, not like most other reviews which feel like the reviewer spend like 5 hours in the game, then extrapolated the rest from forums.
P.S.: Thats btw a general complaint of me, not just STO. Most MMOs besides wow just dont get the attention they deserve in reviews i think. I dont think a reviewer has to have played the game completely through and experienced most nicks and crannys to rate it, but he better expect his review to be looking bad compared to one from someone who did.
I have no problem with the review. All reviews are biased. What I find shaky in his review. Is that the Pro's and Con's he mentioned are pretty much the same as other reviews have been mentioning as well. And seeing those Con's in the end. And measuring them up against the Pro's. Than that B+ endscore really doesn't messure up against that. More like a C or C- at most. Wich then also would be bringing it in line with the overal score sensus of all the reviews so far. But that's just my 2 cents.
I agree. Not amazing, not awful.
Longing for Skyrim, The Old Republic and Mass Effect 3
Comments
So, TTH has a guy on staff who they have tasked with getting to know STO intimately. But this is not the guy we want reviewing it? Instead, we want a review from the guy who's job is knowing LOTR intimately? Or maybe the intern who gets coffee and has played the game for a week? You are correct, I don't follow the logic.
How about a guy with absolutely no experience with STO except for logging in and playing the game? This guy is too connected with STO to give any sort of unbiased review. "Site Lead - Star Trek Online Community " this is what the guy's been doing the past three months.
There is no "conspiracy theory," as you put it, other than the guy is biased and the scoring of his review shows that. You prove my point when you show what one of his major duties for the past three months was managing everything to do with STO over at TTH. That means he probably did interviews, got to know the dev team, talked to and read all the posts on the game, , etc. etc.
He should not have done this review. He should have gotten someone else to play the game and give his review, like the guy in charge of the LOTRO section of the site for example.
So, TTH has a guy on staff who they have tasked with getting to know STO intimately. But this is not the guy we want reviewing it? Instead, we want a review from the guy who's job is knowing LOTR intimately? Or maybe the intern who gets coffee and has played the game for a week? You are correct, I don't follow the logic.
How about a guy with absolutely no experience with STO except for logging in and playing the game? This guy is too connected with STO to give any sort of unbiased review. "Site Lead - Star Trek Online Community " this is what the guy's been doing the past three months.
So, you honestly believe that every other reviewer of this game has done nothing but log in and play? Or is it that his review has to be biased because he likes the game?
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
I actually thought the reviewer did a pretty good job, and his scores reflect his bias in rating it for the average casual player who just wants to have bit of fun. He specifically said
"If you're looking for something new and fun to keep you entertained for 30 days, Star Trek Online deserves a solid A+ for value."
That pretty much sums it up in a nutshell. He admits the content is light, and that those who were expecting a ST virtual universe to live in will be disappointed.
But that's not the slant the reviewer took. It is impossible to take a neutral stance on any game that you review, and like everything, there will be some low ones and some high ones.
No secret conspiracy that I can see from this end.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
So, TTH has a guy on staff who they have tasked with getting to know STO intimately. But this is not the guy we want reviewing it? Instead, we want a review from the guy who's job is knowing LOTR intimately? Or maybe the intern who gets coffee and has played the game for a week? You are correct, I don't follow the logic.
How about a guy with absolutely no experience with STO except for logging in and playing the game? This guy is too connected with STO to give any sort of unbiased review. "Site Lead - Star Trek Online Community " this is what the guy's been doing the past three months.
So, you honestly believe that every other reviewer of this game has done nothing but log in and play? Or is it that his review has to be biased because he likes the game?
Some probably did, some probably didn't. I don't see how that matters. Reviewers should give full disclosure of their past experiences with the game in their review, as well as a tally on what they did in the game and how many hours they played for.
I would trust a review by someone with no prior experiences with the game other than playing it over someone who conducted interviews with the devs, visited the game studio, administered game forums, etc. etc.
On that note the MMORPG.com review for STO is also fishy because it was written by Jon Wood, a senior editor here at this site. I know for a fact that he also conducted interviews for STO, visited Cryptic Studios, etc. etc. That's why his review comes off as trying to be as positive as possible while still trying to acknowledge the game's faults and giving it a low score. He then proceeded to give three scores at the end: his "personal" score, which in and of itself shows him to be biased, his "Trekkies" score where he deigns to speak for me and millions of other people, and finally what essentially amounts to an "MMO purist" score where he makes fans of MMOs look like elitists who will reject any game that doesn't live up to their standard (and maybe he's partly right.)
I would have vastly preferred reading a review by a different writer on the site who didn't have any involvement with STO at all. Whether that review was a good review or a bad review would be immaterial to whether or not it was a biased review.
I find it interesting that you don't seem to care at all about whether the review is biased at all, you just feel the need to defend it because overall it gives a favourable score. How would you feel if I wrote a review for STO? What if I wrote a negative review? Would you accuse me of being biased? I bet you would.
Good reviews certainly didn't help Warhammer.Does anyone really think that this or any other review is going to have any bearing whatsoever on who plays the game? I've never based my decision on a game from what a reviewer said and I doubt the majority cares more than I do. So really, why do you people care so much about reviews? Reviews mean jack squat when it comes to sales, whether your talking games or any other form of entertainment.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
One thing that surprises me is what standards did they use to measure game play or other aspects of the game.. Normally any review has a checklist of things to go thru and what your impression was.. and facts.. Checklist could be simple things like length of attention the game will give.. Especially for an MMO.. MMOs are designed for long term play.. Did the review take that into account when giving his review.. Does the game have content to keep on playing regularly for a year? etc etc.. Having a checklist helps keep the reviewer fair as well.. bad or good.. It requires the reviewer to focus on the steak , not the sizzle
I disagree Kt.. I've read many reviews on many games I've played and not played for the PC or PS3 and there have been a number of games I have NOT bought because of reviews and forums discussions.. I like to research a little about anything I buy first, rather it be a car or computer game.. I'm just anal like that.. LOL Did I miss out on a good game.. maybe.. but if the game was that close to borderline, it's obviously no big deal.. Great game will always stand out eventually
I didn't buy the newest need for speed PS3 game because of the reviews it got and forum discussions.. I'm currently excited about Silent Hunter 5 that comes out this March.. and not sure if I should gamble on X3 PC game or not.. /shrug.. it has mixed reviews
Didn't Warhammer initially sell over a million units? I think that may indicate that the good reviews did help initial box sales, but they didn't prevent the bottom from falling out of subscriber numbers later on.
Reviews do definitely have an effect on how good a product does. Otherwise movie companies wouldn't put review blurbs on movie posters and universally panned movies would get better box office numbers (with the few exceptions that do exist.)
The only thing I found suspect about this review was the A+ for sound. Because 1) I refuse to support the notion that explosions make a sound in the vacuum of space; and 2) all games I play have A+ music, on account of I always turn the music off and stream pandora in the background.
Otherwise, he likes the game a little more than I do. It's bound to happen. That's why review aggregators like metacritic are so useful. As for being biased because he's the community manager for a third-party site. . . I don't buy it. There are far iffier things afoot in far more important media outlets than tentonhammer. Should employees of The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal be banned from reviewing television from FOX, books from HarperCollins, and movies from Twentieth Century Fox? They all have the same employer.
Not the same thing.. I always have to weigh the review with any personal agenda one might have.. Should New York Times, or any press give reviews? Sure, why not.. We all love reviews.. Some I agree with it, some i don't.. I have given some press newspapers hell for their review because it has the appearance of "ass kissing" just in order to get advertising dollars from the person they are giving the review about..
However, this review is directly connected to the outcome of STO being fail or success.. If STO folds up shop like Tabula Rasa, then Mr Reviewer is out of a job as Site Manager.. NO, this won't put him on food stamps, but it proves he has a direct relationship with Star Trek Online's ability to be successful. TTH should of had a different staff member do the review to avoid the appearance here..
If you don't think Rupert Murdoch's media empire is biased in every way, then I'm not sure what to tell you. All media in the Western world is biased to a certain extent, the trick is to take it with a grain of salt.
I've never seen media more biased than what Murdoch owns anyway, and it is also why there used to be strong media ownership laws. i.e. it used to be illegal to own both a TV station and a newspaper. But that was before the media baron got their grubby paws on government and turned media into a mega-for-profit concern.
It's not just a few exceptions.If it's a summer blockbuster, it's usually panned by the critics and if it's a nominee for an academy award, it's usually got low box offfice.The real exception is if a movie has good box office along with good reviews. For example,
G.I Joe
Wolverine
Transformers 2
Terminator 4
Night at the Museum 2
Basically any movie that had great box office last summer was panned by the critics. The exception was Star Trek and Up. Far as what the critics liked, see all the best picture nominees for the last ten years. You'll have exceptions, but most of the time they were movies no one went to see.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
It should also be noted that perceived bias in any medium is also based on the bias of the viewer/reader.For instance I have friends who tell me quite sincerely that fox news is "fair and balanced" and that CNN is clearly the work of the Democratic devil,others would reverse those sentiments.Still others see both as biased toward conservatism and some people think they are just both bad sources of news and opinion.
And he'll be reassigned to become the site manager of another up and coming game. His future is not directly tied to the success of this game from where I stand and I don't think this factor had anything to do with his review score.
Maybe he wasn't the best choice for the review, but hey, we're just talking about video games here folks, its just not that important and worth losing sleep over.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
So.....he likes the game, must be something wrong with him. As has been stated about every other review, all reviews are biased. This guy just happens to like the game. And since I like the game, I must have some nefarious ulterior motive as well, right?
He did say: Star Trek Online, like many an MMOG before it, is not complete. Things that need to be addressed the soonest to appease the masses would be more PvE content for the Klingon Empire, the ability to join fleet actions as a fleet, the ability to know at a glance what skills affect what, more ship customization, and (like every other game in the world) more content. So it's not like he's trying to hide the fact that he found the game lacking. He also gave a warning: The hardcore MMOG player that is hoping Star Trek Online will be that game that allows them to live the adventure of a lifetime for 4 to 8 hours a day is going to be sorely disappointed. Seems to me, he's not exactly pulling punches.
Did he score it rather high IMO? Yes. Although I somewhat agreed with his scoring breakdowns, I personally don't rate the overall score very high due to it being rushed and unfinished at launch. But that's my opinion.
Edit: And being the community lead for STO on the Ten Ton Hammer site means what, exactly? It means he is in charge of STO information on a third party web site. The linkedin profile doesn't show what you think it does.
Liking a game is NOT a review,that is why he says BIASED.I think so far in all the reviews i ever read they are either biased positive and negative never truth.I can give an example of a review unbiased,my favorite game in MMORPG is FFXI, i could write a book on it's flaws,i am not some little immature child who needs to lie about a game i play,i can face reality,the truth.I could tell you the economy design was the worst design i ever seen,the graphics are low poly,customer support is bad and they do not care about the NA player base,they are homies to the JPN player base ect ect.
I don't even care if other people play a game i like,well outside the fact you do need players to group with,i am not going to lie about a game,to get people to play it,i will just tell the facts as i saw in the game.I have yet to read a review where at least a couple points are outright lies OR they don't talk about specifics,just vague bla bla that is easy to lie about.An example of bla bla is a reviewer telling us the game is FUN lmao,ya no kidding wonder how many times we have heard that before?Or they talk about how massive the game world is ,yet don't mention it is near empty.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I think you'll find I called the practice "iffy," and then asked a rhetorical question. . . my opinions about the way reviews work in real publications comes from working in the industry -- and it's all too complicated to get into here. But something like tentonhammer? Is he even getting paid for his work there? Any amount of money for work that badly written is too much. But the opinion itself I have no problem with. I assume he's community manager for STO because he likes the game, rather than assuming he likes the game because he's the community manager.
not sure what the linkedin part says about him being biased or not. doesn't imply that he will give/should give a good review just for the sake of it.
aside from that, the score is a bit high, even for a biased person, especially one with mmo experience.
what i miss in the review, are some more details about obvious things, like the repetitiveness, the actually bad voice acting in the tutorial, things like that. even nimoy's voice acting isn't that great. I at times don't understand what he is mumbling.
so what is a biased score? isn't evey score biased? you like the game, you will rate it higher. an exception might be the review from this site, he (forgot his name, sorry), states he actually enjoys the game despite all the negatives, yet gives it the deserved medium score. if people start arguing that it should be 6 and not 6.4 is ridiculous, it's not like discussing 9 versus 5 or so.
at this point in time i much more upset about atari's/cryptic's behaviour with regards to the recent price slash with additional free game time and the deleted posts on the forums with banned people who want to comment on the issue.
Wow I don't think I've ever read more over-analyzation of a review than this thread presents in my entire life.
Someone should make a MMO where players deal out inane point/counterpoint arguements filled with pseudointellectual drivel at eachother instead of weapons, add pretty costumes, damage bars and hit numbers popping up over their toons, make all female characters with extra skimpy outfits and every cup size through HH ...spam it enough on forums for real games and you'd probably capture a large portion of the MMO crowd.
I have not defended the review, only the reviewer. Mainly due to the fact that no one even bothered to question the reviewers who gave negative scores until several pages into this thread. I even stated that the reviewer gave the game a higher score than I did. I have read every review on this game I could find and I have appreciated them all, good or bad. Your review would be no different because I'm not the one throwing around "biased reviewer" claims.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
Maybe the reviewer just liked the game more than you. Seriously, getting mixed reviews for a game isn't totally unheard of. Probably the best thing to do is find a site that produces reviews you (for the most part) agree with. Plus, I'm sure there are people out there who would rate STO as a B+ or better.
To put it into perspective 1/7 of the people who played STO might think it was great while the other 6 thought it was mediocre at best (these are not real numbers, it's just an estimate). Also, 1/7 reviews thought STO was great while the other 6 thought it was mediocre at best.
EDIT: Just one more point I'd like to make. Not only is impossible to have an un-biased review, reviews=bias. Let's say a review rates a game 10/10. Whoever reviewed the game liked it a lot, so the reviewer gave it a 10. A totally unbiased review would mean NOT rating the game AT ALL and not having ANY opinion on the game or ANY of it's features. This is a topic I could go on for hours on, but honestly, I need to go to bed.
This statement is false.
This, OP, is definately the worst thread you've ever started. You've lost some credibility in my eyes.
A review is biased by definition. Someone, giving their opinion on their game experience.
Some people like it, some people don't, but we all know, if he had given the game a three, you wouldn't have made this thread.
This should go out to all the ones 'STILL' bashing the game. (Feel free to bash the company for the 90 days crap.)
Nobody cares! The people who want to play the game will play the game, and the ones who don't, wont. All you guys do by jumping on this wagon of 'Its biast!, He's being paid!' are morons. Use your brains and determine that just because a majority thinks something isn't good, doesn't mean 'everyone'. I know for a fact it's a very watered down game, but for god sake, I don't go around saying it until I've lost all the blood circulation to my head. The fact of the matter is, those who still go around complaining after a month into launch about a review of a game, need a better hobby. Why did you even read the review when you don't like the game? Waste of time I think.
Please think more carefully before you make yourself look stupid. I swear they should just make a seperate section of the forum, like they do with Star wars galaxies veterens area (where they really just complain about what was and what will never change, sadly.), where all the people who are into this constant trolling can have their way.
It doesn't help the first threads I see as I log on are all yours and are all negatively bashing a company I could care less about, but it gets a little annoying when people would much rather be hearing about in game stuff.
Longing for Skyrim, The Old Republic and Mass Effect 3
I have no problem with the review. All reviews are biased.
What I find shaky in his review. Is that the Pro's and Con's he mentioned are pretty much the same as other reviews have been mentioning as well.
And seeing those Con's in the end. And measuring them up against the Pro's. Than that B+ endscore really doesn't messure up against that.
More like a C or C- at most. Wich then also would be bringing it in line with the overal score sensus of all the reviews so far.
But that's just my 2 cents.
It also was the first review where i, scoring aside, actually felt like the guy played the game. Most reviews just show a screeny of the tier 1 miranda class, talk abit about this and that, catchy phrases that are pretty general, talk about endgame(that they for sure havnt seen in their miranda), and then they go over to the scoring. Some even just take the official screenys from the gamesite when talking about the borg content that got added after release wonder why they didnt make their own screenshots ...
Rating aside, they guy was spot on and displayed a intimate knowledge of the game. That guy obviously actually spend time in the game, not like most other reviews which feel like the reviewer spend like 5 hours in the game, then extrapolated the rest from forums.
P.S.: Thats btw a general complaint of me, not just STO. Most MMOs besides wow just dont get the attention they deserve in reviews i think. I dont think a reviewer has to have played the game completely through and experienced most nicks and crannys to rate it, but he better expect his review to be looking bad compared to one from someone who did.
I agree. Not amazing, not awful.
Longing for Skyrim, The Old Republic and Mass Effect 3