Funny how the anti-MO crowd here at mmorpg.com just can't accept that someone actually enjoyed playing MO. Just because they hate the game so much, it must be something fishy about a review listing both negative and positive things about the game.
I think the review was fair and honest. MO has many issues but it's playable and enjoyable - not for everyone perhaps, but is that really an issue? Talking about "norms" is just silly; no MMO can please everyone and MO has never claimed to be anything but a niche game for a pretty small audience.
Yep they are even more annoying than a rabid fanboy.
When i go to a game forum to read what people say and i see the same selected few doing thier hate crusade I get even more interrested in the game and usally end up doing a trial or pay a sub to try it out.
Funny how the anti-MO crowd here at mmorpg.com just can't accept that someone actually enjoyed playing MO. Just because they hate the game so much, it must be something fishy about a review listing both negative and positive things about the game.
I think the review was fair and honest. MO has many issues but it's playable and enjoyable - not for everyone perhaps, but is that really an issue? Talking about "norms" is just silly; no MMO can please everyone and MO has never claimed to be anything but a niche game for a pretty small audience.
Yep they are even more annoying than a rabid fanboy.
When i go to a game forum to read what people say and i see the same selected few doing thier hate crusade it get even more interresed in the game.
The problem isn't people that just hate the game. . they wouldn't be here. It is people that loved the idea. . invested a lot of time. . felt disappointed and NOW hate the game. It is similar to what happens in marriages. In the end they cant think of anything they ever loved about it. . think it was all smoke and mirrors.
Funny how the anti-MO crowd here at mmorpg.com just can't accept that someone actually enjoyed playing MO. Just because they hate the game so much, it must be something fishy about a review listing both negative and positive things about the game.
I think the review was fair and honest. MO has many issues but it's playable and enjoyable - not for everyone perhaps, but is that really an issue? Talking about "norms" is just silly; no MMO can please everyone and MO has never claimed to be anything but a niche game for a pretty small audience.
Yep they are even more annoying than a rabid fanboy.
When i go to a game forum to read what people say and i see the same selected few doing thier hate crusade it get even more interresed in the game.
The problem isn't people that just hate the game. . they wouldn't be here. It is people that loved the idea. . invested a lot of time. . felt disappointed and NOW hate the game.
The selected few havent tried the game since launch they are always digging for info on the MO boards to fuel thier hatred.
I would like to try this game out, but I refuse to sub any MMO without being able to play on beta or to get a free trial once it's released. Unfortunately I wasn't able to play in the OB.
And what doesn't make sense to me is that with all the problems that they seem to be having, with all the bad reviews and the hate and the sub numbers dropping. Is why don't they add a free trial!? I would really like to try this out, if this game was worth subbing (imho) I would sub it. But I can't know that without at least getting 1 week to test it. I would even settle for a 3 day trial.
Again, doesn't make sense to me from the economic perspective but maybe they just don't want the playerbase increasing out of proportions.
Maybe it the game survives these troubled times they'll consider offering us skeptics (not in the game itself as I mentioned before) a free trial.
I would like to try this game out, but I refuse to sub any MMO without being able to play on beta or to get a free trial once it's released. Unfortunately I wasn't able to play in the OB.
And what doesn't make sense to me is that with all the problems that they seem to be having, with all the bad reviews and the hate and the sub numbers dropping. Is why don't they add a free trial!? I would really like to try this out, if this game was worth subbing (imho) I would sub it. But I can't know that without at least getting 1 week to test it. I would even settle for a 3 day trial.
Again, doesn't make sense to me from the economic perspective but maybe they just don't want the playerbase increasing out of proportions.
Maybe it the game survives these troubled times they'll consider offering us skeptics (not in the game itself as I mentioned before) a free trial.
They're improving the new player experience (see latest patch) and they're going to add in more content before offering a free trial. It's for the best really, they have a small but solid member base at the moment which has been following all along however they don't want to give a half-hearted impression to the masses with a premature free trial.
They're improving the new player experience (see latest patch) and they're going to add in more content before offering a free trial. It's for the best really, they have a small but solid member base at the moment which has been following all along however they don't want to give a half-hearted impression to the masses with a premature free trial.
In other words they want people to fund developement until the game is ready for a general release?
That would be fine if it was clearly stated before one purchased the game. Fans defend the review and its score, yet still dont feel the game is ready to show the masses???
First, I have not played Mortal Online. However, that is not what my comment is about. As a reviewer, he has the right to say basically whatever he wants about the game. I read the article, and I decided that I might check it out. I can stand a few bugs here and there, and why not try a game out you haven't played before.
However, if you try and compare sandbox games to other non sandbox like games you are going to be sorely disappointed. Trying to compare EVE Online with EverQuest is useless. Sandbox games appeal to a certain group of people. I applaud them for it.
Currently Play: ? Occasionally Play: Champions, Pirates of the Burning Sea, WOW, EVE ONLINE
They're improving the new player experience (see latest patch) and they're going to add in more content before offering a free trial. It's for the best really, they have a small but solid member base at the moment which has been following all along however they don't want to give a half-hearted impression to the masses with a premature free trial.
In other words they want people to fund developement until the game is ready for a general release?
That would be fine if it was clearly stated before one purchased the game. Fans defend the review and its score, yet still dont feel the game is ready to show the masses???
Do some history research.
EvE starte basically in the same, if not worse condition and was like that for quite some time, it got awfull graphic, absolutely non friendly interface, ZERO tutorials and how it end up after some time(read: now)?
There is that saying in my country:
Rome was not built in a single day.
From my experience, this certainly applies to MO as they have started bad and are only improving. Sure, there is lots of bugs, but its not like in DF, like they are not trying to fix them rather quickly.
They're improving the new player experience (see latest patch) and they're going to add in more content before offering a free trial. It's for the best really, they have a small but solid member base at the moment which has been following all along however they don't want to give a half-hearted impression to the masses with a premature free trial.
In other words they want people to fund developement until the game is ready for a general release?
That would be fine if it was clearly stated before one purchased the game. Fans defend the review and its score, yet still dont feel the game is ready to show the masses???
Do some history research.
EvE starte basically in the same, if not worse condition and was like that for quite some time, it got awfull graphic, absolutely non friendly interface, ZERO tutorials and how it end up after some time(read: now)?
There is that saying in my country:
Rome was not built in a single day.
From my experience, this certainly applies to MO as they have started bad and are only improving. Sure, there is lots of bugs, but its not like in DF, like they are not trying to fix them rather quickly.
Using players to fund the development of a product that isn't completed is wrong. No matter if you later become successful.
EvE starte basically in the same, if not worse condition and was like that for quite some time, it got awfull graphic, absolutely non friendly interface, ZERO tutorials and how it end up after some time(read: now)?
There is that saying in my country:
Rome was not built in a single day.
From my experience, this certainly applies to MO as they have started bad and are only improving. Sure, there is lots of bugs, but its not like in DF, like they are not trying to fix them rather quickly.
EVE didn't have any competition in the market at the time, your customers having no alternative lets you do whatever you want and if they don't like it they can go back to WoW.
MO has competition in EVE, Darkfall and Perpetuum which is a complete EVE ripoff but it works.
MO started bad like EVE? Did anyone in EVE buy a 5$ account from the intrawebs and sub it for a month, unpack the game in UDK and reverse-engineer network packets to create 250,000 gold and distribute it to most guilds in-game? 3 weeks since that was done and they still haven't cottoned on to that. Oh and sorry to all guilds who got the "package", you weren't the only one to get a gift from Santa after all.
They're improving the new player experience (see latest patch) and they're going to add in more content before offering a free trial. It's for the best really, they have a small but solid member base at the moment which has been following all along however they don't want to give a half-hearted impression to the masses with a premature free trial.
In other words they want people to fund developement until the game is ready for a general release?
That would be fine if it was clearly stated before one purchased the game. Fans defend the review and its score, yet still dont feel the game is ready to show the masses???
Do some history research.
EvE starte basically in the same, if not worse condition and was like that for quite some time, it got awfull graphic, absolutely non friendly interface, ZERO tutorials and how it end up after some time(read: now)?
There is that saying in my country:
Rome was not built in a single day.
From my experience, this certainly applies to MO as they have started bad and are only improving. Sure, there is lots of bugs, but its not like in DF, like they are not trying to fix them rather quickly.
Using players to fund the development of a product that isn't completed is wrong. No matter if you later become successful.
I think its ok , IF ITS FULLY DISCLOSED in advance. With reviews like this and many "fan" comments people might be mislead. Its clear by the number of MO copies sold vs the current player base that people did not like what they were sold.
Using players to fund the development of a product that isn't completed is wrong. No matter if you later become successful.
No MMO is ever "completed".
So.. you're basically saying all MMO devs are wrongdoers and every game that doesn't release "completed" should shut down asap. The MMO scene would be rather empty if you had your way.
Besides, no one is forcing anyone to play MO. However, some people apparently don't mind playing it, and some even enjoy it, believe it or not. They can't all be mindless, brainwashed puppets being unconsciously "used" by SV's evil mastermind, can they?
Using players to fund the development of a product that isn't completed is wrong. No matter if you later become successful.
No MMO is ever "completed".
That lame excuse is always used in defense of a totaly unfinished game. We aren't talking about the average MMO expanding and maturing over time,
MO is unfinished on a core level, entire game mechanincs are broken,missing or"place holders" and stability/performance have been laughable given the limited server load.
The "review" is clearly biased and I'm sure the writer had a score in mind before he even began. No ones questioing rather or not the "writer" enjoyed himself, thats already been touched on. I'm sure the majorirty of MMORPG.com members see the "review" for what it is.
The review is the author's account of his experience, and therefore inherently subjective. If you accept that the author enjoyed his experience, why do you feel a review that says positive things about the game is biased? (Keeping in mind that he clearly mentioned many of the negative things about the game.) If you feel he is biased, what is the source of his bias?
"This is an old-school sandbox experience that only requires a little imagination and the desire for freedom. Taking clear influence from Ultima Online and (Pre-NGE) Star Wars Galaxies, this may well be the free-roaming life-sapper we have all been waiting for." I would suggest that this quote from the review sums up what bias the author may have.
Also, I think you may be focusing too much on the number. To put that in perspective again, 6.9 puts MO on roughly the same level as STO, Runescape, Pirates of the Burning Sea , and Earth Eternal, and a little better than APB (which got cancelled.
P.S. I don't know if it was intended but the quotation marks are extraneous and come of as a gratuitous dig at the reviewer.
Originally posted by Aethaeryn
The problem isn't people that just hate the game. . they wouldn't be here. It is people that loved the idea. . invested a lot of time. . felt disappointed and NOW hate the game. It is similar to what happens in marriages. In the end they cant think of anything they ever loved about it. . think it was all smoke and mirrors.
This relates to my answer to Hanoverz. There are some people who very much like what MO tries to be, but are disappointed by the results. At times, it seems that some of them feel the need to convince everyone to feel the same way and that even when the negatives of the game are acknowledged, it's just not enough unless the opinion given is that it is the worst game ever.
If those people had a game closer to their vision of what MO was going to be, perhaps they'd be playing that,
Ultimately, much of the issue is that such games are not nearly as profitable, so there just aren't many being made. Plus, making that sort of game and having it "work" is intrinsically harder than the strictly choreographed gameplay in others.
Using players to fund the development of a product that isn't completed is wrong. No matter if you later become successful.
No MMO is ever "completed".
So.. you're basically saying all MMO devs are wrongdoers and every game that doesn't release "completed" should shut down asap. The MMO scene would be rather empty if you had your way.
Besides, no one is forcing anyone to play MO. However, some people apparently don't mind playing it, and some even enjoy it, believe it or not. They can't all be mindless, brainwashed puppets being unconsciously "used" by SV's evil mastermind, can they?
The core vision isn't even near completion and there aren't even any working discs.
Theres a very clear lack of finish to this game. You have to be blind to see that.
The "review" is clearly biased and I'm sure the writer had a score in mind before he even began. No ones questioing rather or not the "writer" enjoyed himself, thats already been touched on. I'm sure the majorirty of MMORPG.com members see the "review" for what it is.
The review is the author's account of his experience, and therefore inherently subjective. If you accept that the author enjoyed his experience, why do you feel a review that says positive things about the game is biased? (Keeping in mind that he clearly mentioned many of the negative things about the game.) If you feel he is biased, what is the source of his bias?
Freelance Opportunities
Game Reviewers
MMORPGs are the hardest games to review. MMORPG.com requires experienced, dedicated writers who can take an objective look at an MMO, play it extensively and give us a fair and unbiased critical review. We are looking to review any MMO, no matter how old, and then return to re-review core games each year.
Requirements:
Each review must be between 2,000 and 3,000 words.
Review must be based on a minimum of three weeks dedicated play time just prior to writing the article.
Ability to provide an objective score based on our review model.
Reviewer cannot work for the company whose game they are reviewing or any competitor of that company.
The "review" is clearly biased and I'm sure the writer had a score in mind before he even began. No ones questioing rather or not the "writer" enjoyed himself, thats already been touched on. I'm sure the majorirty of MMORPG.com members see the "review" for what it is.
The review is the author's account of his experience, and therefore inherently subjective. If you accept that the author enjoyed his experience, why do you feel a review that says positive things about the game is biased? (Keeping in mind that he clearly mentioned many of the negative things about the game.) If you feel he is biased, what is the source of his bias?
Freelance Opportunities
Game Reviewers
MMORPGs are the hardest games to review. MMORPG.com requires experienced, dedicated writers who can take an objective look at an MMO, play it extensively and give us a fair and unbiased critical review. We are looking to review any MMO, no matter how old, and then return to re-review core games each year.
Requirements:
Each review must be between 2,000 and 3,000 words.
Review must be based on a minimum of three weeks dedicated play time just prior to writing the article.
Ability to provide an objective score based on our review model.
Reviewer cannot work for the company whose game they are reviewing or any competitor of that company.
Yes, it should be as objective as possible and this MO review is as objective as it can be. It is very honest and say MO have some bugs but he is also saying he is have lots of fun playing it.
I mean, you, HanoverZ, would hardly be a honest reviewer about MO, you only try to find bad things about MO, you are so extreme in that mission that you even try to twist the good things into something bad, I have yet to see that you write something good about MO. Basing a review on your opinion about MO would be very far from an objective review.
Basically, a game isn't worth playing if it is free from bugs but boring to play. Such a game should have a very low score. But in this case, if I where the reviewer and think this game is fun to play and I like that kind of MMO then that will effect my score in a positive direction (ofc). Doing otherwise would be a very bad review. Thats the way the reviewer have done here. He can't be blind about the fun factor. The reviewer have loads of fun playing MO, So, when the bugs is fixed and more content are in (which will be the coming weeks) then this game will get a much higher score than 6.9.
That lame excuse is always used in defense of a totaly unfinished game. We aren't talking about the average MMO expanding and maturing over time,
MO is unfinished on a core level, entire game mechanincs are broken,missing or"place holders" and stability/performance have been laughable given the limited server load.
But it's not an excuse, it's a fact. MO might not be the average MMO (which is a good thing btw), but it is definitely expanding and maturing over time.
No one is denying it needs extensive polish and added content, but you people seem to expect the production speed and solidity of an AAA title, which is just not going to happen in MO's case. Some people can live with that, some apparently can't. Why make such a big deal about it?
MMORPGs are the hardest games to review. MMORPG.com requires experienced, dedicated writers who can take an objective look at an MMO, play it extensively and give us a fair and unbiased critical review. We are looking to review any MMO, no matter how old, and then return to re-review core games each year.
Requirements:
Each review must be between 2,000 and 3,000 words.
Review must be based on a minimum of three weeks dedicated play time just prior to writing the article.
Ability to provide an objective score based on our review model.
Reviewer cannot work for the company whose game they are reviewing or any competitor of that company.
Perhaps you could provide a link to their review model and explain haw he deviates from it.
If you look at most of the recent reviews, the player score is fairly close to the reviewer's score for most of them (STO and APB being major outliers. The user rating for MO is 6.7. The score on Gamespot is 6.8 http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/mortalonline/index.html?tag=result;title;4, based on players votes. In light of these "crowd-sourced" scores it's hard to say that 6.9 is that far off the mark.
Perhaps the whole idea of numerical scores is flawed, but that's another matter entirely.
If you take exception to the review, please point to the parts of written review that you disagree with.
User rating are a terrible indicator to judge a game with.
They are easily manipulated (esp with viral marketing techniques) and are a self selecting sample. For an accurate assessment you look to a review of the game, and not a preview of what someone wishes the game might end up being either.
User rating are a terrible indicator to judge a game with.
They are easily manipulated (esp with viral marketing techniques) and are a self selecting sample. For an accurate assessment you look to a review of the game, and not a preview of what someone wishes the game might end up being either.
Well, sometimes I agree with a review and sometimes not. In this case I agree with most of what the reviewer writes. He writes that MO got some bugs but it's still great fun to play MO. I have to agree here. But MO is not a MMO for everyone.
User rating are a terrible indicator to judge a game with.
They are easily manipulated (esp with viral marketing techniques) and are a self selecting sample. For an accurate assessment you look to a review of the game, and not a preview of what someone wishes the game might end up being either.
Well, sometimes I agree with a review and sometimes not. In this case I agree with most of what the reviewer writes. He writes that MO got some bugs but it's still great fun to play MO. I have to agree here. But MO is not a MMO for everyone.
Ahh the "this game isn't for everyone" argument...long time since I hadn't heard it lol
Well in some way I agree, this game definatly is for a tiny minority of people who wish to financially support an idea by paying for a game they don't play...So yes that clearly isn't "everyone"...Glad we agree on something
User rating are a terrible indicator to judge a game with.
They are easily manipulated (esp with viral marketing techniques) and are a self selecting sample. For an accurate assessment you look to a review of the game, and not a preview of what someone wishes the game might end up being either.
Well, sometimes I agree with a review and sometimes not. In this case I agree with most of what the reviewer writes. He writes that MO got some bugs but it's still great fun to play MO. I have to agree here. But MO is not a MMO for everyone.
Ahh the "this game isn't for everyone" argument...long time since I hadn't heard it lol
Well in some way I agree, this game definatly is for a tiny minority of people who wish to financially support an idea by paying for a game they don't play...So yes that clearly isn't "everyone"...Glad we agree on something
... you don't get it, do you? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean other people don't like it.
Some people seem to have incredibly hard time understanding that different persons like different things.
I respect others interest in games, however, that doesn't make MO a less shitty game industry standard and professional wise. If they despite all enjoy it, up to them, I am not denying it is possible to have fun in MO.
Comments
Yep they are even more annoying than a rabid fanboy.
When i go to a game forum to read what people say and i see the same selected few doing thier hate crusade I get even more interrested in the game and usally end up doing a trial or pay a sub to try it out.
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
The problem isn't people that just hate the game. . they wouldn't be here. It is people that loved the idea. . invested a lot of time. . felt disappointed and NOW hate the game. It is similar to what happens in marriages. In the end they cant think of anything they ever loved about it. . think it was all smoke and mirrors.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
The selected few havent tried the game since launch they are always digging for info on the MO boards to fuel thier hatred.
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
I would like to try this game out, but I refuse to sub any MMO without being able to play on beta or to get a free trial once it's released. Unfortunately I wasn't able to play in the OB.
And what doesn't make sense to me is that with all the problems that they seem to be having, with all the bad reviews and the hate and the sub numbers dropping. Is why don't they add a free trial!? I would really like to try this out, if this game was worth subbing (imho) I would sub it. But I can't know that without at least getting 1 week to test it. I would even settle for a 3 day trial.
Again, doesn't make sense to me from the economic perspective but maybe they just don't want the playerbase increasing out of proportions.
Maybe it the game survives these troubled times they'll consider offering us skeptics (not in the game itself as I mentioned before) a free trial.
Playing:
RIFT, EU Blightweald Server
Waiting to see:
ToR, TERA, GW2
They're improving the new player experience (see latest patch) and they're going to add in more content before offering a free trial. It's for the best really, they have a small but solid member base at the moment which has been following all along however they don't want to give a half-hearted impression to the masses with a premature free trial.
In other words they want people to fund developement until the game is ready for a general release?
That would be fine if it was clearly stated before one purchased the game. Fans defend the review and its score, yet still dont feel the game is ready to show the masses???
I win!!! LOL@U
First, I have not played Mortal Online. However, that is not what my comment is about. As a reviewer, he has the right to say basically whatever he wants about the game. I read the article, and I decided that I might check it out. I can stand a few bugs here and there, and why not try a game out you haven't played before.
However, if you try and compare sandbox games to other non sandbox like games you are going to be sorely disappointed. Trying to compare EVE Online with EverQuest is useless. Sandbox games appeal to a certain group of people. I applaud them for it.
Currently Play: ?
Occasionally Play: Champions, Pirates of the Burning Sea, WOW, EVE ONLINE
Do some history research.
EvE starte basically in the same, if not worse condition and was like that for quite some time, it got awfull graphic, absolutely non friendly interface, ZERO tutorials and how it end up after some time(read: now)?
There is that saying in my country:
Rome was not built in a single day.
From my experience, this certainly applies to MO as they have started bad and are only improving. Sure, there is lots of bugs, but its not like in DF, like they are not trying to fix them rather quickly.
Using players to fund the development of a product that isn't completed is wrong. No matter if you later become successful.
EVE didn't have any competition in the market at the time, your customers having no alternative lets you do whatever you want and if they don't like it they can go back to WoW.
MO has competition in EVE, Darkfall and Perpetuum which is a complete EVE ripoff but it works.
MO started bad like EVE? Did anyone in EVE buy a 5$ account from the intrawebs and sub it for a month, unpack the game in UDK and reverse-engineer network packets to create 250,000 gold and distribute it to most guilds in-game? 3 weeks since that was done and they still haven't cottoned on to that. Oh and sorry to all guilds who got the "package", you weren't the only one to get a gift from Santa after all.
I think its ok , IF ITS FULLY DISCLOSED in advance. With reviews like this and many "fan" comments people might be mislead. Its clear by the number of MO copies sold vs the current player base that people did not like what they were sold.
I win!!! LOL@U
No MMO is ever "completed".
So.. you're basically saying all MMO devs are wrongdoers and every game that doesn't release "completed" should shut down asap. The MMO scene would be rather empty if you had your way.
Besides, no one is forcing anyone to play MO. However, some people apparently don't mind playing it, and some even enjoy it, believe it or not. They can't all be mindless, brainwashed puppets being unconsciously "used" by SV's evil mastermind, can they?
That lame excuse is always used in defense of a totaly unfinished game. We aren't talking about the average MMO expanding and maturing over time,
MO is unfinished on a core level, entire game mechanincs are broken,missing or"place holders" and stability/performance have been laughable given the limited server load.
I win!!! LOL@U
The review is the author's account of his experience, and therefore inherently subjective. If you accept that the author enjoyed his experience, why do you feel a review that says positive things about the game is biased? (Keeping in mind that he clearly mentioned many of the negative things about the game.) If you feel he is biased, what is the source of his bias?
"This is an old-school sandbox experience that only requires a little imagination and the desire for freedom. Taking clear influence from Ultima Online and (Pre-NGE) Star Wars Galaxies, this may well be the free-roaming life-sapper we have all been waiting for." I would suggest that this quote from the review sums up what bias the author may have.
Also, I think you may be focusing too much on the number. To put that in perspective again, 6.9 puts MO on roughly the same level as STO, Runescape, Pirates of the Burning Sea , and Earth Eternal, and a little better than APB (which got cancelled.
P.S. I don't know if it was intended but the quotation marks are extraneous and come of as a gratuitous dig at the reviewer.
This relates to my answer to Hanoverz. There are some people who very much like what MO tries to be, but are disappointed by the results. At times, it seems that some of them feel the need to convince everyone to feel the same way and that even when the negatives of the game are acknowledged, it's just not enough unless the opinion given is that it is the worst game ever.
If those people had a game closer to their vision of what MO was going to be, perhaps they'd be playing that,
Ultimately, much of the issue is that such games are not nearly as profitable, so there just aren't many being made. Plus, making that sort of game and having it "work" is intrinsically harder than the strictly choreographed gameplay in others.
http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/it-seems-much-easier-to-make-interesting-sandbox-pvp-content-then-it-is-to-maintain-and-create-pve-treadmill-content/
The core vision isn't even near completion and there aren't even any working discs.
Theres a very clear lack of finish to this game. You have to be blind to see that.
Freelance Opportunities
Game Reviewers
MMORPGs are the hardest games to review. MMORPG.com requires experienced, dedicated writers who can take an objective look at an MMO, play it extensively and give us a fair and unbiased critical review. We are looking to review any MMO, no matter how old, and then return to re-review core games each year.
Requirements:
Each review must be between 2,000 and 3,000 words.
Review must be based on a minimum of three weeks dedicated play time just prior to writing the article.
Ability to provide an objective score based on our review model.
Reviewer cannot work for the company whose game they are reviewing or any competitor of that company.
I win!!! LOL@U
Yes, it should be as objective as possible and this MO review is as objective as it can be. It is very honest and say MO have some bugs but he is also saying he is have lots of fun playing it.
I mean, you, HanoverZ, would hardly be a honest reviewer about MO, you only try to find bad things about MO, you are so extreme in that mission that you even try to twist the good things into something bad, I have yet to see that you write something good about MO. Basing a review on your opinion about MO would be very far from an objective review.
Basically, a game isn't worth playing if it is free from bugs but boring to play. Such a game should have a very low score. But in this case, if I where the reviewer and think this game is fun to play and I like that kind of MMO then that will effect my score in a positive direction (ofc). Doing otherwise would be a very bad review. Thats the way the reviewer have done here. He can't be blind about the fun factor. The reviewer have loads of fun playing MO, So, when the bugs is fixed and more content are in (which will be the coming weeks) then this game will get a much higher score than 6.9.
But it's not an excuse, it's a fact. MO might not be the average MMO (which is a good thing btw), but it is definitely expanding and maturing over time.
No one is denying it needs extensive polish and added content, but you people seem to expect the production speed and solidity of an AAA title, which is just not going to happen in MO's case. Some people can live with that, some apparently can't. Why make such a big deal about it?
Perhaps you could provide a link to their review model and explain haw he deviates from it.
If you look at most of the recent reviews, the player score is fairly close to the reviewer's score for most of them (STO and APB being major outliers. The user rating for MO is 6.7. The score on Gamespot is 6.8 http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/mortalonline/index.html?tag=result;title;4, based on players votes. In light of these "crowd-sourced" scores it's hard to say that 6.9 is that far off the mark.
Perhaps the whole idea of numerical scores is flawed, but that's another matter entirely.
If you take exception to the review, please point to the parts of written review that you disagree with.
User rating are a terrible indicator to judge a game with.
They are easily manipulated (esp with viral marketing techniques) and are a self selecting sample. For an accurate assessment you look to a review of the game, and not a preview of what someone wishes the game might end up being either.
Well, sometimes I agree with a review and sometimes not. In this case I agree with most of what the reviewer writes. He writes that MO got some bugs but it's still great fun to play MO. I have to agree here. But MO is not a MMO for everyone.
Ahh the "this game isn't for everyone" argument...long time since I hadn't heard it lol
Well in some way I agree, this game definatly is for a tiny minority of people who wish to financially support an idea by paying for a game they don't play...So yes that clearly isn't "everyone"...Glad we agree on something
... you don't get it, do you? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean other people don't like it.
Some people seem to have incredibly hard time understanding that different persons like different things.
I respect others interest in games, however, that doesn't make MO a less shitty game industry standard and professional wise. If they despite all enjoy it, up to them, I am not denying it is possible to have fun in MO.