How can a MMO be reviewed a month after release?

borghive49

Is it just me or is it getting ridiculous how fast reviews get posted about newly released MMOs?  How on earth could you make a honest opinion of a game after playing for such a short period of time?  I personally feel MMOs shouldn't be reviewed for at least 3-6 months after release and even then things are still be fleshed out. So basically what I'm ranting about here is that I'm tired of being mislead one way or another to buy or to not buy a game when the game in question has had barely any time in the wild.

Wildstar for example is getting above average reviews and after a month that I have been playing I really haven't been that impressed,so far seems very average for a MMO (my opinion).  But being that I'm only in my mid 40s I'm not about to quit I will continue to the level cap (hoping the end game is better) so that I can experience all the game has to offer before passing judgement on it.  Anyway just a rant about the press that reviews MMOs! 

 

Rattenmann

1. Well, do YOU give a game 3-6 months of time? Really, do you? I don't.
2. Do you want to wait 6 months before a review to make an informed guess on how to spend your money? Most people don't. (Actually, i never read reviews as they mean nothing unless they are being done by Total Bisquit).
3. Also: Do you really think a game should be reviewed by a state 6 months AFTER it released and started to take peoples money?

 

Edit: But we can agree on one thing. Review Press usually does a bad job. It really seems every AAA game gets a 8 if it sucks, a 9 if it is medicore at best. Then they give a 5 to smaller games that are way more polished and fun, because they don't offer a 3d sound option or something useless like that.

Sinaku

I mean most people can hit level cap and try a lot of end game content within a months time. Idk about you but that is enough for me to know what is in store for a game.
I don't think that you should review a game in beta or alpha, but besides that 1 month or more than long enough considering that is when you see players choosing to stay or not.

Tibernicuspa

In modern WoW clones, so little gameplay changes from level 1-60, and you can usually tell exactly what a game is like as soon as you start playing.

 

For me, as soon as it asks me to grind quests, I lose interest.

siicAdelic

Technically  game developers should provide legit game reviewers unrestricted friends and family access with no quid pro quo expectation. 

 

As it stands now if you do not let the game developer write the review themselves you just do not get access.

 

It's getting almost as bad as politics.

DarLorkar

Kind of pointless to wait longer than 30 days really. If a game is released it is ready for a review. 

 

Why they do re-reviews by the way..so they can give it another go later and see if anything has changed, for better or worse.

 

It is a review after all..not the last word on a game.. Just one persons review.

d_20

OP is right. You can review leveling or some specific aspect of it, but if you haven't had significant time to run endgame content and systems then "review of the game" is bunk.

observer

Because veteran MMO players already know the standard mechanics of the genre, and what to expect after reaching maximum level.  Besides, MMOs no longer take a month to reach max. level anymore.

Tecca

I do kind of agree that you should really dive into a game before reviewing it. But at the same time, developers shouldn't be given the leniency to make the beginning of their games sub par. A game needs to be great from the moment you log in, until well after you've hit the level cap. The excuse that a game's only been out for a few months and isn't "complete" isn't what I believe people should take into account. If you sell a product, make sure it's ready for reviews the moment it's out of the door. Endgame should not dictate the fun of the game, nor should the beginning of the game.

Overall, it really comes down to having a consistent gameplay experience throughout the entire game. So when I say I agree, I absolutely think you should get to level cap and a little beyond before truly rating a game. At the same time, I find no fault in rating a game with low scores if you've only played through half the level cap. Consistency is key. Don't allow developers to create a shoddy experience and force you into playing for several months before you give your impressions. Because, as many of us know, it's easy to become hooked to something that you might not even enjoy. It just takes a couple of weeks to get you there.

bcbully

Originally posted by observer
Because veteran MMO players already know the standard mechanics of the genre, and what to expect after reaching maximum level.  Besides, MMOs no longer take a month to reach max. level anymore.

Standard WoW clone mechanics... Trying some different things. It's a big mmorpg world out there

VengeSunsoar

I can evaluate the graphics in a few minutes. The fluidity of combat and controls as well. Within an hour of playing you know generally how the game is. They rarely change.

Kirrik

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
I can evaluate the graphics in a few minutes. The fluidity of combat and controls as well. Within an hour of playing you know generally how the game is. They rarely change.

This. Which are big things to take in consideration when you evaluate your first gameplay session. What from the MMORPG that I currently play will bring me back and get me hooked? Not some bland character animations and clunky combat that is for sure.

Of course that is not all there is to it. But it plays a big part in depicting peoples first reactions.

-Kirrik

gervaise1

Mainly it's just you imo. There is a tiny seed of a point in what you say but only a tiny seed.

1. First there is a lot of stuff that can be reviewed straight out of the box - in some cases 5 minutes could be enough:

• the graphics style - won't changes after 3 months
• the ambient sounds, background music and other audio cues
• character creation screen / system
• the games initial launch - which can say a lot about the company and product

2. Then there are things which, whilst they might change, if they are in at launch they are unlikely to change

• the control system e.g. WASD - very unlikely to change
• the initial hand holding / introduction to the game - might improve but not in 3 months
• how the game handles trading, even assuming it has things to trade
• crafting
• spec lines
• classes
• targeting
• grouping mechanisms
• support for guilds
• whether the game has an auction house
• is it an ambient world
• how you submit a ticket (issue, bug report, problem). Is it in-game, via e-mail, do you have to ring them etc.
• etc.

Some of these things might be added but if they are in at launch then it shouldn't be different in 3 months. And if some things missed the launch date - crafting say - then you would expect the devs to have said so. And the review can say no crafting at this time - or whatever. And if anything is in at launch but going to be changed 3 months later - that would be bad. 

 

3. Then there is some subjective stuff: game play, levelling experience, risk-reward, immersion, how well stories / dungeons have been created, customer support response. The point about this stuff is that it is subjective and it will be just as subjective. 

 

4. Launch issues. A game launches how it launches but there are things that - sometimes - are easily fixed. Bugs, performance issues, bots up to a point. The problem with this category of stuff is that the game should not have launched with easily fixed problems. It sends a message of poor testing, poor control, taking the customer for granted etc. Anyone who has read any of Yoshida's FFXIV's major failings was launching with "oh its an mmo we can fix it over time" mentality. The bar is perfection - and then we can cut them some slack.

 

5. So stuff that may be different 3 months after launch:

• bugs, bots, performance issues - yes they may be better but see point 4
• extra content - yes there might be some but if the release content is high standard you would expect the added content to be high standard. And vice versa.
• community - but that is subjective and may get worse as well as better

In short there is so much about a game that can be reviewed early on - even after a few minutes - that there is no reason to wait 3 months. Especially as many reviews score different aspects of a game in order to arrive at their overall score.

 

 

6. OK lets tackle the usual suspect: reviewer didn't experience end game content.

 

a) Design teams, like artists and bands, will have a style. If the early stuff is good you would expect the later stuff to be good. If the early stuff is bad why would you want to play the game anyway - and you probably won't like the end game stuff anyway.

 

b) How different was EQ's early content to the content you eventually got to 12 months later - 3 months being way to soon! How fundamentally different are WoW's end game to the instances you can do at level 20. I know what people mean when they say this ... but: the vast bulk of the experience is the same. 

 

7. In conclusion. There are people who read reviews before they decide to buy a game. Its why companies take review scores seriously. If no reviews were published for 3 months sales would be impacted. 

 

Somewhat ironically, whilst I don't see any problem with games being reviewed at launch, my own suggestion would be for people not to rush in. A view that extends to lots of products - not just games. 

 

 

 

borghive49

Originally posted by gervaise1

Mainly it's just you imo. There is a tiny seed of a point in what you say but only a tiny seed.

1. First there is a lot of stuff that can be reviewed straight out of the box - in some cases 5 minutes could be enough:

• the graphics style - won't changes after 3 months
• the ambient sounds, background music and other audio cues
• character creation screen / system
• the games initial launch - which can say a lot about the company and product

2. Then there are things which, whilst they might change, if they are in at launch they are unlikely to change

• the control system e.g. WASD - very unlikely to change
• the initial hand holding / introduction to the game - might improve but not in 3 months
• how the game handles trading, even assuming it has things to trade
• crafting
• spec lines
• classes
• targeting
• grouping mechanisms
• support for guilds
• whether the game has an auction house
• is it an ambient world
• how you submit a ticket (issue, bug report, problem). Is it in-game, via e-mail, do you have to ring them etc.
• etc.

Some of these things might be added but if they are in at launch then it shouldn't be different in 3 months. And if some things missed the launch date - crafting say - then you would expect the devs to have said so. And the review can say no crafting at this time - or whatever. And if anything is in at launch but going to be changed 3 months later - that would be bad. 

 

3. Then there is some subjective stuff: game play, levelling experience, risk-reward, immersion, how well stories / dungeons have been created, customer support response. The point about this stuff is that it is subjective and it will be just as subjective. 

 

4. Launch issues. A game launches how it launches but there are things that - sometimes - are easily fixed. Bugs, performance issues, bots up to a point. The problem with this category of stuff is that the game should not have launched with easily fixed problems. It sends a message of poor testing, poor control, taking the customer for granted etc. Anyone who has read any of Yoshida's FFXIV's major failings was launching with "oh its an mmo we can fix it over time" mentality. The bar is perfection - and then we can cut them some slack.

 

5. So stuff that may be different 3 months after launch:

• bugs, bots, performance issues - yes they may be better but see point 4
• extra content - yes there might be some but if the release content is high standard you would expect the added content to be high standard. And vice versa.
• community - but that is subjective and may get worse as well as better

In short there is so much about a game that can be reviewed early on - even after a few minutes - that there is no reason to wait 3 months. Especially as many reviews score different aspects of a game in order to arrive at their overall score.

 

 

6. OK lets tackle the usual suspect: reviewer didn't experience end game content.

 

a) Design teams, like artists and bands, will have a style. If the early stuff is good you would expect the later stuff to be good. If the early stuff is bad why would you want to play the game anyway - and you probably won't like the end game stuff anyway.

 

b) How different was EQ's early content to the content you eventually got to 12 months later - 3 months being way to soon! How fundamentally different are WoW's end game to the instances you can do at level 20. I know what people mean when they say this ... but: the vast bulk of the experience is the same. 

 

7. In conclusion. There are people who read reviews before they decide to buy a game. Its why companies take review scores seriously. If no reviews were published for 3 months sales would be impacted. 

 

Somewhat ironically, whilst I don't see any problem with games being reviewed at launch, my own suggestion would be for people not to rush in. A view that extends to lots of products - not just games. 

 

 

 

Good points here through and through first logical post I read in a while thanks again! 

Vrika

Reviewers aren't trying to do science, they are trying to give other people useful information.

They don't need to experience everything about the game, and don't need to be correct about everything. That's not the aim of review. The aim is to give descriptions and evaluations of the game, and recommendations about buying it or not buying it. One doesn't need to have played the whole game to give those.

Quizzical

People want to know how good a game is when they're considering buying it--often before launch.  That creates a great rush to get reviews up as quickly as possible in order to attract page views from people looking for reviews of a game.  If you write really great reviews of games a year after launch, most of the hits from people looking for reviews of that game have already happened and not on your site because you're too late.

I think this site has hit on a very nice approach with their "reviews in progress".  Get some information about the game that would go into a review up early while people are looking for reviews, but wait some weeks before giving a final score.  That's enough time for the reviewer to have some idea of what he's talking about--and enough that if the same person were to re-review the game a year later, he probably wouldn't change that much of the original review.

Mr.Kujo

Reviews just describe the game, if you can get past all the content at least once after a month, you can review how everything worked. I don't think anyone ever cares about what reviewers feelings were, it is always about specifications, you want to know how the game is.

SEANMCAD

because within a month now you are at 'end game'

bill4747

A review in the first month is essentially a 'first impression' review.

I guess if a game does not hook you in one month, many people will walk away.

ryvendark

Way more mmos start out awesome and get more and more boring as you progress. If anything the early reviews have more of a danger of giving a false positive impression rather then a negative one

Hariken

Originally posted by borghive49

Is it just me or is it getting ridiculous how fast reviews get posted about newly released MMOs?  How on earth could you make a honest opinion of a game after playing for such a short period of time?  I personally feel MMOs shouldn't be reviewed for at least 3-6 months after release and even then things are still be fleshed out. So basically what I'm ranting about here is that I'm tired of being mislead one way or another to buy or to not buy a game when the game in question has had barely any time in the wild.

Wildstar for example is getting above average reviews and after a month that I have been playing I really haven't been that impressed,so far seems very average for a MMO (my opinion).  But being that I'm only in my mid 40s I'm not about to quit I will continue to the level cap (hoping the end game is better) so that I can experience all the game has to offer before passing judgement on it.  Anyway just a rant about the press that reviews MMOs! 

 

They can't its mmo sites gaining traffic to their site by being first to post something about a new game.  Pcgamer and Giantbomb posted stuff on the same day of Firefalls release and just reading both if you played the game,you could tell these guys were clueless about the game and because they didn't get what was going on they trashed it. Just listening to them made me wonder how they ever got their jobs. Firefall has its faults like all games do but what these guys were saying was just insulting to any intelligent gamer.  Pcgamer went as far as saying the graphics were fuzzy and unclear. That one made me shake my head in disbelief. And there are plenty of gamers that can't think for themselves and believe anything these reviewers say.  I have never bought any game because of something a paid reviewer wrote. I have plenty of friends that game and i listen to them over these guys.

pinktailz

I make a honest opinion of a game after playing 5 mins actually, another useless forum post meh.

Sovrath

Because it's unrealistic to spend months in a game only to come back and give an opinion of what "months in the game" is like.

Players are going to want the gist of what the game offers as their experience won't be months but will be the first moments, hours of the game.

Foomerang

Because people don't want an actual review. They just want to know if someone loves or hates the game. That info can be gathered in a matter of minutes, let alone an entire month.

CrazKanuk

One other consideration is that it's their job. A month for a critic, I'm assuming, is like 3-6 months for most casual people. I actually think that people posting reviews at 1 month are the ones I'd consider listening to. If you're playing for 4 or 5 hours a day, that's like 100 hours. In fact, I think for their ESO review, someone had said that "After putting in over 90 hours....." 

 

Really, you should be able to get a really good feel for a game after 10 hours, even. It's like the MMO Fight or Flight. Do you feel like actually continuing, are you compelled to play? Or are you kinda looking at your games library wondering if there's something else to play? We don't need someone to be a red shirt, we need someone to be able to give us an unbiased opinion about how a specific category of the game measures against other games, and then explain why. 

Sevala

Plus, most of these games are out months or years before "release". Alpha is the Beta, Beta is the new release.

Personally, I think the review needs to be posted the moment a game starts anything "Open". Open Beta...review. Game isn't going to change much, or could even be flagged as "Open Beta Review of GAMENAME" to forewarn readers as to the status of the game at the time it was written. If companies are going to start asking for money faster with less polish, and less content, and demanding to be paid for alpha/beta/etc, then thats open invitation for reviews in my opinion.

 

Also, it takes me about 1-3 hours to determine most things about a game and my opinion. My impression rarely changes beyond that marker regardless of how much time I spend in it.