It takes a lot longer to review an MMO than regular single player games etc. No doubt there are some 'first impressions' vids out there on youtube etc. More than likely in the next few weeks we will start to see some more in depth reviews, although, as its a reiteration of an existing game, they might be a bit thin on the ground
The review's already been delayed for a much longer time than normal because the reviewer wanted to make sure he experienced as much as possible before writing the review. If the Reviewer waited for Auroria, he would have had to give it another 2+ weeks after Auroria came out to fully experience the content before writing up the review.
For most people, I think getting a review out THAT late is rather unacceptable.
The review's already been delayed for a much longer time than normal because the reviewer wanted to make sure he experienced as much as possible before writing the review. If the Reviewer waited for Auroria, he would have had to give it another 2+ weeks after Auroria came out to fully experience the content before writing up the review.
For most people, I think getting a review out THAT late is rather unacceptable.
I understand your point and not saying with Auroria open the current review might change. I just thing imo game is not fully launched yet. Might not change anything but we are playing only part of the game.
The review's already been delayed for a much longer time than normal because the reviewer wanted to make sure he experienced as much as possible before writing the review. If the Reviewer waited for Auroria, he would have had to give it another 2+ weeks after Auroria came out to fully experience the content before writing up the review.
For most people, I think getting a review out THAT late is rather unacceptable.
reviews are usually full of personal bias regardless of the source anyway, so just experience it for yourself and judge it yourself. Experiences can vary greatly depending on the faction side and server also, so unless a reviewer played both sides to max on every server, there's never going to be an "accurate" review of this game.
The review's already been delayed for a much longer time than normal because the reviewer wanted to make sure he experienced as much as possible before writing the review. If the Reviewer waited for Auroria, he would have had to give it another 2+ weeks after Auroria came out to fully experience the content before writing up the review.
For most people, I think getting a review out THAT late is rather unacceptable.
Wouldn't be if it was for FFXIV
The FFXIV review came out much sooner after FFXIV's release than this one did, didn't it? Pretty sure this review was one of the longest-time-after-launch reviews in MMORPG's history (though I could be wrong)
Why do you need a review? The game is free to play - play it and review it yourself. Don't rely on someone else's opinion of the game. That's just borderline lazy.
Wow, getting called 'borderline lazy' for expecting a timely review from a site that does reviews. Basically telling OP to do the job for free that they get paid to do.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
The reviewer is not worth to post comments on MMORPG site.
Archeage is the richest MMORPG on festures of ALL TIMES !
It offers everything the MMORPG genre is capable to offer all in one place.
My problem with the review is the category 'gameplay'. If any MMORPG deserved there a 10 then it is Archeage offering so much content no one has seen before in a MMORPG.
The reviewer is biased and has a sick understanding of MMORPGs. Who is mr reviewer to judge over other peoples tastes in gameplay and rate "Archeage has mich to do" BUT "often it is not worth doing".
No mr biased reviwer. YOU REVIEW WASN'T WORTH IT.
who is it btw is is a real MMORPG reviewer or some spolied kid allowed to write reviews ?? I doubt its a real vet MMORPG player and must be really new to the genre.
probably he should more engage in writing about things he understands like sparkling objets and leave really complex thingslike MMORPG's for the grown ups.
The reviewer is not worth to post comments on MMORPG site.
Archeage is the richest MMORPG on festures of ALL TIMES !
It offers everything the MMORPG genre is capable to offer all in one place.
My problem with the review is the category 'gameplay'. If any MMORPG deserved there a 10 then it is Archeage offering so much content no one has seen before in a MMORPG.
The reviewer is biased and has a sick understanding of MMORPGs. Who is mr reviewer to judge over other peoples tastes in gameplay and rate "Archeage has mich to do" BUT "often it is not worth doing".
No mr biased reviwer. YOU REVIEW WASN'T WORTH IT.
who is it btw is is a real MMORPG reviewer or some spolied kid allowed to write reviews ?? I doubt its a real vet MMORPG player and must be really new to the genre.
probably he should more engage in writing about things he understands like sparkling objets and leave really complex thingslike MMORPG's for the grown ups.
You can not be serious.. Most features of all time? Not even close to SWG's feature list, as for the rest, my first sentence covers it.. Parody of MMO fans?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Sure, a ton of features checked off from a list and thrown into a game that gives all those features absolutely no logical flow at all. The game has all of this stuff to do, but none of it feels fluid with the next feature. It all feels crammed in.
Archeage is the richest MMORPG on festures of ALL TIMES !
It offers everything the MMORPG genre is capable to offer all in one place.
....
You can not be serious.. Most features of all time? Not even close to SWG's feature list, as for the rest, my first sentence covers it.. Parody of MMO fans?
Have you been in game. Archeage is the only MMORPG that is comparable to SWG.
Like in SWG someone can interact with like every item in the world. Didn't counted them but the sheer amount of items that can be crafted, used, placed in the world is at least on par with that of SWG, then AA has physics and collision detection and like 5 ingame currencies. Like SWG it offers content for any playstyle. You make a living out of sportfishing, tailoring, farming etc.etc etc.. Even it offers content and room for creativity with player created crests on sails and capes, hell player composed music.
SWG and Archeage play for me easy in the same league regarding feature list.
Also like SWG it is perls thrown before swine. It shares the same sort of criticism for being the best MMORPG out in his time. Same sort of critic regarding immersion break because of player freedom and allowing player creativity. So even in critics it is on par with SWG.
Sure, a ton of features checked off from a list and thrown into a game that gives all those features absolutely no logical flow at all. The game has all of this stuff to do, but none of it feels fluid with the next feature. It all feels crammed in.
Man, the human perception is really fun sometimes, in my case i see it totaly the contrary. For long time i didnt play a mmorpg where features were so well connected and most make sense.
What i like in AA is the whole picture, not individual feature A or B, but the way they are connected.
MMORPG.com please RE review this title and this time put some real revieweron it. Someone with experience in MMORPG's like SWG pre cu.
Its inaccetable to have a wannabe reviewer with that backgraound on bad MMORPG taste to runining the credability of your site.
This is the same reviewer who game Wildstar an 8.4.
Archeage's review was special in that the reviewer delayed the review so that he could experience more of the game and thus give a more full review.
Had the reviewer done the same for Wildstar, I imagine there's a good chance his review would have turned out markedly different (same goes for almost everyone. Tons of people LOVED Wildstar during their honeymoon period for it, but then after time went on.... WHOOSH)
Again, if you look at the "review in progress" articles the reviewer made, you can see the reviewer's words regarding the game get more and more negative as time goes on. I can only imagine the same would have been the case for Wildstar... possibly (probably!) even worse.
(note that not ALL MMOs decline that badly after the Honeymoon. Wildstar does because it has horrible end-game and no alt-progression for levelling alts, both of which are factors you wouldn't know if you don't play the game long enough, while AA does because it has so many new systems that other MMOs don't have that it takes a while to go through them all and takes a good chunk of time before most players realize that most of them "are not worth doing" for them like the review says, which again are factors you don't realize if you don't play the game long enough)
MMORPG.com please RE review this title and this time put some real revieweron it. Someone with experience in MMORPG's like SWG pre cu.
Its inaccetable to have a wannabe reviewer with that backgraound on bad MMORPG taste to runining the credability of your site.
This is the same reviewer who game Wildstar an 8.4.
Archeage's review was special in that the reviewer delayed the review so that he could experience more of the game and thus give a more full review.
Had the reviewer done the same for Wildstar, I imagine there's a good chance his review would have turned out markedly different (same goes for almost everyone. Tons of people LOVED Wildstar during their honeymoon period for it, but then after time went on.... WHOOSH)
Again, if you look at the "review in progress" articles the reviewer made, you can see the reviewer's words regarding the game get more and more negative as time goes on. I can only imagine the same would have been the case for Wildstar... possibly (probably!) even worse.
(note that not ALL MMOs decline that badly after the Honeymoon. Wildstar does because it has horrible end-game and no alt-progression for levelling alts, both of which are factors you wouldn't know if you don't play the game long enough, while AA does because it has so many new systems that other MMOs don't have that it takes a while to go through them all and takes a good chunk of time before most players realize that most of them "are not worth doing" for them like the review says, which again are factors you don't realize if you don't play the game long enough)
So AA was subject to a double-standard that other titles reviewed weren't subject to? Got it..
So those comparing AA to other titles based on score would know that? Doesn't seem right to me!
You don't reinvent scoring rules for a single title when other scores were not subject to the same standards. This makes the score MEANINGLESS!
So AA was subject to a double-standard that other titles reviewed weren't subject to? Got it..
So those comparing AA to other titles based on score would know that? Doesn't seem right to me!
You don't reinvent scoring rules for a single title when other scores were not subject to the same standards. This makes the score MEANINGLESS!
THe way I look at it is, games like Wildstar, TOR or basically any other themepark doesn't take as much time to review, the content is what's on review and the way it's designed. A game like AA will take longer to see what's in store as the main game is one of how the community develops. Two totally different types of criteria to score on.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
MMORPG.com please RE review this title and this time put some real revieweron it. Someone with experience in MMORPG's like SWG pre cu.
Its inaccetable to have a wannabe reviewer with that backgraound on bad MMORPG taste to runining the credability of your site.
This is the same reviewer who game Wildstar an 8.4.
Archeage's review was special in that the reviewer delayed the review so that he could experience more of the game and thus give a more full review.
Had the reviewer done the same for Wildstar, I imagine there's a good chance his review would have turned out markedly different (same goes for almost everyone. Tons of people LOVED Wildstar during their honeymoon period for it, but then after time went on.... WHOOSH)
Again, if you look at the "review in progress" articles the reviewer made, you can see the reviewer's words regarding the game get more and more negative as time goes on. I can only imagine the same would have been the case for Wildstar... possibly (probably!) even worse.
(note that not ALL MMOs decline that badly after the Honeymoon. Wildstar does because it has horrible end-game and no alt-progression for levelling alts, both of which are factors you wouldn't know if you don't play the game long enough, while AA does because it has so many new systems that other MMOs don't have that it takes a while to go through them all and takes a good chunk of time before most players realize that most of them "are not worth doing" for them like the review says, which again are factors you don't realize if you don't play the game long enough)
So AA was subject to a double-standard that other titles reviewed weren't subject to? Got it..
So those comparing AA to other titles based on score would know that? Doesn't seem right to me!
You don't reinvent scoring rules for a single title when other scores were not subject to the same standards. This makes the score MEANINGLESS!
Yes, it does make the score meaningless in a lot of ways. That's why most people should look at the words of the review, not the score. And honestly, that's what most people are doing, so I don't see the problem here. Some say "I would have given it a higher number" and some say "I would have given it a lower number" but you don't really see anyone here saying "AA is even worse than Wildstar!". Probably because everyone knows how bad Wildstar is, anyways, but yea.
Basically, even AA's biggest haters aren't going to be crazy enough to say Wildstar is better than AA despite getting a higher score, nor has any yet far as I can tell.
Comments
We only have the full game after 4th November anyway.
Well Grimal, you asked today you have it today (even a premature one imo)
The review's already been delayed for a much longer time than normal because the reviewer wanted to make sure he experienced as much as possible before writing the review. If the Reviewer waited for Auroria, he would have had to give it another 2+ weeks after Auroria came out to fully experience the content before writing up the review.
For most people, I think getting a review out THAT late is rather unacceptable.
I understand your point and not saying with Auroria open the current review might change. I just thing imo game is not fully launched yet. Might not change anything but we are playing only part of the game.
Wouldn't be if it was for FFXIV
The FFXIV review came out much sooner after FFXIV's release than this one did, didn't it? Pretty sure this review was one of the longest-time-after-launch reviews in MMORPG's history (though I could be wrong)
Library, Serpentis, Obsidian Weapons, Archeum Trees, none of these will be available at Auroria launch.
The review is here: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/572/view/reviews/load/352/ArcheAge-Much-to-Do-But-Not-Always-Worth-Doing.html
Posted a bit after OP started this thread.
Based in what i know,wich is not much, im talking about 1-50 game content. Isnt that things belong to 50-55?
I dont know much what comes with Auroria, but in pre-1.0 in RU Auroria was there but i never go that far.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
That review is horribly broken.
The reviewer is not worth to post comments on MMORPG site.
Archeage is the richest MMORPG on festures of ALL TIMES !
It offers everything the MMORPG genre is capable to offer all in one place.
My problem with the review is the category 'gameplay'. If any MMORPG deserved there a 10 then it is Archeage offering so much content no one has seen before in a MMORPG.
The reviewer is biased and has a sick understanding of MMORPGs. Who is mr reviewer to judge over other peoples tastes in gameplay and rate "Archeage has mich to do" BUT "often it is not worth doing".
No mr biased reviwer. YOU REVIEW WASN'T WORTH IT.
who is it btw is is a real MMORPG reviewer or some spolied kid allowed to write reviews ?? I doubt its a real vet MMORPG player and must be really new to the genre.
probably he should more engage in writing about things he understands like sparkling objets and leave really complex thingslike MMORPG's for the grown ups.
You can not be serious.. Most features of all time? Not even close to SWG's feature list, as for the rest, my first sentence covers it.. Parody of MMO fans?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Sure, a ton of features checked off from a list and thrown into a game that gives all those features absolutely no logical flow at all. The game has all of this stuff to do, but none of it feels fluid with the next feature. It all feels crammed in.
S.C.I.F.I
<Sights, Clouded, In, False, Illusions>
Have you been in game. Archeage is the only MMORPG that is comparable to SWG.
Like in SWG someone can interact with like every item in the world. Didn't counted them but the sheer amount of items that can be crafted, used, placed in the world is at least on par with that of SWG, then AA has physics and collision detection and like 5 ingame currencies. Like SWG it offers content for any playstyle. You make a living out of sportfishing, tailoring, farming etc.etc etc.. Even it offers content and room for creativity with player created crests on sails and capes, hell player composed music.
SWG and Archeage play for me easy in the same league regarding feature list.
Also like SWG it is perls thrown before swine. It shares the same sort of criticism for being the best MMORPG out in his time. Same sort of critic regarding immersion break because of player freedom and allowing player creativity. So even in critics it is on par with SWG.
Man, the human perception is really fun sometimes, in my case i see it totaly the contrary. For long time i didnt play a mmorpg where features were so well connected and most make sense.
What i like in AA is the whole picture, not individual feature A or B, but the way they are connected.
Its a very rich mmorpg imo.
the so called "review" was a joke.
MMORPG.com please RE review this title and this time put some real revieweron it. Someone with experience in MMORPG's like SWG pre cu.
Its inaccetable to have a wannabe reviewer with that backgraound on bad MMORPG taste to runining the credability of your site.
This is the same reviewer who gave Wildstar an 8.4.
Archeage's review was special in that the reviewer delayed the review so that he could experience more of the game and thus give a more full review.
Had the reviewer done the same for Wildstar, I imagine there's a good chance his review would have turned out markedly different (same goes for almost everyone. Tons of people LOVED Wildstar during their honeymoon period for it, but then after time went on.... WHOOSH)
Again, if you look at the "review in progress" articles the reviewer made, you can see the reviewer's words regarding the game get more and more negative as time goes on. I can only imagine the same would have been the case for Wildstar... possibly (probably!) even worse.
(note that not ALL MMOs decline that badly after the Honeymoon. Wildstar does because it has horrible end-game and no alt-progression for levelling alts, both of which are factors you wouldn't know if you don't play the game long enough, while AA does because it has so many new systems that other MMOs don't have that it takes a while to go through them all and takes a good chunk of time before most players realize that most of them "are not worth doing" for them like the review says, which again are factors you don't realize if you don't play the game long enough)
So AA was subject to a double-standard that other titles reviewed weren't subject to? Got it..
So those comparing AA to other titles based on score would know that? Doesn't seem right to me!
You don't reinvent scoring rules for a single title when other scores were not subject to the same standards. This makes the score MEANINGLESS!
THe way I look at it is, games like Wildstar, TOR or basically any other themepark doesn't take as much time to review, the content is what's on review and the way it's designed. A game like AA will take longer to see what's in store as the main game is one of how the community develops. Two totally different types of criteria to score on.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Yes, it does make the score meaningless in a lot of ways. That's why most people should look at the words of the review, not the score. And honestly, that's what most people are doing, so I don't see the problem here. Some say "I would have given it a higher number" and some say "I would have given it a lower number" but you don't really see anyone here saying "AA is even worse than Wildstar!". Probably because everyone knows how bad Wildstar is, anyways, but yea.
Basically, even AA's biggest haters aren't going to be crazy enough to say Wildstar is better than AA despite getting a higher score, nor has any yet far as I can tell.