Re-Reviews - Which Games Would You Most Like To See Us Revisit This Year?

lotrlore

Heya all!

So some of you may have noticed that we are doing re-reviews of MMORPGs, revisiting some older ones that don't get a look with every expansion, as well as revisiting those that have changed dramatically over the years since our last review.

We started this as a test balloon a while back with Star Wars: The Old Republic, and have slowly built up since then to see if it was viable idea that people would be interested in. So far the traffic bears out on these types of revisits. 

Recently we did RuneScape, revisiting it for the first time as a review since 2011, and we kicked off this year with Path of Exile getting the full re-review treatment.

Other MMOs we have planned for the months to come:

• Black Desert Online (Re-reviewing the whole experience when Land of the Morning Light releases)
  
• EVE Online(20th Anniversary re-review)
• New World (coming in the next few weeks looking at the new seasonal updates and the experience since launch)
• Neverwinter
• Star Trek Online
• Warframe
• Albion Online

These are in addition to the regular reviews that will come out with major releases, such as ESO's Necrom, Blue Protocol, Throne and Liberty, etc.

What I'm looking for are suggestions from our readers for games to consider this year as well. Keep in mind these don't get done quickly. Reviewing an MMORPG is one of the most time-consuming reviews in the games industry - and it's made doubly so when we're talking about a game that has been out for a while and has a ton of content to sift through. For instance, New World's was supposed to be done by the last week of this month and that time table has now shifted thanks to the sheer grind and the delay of its seasonal update.

Let us know in the comments which games you think would be beneficial to revisit. And if you've been interested in maybe trying your hand at this yourself, let's chat. 

Cheers - 

Bradford

lahnmir

Tabula Rasa
Auto Assault
Asherons Call 2
Vanguard

Yeah, I know. But I can dream.

Star Trek Online and Neverwinter seem good starting points. I would also like to see a side by side comparison of all the Archeage versions and servers, that might prove pretty insightful. And Ryzom because, yes it is technically alive but really dead, there is never enough attention for that game and it is still going. And Final Fantasy XI? Support for that game seems to still be never ending. Champions Online comes to mind as well although I do not know how much has changed in the last few years. And lastly, I would LOVE a review about the new version of The Secret World compared to the one they left to rot. I’ll leave it at that

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

TheDalaiBomba

Do it: https://www.meridian59.com/

It even has a cool modern day tie-in, since John Hanke helped develop it before going on to codevelop (no kidding) Google Earth, founding Niantic Inc, and helping create Pokemon Go.

Sovrath

It would be neat if you could revisit some not so popular games such as Ryzom, Lineage 2 (difference between "new" servers and classic) A Tale in the Desert is still running.

Age of Conan.

Iselin

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Lord of the Rings Online yet... especially given your forum name

lotrlore

Iselin said:

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Lord of the Rings Online yet... especially given your forum name

We aren't including it in the list since we'll be reviewing the expansion when it releases. Typically I treat expansion drops as a re-review as well, don't want to dilute the SEO and all.

BrotherMaynard

I recently saw a very informative and civil general chat discussion, where one poster mentioned an obscure little game that apparently was the first MMO. Now that would be something! It's called WoW (at least that's how the very knowledgeable player typed it) and it seems it was developed by an old 90's company that most likely no longer exists. His post spurred a marvellous, well-argued and friendly debate, so it seems there are a few people who still remember the game and the company. Could be interesting!

(Oh, and please do a re-review of the TSW. The original (if you can get it to launch) and possibly also the one nobody mentions in a polite conversation. Yeah, I am one of the masochistic TSW grandmasters.)

Gorwe

What are the rules for this thing anyhow? How do you choose games?

lotrlore

Gorwe said:

What are the rules for this thing anyhow? How do you choose games?

No rules, perse. But given the fact that we are a traffic-supported site, the games have to be something that we are certain we'll get traffic on the completed review. So as much as I would love to do something like Meridian59 as mentioned above, it likely won't be something that drives a lot of views.

Just the nature of SEO-based web traffic.

We also don't want to include anything that gets a regular major expansion, like World of Warcraft or FFXIV since those get enough review coverage when those content drops come out. Games like RuneScape or SWTOR don't get expansion reviews, titles like Star Trek Online hasn't been reviewed since it launched, etc. We're looking at older games that are still kicking or newer titles that have changed dramatically since launch (which is partly why New World is on our list already).

But I'm also interested here in what the community would like to see as well. While it doesn't guarantee anything from us on our end (still have to devote budget, a writer, time to the review), it gives us a good idea of what you would be interested in most.

cameltosis

I'll be honest, this isn't really a feature I have much interest in.

In my experience, MMORPGs only get worse over time for my playstyle. So, if you re-review games I used to play, all I'll be learning is how much worse things have gotten (which is how i feel with every LotRO article ). If you re-review games I passed on, you might make me feel a bit better on passing on them the first time round.

That said, there are some things I'd love to see, both in re-reviews and regular reviews / articles:

1) Metrics

Probably impossible to get useful data, but anything you can provide regarding player numbers, retention, game income, cost of game etc would be great.

Something you could do that would be amusing would be to add up the total cost of a game. This is base game, DLC / xpacs, plus everything in cash shop. Like, what's the minimum I can pay to get 100% of the game?

2) Genuine Gameplay Facts

I get it, you guys are busy and have to review tons of games over the course of a year. This prevents you from really getting stuck into the meat and bones of a game, but the result is that the majority of reviews end up focusing on surface level shit.

Give me genuine facts about the gameplay.

For example, in an action combat game, is there animation locking? How quickly do I have to press buttons to get a combo? If I need to react to an attack, do I get 0.5s to react, or 2s?

If there is PvP, what is the time-to-kill like? Is it 5 seconds, 15 seconds or 2 minutes? Is the combat balanced around groups, or solo?

If there is genuine depth in the gameplay, please explain it. Show us a flow-chart of the decision making process or something.

3) Review Scores that make sense

Quality of games is normally distributed, so your average game should score a 5.0. Yet, actual average review score is like 7.5. This undermines every single review ever.

Now, I realise that most gaming journalists are effectively blackmailed into giving higher-than-deserved review scores, but still, at some point you have to take a stand if you want to be taken seriously. I also realise this isn't exclusive to the games industry, the film industry suffers from the same thing too.

[Side note: a friend of mine used to run a playstation review site. totally amateur, but he had a good following. Devs would send him games to review, which he would do, and this helped him boost his readership. But, then he gave a bad review to one of the Lego games.....because it was a bad game. THEY BLACKLISTED HIM!!! They called him up and explained that if he didn't give them a better score, he'd be blacklisted. He explained why it was a bad game, they didn't care. He wouldn't budge, so they blacklisted him. This meant hardly any studios would send him games to review, so his website was then about 1 months behind his competitors. They effectively killed his website.]

Slapshot1188

Neverwinter

I had never really played it because of the lootbox stuff.  But gave it a while about a year ago and it was a lot of fun (provided you ignore the lootboxes and the associated XYZ HAS WON A GOLDEN PEGAGUS type spam). 

It's not much of a tabletop DnD representation but it was still fun to look at some of the creatures and locations.

And while you are at it maybe do a side by side with the original D&D online.

lotrlore

cameltosis said:
[...]
 Review Scores that make sense

Quality of games is normally distributed, so your average game should score a 5.0. Yet, actual average review score is like 7.5. This undermines every single review ever.

Now, I realise that most gaming journalists are effectively blackmailed into giving higher-than-deserved review scores, but still, at some point you have to take a stand if you want to be taken seriously. I also realise this isn't exclusive to the games industry, the film industry suffers from the same thing too.

[Side note: a friend of mine used to run a playstation review site. totally amateur, but he had a good following. Devs would send him games to review, which he would do, and this helped him boost his readership. But, then he gave a bad review to one of the Lego games.....because it was a bad game. THEY BLACKLISTED HIM!!! They called him up and explained that if he didn't give them a better score, he'd be blacklisted. He explained why it was a bad game, they didn't care. He wouldn't budge, so they blacklisted him. This meant hardly any studios would send him games to review, so his website was then about 1 months behind his competitors. They effectively killed his website.]

That sucks that this happened to your friend but in my decade-plus reviewing games I've never once felt or been blackmailed into giving "higher-than-deserved" scores. We've never been pressured here as long as I've run the site, and in my days reviewing at IGN and other outlets, I was never once directed on or suggested a review score.

The more significant issue is that scores aren't consistent across outlets because everyone has their own scale. There is a sense that an "average" game must be a 5/10, but that doesn't work on every scale (though on our review scale, it is).

Blacklisting won't stop us from reviewing a game as we see it - as evidenced by the fact that we've given many games within the last 12 months sub-7.5 scores (Dual Universe, Diablo Immortal, Gotham Knights, Ember's Adrift, etc). 

The vast majority (I won't say all because I can't back that up with hard data) of PRs, game devs, etc know exactly how their game will score since they've paid thousands for journalists to do mock reviews. If any game company is shocked by a low score, they didn't do their due diligence. And in my experience, a low score on a game has never stopped a company from working with me or the outlet I've represented. It just doesn't happen has frequently as people think - if at all now. It definitely might have been more rampant in the past, but it's not something that traditionally happens because of a review score.

There is also the massive issue that scores are given so much more weight than the actual content of a review, but that's a different story altogether. I think Dan Stapleton explains this best in a recent IGN column about specifically this phenomenon. 

The other points, the idea behind these is to dive into why player should play these games and how they fare years after that initial review. We can definitely dive into the minute-details a bit more for sure, but reviews might not always be the best spot for those details, especially with time constraints put on them. But it's definitely good insight from you on what you want - and I'm sure there are many forums users and readers who likely want that too!

lotrlore

Slapshot1188 said:

Neverwinter

I had never really played it because of the lootbox stuff.  But gave it a while about a year ago and it was a lot of fun (provided you ignore the lootboxes and the associated XYZ HAS WON A GOLDEN PEGAGUS type spam). 

It's not much of a tabletop DnD representation but it was still fun to look at some of the creatures and locations.

And while you are at it maybe do a side by side with the original D&D online.

Neverwinter is on our list. Aiming for June/July on that one!

Slapshot1188

lotrlore said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Neverwinter

I had never really played it because of the lootbox stuff.  But gave it a while about a year ago and it was a lot of fun (provided you ignore the lootboxes and the associated XYZ HAS WON A GOLDEN PEGAGUS type spam). 

It's not much of a tabletop DnD representation but it was still fun to look at some of the creatures and locations.

And while you are at it maybe do a side by side with the original D&D online.

Neverwinter is on our list. Aiming for June/July on that one!

ahh I read too quick.  But what about a side by side with DDO and comparing them against each other?

OG_Solareus

Dark Age of Camelot - to max level review

Saga of Ryzom

Guild Wars 2

Everquest 1 and 2 - to max level review

Sovrath

lotrlore said:

There is also the massive issue that scores are given so much more weight than the actual content of a review, but that's a different story altogether. I think Dan Stapleton in a recent IGN column about specifically this phenomenon. 

yeah, it's really too bad. Like a number can encapsulate what a viewer/player/listener will like over actually having content in a review that speaks to what people like/dislike.

I suppose people want a quick visual hint at whether they should play a game. I will say that if I actually paid heed to review scores as opposed to the actual review, there would be SO MUCH I would have missed that was great.

lotrlore

Slapshot1188 said:

lotrlore said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Neverwinter

I had never really played it because of the lootbox stuff.  But gave it a while about a year ago and it was a lot of fun (provided you ignore the lootboxes and the associated XYZ HAS WON A GOLDEN PEGAGUS type spam). 

It's not much of a tabletop DnD representation but it was still fun to look at some of the creatures and locations.

And while you are at it maybe do a side by side with the original D&D online.

Neverwinter is on our list. Aiming for June/July on that one!

ahh I read too quick.  But what about a side by side with DDO and comparing them against each other?

That is a good idea, but not really as a review - more a one on one comparison piece. Definitely something we're going to look into this year. Maybe have the person who re-reviews both then write up their thoughts in a separate article after the fact?

Tiller

Albion Online because they have a review from this site quoted on their site.

On Web ”Albion Online is bursting at the seams with features, each seamlessly integrated, providing a true sandbox world.

On Mobile "Sandbox Done Right"

Gorwe

lotrlore said:

Gorwe said:

What are the rules for this thing anyhow? How do you choose games?

No rules, perse. But given the fact that we are a traffic-supported site, the games have to be something that we are certain we'll get traffic on the completed review. So as much as I would love to do something like Meridian59 as mentioned above, it likely won't be something that drives a lot of views.

Just the nature of SEO-based web traffic.

We also don't want to include anything that gets a regular major expansion, like World of Warcraft or FFXIV since those get enough review coverage when those content drops come out. Games like RuneScape or SWTOR don't get expansion reviews, titles like Star Trek Online hasn't been reviewed since it launched, etc. We're looking at older games that are still kicking or newer titles that have changed dramatically since launch (which is partly why New World is on our list already).

But I'm also interested here in what the community would like to see as well. While it doesn't guarantee anything from us on our end (still have to devote budget, a writer, time to the review), it gives us a good idea of what you would be interested in most.

Any rules concerning updates? Like, are you willing to review games that haven't really been updated in awhile like Guild Wars 1?

OG_Solareus

do reviewers get paid ?

mekhere

EVE Online (20th Anniversary re-review) - I would love to see an updated rerelease of this game where everyone had to start over on the same playing field, especially with their pay to play ISK concept. This could be much better at this point with a graphical update.

New World - This game needs a PVP overhaul. It's what killed it in the first place. This game was great and proved amazon had what it took to take on the greats of DnD and they did. They can't design or engineer PvP for anything. If they fix PvP, this game has great potential in this space.

Neverwinter - I love this game. It needs a graphics engine update, some better PvP options and way better maps. This is a Dritz game after all and it doesn't feel like it is living up to one of the founders of DnD. The Forgotten Realms.

Star Wars Galaxies - I wish we could merge this game with Star Wars the Old Republic. This would win imo.

EverQuest 1 and 2 - I would love to see a rerelease of these too. New lore to update the kingdoms, new classes and new quests. This is truly one of my favorite games. 

DAOC - One day a RVR game will come back and make me smile like this did.

lotrlore

OG_Solareus said:

Dark Age of Camelot - to max level review

Saga of Ryzom

Guild Wars 2

Everquest 1 and 2 - to max level review

So GW2 we recently reviewed as part of the End of Dragons expansion, but I think the DAoC, Ryzom and EQ games could be on our list...

lotrlore

OG_Solareus said:

do reviewers get paid ?

Yes! We pay all of our writers 

Slapshot1188

lotrlore said:

OG_Solareus said:

Dark Age of Camelot - to max level review

Saga of Ryzom

Guild Wars 2

Everquest 1 and 2 - to max level review

So GW2 we recently reviewed as part of the End of Dragons expansion, but I think the DAoC, Ryzom and EQ games could be on our list...

You should do some "Return to GAME X" kind of stuff where you advertise you are going to revisit that game.  Setup a MMORPG guild.  Use the MMORPG Discord. Be upfront that it would only be a 30-60-90 day thing, but it might be fun to have people jump in all at once for these re-reviews.

lotrlore

Slapshot1188 said:

lotrlore said:

OG_Solareus said:

Dark Age of Camelot - to max level review

Saga of Ryzom

Guild Wars 2

Everquest 1 and 2 - to max level review

So GW2 we recently reviewed as part of the End of Dragons expansion, but I think the DAoC, Ryzom and EQ games could be on our list...

You should do some "Return to GAME X" kind of stuff where you advertise you are going to revisit that game.  Setup a MMORPG guild.  Use the MMORPG Discord. Be upfront that it would only be a 30-60-90 day thing, but it might be fun to have people jump in all at once for these re-reviews.

That is...actually a really good idea. @MikeB - care to help coordinate? :P

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.