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
Maybe you could even work with the publisher to get keys or something to distribute to coincide with the Return
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
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
Maybe you could even work with the publisher to get keys or something to distribute to coincide with the Return
This isn't inherently a bad idea, but I would feel weird asking for them as part of a review period since I want these to stay as independent as our normal reivews. BUT as part of a community event that just might include our reviewer, I think we can work something out where it doesn't feel like we're being set up to succeed from the start. Part of these re-reviews is to see what it's like for a normal player to start this MMO today, years removed from content drops. I don't necessarily want them to start off with freemium codes if we can help it.
But community giveaways, beta codes, etc? Might be worth working with the developers to plan something around the time we'd start.
Well, why do you think most reviews are rather, shall we say, "meh" ?
Its people who get paid to play. They dont get to maxlevel, they have nowhere near the experience of an actual player of the game, and they just dont really have a clue.
Reviewing a game isnt just not easy, its frankly an impossible task for someone who gets paid. Its the equivalent of trying to review an album when all you ever heard was the first ten seconds of the first song.
Well, why do you think most reviews are rather, shall we say, "meh" ?
Its people who get paid to play. They dont get to maxlevel, they have nowhere near the experience of an actual player of the game, and they just dont really have a clue.
Reviewing a game isnt just not easy, its frankly an impossible task for someone who gets paid. Its the equivalent of trying to review an album when all you ever heard was the first ten seconds of the first song.
I'm not sure I agree with that. It's true that reviewers don't always hit max level and a reviewer will never have the same experience as a hard core player, but I do think they have the same experience as the "average" player. They hopefully have experienced the whole story as a minimum and have at least had a taste of any endgame content. That is exactly what the majority of players of a game experience.
A review is one person's take on whether a game is fun or not. If a reviewer took the time to experience and deep dive into every minutiae of a game, the review would come too late for it to be of any service at all. A reviewer should be able to relay the overall quality of a game and a general overview of the different aspects of gameplay.
To say game reviews are the equivalent to reviewing an album after listening to the first ten seconds is a poor analogy. I'd say it is more like listening to the whole album and saying whether there were songs they liked and if there were certain themes that struck a chord for them. But it seems like you are expecting a reviewer to listen to the whole album multiple times, then report ad nauseam on every instrument, every riff, every vocal. Good luck doing that and good luck getting the average listener to read the 20000 word essay that you just created. And even more luck in getting everyone that does read it to agree that what you wrote was right.
I would have liked to see a review of Hogwarts Legacy. I think it's a brilliant open world RPG that stands alongside titles like Red Dead 2, The Witcher 3, and Elden Ring. It has a lot of positives, it's own unique character, and some flaws and weaknesses which pull it down a little. Absolutely worthy of review and discussion outside of the political bent that social media likes to focus on.
Secret World Legends: How does it hold up today. How does progression, combat, narrative, and social interaction hold up? How has it aged. A hard look at mid to late game progression where monetization really starts to sink in and if there are still paywalls to gear progression.
Honestly though, I'd rather see fewer re-reviews of old MMO/multiplayer games because we have either already played them and they can be trialed or played for free. If you do re-reviews please focus on things initial reviews tend to miss, like mid to late game and a more critical look at aspects experienced MMO gamers would be interested in.
It reminds me of the chess world. The chess writers and reviewers of chess games are not usually as good as the top players and masters. They have some skill, and also some skill in writing.
Game reviewers are similar, at least to me. They are usually not the master of the game, not the best end-game players. They have some writing skills though, and also have a broader perspective since they play lots of games and can compare them. A hard-core end-game master is not likely to be playing a dozen games at that level.
I don't have a specific game, just to mention that the most important aspect of a game to change with time is the Cash Shop. They nearly always get worse so it is very pertinent to see where they are at for anyone who was thinking of diving in.
Well, why do you think most reviews are rather, shall we say, "meh" ?
Its people who get paid to play. They dont get to maxlevel, they have nowhere near the experience of an actual player of the game, and they just dont really have a clue.
Reviewing a game isnt just not easy, its frankly an impossible task for someone who gets paid. Its the equivalent of trying to review an album when all you ever heard was the first ten seconds of the first song.
I'm not sure I agree with that. It's true that reviewers don't always hit max level and a reviewer will never have the same experience as a hard core player, but I do think they have the same experience as the "average" player. They hopefully have experienced the whole story as a minimum and have at least had a taste of any endgame content. That is exactly what the majority of players of a game experience.
A review is one person's take on whether a game is fun or not. If a reviewer took the time to experience and deep dive into every minutiae of a game, the review would come too late for it to be of any service at all. A reviewer should be able to relay the overall quality of a game and a general overview of the different aspects of gameplay.
To say game reviews are the equivalent to reviewing an album after listening to the first ten seconds is a poor analogy. I'd say it is more like listening to the whole album and saying whether there were songs they liked and if there were certain themes that struck a chord for them. But it seems like you are expecting a reviewer to listen to the whole album multiple times, then report ad nauseam on every instrument, every riff, every vocal. Good luck doing that and good luck getting the average listener to read the 20000 word essay that you just created. And even more luck in getting everyone that does read it to agree that what you wrote was right.
My only personal pet peeve is when a review factors in “potential”. It’s fine to mention what might happen down the line but a review and associated score should always reflect what exists.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I would rather have cutting edge release reviews. Even outside the MMO genre like survival or rpg. Beta's would be best, so I can get info on if its worth it to me. Even multiple reviews during beta/alpha showing major progress would be good for me. Although I get NDA's so there is that for some games.
Old MMO's are old info, and really dont interest me. There is pretty much nothing an MMO can do after release to make me look back. Not saying its not possible for me to go to an older game I might have skipped, its rare, but a new review is not going to matter to me I think.
Well, why do you think most reviews are rather, shall we say, "meh" ?
Its people who get paid to play. They dont get to maxlevel, they have nowhere near the experience of an actual player of the game, and they just dont really have a clue.
Reviewing a game isnt just not easy, its frankly an impossible task for someone who gets paid. Its the equivalent of trying to review an album when all you ever heard was the first ten seconds of the first song.
I'm not sure I agree with that. It's true that reviewers don't always hit max level and a reviewer will never have the same experience as a hard core player, but I do think they have the same experience as the "average" player. They hopefully have experienced the whole story as a minimum and have at least had a taste of any endgame content. That is exactly what the majority of players of a game experience.
A review is one person's take on whether a game is fun or not. If a reviewer took the time to experience and deep dive into every minutiae of a game, the review would come too late for it to be of any service at all. A reviewer should be able to relay the overall quality of a game and a general overview of the different aspects of gameplay.
To say game reviews are the equivalent to reviewing an album after listening to the first ten seconds is a poor analogy. I'd say it is more like listening to the whole album and saying whether there were songs they liked and if there were certain themes that struck a chord for them. But it seems like you are expecting a reviewer to listen to the whole album multiple times, then report ad nauseam on every instrument, every riff, every vocal. Good luck doing that and good luck getting the average listener to read the 20000 word essay that you just created. And even more luck in getting everyone that does read it to agree that what you wrote was right.
My only personal pet peeve is when a review factors in “potential”. It’s fine to mention what might happen down the line but a review and associated score should always reflect what exists.
Yes but you need to get a judgement on what the games potential will be like if the studio fix the bugs or you could do a "Have they fixed the bugs" amendment. Either way, games are increasingly coming out "launched" in what is really a prelaunched state, that has to be addressed somehow.
Well, why do you think most reviews are rather, shall we say, "meh" ?
Its people who get paid to play. They dont get to maxlevel, they have nowhere near the experience of an actual player of the game, and they just dont really have a clue.
Reviewing a game isnt just not easy, its frankly an impossible task for someone who gets paid. Its the equivalent of trying to review an album when all you ever heard was the first ten seconds of the first song.
I'm not sure I agree with that. It's true that reviewers don't always hit max level and a reviewer will never have the same experience as a hard core player, but I do think they have the same experience as the "average" player. They hopefully have experienced the whole story as a minimum and have at least had a taste of any endgame content. That is exactly what the majority of players of a game experience.
A review is one person's take on whether a game is fun or not. If a reviewer took the time to experience and deep dive into every minutiae of a game, the review would come too late for it to be of any service at all. A reviewer should be able to relay the overall quality of a game and a general overview of the different aspects of gameplay.
To say game reviews are the equivalent to reviewing an album after listening to the first ten seconds is a poor analogy. I'd say it is more like listening to the whole album and saying whether there were songs they liked and if there were certain themes that struck a chord for them. But it seems like you are expecting a reviewer to listen to the whole album multiple times, then report ad nauseam on every instrument, every riff, every vocal. Good luck doing that and good luck getting the average listener to read the 20000 word essay that you just created. And even more luck in getting everyone that does read it to agree that what you wrote was right.
My only personal pet peeve is when a review factors in “potential”. It’s fine to mention what might happen down the line but a review and associated score should always reflect what exists.
Yes but you need to get a judgement on what the games potential will be like if the studio fix the bugs or you could do a "Have they fixed the bugs" amendment. Either way, games are increasingly coming out "launched" in what is really a prelaunched state, that has to be addressed somehow.
But IMHO you can't review "potential". Anything and everything has "potential". That is what makes Reviews different from Previews. One says "This is what is here" and the other says "This is what they hope to have later"
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Well, why do you think most reviews are rather, shall we say, "meh" ?
Its people who get paid to play. They dont get to maxlevel, they have nowhere near the experience of an actual player of the game, and they just dont really have a clue.
Reviewing a game isnt just not easy, its frankly an impossible task for someone who gets paid. Its the equivalent of trying to review an album when all you ever heard was the first ten seconds of the first song.
I'm not sure I agree with that. It's true that reviewers don't always hit max level and a reviewer will never have the same experience as a hard core player, but I do think they have the same experience as the "average" player. They hopefully have experienced the whole story as a minimum and have at least had a taste of any endgame content. That is exactly what the majority of players of a game experience.
A review is one person's take on whether a game is fun or not. If a reviewer took the time to experience and deep dive into every minutiae of a game, the review would come too late for it to be of any service at all. A reviewer should be able to relay the overall quality of a game and a general overview of the different aspects of gameplay.
To say game reviews are the equivalent to reviewing an album after listening to the first ten seconds is a poor analogy. I'd say it is more like listening to the whole album and saying whether there were songs they liked and if there were certain themes that struck a chord for them. But it seems like you are expecting a reviewer to listen to the whole album multiple times, then report ad nauseam on every instrument, every riff, every vocal. Good luck doing that and good luck getting the average listener to read the 20000 word essay that you just created. And even more luck in getting everyone that does read it to agree that what you wrote was right.
My only personal pet peeve is when a review factors in “potential”. It’s fine to mention what might happen down the line but a review and associated score should always reflect what exists.
Yes but you need to get a judgement on what the games potential will be like if the studio fix the bugs or you could do a "Have they fixed the bugs" amendment. Either way, games are increasingly coming out "launched" in what is really a prelaunched state, that has to be addressed somehow.
But IMHO you can't review "potential". Anything and everything has "potential". That is what makes Reviews different from Previews. One says "This is what is here" and the other says "This is what they hope to have later"
That is actually the meaning of the words. Review means to go back over something, to re-view it. Obviously you can't review something that doesn't exist.
Pre-view means to get an early look at something, a glimpse of it but not the whole thing.
A review should cover the existing game, and if the game launched early with a lot of bugs, then that is part of the review. A re-review makes sense since many games release unfinished, and the review would be bad if it stayed in that state. So once they finish the game it can be re-reviewed.
So I'd like to see an honest review of the game, bugs warts and all. If they released too early, the review should be negative. Include a statement like "Once the game is finished, we'll re-review it."
Of course, games that are still in alpha/beta should not be reviewed at all, but only previewed.
I would have liked to see a review of Hogwarts Legacy. I think it's a brilliant open world RPG that stands alongside titles like Red Dead 2, The Witcher 3, and Elden Ring. It has a lot of positives, it's own unique character, and some flaws and weaknesses which pull it down a little. Absolutely worthy of review and discussion outside of the political bent that social media likes to focus on.
I wouldn't go quite as far as you with those comparisons but it's a very well-crafted and enjoyable game deserving of AAA designation.
I also think that this site should have reviewed it.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I would have liked to see a review of Hogwarts Legacy. I think it's a brilliant open world RPG that stands alongside titles like Red Dead 2, The Witcher 3, and Elden Ring. It has a lot of positives, it's own unique character, and some flaws and weaknesses which pull it down a little. Absolutely worthy of review and discussion outside of the political bent that social media likes to focus on.
I wouldn't go quite as far as you with those comparisons but it's a very well-crafted and enjoyable game deserving of AAA designation.
I also think that this site should have reviewed it.
This is the part where we missed out on discussing this stuff because 'no review', which is too bad. I put it in with those games and I feel it stands with them, but it it doesn't measure up directly in the same ways. TW3, Skyrim, and Red Dead 2 have an incredible depth to them. Hogwarts Legacy is just a slightly smaller more straight forward game whereas those others I mentioned hide a lot of those layers and leave them for the player to discover.
Hogwarts Legacy does offer something those and other games really don't. In most games mages are just another form of ranged damage dealer. Spells are used to solve puzzles and make ones way through the wizarding world, not just blast enemies. The game can't be completed without learning how manipulate the environment with spells.
Then there is the nod to souls-like games in the trials, which are brutal, intense, and demanding. They are proficiency gates which test your understanding of spells and knowledge so far.
There are some flaws with the experience too - broom handling sucks. Some of the puzzles sets get repetitive, etc.
HL offers a character experience as a wizard that no game I've ever played has done. It offers a level and aspect of interactivity with the environment that many games do not. HL isn't the same type of game as TW3, Skyrim, or RDR2, and isn't a drop in replacement, but it offers a unique open world/directed narrative hybrid experience as wizard that no other game does.
I would have liked to see a review of Hogwarts Legacy. I think it's a brilliant open world RPG that stands alongside titles like Red Dead 2, The Witcher 3, and Elden Ring. It has a lot of positives, it's own unique character, and some flaws and weaknesses which pull it down a little. Absolutely worthy of review and discussion outside of the political bent that social media likes to focus on.
I wouldn't go quite as far as you with those comparisons but it's a very well-crafted and enjoyable game deserving of AAA designation.
I also think that this site should have reviewed it.
This is the part where we missed out on discussing this stuff because 'no review', which is too bad. I put it in with those games and I feel it stands with them, but it it doesn't measure up directly in the same ways. TW3, Skyrim, and Red Dead 2 have an incredible depth to them. Hogwarts Legacy is just a slightly smaller more straight forward game whereas those others I mentioned hide a lot of those layers and leave them for the player to discover.
Hogwarts Legacy does offer something those and other games really don't. In most games mages are just another form of ranged damage dealer. Spells are used to solve puzzles and make ones way through the wizarding world, not just blast enemies. The game can't be completed without learning how manipulate the environment with spells.
Then there is the nod to souls-like games in the trials, which are brutal, intense, and demanding. They are proficiency gates which test your understanding of spells and knowledge so far.
There are some flaws with the experience too - broom handling sucks. Some of the puzzles sets get repetitive, etc.
HL offers a character experience as a wizard that no game I've ever played has done. It offers a level and aspect of interactivity with the environment that many games do not. HL isn't the same type of game as TW3, Skyrim, or RDR2, and isn't a drop in replacement, but it offers a unique open world/directed narrative hybrid experience as wizard that no other game does.
They do many things right and in fun and innovative ways. You mentioned one of its best features which is the varied and interesting use of magic that is not just fun mechanically but an integral part of advancing the story and game, I thought they also nailed the ambiance of being in that universe and it felt as legit in that respect as the movies.
Where I thought it was lacking and in some cases downright horrible was the story and lifelessness of most characters.
There were some interesting storytelling devices (like the brilliant use of monochrome for that one trial) but I felt that the story itself was rather trite and I definitely did not enjoy the usage of a conspicuous non-human underclass with legitimate grievances as the main evil.
I liked it enough to have finished it twice but for me, there was trash as well as brilliance.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Well, why do you think most reviews are rather, shall we say, "meh" ?
Its people who get paid to play. They dont get to maxlevel, they have nowhere near the experience of an actual player of the game, and they just dont really have a clue.
Reviewing a game isnt just not easy, its frankly an impossible task for someone who gets paid. Its the equivalent of trying to review an album when all you ever heard was the first ten seconds of the first song.
I'm not sure I agree with that. It's true that reviewers don't always hit max level and a reviewer will never have the same experience as a hard core player, but I do think they have the same experience as the "average" player. They hopefully have experienced the whole story as a minimum and have at least had a taste of any endgame content. That is exactly what the majority of players of a game experience.
A review is one person's take on whether a game is fun or not. If a reviewer took the time to experience and deep dive into every minutiae of a game, the review would come too late for it to be of any service at all. A reviewer should be able to relay the overall quality of a game and a general overview of the different aspects of gameplay.
To say game reviews are the equivalent to reviewing an album after listening to the first ten seconds is a poor analogy. I'd say it is more like listening to the whole album and saying whether there were songs they liked and if there were certain themes that struck a chord for them. But it seems like you are expecting a reviewer to listen to the whole album multiple times, then report ad nauseam on every instrument, every riff, every vocal. Good luck doing that and good luck getting the average listener to read the 20000 word essay that you just created. And even more luck in getting everyone that does read it to agree that what you wrote was right.
My only personal pet peeve is when a review factors in “potential”. It’s fine to mention what might happen down the line but a review and associated score should always reflect what exists.
Yes but you need to get a judgement on what the games potential will be like if the studio fix the bugs or you could do a "Have they fixed the bugs" amendment. Either way, games are increasingly coming out "launched" in what is really a prelaunched state, that has to be addressed somehow.
But IMHO you can't review "potential". Anything and everything has "potential". That is what makes Reviews different from Previews. One says "This is what is here" and the other says "This is what they hope to have later"
You can review potential, but it opens a can of worms, the question is how much of the problems that come from that are we going to be able to accept? My feeling is gaming sties will be far happier accepting the full consequences of "launches" really being early access than players are. After all they are already doing that to a certain extent.
My best solution is to a follow up amendment once the bugs are sorted out, but that means Electronic Arts latest game gets 75 before the bug fixes give it an 80 in a follow up article, which the studios are going to be really unhappy about. That's why my solution is out of the question.
How about making it a tandem feature, a re-review and a follow-up interview with key staff involved in the making of the original game about what they think went wrong, what was good, what they would have done differently, etc.
So for example in case of the TSW mentioned in my first post, you could do a re-review of the game and then a follow-up interview with people like Tornquist and his team about their hindsight of the game 10 years later.
How about making it a tandem feature, a re-review and a follow-up interview with key staff involved in the making of the original game about what they think went wrong, what was good, what they would have done differently, etc.
So for example in case of the TSW mentioned in my first post, you could do a re-review of the game and then a follow-up interview with people like Tornquist and his team about their hindsight of the game 10 years later.
Now I would read that on old games, a what you got right/wrong interview. That would be interesting if they would actually give the interview somewhat honestly.
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.
In all fairness MMORPG pretty much soft-pedals most of it's reviews, rarely being overly harsh, and IMO sometimes goes too far out of its way to find the good and down play the bad.
Back in the day Computer Gaming World gave UO it's "Coaster of the Year" award ...two years in a row, the modern equivalent of a 1 or zero I imagine.
Pissed off RG so bad he had his developers code in a "slime" npc with the CGW editor's full name, Johnny Wilson I think it was.
I recall they had a popular reviewer Scorpia who started to slag on everything and refused to lighten up so they eventually let her go, partially I'm sure from pressure from the industry.
Wilson never let up, when Star Wars Galaxy came out guess what it won it's first year? Yep...Coaster of the Year....
As for scores being weighted more than they should, that's an age old problem going way back. CGW tried dropping them entirely for a spell but reader outcry was so great they brought them back in a more benign 1-5 Star system as the traditional 1-10 resulted in overly inflated scores.
Was far easier to give a rating of 3/5 for an average game than a 5 out 10 which few sites do very often these days.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
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.
In all fairness MMORPG pretty much soft-pedals most of it's reviews, rarely being overly harsh, and IMO sometimes goes too far out of its way to find the good and down play the bad.
Back in the day Computer Gaming World gave UO it's "Coaster of the Year" award ...two years in a row, the modern equivalent of a 1 or zero I imagine.
Pissed off RG so bad he had his developers code in a "slime" npc with the CGW editor's full name, Johnny Wilson I think it was.
I recall they had a popular reviewer Scorpia who started to slag on everything and refused to lighten up so they eventually let her go, partially I'm sure from pressure from the industry.
Wilson never let up, when Star Wars Galaxy came out guess what it won it's first year? Yep...Coaster of the Year....
As for scores being weighted more than they should, that's an age old problem going way back. CGW tried dropping them entirely for a spell but reader outcry was so great they brought them back in a more benign 1-5 Star system as the traditional 1-10 resulted in overly inflated scores.
Was far easier to give a rating of 3/5 for an average game than a 5 out 10 which few sites do very often these days.
I think modern gaming reviewers soft pedal, so not easy to find someone who is as frank as those in the old PC magazines. We had an article on here that was in part at least do games need to be scored? That's way too hand in hand with the industry and it is partly why Metacritic + Steam + Video appraisal is the best way to decided if you will buy a game.
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.
In all fairness MMORPG pretty much soft-pedals most of it's reviews, rarely being overly harsh, and IMO sometimes goes too far out of its way to find the good and down play the bad.
Back in the day Computer Gaming World gave UO it's "Coaster of the Year" award ...two years in a row, the modern equivalent of a 1 or zero I imagine.
Pissed off RG so bad he had his developers code in a "slime" npc with the CGW editor's full name, Johnny Wilson I think it was.
I recall they had a popular reviewer Scorpia who started to slag on everything and refused to lighten up so they eventually let her go, partially I'm sure from pressure from the industry.
Wilson never let up, when Star Wars Galaxy came out guess what it won it's first year? Yep...Coaster of the Year....
As for scores being weighted more than they should, that's an age old problem going way back. CGW tried dropping them entirely for a spell but reader outcry was so great they brought them back in a more benign 1-5 Star system as the traditional 1-10 resulted in overly inflated scores.
Was far easier to give a rating of 3/5 for an average game than a 5 out 10 which few sites do very often these days.
That slime name was simply JWilson, but that's right. But slimes were already in the game, and they did acid damage to metal gear (added to maintenance of gear), they just made some of them spawn with that name.
I think it was more of a joke than anger, but who knows. UO started out very strong for that day, so the bad review had little impact, IMO.
Fun times, those were.
Speaking of that slime MOB, they would split into two slimes if you killed them with anything but fire damage. One time an enterprising player led one to his house (I think a bug caused it to spawn outside the dungeon) and used it to train up his skills. But it got out, and chased players to Britain guard zone, and a guard popped in to kill it. But their famous Guard Halberds did electrical damage, so this guard caused it to split into 2 slimes, then again, and again, then more guards started popping in, and the whole thing went haywire with spawns of both slimes and guards. It downed the entire server.
Comments
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
But community giveaways, beta codes, etc? Might be worth working with the developers to plan something around the time we'd start.
A lot to think about for sure.
A review is one person's take on whether a game is fun or not. If a reviewer took the time to experience and deep dive into every minutiae of a game, the review would come too late for it to be of any service at all. A reviewer should be able to relay the overall quality of a game and a general overview of the different aspects of gameplay.
To say game reviews are the equivalent to reviewing an album after listening to the first ten seconds is a poor analogy. I'd say it is more like listening to the whole album and saying whether there were songs they liked and if there were certain themes that struck a chord for them. But it seems like you are expecting a reviewer to listen to the whole album multiple times, then report ad nauseam on every instrument, every riff, every vocal. Good luck doing that and good luck getting the average listener to read the 20000 word essay that you just created. And even more luck in getting everyone that does read it to agree that what you wrote was right.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Old MMO's are old info, and really dont interest me. There is pretty much nothing an MMO can do after release to make me look back. Not saying its not possible for me to go to an older game I might have skipped, its rare, but a new review is not going to matter to me I think.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
I also think that this site should have reviewed it.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Where I thought it was lacking and in some cases downright horrible was the story and lifelessness of most characters.
There were some interesting storytelling devices (like the brilliant use of monochrome for that one trial) but I felt that the story itself was rather trite and I definitely did not enjoy the usage of a conspicuous non-human underclass with legitimate grievances as the main evil.
I liked it enough to have finished it twice but for me, there was trash as well as brilliance.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
My best solution is to a follow up amendment once the bugs are sorted out, but that means Electronic Arts latest game gets 75 before the bug fixes give it an 80 in a follow up article, which the studios are going to be really unhappy about. That's why my solution is out of the question.
So for example in case of the TSW mentioned in my first post, you could do a re-review of the game and then a follow-up interview with people like Tornquist and his team about their hindsight of the game 10 years later.
Back in the day Computer Gaming World gave UO it's "Coaster of the Year" award ...two years in a row, the modern equivalent of a 1 or zero I imagine.
Pissed off RG so bad he had his developers code in a "slime" npc with the CGW editor's full name, Johnny Wilson I think it was.
I recall they had a popular reviewer Scorpia who started to slag on everything and refused to lighten up so they eventually let her go, partially I'm sure from pressure from the industry.
Wilson never let up, when Star Wars Galaxy came out guess what it won it's first year? Yep...Coaster of the Year....
As for scores being weighted more than they should, that's an age old problem going way back. CGW tried dropping them entirely for a spell but reader outcry was so great they brought them back in a more benign 1-5 Star system as the traditional 1-10 resulted in overly inflated scores.
Was far easier to give a rating of 3/5 for an average game than a 5 out 10 which few sites do very often these days.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
But slimes were already in the game, and they did acid damage to metal gear (added to maintenance of gear), they just made some of them spawn with that name.
I think it was more of a joke than anger, but who knows. UO started out very strong for that day, so the bad review had little impact, IMO.
Fun times, those were.
Speaking of that slime MOB, they would split into two slimes if you killed them with anything but fire damage.
One time an enterprising player led one to his house (I think a bug caused it to spawn outside the dungeon) and used it to train up his skills.
But it got out, and chased players to Britain guard zone, and a guard popped in to kill it. But their famous Guard Halberds did electrical damage, so this guard caused it to split into 2 slimes, then again, and again, then more guards started popping in, and the whole thing went haywire with spawns of both slimes and guards.
It downed the entire server.
Once upon a time....