Originally posted by Bennjim Well I just went and bought a copy of said magazine, what a waste of £6 but anyway. It's obvious the reviewer never got past the basics of the game and there are 2 statements in the review that clearly prove this - I'll leave you to work those out and then we'll know who's actually played the game and who hasn't.
Well if you wish to make a point then you will have to quote the magazine and give reasons for saying that.Saying you leave it to those that played the game to figure out is not much use as only those in europe have access to the magazine to start with.
Its like asking me to find the "mistakes" in an american published magazine when i clearly have no access to it from the UK
What also cracked me up is they put in the same catagory as Roma Victor the game "Guild Wars" which gets 93% - do I need to say anymore about the publications complete lack of MMO game knowledge. As we all know that Guild Wars isn't an mmorpg but an instanced piece of........ But actually quite fun in a single player way.
I am sure many GW fans will disagree with you there.Also if they kept WoW as comparison there will be lots of people here shouting same thing that WoW is a level based game and should not be played in same review section as RV.
You can even pick saga of ryzom which is skill based as RV and you will get similar respond saying you cannot compare a fantasy game with a historical game.
You can then pick WW2online and be told while its historical its more a fps type.
That goes true for every mmorpg there is always something not exact to match it up with .
So we can conclude that the reviewer likes nice solo-player instanced games like Guild Wars, how the flip is he/she going to understand a completely freeform, sandbox styyle game like RV? Simple answer they won't and obviously haven't.
Nope,can't conclude anything espically since we have no idea what the reviewer played or plays and makes no mention of that in his article.
The review editor picks the games for the comparison part(which they do with every game) not the reviewer as far as i know.So there is no evidence to show the reviewer has or does play GW and prefers it as he makes no mention in his article at all of anything that is found purely in GW.
Given KFR's response and lets face it he'll know exactly how long anyone has been in game and exactly what they were doing as he has the data - I would say KFR has got it right. This is a hatchet job if ever I've seen one, clearly the guy/girl never played the game to a level where they could effectively review the title. Instead it's a rush job for cash and I think the term reviewer at PC Zone would be more aptly termed assassin.
Are we talking about same company that for over a week claimed pc zone did a review behind their back when they did issue them an account to start with and their community manager had no idea of this to begin with?Yeah seems they got their act together (/sacrasm off)
From my own perspective RV is not a finished game and has lots of issues it would get a 50% from me but with the potential to be a 90% in the following months. Perhaps RB should consider spending some advertising bucks with the magazine cause looking at the other reviews the companies that advertise have come out much better - what a disgrace!
If i recall GTR(a great driving game by the way) got a 90% or so with pc zone and i never saw any advert on it at all in pc zone uk.
So the claim that pc zone somehow decided to make a personal war against RV because they did not spent bucks on their magazine is funny.Other games get great reviews without a single ad in them.
hercules you are insane. Is there any justifiable motivation for your daily hate campaign against a game you don't play and a genre you don't understand?
Originally posted by sempiternal hercules you are insane. Is there any justifiable motivation for your daily hate campaign against a game you don't play and a genre you don't understand?
Any reason for your daily spam of forums for months trying to distort the state of the game to gain fans?
Intresting you call me insane when you been spamming not only this forum but other game's forum for months now .That sound more normal to you?I am sure it does
Like i said keep on insulting and digging the grave for RV.I am sure you already seen what some potential players think of you by now.
Originally posted by sempiternal (A game must be REVIEWED, in some way, even in order to write a PREVIEW, which is a REVIEW of a game before it is released.) P.S. nice job calling me a liar and not being able to back it up.
Colloquially a review is a critique of something based upon that person's experience with that something. It usually contains both positive and negative aspects.
A preview, on the other hand, is generally a PR opportunity put on by the producers of that something in order to create anticipation for it. A preview will almost NEVER be critical (in a negative way) of a product, because the previewer would loose future access to the product, and therefore not be able to deliver sellable content.
preview = producer generated
review = critic generated
In the common usage regarding games, they are NOT the same thing.
I do appreciate RB coming here and responding to the community, and I hope they will some day put out a demo so I can try this game I was really excited about without risking my hard earned cash on something that seems to most of the buzz I hear to be unfinished or crappy.
Originally posted by hercules well here is what we seems to have established 1)that was indeed suzy wallace of pc zone uk. 2)pc zone did indeed get issued an account which ofc was meant for reviewing! 3)pc zone acted professionally if actually obtaining a reviewer account which they could have still reviewed without one Rest is purely subjective.We can argue how good the review is till our fingers bleed. TBH i always said i would never give a mmorpg below something like 30% myself for just actually loading up.Even DnL will not get less then 30% and imho this game is about same. To get a more accurate review of a mmorpg you actually need to spent imho no less then 20 hrs a week for 3 months .Reason been is mmorpg are very vast and you need to acknowledge the end game.No magazine will ever do that as it will tie down a reviewer for months(paid ofc!) and will need to see the "end game" which is most important in a mmorpg. And there is ofc how experienced a mmorpg player is the reviewer.
Polish your games ,developers .I personally would no matter what rely more on a pc zone review then say the rants of someone like sempiternal who has been caught out lying repeatedly to gain support for the game(read his famous ign" review" for starters)
Herc, you really should consider a job as a marketing spin-doctor.
1) you got one right...of course it has nothing to do with the point at hand.
2)wrong...they were given an account as a prelim for actually reviewing the game...with NO in game money!
3)wrong again...they got half of what they needed to properly review the game, and then went off half-cocked.
Lets see what else we have established:
1) The reviewer had no money...dude, even for the 5 min you played the game, you know there wouldnt be anything to do if you had zero money.
2) He had the account active less than a week of playtime.
3) he was apperently some kind of freelancer
This goes well beyond your EQ2 example. This is just totally half-assing it. In order for it to the same, the EQ2 reviewer would have had to have a character with no inventory slots and unable to get any gear at all...then run around the isle and be locked out of every quest (with no money, you cant even start the master quest), and unable to participate in combat(since he is still attended)
I am trying to honestly think what part of the game he even could have reviewed...maybe he could forage for apples and firewood.
So quit trying to lay on the BS and just admit this had to be a half assed review, even if his opinions were in line with your own.
1) The reviewer had no money...dude, even for the 5 min you played the game, you know there wouldnt be anything to do if you had zero money.
Actually ,haven't some people been writting how its possible to play the game without the use of VERM?
I personally got deattended and trained in the arena and got a free weapon without having to withdraw a single ses .And ofc i got my training free from players.
You can tell that to some guy who never touched the game but not me .
Originally posted by hercules Originally posted by grinreaper
1) The reviewer had no money...dude, even for the 5 min you played the game, you know there wouldnt be anything to do if you had zero money.
Actually ,haven't some people been writting how its possible to play the game without the use of VERM?
I personally got deattended and trained in the arena and got a free weapon without having to withdraw a single ses .And ofc i got my training free from players.
You can tell that to some guy who never touched the game but not me .
Again, nice try...they are saying he got no starter money...not the VERM...are you going to tell me you didnt use any of that?
And how long did it take you to get deattended? Most people reported it took several days in the first weeks. No wonder he thought the world was empty. So he couldnt have done the Master quest, or any crafting without money. He had to get deattended and then figure out where the training was, mooch a free weapon, and get trained by the niceness of other PC's before he could even experence combat...and you are telling me he gave this game a fair shot?? You are starting to sound like the darkside version of what you accuse Semp of...
Was going to give another lenghty reply but realised one thing .Fact that it was a review against RV means nothing said will ever make fans of RV(well those left that is lol) to accept the review or give it any credit.
I can easily say if RV gets a good review(note i said IF) i could easily come and fault it and ofc the fans will hail it as the "righeous review".
I seen people move heaven and earth to discredit the review ever since it came up.
1) i seen it called a bottom shelf magazine when it was said it was in the dutch version.Doubt we have many dutch comment on that so ofc it was someone in the states or UK making that comment.When it came out on the uk version it became a bit clearer that its harder to call one of the 2 top selling pc gamining magazine a bottom shelf magazine
2)i seen it claimed pc zone uk are guilty of bypassing RV(which they could have) and reviewing the game without RB giving them any access yet.Turns out they issued an account and should have accepted that a review can come anytime of the day.And turns out that the community manager of RB has poor communication with his other team despite they are only a few guys .
3) i seen it claimed that suzy wallace was not even the poster when she let it out right here that they were indeed given an account .Despite her email was same as the parent company and forum name is one she uses a lot
4)i seen RB come here and bash on pc zone and its employees.
1) as far as Dutch pc zone being legit, it is had to tell...lord knows the U.S. game mags forgein branches are crap. I did question it...I am still trying to figure out Hasselhof in Germany and Lewis in France, too.
2)PC zone did bypass RB on this...Its as if they went and got their Registration from the DMV, then claimed it was ok they didnt have their drivers license.
3) Fad commented based on the fact there was a troll trying to get a respose from people...how the hell should we know who this chick is? He never said she wasnt real, just that she wasnt authentcated, like most people in the 'industry' are around here...
4) pc zone did poop on them first, and in a bush league kind of way...I used to hang around the game reviewing biz here in the states, and at least over here, this all seems pretty bush league.
I got nothing aginst the review per se, dude is entitled to his opinion, I just think it is pretty clear this was a poorly handled and sloppy job of it. He dosent like the game, fine...but same thing i say to you Herc, play the game for more than 10 min before you hate on it.
I just payed and tried the game out, and all I have to say is I wish I had read this thread before.
*sigh*
Borba,
I am honestly curious how long you spent in game before making this determination. I have found this to be a very pertinent question. When first starting out, new players are very disconnected from what is going on around them in the world just due to having no exposure yet to most of it. They are also dealing with a character with no skills whatsoever that can't even run 300 feet without having to rest and who breaks every tool they touch very quickly. The attending quests, although very helpful in forcing a new player to learn the mechanics of the game, are very boring. After attending, it can be tough to figure out just what to do next. I myself nearly quit RV many times the first month but didn't due to some more veteran players encouraging me and promising "it gets better." It certainly did and I love the game now.
Last night a friend of mine, a very intelligent one from the academic world, bought the game and started to play. I helped him for hours teaching him all the basics and helping him through some of the attending quests. I also introduced him to other players and gave him the low-down on local politics and who was who. I even got him signed up for a work crew where he'll get paid handsomely for his labor. He had a great time and couldn't wait to log on the next day to continue.
This was a friend who fully understood the limitations of the game going in, was aware of the upcoming features the devs have promised to add, and realized the huge possibilities this game environment can have.
So Borba,
1. Were you aware of the state of the game before you purchased it (i.e. did you read the RV website)?
2. How long did you play before giving up?
3. Did you make any attempt to interact with others in game and try to get involved in the community?
4. And a more personal question, how old are you and what is your educational background?
Originally posted by grinreaper Originally posted by TheVF Originally posted by siredmond 5) The review acount was only active for a few hours in a week.
This is according to RedBedlam, and they've already proven themselves to be, at best, grossly misinformed about this situation.
Not as misinformed as a reviewer who tries to play a game with no in game money According to RedBedlam.
Originally posted by TheVF Originally posted by grinreaper Originally posted by TheVF Originally posted by siredmond 5) The review acount was only active for a few hours in a week.
This is according to RedBedlam, and they've already proven themselves to be, at best, grossly misinformed about this situation.
Not as misinformed as a reviewer who tries to play a game with no in game money According to RedBedlam.
Yes, Brainiac...according to RB, you know, the people who track every F---ing Coin in the game.
If by 'lieing' you mean 'not having complete information at the moment you clamored for it, but still being right', then yes. I think you have that dictionary upside down again...
I love how everyone is blaming the reviewer for not having any cash in game. To me, the fact that RB couldn't get their shit together and set him up correctly sounds pretty much par for course. You would think that knowing he was going to review their game, they would make every effort to assure he had a good experience. It's like a food critic coming in to a restaurant and them not being able to provide him with a spoon for his soup... then being pissed that he didn't enjoy the experience.
The fact that you all agree the game can't be enjoyed without cash doesn't exactly speak in it's favor. I know you people are trying to help... but I really think you are driving more people away... doing more damage than that review ever could have.
Everyone is saying that he only hated the game because he played it for too short a period. While pretty much agreeing with his assessment of the state of the game for new players. He isn't alone in his opinion of the game, I have seen the same sentiments echoed all over these boards as well as the RV boards... before the threads get moved out of sight. If the game is that bad for the first few hours or days, I can understand why the guy hated it. Why would you expect anyone to give a game a lengthy try if the first 4 or 5 hours of play sucked that bad? If he was the only one saying these things about the game, then I wouldn't be so quick to believe it... but I think more people agree with him on the sate of the game than disagree. Although I understand thinking 8% is an extremely low score, the specific problems he mentioned aren't really being disputed. In fact, people are using the fact that he didn't mention even bigger problems as an excuse to dismiss everything he had to say.
On the subject of lying.... how many times will you believe someone when they say they were misinformed, or plans changed, or things didn't work out the way they thought... only when the things they said are pr oven not to be true? Apparently, longer than I will. I think there is a clear pattern of misinformation, and lame excuses to cover it once the truth is exposed.
Originally posted by sempiternal If the reviewer did not mention the lag during release, then it is likely he did not even play after release; either that or he is horribly bad at reviewing. How could he have missed the lag? Nobody that played did. This reviewer and review have no credibility. One of the very first things that should have been mentioned was the lag that was preventing playing! Bad review, bad reviewer. Probably played the game once or twice during test, didn't get it, had to get a review out by a deadline and gave birth to this crap.
I played for the first 2-4 weeks (including the 2 week pre-order) and I never had a real problem with lag...
I saw everyone complaining about it, but I was never really affected. It is possible that it didn't bother him either.
Originally posted by Salvatoris I love how everyone is blaming the reviewer for not having any cash in game. To me, the fact that RB couldn't get their shit together and set him up correctly sounds pretty much par for course. You would think that knowing he was going to review their game, they would make every effort to assure he had a good experience. It's like a food critic coming in to a restaurant and them not being able to provide him with a spoon for his soup... then being pissed that he didn't enjoy the experience. The fact that you all agree the game can't be enjoyed without cash doesn't exactly speak in it's favor. I know you people are trying to help... but I really think you are driving more people away... doing more damage than that review ever could have. Everyone is saying that he only hated the game because he played it for too short a period. While pretty much agreeing with his assessment of the state of the game for new players. He isn't alone in his opinion of the game, I have seen the same sentiments echoed all over these boards as well as the RV boards... before the threads get moved out of sight. If the game is that bad for the first few hours or days, I can understand why the guy hated it. Why would you expect anyone to give a game a lengthy try if the first 4 or 5 hours of play sucked that bad? If he was the only one saying these things about the game, then I wouldn't be so quick to believe it... but I think more people agree with him on the sate of the game than disagree. Although I understand thinking 8% is an extremely low score, the specific problems he mentioned aren't really being disputed. In fact, people are using the fact that he didn't mention even bigger problems as an excuse to dismiss everything he had to say. On the subject of lying.... how many times will you believe someone when they say they were misinformed, or plans changed, or things didn't work out the way they thought... only when the things they said are pr oven not to be true? Apparently, longer than I will. I think there is a clear pattern of misinformation, and lame excuses to cover it once the truth is exposed.
And I would have to say that it was once BELIEVED AND THOUGHT to be true that bleeding your arm would cure you of an aliment.
Anyhow, im pointing out he had played the game only a week, and was sad that he didnt get anywhere?
Originally posted by grinreaper If by 'lieing' you mean 'not having complete information at the moment you clamored for it, but still being right', then yes. I think you have that dictionary upside down again...
I didn't actually mean "lieing" because that isn't a word. How old are you and what is your educational background?
Comments
(A game must be REVIEWED, in some way, even in order to write a PREVIEW, which is a REVIEW of a game before it is released.)
P.S. nice job calling me a liar and not being able to back it up.
Any reason for your daily spam of forums for months trying to distort the state of the game to gain fans?
Intresting you call me insane when you been spamming not only this forum but other game's forum for months now .That sound more normal to you?I am sure it does
Like i said keep on insulting and digging the grave for RV.I am sure you already seen what some potential players think of you by now.
Colloquially a review is a critique of something based upon that person's experience with that something. It usually contains both positive and negative aspects.
A preview, on the other hand, is generally a PR opportunity put on by the producers of that something in order to create anticipation for it. A preview will almost NEVER be critical (in a negative way) of a product, because the previewer would loose future access to the product, and therefore not be able to deliver sellable content.
preview = producer generated
review = critic generated
In the common usage regarding games, they are NOT the same thing.
I do appreciate RB coming here and responding to the community, and I hope they will some day put out a demo so I can try this game I was really excited about without risking my hard earned cash on something that seems to most of the buzz I hear to be unfinished or crappy.
Herc, you really should consider a job as a marketing spin-doctor.
1) you got one right...of course it has nothing to do with the point at hand.
2)wrong...they were given an account as a prelim for actually reviewing the game...with NO in game money!
3)wrong again...they got half of what they needed to properly review the game, and then went off half-cocked.
Lets see what else we have established:
1) The reviewer had no money...dude, even for the 5 min you played the game, you know there wouldnt be anything to do if you had zero money.
2) He had the account active less than a week of playtime.
3) he was apperently some kind of freelancer
This goes well beyond your EQ2 example. This is just totally half-assing it. In order for it to the same, the EQ2 reviewer would have had to have a character with no inventory slots and unable to get any gear at all...then run around the isle and be locked out of every quest (with no money, you cant even start the master quest), and unable to participate in combat(since he is still attended)
I am trying to honestly think what part of the game he even could have reviewed...maybe he could forage for apples and firewood.
So quit trying to lay on the BS and just admit this had to be a half assed review, even if his opinions were in line with your own.
1) The reviewer had no money...dude, even for the 5 min you played the game, you know there wouldnt be anything to do if you had zero money.
Actually ,haven't some people been writting how its possible to play the game without the use of VERM?
I personally got deattended and trained in the arena and got a free weapon without having to withdraw a single ses .And ofc i got my training free from players.
You can tell that to some guy who never touched the game but not me .
1) The reviewer had no money...dude, even for the 5 min you played the game, you know there wouldnt be anything to do if you had zero money.
Actually ,haven't some people been writting how its possible to play the game without the use of VERM?
I personally got deattended and trained in the arena and got a free weapon without having to withdraw a single ses .And ofc i got my training free from players.
You can tell that to some guy who never touched the game but not me .
Again, nice try...they are saying he got no starter money...not the VERM...are you going to tell me you didnt use any of that?
And how long did it take you to get deattended? Most people reported it took several days in the first weeks. No wonder he thought the world was empty. So he couldnt have done the Master quest, or any crafting without money. He had to get deattended and then figure out where the training was, mooch a free weapon, and get trained by the niceness of other PC's before he could even experence combat...and you are telling me he gave this game a fair shot?? You are starting to sound like the darkside version of what you accuse Semp of...
Was going to give another lenghty reply but realised one thing .Fact that it was a review against RV means nothing said will ever make fans of RV(well those left that is lol) to accept the review or give it any credit.
I can easily say if RV gets a good review(note i said IF) i could easily come and fault it and ofc the fans will hail it as the "righeous review".
I seen people move heaven and earth to discredit the review ever since it came up.
1) i seen it called a bottom shelf magazine when it was said it was in the dutch version.Doubt we have many dutch comment on that so ofc it was someone in the states or UK making that comment.When it came out on the uk version it became a bit clearer that its harder to call one of the 2 top selling pc gamining magazine a bottom shelf magazine
2)i seen it claimed pc zone uk are guilty of bypassing RV(which they could have) and reviewing the game without RB giving them any access yet.Turns out they issued an account and should have accepted that a review can come anytime of the day.And turns out that the community manager of RB has poor communication with his other team despite they are only a few guys .
3) i seen it claimed that suzy wallace was not even the poster when she let it out right here that they were indeed given an account .Despite her email was same as the parent company and forum name is one she uses a lot
4)i seen RB come here and bash on pc zone and its employees.
I just payed and tried the game out, and all I have to say is I wish I had read this thread before.
*sigh*
1) as far as Dutch pc zone being legit, it is had to tell...lord knows the U.S. game mags forgein branches are crap. I did question it...I am still trying to figure out Hasselhof in Germany and Lewis in France, too.
2)PC zone did bypass RB on this...Its as if they went and got their Registration from the DMV, then claimed it was ok they didnt have their drivers license.
3) Fad commented based on the fact there was a troll trying to get a respose from people...how the hell should we know who this chick is? He never said she wasnt real, just that she wasnt authentcated, like most people in the 'industry' are around here...
4) pc zone did poop on them first, and in a bush league kind of way...I used to hang around the game reviewing biz here in the states, and at least over here, this all seems pretty bush league.
I got nothing aginst the review per se, dude is entitled to his opinion, I just think it is pretty clear this was a poorly handled and sloppy job of it. He dosent like the game, fine...but same thing i say to you Herc, play the game for more than 10 min before you hate on it.
Borba,
I am honestly curious how long you spent in game before making this determination. I have found this to be a very pertinent question. When first starting out, new players are very disconnected from what is going on around them in the world just due to having no exposure yet to most of it. They are also dealing with a character with no skills whatsoever that can't even run 300 feet without having to rest and who breaks every tool they touch very quickly. The attending quests, although very helpful in forcing a new player to learn the mechanics of the game, are very boring. After attending, it can be tough to figure out just what to do next. I myself nearly quit RV many times the first month but didn't due to some more veteran players encouraging me and promising "it gets better." It certainly did and I love the game now.
Last night a friend of mine, a very intelligent one from the academic world, bought the game and started to play. I helped him for hours teaching him all the basics and helping him through some of the attending quests. I also introduced him to other players and gave him the low-down on local politics and who was who. I even got him signed up for a work crew where he'll get paid handsomely for his labor. He had a great time and couldn't wait to log on the next day to continue.
This was a friend who fully understood the limitations of the game going in, was aware of the upcoming features the devs have promised to add, and realized the huge possibilities this game environment can have.
So Borba,
1. Were you aware of the state of the game before you purchased it (i.e. did you read the RV website)?
2. How long did you play before giving up?
3. Did you make any attempt to interact with others in game and try to get involved in the community?
4. And a more personal question, how old are you and what is your educational background?
Not as misinformed as a reviewer who tries to play a game with no in game money
Not as misinformed as a reviewer who tries to play a game with no in game money
According to RedBedlam.
Not as misinformed as a reviewer who tries to play a game with no in game money
According to RedBedlam.
Yes, Brainiac...according to RB, you know, the people who track every F---ing Coin in the game.
I love how everyone is blaming the reviewer for not having any cash in game. To me, the fact that RB couldn't get their shit together and set him up correctly sounds pretty much par for course. You would think that knowing he was going to review their game, they would make every effort to assure he had a good experience. It's like a food critic coming in to a restaurant and them not being able to provide him with a spoon for his soup... then being pissed that he didn't enjoy the experience.
The fact that you all agree the game can't be enjoyed without cash doesn't exactly speak in it's favor. I know you people are trying to help... but I really think you are driving more people away... doing more damage than that review ever could have.
Everyone is saying that he only hated the game because he played it for too short a period. While pretty much agreeing with his assessment of the state of the game for new players. He isn't alone in his opinion of the game, I have seen the same sentiments echoed all over these boards as well as the RV boards... before the threads get moved out of sight. If the game is that bad for the first few hours or days, I can understand why the guy hated it. Why would you expect anyone to give a game a lengthy try if the first 4 or 5 hours of play sucked that bad? If he was the only one saying these things about the game, then I wouldn't be so quick to believe it... but I think more people agree with him on the sate of the game than disagree. Although I understand thinking 8% is an extremely low score, the specific problems he mentioned aren't really being disputed. In fact, people are using the fact that he didn't mention even bigger problems as an excuse to dismiss everything he had to say.
On the subject of lying.... how many times will you believe someone when they say they were misinformed, or plans changed, or things didn't work out the way they thought... only when the things they said are pr oven not to be true? Apparently, longer than I will. I think there is a clear pattern of misinformation, and lame excuses to cover it once the truth is exposed.
-----Zero Punctuation Eve Online Review-----
I saw everyone complaining about it, but I was never really affected. It is possible that it didn't bother him either.
Anyhow, im pointing out he had played the game only a week, and was sad that he didnt get anywhere?
Almost hate to tell you that, but... not quite.