Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
6.0 review note, Age Of Crap?
antaras
Member Posts: 45
hello everyone
im no longer a AoC player, i quited after reaching 80 with my ranger on soulstorm pvp and realise the game was dead, very few ppl playing and no endgame content..
i read the review posted today by mmorpg.com and my fears came true the game didnt evolved, the equips still look all the same, theres still no entertaining or worth crafting system, so basically im not going to resub..
6.0 is a very poor review note for a game that was a "new gen mmo" and a WoW killer, this game is crap compared to WoW
Comments
Join the club. Yep, endgame killed AoC.
They tried to design a WoW killer but chose a wrong type of killer. They made a japanese kamikaze pilot with bad eyesight, who missed his target and blew himself to pieces.
I lol'ed IRL. Yes I think it is safe to say that AoC might best serve the industry as a sort of '101' in what not to do when making an mmo.
Some people are like slinkies, they dont really have a purpose, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
After reviewing the review section here, I'm actually amused by this. So according to MMORPG.com matrix online is a better game than AOC as is every Asian grinder out there and NGE SWG lmao, it's actually third from the worst only beaten by Scions of fate and dark and light, hows that for objective journalism! rofl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Hehehe you got that right, I have to admit I read the review out of curiosity, but frankly mmorpg credibility went down the drain a long time ago...
I remember reading a reviewer talking about dynamic shadow system in WoW (1st year of release).
It's not easy to review a product and yet remain objective, but honestly...
i started AoC from beta back in may and quit at the end of august. there was nothing for me to do with my level 80 ranger other than PvP all the time. that quickly got old and i didnt resub. getting raids together was a major pain in the ass. 24 man raids just didnt sit well with me. the equipment in the game sucked and all looked the same. the crafted armour was terrible as well. i had no idea the purpose of armour in the game at all. the few pieces of raid armour i did manage to get were not so bad though. spending days on end grinding mobs in kylikkis just didnt make it happen for me. good luck AoC and funcom.
Well I already said it in another post, but I will say it again...
Age of Conan has issues and still need at least one year/maybe an expansion to be great, it has good art, unique combat, a great lore, fantastic music, great graphics, but it need more balance, more content/zones, depth, fixes and polish.
But as someone said : "This review is just the reflection of the state of the AoC-forums on this website. It's a coward article hiding behind the community."
The review is offensive, it lacks information and a subjective sense of judgment .
It is a personal and emotive review, not a profissional and informative review, the player base has the right to feel offended.
The lack of respect (for the player base) and perception ( about the "few emotes") showed this is not a serious review.
The funny thing is, now even the official content of MMORPG.COM matches the majority of parcial, offensive and misinformed posts of MMORPG.COM forums.
...
Funcom has to my knowledge, never claimed to be making a WoW killer. AoC was never going to compete with WoW. 2 different type of games. Also, the fact they never expected the 700k subs they had is proof of that. So, stop trying to spread that BS your spewing.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
The reviewer has a mishapen head
Which means his opinion is skewed
...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
Hehehe you got that right, I have to admit I read the review out of curiosity, but frankly mmorpg credibility went down the drain a long time ago...
I remember reading a reviewer talking about dynamic shadow system in WoW (1st year of release).
It's not easy to review a product and yet remain objective, but honestly...
IF they want to make a mockery of themselves, who are we to stop them? This is freaking hilarious, reviews are supposed to tell you which game at present, is worth your time in a given genre. According to this list those games are lotro and eve. And shot online is a better game than AOC, lmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
www.mmorpg.com/features.cfm/view/reviews
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
According to the list of reviews you posted - the only game worse than AOC is Dark and Light. That sounds about right
In games that I have played I would rank it somewhere behind Horizons and Vanguard and ahead of Dark and Light. Never played a lot of the other gaggers out there.
I miss DAoC
My issue with the AoC review on this site was mostly that it was a meandering mess and poorly written all throughout. Nothing kills what could be potentially engaging and dynamic prose more than by choosing to write as if you were posting on your blog between gaming sessions.
I actually agree with its current score on the site based on my experiences and those observed by professional reviewers on other sites and magazines. I however, don't agree with the score as it was laid by the reviewer on this site; who could not formulate a central or set of corroborative themes/examples in his entire review.
We have a corespondent on hand (Avery); whom I feel could have put a more compelling review together; while ensuring a level of objectivity on the state of the game. He understands the medium and audience well; and while not being a professional writer to my knowledge does a good job of making his points while making it engaging to read.
(as close as I get to saying i respect your work Avery)
My issue with the AoC review on this site was mostly that it was a meandering mess and poorly written all throughout. Nothing kills what could be potentially engaging and dynamic prose more than by choosing to write as if you were posting on your blog between gaming sessions.
I actually agree with its current score on the site based on my experiences and those observed by professional reviewers on other sites and magazines. I however, don't agree with the score as it was laid by the reviewer on this site; who could not formulate a central or set of corroborative themes/examples in his entire review.
We have a corespondent on hand (Avery); whom I feel could have put a more compelling review together; while ensuring a level of objectivity on the state of the game. He understands the medium and audience well; and while not being a professional writer to my knowledge does a good job of making his points while making it engaging to read.
(as close as I get to saying i respect your work Avery)
I'm not opposed to the score on it's own, 6-7 is exactly where I would rate it on a scale of 1-10 . MMORPG.com doesn't use a scale like that, they've said so themselves numerous times. Looking at that list, the whole thing looks like a mess if you consider their basis on scoring games.
You have to consider those games are all still relevant in the greater scheme of things.Saying shot online is better than AOC is a weird message to be sending. Not to mention the NGE, which is by far the buggiest mess on the market today. I agree the writer was very amatuerish. MMORPG needs to hire some real reviewers who think of the games they write about on a neutral basis.
The reviewer even admitted to bashing them (now) based on the state the game was in at launch. Which in my opinion is very unprofessional and shows he approached the game from a bias stand point in his review. That's not helping mmorpg.com out in the credibility department at all.
My biggest beef is giving a game a good review at launch time, then months later when the game has actually improved, lowering the score. Kind of backs up those who had the opinion they either gave a good review to please FC, or gave a bad one to please their forum users.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
This is the most innovative MMO to ever hit the market.. and the most graphically pleasing as well..
If you can't handle thinking and adjusting strategy and tactics on the fly .. you shouldn't be playing any game let alone this one...
My issue with the AoC review on this site was mostly that it was a meandering mess and poorly written all throughout. Nothing kills what could be potentially engaging and dynamic prose more than by choosing to write as if you were posting on your blog between gaming sessions.
I actually agree with its current score on the site based on my experiences and those observed by professional reviewers on other sites and magazines. I however, don't agree with the score as it was laid by the reviewer on this site; who could not formulate a central or set of corroborative themes/examples in his entire review.
We have a corespondent on hand (Avery); whom I feel could have put a more compelling review together; while ensuring a level of objectivity on the state of the game. He understands the medium and audience well; and while not being a professional writer to my knowledge does a good job of making his points while making it engaging to read.
(as close as I get to saying i respect your work Avery)
I'm not opposed to the score on it's own, 6-7 is exactly where I would rate it on a scale of 1-10 . MMORPG.com doesn't use a scale like that, they've said so themselves numerous times. Looking at that list, the whole thing looks like a mess if you consider their basis on scoring games.
You have to consider those games are all still relevant in the greater scheme of things.Saying shot online is better than AOC is a weird message to be sending. Not to mention the NGE, which is by far the buggiest mess on the market today. I agree the writer was very amatuerish. MMORPG needs to hire some real reviewers who think of the games they write about on a neutral basis.
The reviewer even admitted to bashing them (now) based on the state the game was in at launch. Which in my opinion is very unprofessional and shows he approached the game from a bias stand point in his review. That's not helping mmorpg.com out in the credibility department at all.
My biggest beef is giving a game a good review at launch time, then months later when the game has actually improved, lowering the score. Kind of backs up those who had the opinion they either gave a good review to please FC, or gave a bad one to please their forum users.
Funny he's not the only one to have a problem with the community.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/138-Age-of-Conan
Waiting for the next thing
My issue with the AoC review on this site was mostly that it was a meandering mess and poorly written all throughout. Nothing kills what could be potentially engaging and dynamic prose more than by choosing to write as if you were posting on your blog between gaming sessions.
I actually agree with its current score on the site based on my experiences and those observed by professional reviewers on other sites and magazines. I however, don't agree with the score as it was laid by the reviewer on this site; who could not formulate a central or set of corroborative themes/examples in his entire review.
We have a corespondent on hand (Avery); whom I feel could have put a more compelling review together; while ensuring a level of objectivity on the state of the game. He understands the medium and audience well; and while not being a professional writer to my knowledge does a good job of making his points while making it engaging to read.
(as close as I get to saying i respect your work Avery)
I'm not opposed to the score on it's own, 6-7 is exactly where I would rate it on a scale of 1-10 . MMORPG.com doesn't use a scale like that, they've said so themselves numerous times. Looking at that list, the whole thing looks like a mess if you consider their basis on scoring games.
You have to consider those games are all still relevant in the greater scheme of things.Saying shot online is better than AOC is a weird message to be sending. Not to mention the NGE, which is by far the buggiest mess on the market today. I agree the writer was very amatuerish. MMORPG needs to hire some real reviewers who think of the games they write about on a neutral basis.
The reviewer even admitted to bashing them (now) based on the state the game was in at launch. Which in my opinion is very unprofessional and shows he approached the game from a bias stand point in his review. That's not helping mmorpg.com out in the credibility department at all.
My biggest beef is giving a game a good review at launch time, then months later when the game has actually improved, lowering the score. Kind of backs up those who had the opinion they either gave a good review to please FC, or gave a bad one to please their forum users.
Funny he's not the only one to have a problem with the community.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/138-Age-of-Conan
Escapist? Honestly, that's your defense? That's meant to be offensive, I did'nt know thats what this site was shooting for.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Ever hear of the saying "Out of the mouth of babes..."? While it is easy to dismiss one point of view, having collaboration gives that review legitamite weight.
Is it possible that you are afraid you are one of the people that they are talking about?
Waiting for the next thing
I don't take Yahtzee very seriously, so IMO it doesn't add much weight.
No, I really don't care what the reviewer or anyone thinks of me, that doesn't change the fact that he included insults toward players in his review.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I probably would have given it a 4.0-5.0 at best, I think the reviewer was being pretty forgiving of a lot of problems if he was giving it a 6.0.
I agree about the community being horrible, even way before release the community was one of my biggest concerns because of how they conducted themselves on the boards, way too trashy for my tastes.
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence.
Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
You can't make a fantasy MMO (or maybe any MMO) and NOT compete with WoW because it's going to be the same audience. I'll think you'll find that 700k subs went to more like 200k (probably less now) after everyone's free 30 days ended after release :P
They expected people to leave wow for aoc. But after playing wow, aoc just feels sub-par on just about every level and there is no end game to keep people playing.
Actually, if you'd bothered to take a look at the actual reviews themselves, you'd have noticed that we are now using a new format for our reviews, which is resulting in different scores.
Also, as I've said over and over again, it's important to look at the body of the review and not just the score. Reviews are more about what is said than the actual score.
Also, how is this not objective? Please point out to me the bias that you see there, and our lack of objectivity.
Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com
Jon, it was objective. The rabid AoC playerbase simply had their feelings hurt when they realized the review was spot on and they're wasting their time playing a piece of crap. GG
Don't try to compare AoC to LOTRO or Eve, they were and are leaps and bounds ahead of AoC; Funcom can only dream that Conan will be that successful someday.
hey its not age pf conan or crap, its age of cavemen according to Jef Reahard and his biased anti-pvp writings.
Actually, if you'd bothered to take a look at the actual reviews themselves, you'd have noticed that we are now using a new format for our reviews, which is resulting in different scores.
Also, as I've said over and over again, it's important to look at the body of the review and not just the score. Reviews are more about what is said than the actual score.
Also, how is this not objective? Please point out to me the bias that you see there, and our lack of objectivity.
Stradden you see thats the problem here. I look at the body of the review and I find gross errors. You just can't bring out AoC's performance issues now as a main drawback even though it was true at launch. You can also not say that AoC offers poor communication possibilities through emoticons when a very comprehensive RP system has been in place for many many months. There is other stuff as well, but my point is yhe body of the review is not really very on the facts. The review reflect very much what peoples experience was in the months after launch, but it is not at all on facts the way AoC stand today. Your group need to do more research here.
Actually, if you'd bothered to take a look at the actual reviews themselves, you'd have noticed that we are now using a new format for our reviews, which is resulting in different scores.
Also, as I've said over and over again, it's important to look at the body of the review and not just the score. Reviews are more about what is said than the actual score.
Also, how is this not objective? Please point out to me the bias that you see there, and our lack of objectivity.
Stradden you see thats the problem here. I look at the body of the review and I find gross errors. You just can't bring out AoC's performance issues now as a main drawback even though it was true at launch. You can also not say that AoC offers poor communication possibilities through emoticons when a very comprehensive RP system has been in place for many many months. There is other stuff as well, but my point is yhe body of the review is not really very on the facts. The review reflect very much what peoples experience was in the months after launch, but it is not at all on facts the way AoC stand today. Your group need to do more research here.
hehe the review reflects more of the authors ass getting whipped in game rather than the game itself..
Hes biased i tell you, hes biased he got pwneddddd...noob
I'm too lazy to read the review but the 6/10 sounds about right. I would give 7/10 for pve and 5/10 for pvp.