1. Jef say there is no PVP reward system in AoC. There are only the very basic PvP elements ( the XP & leveling mechanism wich was running in the open beta) "rewards" (armor sets) aren't live, as well as no consequence system at the time of the review.
2. There are poor possibilities for RP in AoC, few emoticons. Emoticons yes, enforced RP rules and a player base dedicated to RP, No
3. Performance of AoC is low on a 3K $ Rig. See the Official Tech Forums, the claims that all the performance isues are solved is a fallacy. Lag spkes are still a big problem sys reqs aside. and 30ish FPS with a high end rig is certainly nothing to brag about in a game engine.
There is absolutely no way he could say what he said unless he has not played AoC for more than 6 weeks.
He certainly could say it and did, just like you and yours say 'Patch 2.0 fixed all the games issues, everybody can come back now'.
1. Jef say there is no PVP reward system in AoC. There are only the very basic PvP elements ( the XP & leveling mechanism wich was running in the open beta) "rewards" (armor sets) aren't live, as well as no consequence system at the time of the review.
2. There are poor possibilities for RP in AoC, few emoticons. Emoticons yes, enforced RP rules and a player base dedicated to RP, No
3. Performance of AoC is low on a 3K $ Rig. See the Official Tech Forums, the claims that all the performance isues are solved is a fallacy. Lag spkes are still a big problem sys reqs aside. and 30ish FPS with a high end rig is certainly nothing to brag about in a game engine.
There is absolutely no way he could say what he said unless he has not played AoC for more than 6 weeks.
He certainly could say it and did, just like you and yours say 'Patch 2.0 fixed all the games issues, everybody can come back now'.
1. PVP levels are rewards Just because you choose to downplay the system that was put in doesnt make it any less of a reward.
2. Actually there are enforced RP rules. Perhaps you should read the RP rules sticky on the forums. Or check out the RP servers.
3. Lag spikes are an issue. But anyone who has a high end system getting 30 fps has other problems besides the game. I run a midrange system right now and get around 80 FPS on high settings.
It reads like he said well time to review AoC. Lets see what the people on our forums are saying. Copy/Paste well there I'm done. Nobody will know the difference. Oh and lets throw some insults in also. And anyone from MMORPG calling any other community is bad is like Charles Manson calling someone crazy.
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.
Wrong.
"Compete with WoW" doesnt have to mean "getting 12 million subs". It can simply mean "the subscribers coming to AoC will be taken from WoW player base".
Funcom stated that they were indeed going after Wow's subscribers. Thats why so many features are so strikingly similar in AoC compared to WoW. Funcoms idea with AoC was something like this:
"Lets make as many features in AoC similar to WoW as possible. With one exception - fighting. That way we will give all the WoW-refugees an easy transition over to AoC."
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alright, so AoC was kind of crappy in execution... but I don't know that it's THAT bad. I mean... SWG is pretty lame... and I thought AoC was better than that. I'm not saying it was great, but I think people allowed their discontent to what they wanted AoC to be, rather than what it was, get the better of their judgement.
This is why I think there should be more than one person reviewing a game. It's like this, we all know not everyone is going to like a game. If you don't like the game... then you don't like it - period. That's a lot to wager on a review that could be the deciding factor as to whether a game succeeds or not. Not to mention, sometimes you have to deal with obvious fanboi reviews - like every review for WoW that ever existed. And this doesn't just happen in MMO's either.
If the game has Grand Theft Auto in the title - it won't reveive anything lower than an 8.5, and probably 9, whether the game deserves it. If a game is made by Bethesda - they'll completely ignore any problem the game has, and tout it as the best game ever... even though it will have more bugs and lack of polish than your average game. If the game is made by Ubisoft, they won't give it higher than a 8.5. Why? Because Ubisoft consistently releases good games that people enjoy, with some of the best IP's in the business... they don't need the extra press.
AoC was a major let down for sure, but it's not as bad as half of the games that beat it out. Not by a long shot.
Sounds like a lot of folks here feel they are much better qualified to review games and run / edit / manage a gamer's forum than the members and staff of MMORPG.com. Purchasing a domain name and bandwidth for such endeavors are reasonably cheap these days, I suggest you seriously consider taking up the task of setting up your own sites and doing it better than they have here. Unless your only true talents are b!tch spamming about minutiae....
I'll ask you the same question I asked before, had funcom called everyone who quit neanderthals, what would the reaction be like here?
It's not about his score, it's really not about when he played last. It's about comments like that. Neanderthal is a code word for what exactly? I'd read it as morons or idiots, I'm sure others have as well. You're surprised people have a problem with that?
You think that's just bitching over small nonsensical issues, I disagree. If expecting a reviewer to show some tact, when addressing people who may very well help pay the bills around here. Is out of bounds or off limits, what does that say about people still bitching about issues from months ago?
It's rather funny though, the same people who bitched about the game having to high a score, are bitching about those who think they scored it to low this time around. The same people who bitch daily about how funcom treats their players are bitching about people having issues with how MMORPG insulted players here, lets not forget this guy was speaking officially for this site.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Your point was made 3 threads ago, now you are just playing a broken record. Repeating something ad nauseam isn't going to magically make it the giant rallying issue you would hope it is.
I'm only defending my point, I really don't give a crap if you agree with it or not. Who is that keeps busting in calling people cry babies for daring to place a complaint? There would be no reason to repeat my point, if I didn't have to defend myself or explain my point to someone who didn't quite understand it, now would there?
Complaining about the discussion that took place as you are, is only adding to what your complaining about, it's really not rocket science, you want the conversation to end you stop bringing it UP.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
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.
this is correct. funcom never expected to be top dog in subscriptions. they were quite comfortable with the niche they would appeal to. i think they unfortunately cut an even thinner slice of pie than they intended.
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.
this is correct. funcom never expected to be top dog in subscriptions. they were quite comfortable with the niche they would appeal to. i think they unfortunately cut an even thinner slice of pie than they intended.
For the last time. Everyone who followed the making of AoC should know that Funcom were after wow-subs. That is why they didnt make a true next gen game. Funcom chasing wow-subs does not mean that they tried to kill wow, they didnt have enough talent or money to try that...
Right now I don't even belive anybody backstabbed him. I just think he pulled a big steaming pile of DODO from his hiney so that he could fill 2 pages with text.
I think these two sentences are much better than the whole two pages of what Jedi Jeff wrote.
Right now I don't even belive anybody backstabbed him. I just think he pulled a big steaming pile of DODO from his hiney so that he could fill 2 pages with text.
I think these two sentences are much better than the whole two pages of what Jedi Jeff wrote.
NIce writing skills, they should hire you as a reviewer on this site.
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.
this is correct. funcom never expected to be top dog in subscriptions. they were quite comfortable with the niche they would appeal to. i think they unfortunately cut an even thinner slice of pie than they intended.
funcom didn't try to appeal to a niche, personally I think that was a huge mistake. They tried to be everything to everyone, a raid pve endgame at the same time as gear doesn't matter pvp end game. I really don't understand how they didn't take on board how these 2 things don't work together. Of course they have realised that now and are going to make the game more itemcentric. Of course like the patch 3 combat changes the people left are the ones that like the non itemcentric game changeing it is risky to their current player base..
I don't think game should be more then 7.5 rated( definitely nor 6, though).And thats not based on game performances , which i have almost zero problems with, other then occasional lag spikes. But i had same spikes in other MMO's(EQ, EQ2 ...).Some are to be blamed on ISP to.
Game is decent right now, i like it, but with dumbed down crafting and harvesting (idiotic like in WoW pretty much), i am not sure how much of long term playtime value will have for me.Leveling curve is to fast and i don't like that,.But i don't see why people are complaining about it since i leveled on same pace when i wasted my money for month in WoW.
On the other side , gear stats being minimal ensure that you win by using your skills , and not some "overpowered " armor sets. I can see why so many young people is upset about it , since they learned to rely on extra stats and not their skills for being successful .Having to do more with combat , then spamming "magic" 3 button combo has something with it to.
As for PvP part(other then dueling with friends), i am hoping to get to it after 3.0.So far i was not interested because of huge number of juveniles in it. But that's problem with most of the MMO's since DAoC(last true PvP, imho). In addition to some good players , PvP tends to attract lot of hyperactive kids today.
Running in circles like madman and ganking lowbies doesn't constitutes RvR.
Still , it is interesting to see how this review showed up in same time when lot of Warhammer free month subscriptions are up for renew and they are losing population in numbers.
Does that mean that we can expect another very low review for AoC and/or Warhammer , when WoW expansion hits the market?
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Malickie I enjoy your posts and find you to be objective
However Im confused ,you posted numerous times on the review of AOC that you never read the review after you saw the word "Neandethral " ..so how do you know the review isn't accurate ?
It is consistent to the state of AOC ....it actually talks about some good features in AOC .As I mentioned the only thing I would change about the review is AOC is a 5/10 ....not a 6/10
To all the people saying " the review is unacceptable "....my advice is "get over it ...reviews are subjective and most people here agree with it " ..sometimes reality hurts
I'm basing that on the reviewers own admission when replying about his review. He said himself he was harsh on them because of the launch of the game, IMO that's not an objective stance to take when reviewing a game (months later). His score on a 1-10 ratio is fine, I've never said otherwise, it's his comments and attitude I have a problem with (Neanderthal).
The second issue I have taken up with this review is the fact that at launch they gave it a decent score, now they lower it (after improvements have been made) that makes no sense to me.Where did the good score come from, considering they had such a horrible launch?
I sure wish I had seen ANYTHING about the game sucking as badly as it did at launch. The review here sang its praises.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Malickie I enjoy your posts and find you to be objective
However Im confused ,you posted numerous times on the review of AOC that you never read the review after you saw the word "Neandethral " ..so how do you know the review isn't accurate ?
It is consistent to the state of AOC ....it actually talks about some good features in AOC .As I mentioned the only thing I would change about the review is AOC is a 5/10 ....not a 6/10
To all the people saying " the review is unacceptable "....my advice is "get over it ...reviews are subjective and most people here agree with it " ..sometimes reality hurts
I'm basing that on the reviewers own admission when replying about his review. He said himself he was harsh on them because of the launch of the game, IMO that's not an objective stance to take when reviewing a game (months later). His score on a 1-10 ratio is fine, I've never said otherwise, it's his comments and attitude I have a problem with (Neanderthal).
The second issue I have taken up with this review is the fact that at launch they gave it a decent score, now they lower it (after improvements have been made) that makes no sense to me.Where did the good score come from, considering they had such a horrible launch?
I think the explanation for the second issue is pretty simple. The initial reviews were wrong, they rated the game too high, and were most likely based off a very limited understanding of the game and its content (or lack thereof). People played the first 20 levels and wrote a review based off that. But as everyone knows by now, the first 20 levels share nothing in common with the rest of the game, quality wise.
Now that people can write reviews based off a total experience, the rating is pushed down to more reasonable levels. So whether there may or may not have been improvements since release (the argument about whether any of these changes even had a noticible impact on the games quality is outside the scope of this post), it would make sense the score would be lowered.
In other words, had there been a more accurate review at release, it would have rated the game a 3/10 or 4/10. The latest review with improvements rates it a 6/10. So the true rating has improved, it just hasn't improved from the 'hype' rating given the game at release (which was largely inaccurate and didn't recognize any of the games many problems at the time).
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence. Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
I think the explanation for the second issue is pretty simple. The initial reviews were wrong, they rated the game too high, and were most likely based off a very limited understanding of the game and its content (or lack thereof). People played the first 20 levels and wrote a review based off that. But as everyone knows by now, the first 20 levels share nothing in common with the rest of the game, quality wise. Now that people can write reviews based off a total experience, the rating is pushed down to more reasonable levels. So whether there may or may not have been improvements since release (the argument about whether any of these changes even had a noticible impact on the games quality is outside the scope of this post), it would make sense the score would be lowered. In other words, had there been a more accurate review at release, it would have rated the game a 3/10 or 4/10. The latest review with improvements rates it a 6/10. So the true rating has improved, it just hasn't improved from the 'hype' rating given the game at release (which was largely inaccurate and didn't recognize any of the games many problems at the time).
Yeah, and to be fair it wasn't only this site who did that. Just about every site did, the average score was around an 8, that's the only reason I bought it actually (never followed the game). Most feedback even here at release was on the positive side, it took a little while for the pot to boil over.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
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.
Wrong.
"Compete with WoW" doesnt have to mean "getting 12 million subs". It can simply mean "the subscribers coming to AoC will be taken from WoW player base".
Funcom stated that they were indeed going after Wow's subscribers. Thats why so many features are so strikingly similar in AoC compared to WoW. Funcoms idea with AoC was something like this:
"Lets make as many features in AoC similar to WoW as possible. With one exception - fighting. That way we will give all the WoW-refugees an easy transition over to AoC."
I call bullshit on that comment. Show me a link to where you got that.
Also, every mmo is competing with each other, it doenst mean the developer is out to kill a specific MMO. YOur leap in logic fails. Show me where, they specifically said they were making a "WOW KILLER". Of course they are competing with WOW, WOW has most of the gamers, every MMO is competing with WOW, that doesnt mean Stargate is a WOW killer, thats just stupid.
Roses are red Violets are blue The reviewer has a mishapen head Which means his opinion is skewed ...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
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.
this is correct. funcom never expected to be top dog in subscriptions. they were quite comfortable with the niche they would appeal to. i think they unfortunately cut an even thinner slice of pie than they intended.
For the last time. Everyone who followed the making of AoC should know that Funcom were after wow-subs. That is why they didnt make a true next gen game. Funcom chasing wow-subs does not mean that they tried to kill wow, they didnt have enough talent or money to try that...
Every MMO is after WOW subs. Duh. Now you contradict yourself, my previous reply to your post you stand firm by implying AOC was going to a WOW killer.
Roses are red Violets are blue The reviewer has a mishapen head Which means his opinion is skewed ...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
Sounds like a lot of folks here feel they are much better qualified to review games and run / edit / manage a gamer's forum than the members and staff of MMORPG.com. Purchasing a domain name and bandwidth for such endeavors are reasonably cheap these days, I suggest you seriously consider taking up the task of setting up your own sites and doing it better than they have here. Unless your only true talents are b!tch spamming about minutiae....
Funny thing is I have actually done what you suggested. The site is still in "beta" so to speak since my friend and I (yes only 2 people) just started to build it about a week and ahalf ago. For all those intrested check out
www.8bit-allstars.com
On topic: Patch 3.0 has a bug that some, consider game breaking. Luckily, the fix for it is being tested on test live at the moment. Once it hits live, patch 3.0 will have everything it was suppose to and make AoC better.
Another "problem" is that some classes have been dumbed down some. This is only an issue if the players only use skills that were debuffs of different levels. I do believe; however, that FC should add more 4 button combos (combo start + 3) back into the game for all classes. Other than that I like the difference in combat.
Edit: Anyone intrested in helping with the site should e-mail me at xpiher@gmail.com
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.
this is correct. funcom never expected to be top dog in subscriptions. they were quite comfortable with the niche they would appeal to. i think they unfortunately cut an even thinner slice of pie than they intended.
For the last time. Everyone who followed the making of AoC should know that Funcom were after wow-subs. That is why they didnt make a true next gen game. Funcom chasing wow-subs does not mean that they tried to kill wow, they didnt have enough talent or money to try that...
Every MMO is after WOW subs. Duh. Now you contradict yourself, my previous reply to your post you stand firm by implying AOC was going to a WOW killer.
Nah. Its just you who dont get it. And I will not watch the hype videos or read the hype interviews again just do dig up that quote for you. And really, just logging in and playing some AoC proves me right. Think and you will get it.
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.
this is correct. funcom never expected to be top dog in subscriptions. they were quite comfortable with the niche they would appeal to. i think they unfortunately cut an even thinner slice of pie than they intended.
For the last time. Everyone who followed the making of AoC should know that Funcom were after wow-subs. That is why they didnt make a true next gen game. Funcom chasing wow-subs does not mean that they tried to kill wow, they didnt have enough talent or money to try that...
Every MMO is after WOW subs. Duh. Now you contradict yourself, my previous reply to your post you stand firm by implying AOC was going to a WOW killer.
Nah. Its just you who dont get it. And I will not watch the hype videos or read the hype interviews again just do dig up that quote for you. And really, just logging in and playing some AoC proves me right. Think and you will get it.
I do think and have played AoC myself. And they are 2 different games emphasizing different things and targeting different groups.
I just think you are a baldfaced liar. Making up stuff as you go to prove your bias as fact. If you can quickly generate a comment like you did, then one can resonably believe you would know where you got and can go get the link even quicker. So, you lie and make up things, kudos to you.
Roses are red Violets are blue The reviewer has a mishapen head Which means his opinion is skewed ...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
Sigh....article is...let's say that anyone who didn't play AOC up to lvl 50 and had considerable PVP experience can't judge it. Sounds like impressions from another newbie.
The author didn't play it long/deep enough it seems. Assasin is as capable vs any class as any other.Armor IS importans. All classes are well balanced. Any class can beat other, it's all up to player.
I don't get it. What the hell is he talking about? Social...something? Emotions? Community ? Why should it be so important if at all?
About WOW/other games, blah blah... I can't, won't and could never play WOW so i can't say if it's better or worse so it's not alternative.
The best thing in AOC is combat and PVP mechanics. I spent a lot of time fighting people in duels just because of how fun it is, provided both - you and your opponent are experienced PVPers.
PVE is among best among MMOs and it's the only MMO with acceptable graphicsanimationsound around and of course - mature content - fighting vivid cartoonish "characters" made of boxes isn't my thing.
i played beta for about 4 months. then test live, when they announced test live was the retail code, i LOL. no way was going to buy the to buy the game. i tried to warn the community about no endgame and the not being close to finish. i got flammed. oh well, thin k i got the last laugh a month later seeing the people who flammed me saying the same thing...except they spent 6o0 dollars, hahaha.
disagree with the review and reviewer. IMHO current aoc players are way bellow the homo habilis, since if they had some hability they would have found the "cancel" button by now.
I'd just like to know at what timeframe this review took place. He complained about a few items that have been fixed for over a month.
A better question would be when was the last time the reviewer played. Doesn't seem it was post 2.0.. In his cons he listed no reward for PVP.
Oh well maybe we'll see another review in 6 months.
OMG you are right. I did not notice that first. It's 6 weeks since patch 2.0 came out, and here you sit end of October making up a review out of thin air based. MMORPG are you FaCking insane you can't do that!!!
MMORPG and poor Stradden this just have to be so embarrasing.
About as embarrassing as losing 94% of your companies stock price after 4 months into the release of your GROUNDBREAKING MMO game? I think that aobut sums that up.
Comments
1. Jef say there is no PVP reward system in AoC. There are only the very basic PvP elements ( the XP & leveling mechanism wich was running in the open beta) "rewards" (armor sets) aren't live, as well as no consequence system at the time of the review.
2. There are poor possibilities for RP in AoC, few emoticons. Emoticons yes, enforced RP rules and a player base dedicated to RP, No
3. Performance of AoC is low on a 3K $ Rig. See the Official Tech Forums, the claims that all the performance isues are solved is a fallacy. Lag spkes are still a big problem sys reqs aside. and 30ish FPS with a high end rig is certainly nothing to brag about in a game engine.
There is absolutely no way he could say what he said unless he has not played AoC for more than 6 weeks.
He certainly could say it and did, just like you and yours say 'Patch 2.0 fixed all the games issues, everybody can come back now'.
1. Jef say there is no PVP reward system in AoC. There are only the very basic PvP elements ( the XP & leveling mechanism wich was running in the open beta) "rewards" (armor sets) aren't live, as well as no consequence system at the time of the review.
2. There are poor possibilities for RP in AoC, few emoticons. Emoticons yes, enforced RP rules and a player base dedicated to RP, No
3. Performance of AoC is low on a 3K $ Rig. See the Official Tech Forums, the claims that all the performance isues are solved is a fallacy. Lag spkes are still a big problem sys reqs aside. and 30ish FPS with a high end rig is certainly nothing to brag about in a game engine.
There is absolutely no way he could say what he said unless he has not played AoC for more than 6 weeks.
He certainly could say it and did, just like you and yours say 'Patch 2.0 fixed all the games issues, everybody can come back now'.
1. PVP levels are rewards Just because you choose to downplay the system that was put in doesnt make it any less of a reward.
2. Actually there are enforced RP rules. Perhaps you should read the RP rules sticky on the forums. Or check out the RP servers.
3. Lag spikes are an issue. But anyone who has a high end system getting 30 fps has other problems besides the game. I run a midrange system right now and get around 80 FPS on high settings.
It reads like he said well time to review AoC. Lets see what the people on our forums are saying. Copy/Paste well there I'm done. Nobody will know the difference. Oh and lets throw some insults in also. And anyone from MMORPG calling any other community is bad is like Charles Manson calling someone crazy.
Wrong.
"Compete with WoW" doesnt have to mean "getting 12 million subs". It can simply mean "the subscribers coming to AoC will be taken from WoW player base".
Funcom stated that they were indeed going after Wow's subscribers. Thats why so many features are so strikingly similar in AoC compared to WoW. Funcoms idea with AoC was something like this:
"Lets make as many features in AoC similar to WoW as possible. With one exception - fighting. That way we will give all the WoW-refugees an easy transition over to AoC."
Alright, so AoC was kind of crappy in execution... but I don't know that it's THAT bad. I mean... SWG is pretty lame... and I thought AoC was better than that. I'm not saying it was great, but I think people allowed their discontent to what they wanted AoC to be, rather than what it was, get the better of their judgement.
This is why I think there should be more than one person reviewing a game. It's like this, we all know not everyone is going to like a game. If you don't like the game... then you don't like it - period. That's a lot to wager on a review that could be the deciding factor as to whether a game succeeds or not. Not to mention, sometimes you have to deal with obvious fanboi reviews - like every review for WoW that ever existed. And this doesn't just happen in MMO's either.
If the game has Grand Theft Auto in the title - it won't reveive anything lower than an 8.5, and probably 9, whether the game deserves it. If a game is made by Bethesda - they'll completely ignore any problem the game has, and tout it as the best game ever... even though it will have more bugs and lack of polish than your average game. If the game is made by Ubisoft, they won't give it higher than a 8.5. Why? Because Ubisoft consistently releases good games that people enjoy, with some of the best IP's in the business... they don't need the extra press.
AoC was a major let down for sure, but it's not as bad as half of the games that beat it out. Not by a long shot.
I'll ask you the same question I asked before, had funcom called everyone who quit neanderthals, what would the reaction be like here?
It's not about his score, it's really not about when he played last. It's about comments like that. Neanderthal is a code word for what exactly? I'd read it as morons or idiots, I'm sure others have as well. You're surprised people have a problem with that?
You think that's just bitching over small nonsensical issues, I disagree. If expecting a reviewer to show some tact, when addressing people who may very well help pay the bills around here. Is out of bounds or off limits, what does that say about people still bitching about issues from months ago?
It's rather funny though, the same people who bitched about the game having to high a score, are bitching about those who think they scored it to low this time around. The same people who bitch daily about how funcom treats their players are bitching about people having issues with how MMORPG insulted players here, lets not forget this guy was speaking officially for this site.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm only defending my point, I really don't give a crap if you agree with it or not. Who is that keeps busting in calling people cry babies for daring to place a complaint? There would be no reason to repeat my point, if I didn't have to defend myself or explain my point to someone who didn't quite understand it, now would there?
Complaining about the discussion that took place as you are, is only adding to what your complaining about, it's really not rocket science, you want the conversation to end you stop bringing it UP.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
this is correct. funcom never expected to be top dog in subscriptions. they were quite comfortable with the niche they would appeal to. i think they unfortunately cut an even thinner slice of pie than they intended.
this is correct. funcom never expected to be top dog in subscriptions. they were quite comfortable with the niche they would appeal to. i think they unfortunately cut an even thinner slice of pie than they intended.
For the last time. Everyone who followed the making of AoC should know that Funcom were after wow-subs. That is why they didnt make a true next gen game. Funcom chasing wow-subs does not mean that they tried to kill wow, they didnt have enough talent or money to try that...
I think these two sentences are much better than the whole two pages of what Jedi Jeff wrote.
I think these two sentences are much better than the whole two pages of what Jedi Jeff wrote.
NIce writing skills, they should hire you as a reviewer on this site.
------------------------------
this is correct. funcom never expected to be top dog in subscriptions. they were quite comfortable with the niche they would appeal to. i think they unfortunately cut an even thinner slice of pie than they intended.
funcom didn't try to appeal to a niche, personally I think that was a huge mistake. They tried to be everything to everyone, a raid pve endgame at the same time as gear doesn't matter pvp end game. I really don't understand how they didn't take on board how these 2 things don't work together. Of course they have realised that now and are going to make the game more itemcentric. Of course like the patch 3 combat changes the people left are the ones that like the non itemcentric game changeing it is risky to their current player base..
I don't think game should be more then 7.5 rated( definitely nor 6, though).And thats not based on game performances , which i have almost zero problems with, other then occasional lag spikes. But i had same spikes in other MMO's(EQ, EQ2 ...).Some are to be blamed on ISP to.
Game is decent right now, i like it, but with dumbed down crafting and harvesting (idiotic like in WoW pretty much), i am not sure how much of long term playtime value will have for me.Leveling curve is to fast and i don't like that,.But i don't see why people are complaining about it since i leveled on same pace when i wasted my money for month in WoW.
On the other side , gear stats being minimal ensure that you win by using your skills , and not some "overpowered " armor sets. I can see why so many young people is upset about it , since they learned to rely on extra stats and not their skills for being successful .Having to do more with combat , then spamming "magic" 3 button combo has something with it to.
As for PvP part(other then dueling with friends), i am hoping to get to it after 3.0.So far i was not interested because of huge number of juveniles in it. But that's problem with most of the MMO's since DAoC(last true PvP, imho). In addition to some good players , PvP tends to attract lot of hyperactive kids today.
Running in circles like madman and ganking lowbies doesn't constitutes RvR.
Still , it is interesting to see how this review showed up in same time when lot of Warhammer free month subscriptions are up for renew and they are losing population in numbers.
Does that mean that we can expect another very low review for AoC and/or Warhammer , when WoW expansion hits the market?
Malickie I enjoy your posts and find you to be objective
However Im confused ,you posted numerous times on the review of AOC that you never read the review after you saw the word "Neandethral " ..so how do you know the review isn't accurate ?
It is consistent to the state of AOC ....it actually talks about some good features in AOC .As I mentioned the only thing I would change about the review is AOC is a 5/10 ....not a 6/10
To all the people saying " the review is unacceptable "....my advice is "get over it ...reviews are subjective and most people here agree with it " ..sometimes reality hurts
I'm basing that on the reviewers own admission when replying about his review. He said himself he was harsh on them because of the launch of the game, IMO that's not an objective stance to take when reviewing a game (months later). His score on a 1-10 ratio is fine, I've never said otherwise, it's his comments and attitude I have a problem with (Neanderthal).
The second issue I have taken up with this review is the fact that at launch they gave it a decent score, now they lower it (after improvements have been made) that makes no sense to me.Where did the good score come from, considering they had such a horrible launch?
I sure wish I had seen ANYTHING about the game sucking as badly as it did at launch. The review here sang its praises.
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.
Malickie I enjoy your posts and find you to be objective
However Im confused ,you posted numerous times on the review of AOC that you never read the review after you saw the word "Neandethral " ..so how do you know the review isn't accurate ?
It is consistent to the state of AOC ....it actually talks about some good features in AOC .As I mentioned the only thing I would change about the review is AOC is a 5/10 ....not a 6/10
To all the people saying " the review is unacceptable "....my advice is "get over it ...reviews are subjective and most people here agree with it " ..sometimes reality hurts
I'm basing that on the reviewers own admission when replying about his review. He said himself he was harsh on them because of the launch of the game, IMO that's not an objective stance to take when reviewing a game (months later). His score on a 1-10 ratio is fine, I've never said otherwise, it's his comments and attitude I have a problem with (Neanderthal).
The second issue I have taken up with this review is the fact that at launch they gave it a decent score, now they lower it (after improvements have been made) that makes no sense to me.Where did the good score come from, considering they had such a horrible launch?
I think the explanation for the second issue is pretty simple. The initial reviews were wrong, they rated the game too high, and were most likely based off a very limited understanding of the game and its content (or lack thereof). People played the first 20 levels and wrote a review based off that. But as everyone knows by now, the first 20 levels share nothing in common with the rest of the game, quality wise.
Now that people can write reviews based off a total experience, the rating is pushed down to more reasonable levels. So whether there may or may not have been improvements since release (the argument about whether any of these changes even had a noticible impact on the games quality is outside the scope of this post), it would make sense the score would be lowered.
In other words, had there been a more accurate review at release, it would have rated the game a 3/10 or 4/10. The latest review with improvements rates it a 6/10. So the true rating has improved, it just hasn't improved from the 'hype' rating given the game at release (which was largely inaccurate and didn't recognize any of the games many problems at the time).
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence.
Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
Yeah, and to be fair it wasn't only this site who did that. Just about every site did, the average score was around an 8, that's the only reason I bought it actually (never followed the game). Most feedback even here at release was on the positive side, it took a little while for the pot to boil over.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Wrong.
"Compete with WoW" doesnt have to mean "getting 12 million subs". It can simply mean "the subscribers coming to AoC will be taken from WoW player base".
Funcom stated that they were indeed going after Wow's subscribers. Thats why so many features are so strikingly similar in AoC compared to WoW. Funcoms idea with AoC was something like this:
"Lets make as many features in AoC similar to WoW as possible. With one exception - fighting. That way we will give all the WoW-refugees an easy transition over to AoC."
I call bullshit on that comment. Show me a link to where you got that.
Also, every mmo is competing with each other, it doenst mean the developer is out to kill a specific MMO. YOur leap in logic fails. Show me where, they specifically said they were making a "WOW KILLER". Of course they are competing with WOW, WOW has most of the gamers, every MMO is competing with WOW, that doesnt mean Stargate is a WOW killer, thats just stupid.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
The reviewer has a mishapen head
Which means his opinion is skewed
...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
this is correct. funcom never expected to be top dog in subscriptions. they were quite comfortable with the niche they would appeal to. i think they unfortunately cut an even thinner slice of pie than they intended.
For the last time. Everyone who followed the making of AoC should know that Funcom were after wow-subs. That is why they didnt make a true next gen game. Funcom chasing wow-subs does not mean that they tried to kill wow, they didnt have enough talent or money to try that...
Every MMO is after WOW subs. Duh. Now you contradict yourself, my previous reply to your post you stand firm by implying AOC was going to a WOW killer.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
The reviewer has a mishapen head
Which means his opinion is skewed
...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
Funny thing is I have actually done what you suggested. The site is still in "beta" so to speak since my friend and I (yes only 2 people) just started to build it about a week and ahalf ago. For all those intrested check out
www.8bit-allstars.com
On topic: Patch 3.0 has a bug that some, consider game breaking. Luckily, the fix for it is being tested on test live at the moment. Once it hits live, patch 3.0 will have everything it was suppose to and make AoC better.
Another "problem" is that some classes have been dumbed down some. This is only an issue if the players only use skills that were debuffs of different levels. I do believe; however, that FC should add more 4 button combos (combo start + 3) back into the game for all classes. Other than that I like the difference in combat.
Edit: Anyone intrested in helping with the site should e-mail me at xpiher@gmail.com
Games:
Currently playing:Nothing
Will play: Darkfall: Unholy Wars
Past games:
Guild Wars 2 - Xpiher Duminous
Xpiher's GW2
GW 1 - Xpiher Duminous
Darkfall - Xpiher Duminous (NA) retired
AoC - Xpiher (Tyranny) retired
Warhammer - Xpiher
this is correct. funcom never expected to be top dog in subscriptions. they were quite comfortable with the niche they would appeal to. i think they unfortunately cut an even thinner slice of pie than they intended.
For the last time. Everyone who followed the making of AoC should know that Funcom were after wow-subs. That is why they didnt make a true next gen game. Funcom chasing wow-subs does not mean that they tried to kill wow, they didnt have enough talent or money to try that...
Every MMO is after WOW subs. Duh. Now you contradict yourself, my previous reply to your post you stand firm by implying AOC was going to a WOW killer.
Nah. Its just you who dont get it. And I will not watch the hype videos or read the hype interviews again just do dig up that quote for you. And really, just logging in and playing some AoC proves me right. Think and you will get it.
this is correct. funcom never expected to be top dog in subscriptions. they were quite comfortable with the niche they would appeal to. i think they unfortunately cut an even thinner slice of pie than they intended.
For the last time. Everyone who followed the making of AoC should know that Funcom were after wow-subs. That is why they didnt make a true next gen game. Funcom chasing wow-subs does not mean that they tried to kill wow, they didnt have enough talent or money to try that...
Every MMO is after WOW subs. Duh. Now you contradict yourself, my previous reply to your post you stand firm by implying AOC was going to a WOW killer.
Nah. Its just you who dont get it. And I will not watch the hype videos or read the hype interviews again just do dig up that quote for you. And really, just logging in and playing some AoC proves me right. Think and you will get it.
I do think and have played AoC myself. And they are 2 different games emphasizing different things and targeting different groups.
I just think you are a baldfaced liar. Making up stuff as you go to prove your bias as fact. If you can quickly generate a comment like you did, then one can resonably believe you would know where you got and can go get the link even quicker. So, you lie and make up things, kudos to you.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
The reviewer has a mishapen head
Which means his opinion is skewed
...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
Sigh....article is...let's say that anyone who didn't play AOC up to lvl 50 and had considerable PVP experience can't judge it. Sounds like impressions from another newbie.
The author didn't play it long/deep enough it seems. Assasin is as capable vs any class as any other.Armor IS importans. All classes are well balanced. Any class can beat other, it's all up to player.
I don't get it. What the hell is he talking about? Social...something? Emotions? Community ? Why should it be so important if at all?
About WOW/other games, blah blah... I can't, won't and could never play WOW so i can't say if it's better or worse so it's not alternative.
The best thing in AOC is combat and PVP mechanics. I spent a lot of time fighting people in duels just because of how fun it is, provided both - you and your opponent are experienced PVPers.
PVE is among best among MMOs and it's the only MMO with acceptable graphicsanimationsound around and of course - mature content - fighting vivid cartoonish "characters" made of boxes isn't my thing.
i played beta for about 4 months. then test live, when they announced test live was the retail code, i LOL. no way was going to buy the to buy the game. i tried to warn the community about no endgame and the not being close to finish. i got flammed. oh well, thin k i got the last laugh a month later seeing the people who flammed me saying the same thing...except they spent 6o0 dollars, hahaha.
I payed for this beta for about 4 months.
"A new kind of Vaporware"
Score 1/10
disagree with the review and reviewer. IMHO current aoc players are way bellow the homo habilis, since if they had some hability they would have found the "cancel" button by now.
A better question would be when was the last time the reviewer played. Doesn't seem it was post 2.0.. In his cons he listed no reward for PVP.
Oh well maybe we'll see another review in 6 months.
OMG you are right. I did not notice that first. It's 6 weeks since patch 2.0 came out, and here you sit end of October making up a review out of thin air based. MMORPG are you FaCking insane you can't do that!!!
MMORPG and poor Stradden this just have to be so embarrasing.
About as embarrassing as losing 94% of your companies stock price after 4 months into the release of your GROUNDBREAKING MMO game? I think that aobut sums that up.