Exactly, you didn't. You, and some others who've commented here, just didn't read the review or the commetns. Instead you've made generalizations about something you don't know and cried fanboy, when you're the one being ignorant and talking out of the wrong hole.
As for MMORPG.com, I'm glad to see that they're going to have it re-reviewed. To be honest though, I think a bit of editing (such as adding the fact that the reviewer was running below the minimum, and fixing the score and blurbs to match the article) would've been better. I think that the more opinions people have to read about a game, especially as a way to warn against older computers attempting to play this game, would've been a good thing.
Although this has been probably said dozens of times already, why should Fallen Earth receive a 6.9 while other cookie cutters receive a higher review? Fallen Earth has many things that other recent launching games did not have, or even current MMO's STILL do not have:
-Very good live customer support
-A different and refreshing crafting system (Similar to EvE's, yes, but it's a good change)
-A different leveling system (not the best, but it works),
-The alpha and beta were actually used for getting rid of problems instead of advertising the bloody game
-A decent launch
-Consistant advertising (Every time I get on this site, I see a Fallen Earth ad)
-The admins actually listen to the players, unlike some games (*cough* Runescape *cough* Pirates of the Burning Sea *cough*)
-Some end game at launch, and these are just to name a few
Although the ideas aren't 100% "fresh", they do take a step in the right direction in breaking this "cookie cutter hold" on the MMO industry. The lag is an issue, and server space could be better, but overall I think It deserves at least a 7.5, and that's being truly modest.
Ganking? Me!? That's absurd!! I leave THAT to the lawyers!
hope this means a lower review this game is horrible and I been playing since closed beta
If it is horrible, why are you still playing it. Is it that kinda sick hate/love you can't control. The game digusts you, but that sickening turning in your stomach somehow makes you feel alive. You think about Fallen Earth all day and how much you hate it, and can't wait to get home, log on and hate it some more.
The new review could be scored higher or lower, who knows. That will be up to the reviewer, but we have to do a better job vetting to make sure that they arrive at their opinion without issues like this one had. The review's score was largely based on "unplayable lag," which was more of a customer support/hardware issue than something that should have been in a review. If someone experiences unplayable lag, they must do everything they can to figure out if it is "just them." To the degree that it impacted this article, the lag described seems to have been "just him" and we didn't do the due diligence necessary to confirm it. Thus, it was retracted.
Fair enough.
I play this game with 2gb on a Vista (upgrading soon!). I have frame rate issues in some towns as many players have said and admitted to. I DO NOT however have any issues outside of towns as the reviewer stated, nothing even close. It was a weird situation all around, with lots of inconsistencies.
Somehow I feel even less respect for you guys now. I guess you can never win on the internet.
Agreed. A review is supposed to be subjective. Have you guys ever read a movie review, or a restaurant review.... it isn't supposed to be a news piece, it's an opinion. It should tell us what the reviewer thinks of the game, not what the developer or the fanboys want us to believe about the game.
I didn't read the review before it was taken down, but I can only guess it was pretty harsh.... as it should have been. This game is turd. everything they got right is overshadowed by the piss poor performance and lackluster graphics. I could understand one or the other, but this game manages to look bad and run bad at the same time. It's an armature attempt at making a video game and it shows.
We didn't arrive at this decision because of the score or the community pressure. The community pressure we just a symptom of a flawed review. Honestly, to read it, it came off as a summary of game features that was generally positive, then had one negative thing (which was an error) and whipped out a mediocre score.
The new review could be scored higher or lower, who knows. That will be up to the reviewer, but we have to do a better job vetting to make sure that they arrive at their opinion without issues like this one had. The review's score was largely based on "unplayable lag," which was more of a customer support/hardware issue than something that should have been in a review. If someone experiences unplayable lag, they must do everything they can to figure out if it is "just them." To the degree that it impacted this article, the lag described seems to have been "just him" and we didn't do the due diligence necessary to confirm it.
Thus, it was retracted.
Brillian! You listened, evaluated, understood, and made the right decision.
Please, please please do the testing on my rig it is usuall 70-100 FPS on max settings (8x FSAA from driver), and 20-40 in towns.... it's smooth as silk
DB
Denial makes one look a lot dumber than he/she actually is.
Somehow I feel even less respect for you guys now. I guess you can never win on the internet.
Agreed. A review is supposed to be subjective. Have you guys ever read a movie review, or a restaurant review.... it isn't supposed to be a news piece, it's an opinion. It should tell us what the reviewer thinks of the game, not what the developer or the fanboys want us to believe about the game.
I didn't read the review before it was taken down, but I can only guess it was pretty harsh.... as it should have been. This game is turd. everything they got right is overshadowed by the piss poor performance and lackluster graphics. I could understand one or the other, but this game manages to look bad and run bad at the same time. It's an armature attempt at making a video game and it shows.
We didn't arrive at this decision because of the score or the community pressure. The community pressure we just a symptom of a flawed review. Honestly, to read it, it came off as a summary of game features that was generally positive, then had one negative thing (which was an error) and whipped out a mediocre score.
The new review could be scored higher or lower, who knows. That will be up to the reviewer, but we have to do a better job vetting to make sure that they arrive at their opinion without issues like this one had. The review's score was largely based on "unplayable lag," which was more of a customer support/hardware issue than something that should have been in a review. If someone experiences unplayable lag, they must do everything they can to figure out if it is "just them." To the degree that it impacted this article, the lag described seems to have been "just him" and we didn't do the due diligence necessary to confirm it.
Thus, it was retracted.
Like I said, I didn't read the review... but I gathered from the comments here that performance was an issue. While "unplayable" varies from person to person, I had the same experience with this game. I tried it out of all four of the machines here, two close to minimum specs and two well above them. I could make it playable by turning the graphics settings all the way down, but I could not find a reasonable compromise of making the game look good and run an acceptable frame-rate. Granted, this was in beta, but the performance issues persisted all the way through the until the end of beta. And we all know there is never a launch day miracle patch. Maybe it's better, maybe it's not. I understand that some people aren't reporting the same performance issues, but I have certainly seen plenty that do have them. IMO, this game is unplayable on many machines that are well above minimum specs. based on my own experience, I can say that I know for a fact the performance issues were not "just him".
What bothers me is the attitude, held exclusively by fanboys of whatever game just got a bad review, that a review isn't supposed to be subjective. Whenever a game gets a well deserved low score, like the Eurogamer Darkfall review, or just about any early review of vanguard, people come out crying about the reviewer just posting his opinion of the game... that is what a review is supposed to be. It's funny that the thing people get most up in arms about are critiques of a game's performance, which is generally pretty easy to verify.
My question, have YOU played it? What kind of performance did you get? I think this issue could best be put to rest by having the re-review done by one of the senior staff members of the site. I'd be interested in reading it myself. This is a game i was very excited about during development, until I I got a chance to play it and found... you guessed it, unplayable lag.
You could not be more wrong. Please check your facts before you're posting walls of nonsense.
The game is very playable, and improved a lot since release. Playing from EU, no issues, and frame rates are excellent.
You think it's rare? Then please explain why this game is #1 currently in mmorpg.com's user ratings list.
DB
Denial makes one look a lot dumber than he/she actually is.
Exactly, you didn't. You, and some others who've commented here, just didn't read the review or the commetns. Instead you've made generalizations about something you don't know and cried fanboy, when you're the one being ignorant and talking out of the wrong hole.
This.
Nothing can put me off really, but ignorant loudmouthing is probably the worst, and this guy just had a HUGE dose of it... geez..
DB
Denial makes one look a lot dumber than he/she actually is.
hope this means a lower review this game is horrible and I been playing since closed beta
It's horrible and you have been playing since closed beta? Are you a masochist or something?
Personally I'm loving the game. The only thing that bugs me is the fact that they do major server updates during the USA office times (I can kind of understand that though) and that means you can't play for the whole day if you happen to live in Europe.
Other than that, it's great. I'm playing from Finland and I have not experienced any lag (Other than the apocalypse party madness when the Open Beta ended) and I can run the game on very high on my oldish E4400, 2Gbits of DDR2 (800MHz) and 9800GTX + (1Gbit model) . I'd say that's pretty damn well for any new game. And I'm not a "fanboy" eather. Yes, I pre-ordered the game because I thought it was great. Finally something that's as original, fun and addicting as Neocron was.
I think the problem with past reviews is that it has been left up to the reviewer as to how to grant the final score. This also creates a problem because even though scores here are on a scale of 1 - 10, most scores end up between 6 - 10. Anything lower is usually reserved for anything so bad that a low score is given for the sake of giving a low score. In fact, I would suggest MMORPG.com move to a 4 or 5 star rating system (being that 5-6 on a 10 pt scale is considered low even though it really is average). 1 star - horrible don't even bother, can't recommend 2 star - heavily flawed and few redeeming qualities, would not recommend 3 star - rough around the edges and may be worth a look for a few redeeming qualities, may or may not recommend depending on the player 4 star - a must try despite a few flaws, would recommend 5 star - a must try, definitely recommend Don't bother with half stars or decimals. Its either a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. If its not a 5 and not a 3 then its a 4, not a 3.5 or a 4.5, just a 4. Partial scores/points/stars tend to encourage inflation of scores. The final score should reflect the overall experience. I've played many games where an average may put the game at a 3. However, maybe the story was so good and intriguing that it made the overall game experience a 4.
I completely agree.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I think the problem with past reviews is that it has been left up to the reviewer as to how to grant the final score. This also creates a problem because even though scores here are on a scale of 1 - 10, most scores end up between 6 - 10. Anything lower is usually reserved for anything so bad that a low score is given for the sake of giving a low score. In fact, I would suggest MMORPG.com move to a 4 or 5 star rating system (being that 5-6 on a 10 pt scale is considered low even though it really is average). 1 star - horrible don't even bother, can't recommend 2 star - heavily flawed and few redeeming qualities, would not recommend 3 star - rough around the edges and may be worth a look for a few redeeming qualities, may or may not recommend depending on the player 4 star - a must try despite a few flaws, would recommend 5 star - a must try, definitely recommend Don't bother with half stars or decimals. Its either a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. If its not a 5 and not a 3 then its a 4, not a 3.5 or a 4.5, just a 4. Partial scores/points/stars tend to encourage inflation of scores. The final score should reflect the overall experience. I've played many games where an average may put the game at a 3. However, maybe the story was so good and intriguing that it made the overall game experience a 4. Examples: For example, I'd give Aion a 4. Its polished, looks great, plays great, but content is bare at higher levels and level design can be bland. It provides an overall positive, yet very standard MMO experience but may grow tiresome as players reach higher levels due to drop off in content and poorly designed/poorly rewarding objectives. It is a game I would recommend to other players to at least try as the pvp, setting, and overall presentation may appeal to many gamers.
Fallen Earth would be given a 3. Overall, the game is rough around the edges. The art is, while pleasing to the eye, is inconsistent with the occasional rough animation, texture or poorly modeled figure. The gameplay isn't as smooth or refined and has a fairly clunky feel to it. Players will either learn to enjoy/accept combat or they will never grasp the controls and fight against the mechanics of it. Crafting is meaningful but because the design encourages players to provide for themselves, the economy is lacking and will continue to do so until players are encouraged to rely on others. The game is more akin to a post-apocolyptic AC in that players will level up but are free to invest in skills that they chose. For that reason, the game will have the open ended/sandbox feeling of UO and SWG but still feel linear as players most level up and advance to level appropriate areas. Because of the inconsistent presentation, awkward combat, and niche appeal, it would be hard to recommend to the mainstream gamer. However, despite it's misgivings players looking for something a little different may find the game both enjoyable and challenging - and would be a "must try" in that case.
At the risk of giving a hint... You're operating very close to my brainwave with this post. Please, adjust your dial
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Agreed. A review is supposed to be subjective. Have you guys ever read a movie review, or a restaurant review.... it isn't supposed to be a news piece, it's an opinion. It should tell us what the reviewer thinks of the game, not what the developer or the fanboys want us to believe about the game. I didn't read the review before it was taken down, but I can only guess it was pretty harsh.... as it should have been. This game is turd. everything they got right is overshadowed by the piss poor performance and lackluster graphics. I could understand one or the other, but this game manages to look bad and run bad at the same time. It's an armature attempt at making a video game and it shows.
Well, then take this as a lesson learned when you post something without knowing what the hell you're talking about. Let me educate you.
The review wasn't harsh, it was just short of glowing. It was an 8.something review, based on what the guy said.
He actually LIKED the graphics, said they were high quality and evocative of the setting.
The only bad thing he said about the game was that it ran like crap on his computer....and his computer was below the minimum system requirements for the game. 2gigs of RAM on Vista 64 isn't a good set up for anything made in the past few years, his issues has nothing to do with Fallen Earth.
So, he gave a game he said was great a 6.9 because it wouldn't run on his below-minimum-specs computer.
The problems with the review had nothing to do with not agreeing with him. It had to do with his score contradicting his own evaluation of the game, because he made a mistake and ran it on a shit computer.
EDIT: Ah. I see the MMORPG.com staff has already tried and failed to do what I'm doing here. Feel free to disregard- if you won't listen to them, no reason to expect you'd listen to me.
Somehow I feel even less respect for you guys now. I guess you can never win on the internet.
Agreed. A review is supposed to be subjective. Have you guys ever read a movie review, or a restaurant review.... it isn't supposed to be a news piece, it's an opinion. It should tell us what the reviewer thinks of the game, not what the developer or the fanboys want us to believe about the game.
I didn't read the review before it was taken down, but I can only guess it was pretty harsh.... as it should have been. This game is turd. everything they got right is overshadowed by the piss poor performance and lackluster graphics. I could understand one or the other, but this game manages to look bad and run bad at the same time. It's an armature attempt at making a video game and it shows.
We didn't arrive at this decision because of the score or the community pressure. The community pressure we just a symptom of a flawed review. Honestly, to read it, it came off as a summary of game features that was generally positive, then had one negative thing (which was an error) and whipped out a mediocre score.
The new review could be scored higher or lower, who knows. That will be up to the reviewer, but we have to do a better job vetting to make sure that they arrive at their opinion without issues like this one had. The review's score was largely based on "unplayable lag," which was more of a customer support/hardware issue than something that should have been in a review. If someone experiences unplayable lag, they must do everything they can to figure out if it is "just them." To the degree that it impacted this article, the lag described seems to have been "just him" and we didn't do the due diligence necessary to confirm it.
Thus, it was retracted.
Like I said, I didn't read the review... but I gathered from the comments here that performance was an issue. While "unplayable" varies from person to person, I had the same experience with this game. I tried it out of all four of the machines here, two close to minimum specs and two well above them. I could make it playable by turning the graphics settings all the way down, but I could not find a reasonable compromise of making the game look good and run an acceptable frame-rate. Granted, this was in beta, but the performance issues persisted all the way through the until the end of beta. And we all know there is never a launch day miracle patch. Maybe it's better, maybe it's not. I understand that some people aren't reporting the same performance issues, but I have certainly seen plenty that do have them. IMO, this game is unplayable on many machines that are well above minimum specs. based on my own experience, I can say that I know for a fact the performance issues were not "just him".
What bothers me is the attitude, held exclusively by fanboys of whatever game just got a bad review, that a review isn't supposed to be subjective. Whenever a game gets a well deserved low score, like the Eurogamer Darkfall review, or just about any early review of vanguard, people come out crying about the reviewer just posting his opinion of the game... that is what a review is supposed to be. It's funny that the thing people get most up in arms about are critiques of a game's performance, which is generally pretty easy to verify.
My question, have YOU played it? What kind of performance did you get? I think this issue could best be put to rest by having the re-review done by one of the senior staff members of the site. I'd be interested in reading it myself. This is a game i was very excited about during development, until I I got a chance to play it and found... you guessed it, unplayable lag.
You could not be more wrong. Please check your facts before you're posting walls of nonsense.
The game is very playable, and improved a lot since release. Playing from EU, no issues, and frame rates are excellent.
You think it's rare? Then please explain why this game is #1 currently in mmorpg.com's user ratings list.
DB
Ha, yeah, I noticed that when I looking at the game list earlier (I always sort it by user rating), and FE being the #1 on the site kind of caught me off guard for a second.
I think the problem with past reviews is that it has been left up to the reviewer as to how to grant the final score. This also creates a problem because even though scores here are on a scale of 1 - 10, most scores end up between 6 - 10. Anything lower is usually reserved for anything so bad that a low score is given for the sake of giving a low score. In fact, I would suggest MMORPG.com move to a 4 or 5 star rating system (being that 5-6 on a 10 pt scale is considered low even though it really is average).
you know why this is though... for Americans, 12 years of school grading tells us 90-100 is great, 80-90 is good, 70-80 is ok, and anything lower is bad. so we automatically react to scores for anything else the same way. if you want a system where the entire range is useful, drop the stars completely and just go with Definitely Recommended, Highly Recommended, Recommended, Recommended with Reservations, etc.... (as you are more or less suggesting with a 1-5 scale).
Agreed. A review is supposed to be subjective. Have you guys ever read a movie review, or a restaurant review.... it isn't supposed to be a news piece, it's an opinion. It should tell us what the reviewer thinks of the game, not what the developer or the fanboys want us to believe about the game.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. A subjective review is useless, because the only person it works for is the writer.
A review is -supposed- to be an objective look at the plusses and minuses, what went wrong and what was done right.
There is -room- in a review for the writer's opinion, absolutely, but the main focus of it should never be opinion.
As a long time reader of the reviews here (going back 5 or 6 yrs or so), I am pleased to hear of the review of current rating standards. Being a person who has done both movie and table top rpg reviews, I know it is an extremely difficult thing to do. I will say that the hardest part of being a columnist/review online is dealing with the backlash, both warranted and unwarranted. I applaud you and the rest of the reviewers for how you handle it, though I do believe that the reviewer of Fallen Earth should not be allowed to review games again. Lying in a review (not an error, but a lie) is highly unethical, as is going back and modifying the review to hide the lie.
Like I said, I didn't read the review... but I gathered from the comments here that performance was an issue. While "unplayable" varies from person to person, I had the same experience with this game. I tried it out of all four of the machines here, two close to minimum specs and two well above them. I could make it playable by turning the graphics settings all the way down, but I could not find a reasonable compromise of making the game look good and run an acceptable frame-rate. Granted, this was in beta, but the performance issues persisted all the way through the until the end of beta.
That's NOT a performance issue. If you run a game on a system that floats somewhere between the minimum and reccomended specs, then you get "Hopefully it runs smooth on the lowest graphics settings". That's just how game specs are written up. If you want a game to run smooth AND look nice, then ignore the minimum specs- recommended specs are your effective minimum.
Jeez, you know what? I shouldn't even have to be telling you this. If you don't know, you shouldn't be mouthing off here.
Have to agree here. This a positive step for the site in addressing and acknowledging inconsistencies in one of this sites reviews. But the same needs to be done for the Aion review to further address inconsistencies of reviews on this site lately.
Jon, why no response or comment on the strong arguments brought forth about the inconsistencies in the Aion review? It has been consistently pointed out that the score and tone of the review for Aion do not mesh. Couple this with the score being the highest reviewed MMO on this site ever and we have evidence that there is no uniformity in the review process.
As I've claimed in the Aion thread, along with well-defined criteria for writing a review, the scoring of a review must take into account previous review scores from this site for there to be any long-term relevance to all the reviews on this site.
Originally posted by Xondar123
This reminds me of the Champions Online review. It read like a 6.5 review, but the reviewer gave it an 8.
If you're going to slam us, please check your facts.
Aion was not the highest ever review on the site. It was tied for 4th. However, consistency has been a large issue generally I will grant that. Too many years, too many standards, too many editors and only one scoring system.
And, Champions got 7.5, not 8.
I applaud your acknowledgment of the flaws in your current review system and your effort to revamp your review criteria and standards.
That said, I will quibble with your claims that Aion was only the 4th highest review on the site. Technically, you are correct because when you take into account re-reviews and reviews of expansions, then your claim is accurate.
However, the claims that myself and others were making were in reference to "first-time" reviews, i.e. the first review of a game after it was originally released. When this is taken into account, our statements are accurate ... it is 0.2 points higher than the next two highest original reviews (for Eve and Lotro).
FYI ... when you sort reviews in your review section by clicking on the Scores heading it doesn't seem to work quite right. It seems to rank more recent scores (from mid-2008 through 2009) in chronologically descending order but then the rest of the older reviews are lumped into several chronological mini-groups thereafter.
Actually I'd like to see a bit more structured summary information in all the reviews. Like is it skill or class based, what races are available, setting, payment model, crafting available, housing available, mounts available, etc. Basically a snapshot of info at the beginning or on the side of the review that lets you know if it's even a game you might be interested in.
As far as actual reviews go - honestly just let us know if you had fun - do we really need a rating? It's all subjective anyway.
Comments
Exactly, you didn't. You, and some others who've commented here, just didn't read the review or the commetns. Instead you've made generalizations about something you don't know and cried fanboy, when you're the one being ignorant and talking out of the wrong hole.
As for MMORPG.com, I'm glad to see that they're going to have it re-reviewed. To be honest though, I think a bit of editing (such as adding the fact that the reviewer was running below the minimum, and fixing the score and blurbs to match the article) would've been better. I think that the more opinions people have to read about a game, especially as a way to warn against older computers attempting to play this game, would've been a good thing.
Although this has been probably said dozens of times already, why should Fallen Earth receive a 6.9 while other cookie cutters receive a higher review? Fallen Earth has many things that other recent launching games did not have, or even current MMO's STILL do not have:
-Very good live customer support
-A different and refreshing crafting system (Similar to EvE's, yes, but it's a good change)
-A different leveling system (not the best, but it works),
-The alpha and beta were actually used for getting rid of problems instead of advertising the bloody game
-A decent launch
-Consistant advertising (Every time I get on this site, I see a Fallen Earth ad)
-The admins actually listen to the players, unlike some games (*cough* Runescape *cough* Pirates of the Burning Sea *cough*)
-Some end game at launch, and these are just to name a few
Although the ideas aren't 100% "fresh", they do take a step in the right direction in breaking this "cookie cutter hold" on the MMO industry. The lag is an issue, and server space could be better, but overall I think It deserves at least a 7.5, and that's being truly modest.
Ganking? Me!? That's absurd!! I leave THAT to the lawyers!
hope this means a lower review this game is horrible and I been playing since closed beta
Good move, hope to never see that reviewer again on mmorpg.com.
If it is horrible, why are you still playing it. Is it that kinda sick hate/love you can't control. The game digusts you, but that sickening turning in your stomach somehow makes you feel alive. You think about Fallen Earth all day and how much you hate it, and can't wait to get home, log on and hate it some more.
Fair enough.
I play this game with 2gb on a Vista (upgrading soon!). I have frame rate issues in some towns as many players have said and admitted to. I DO NOT however have any issues outside of towns as the reviewer stated, nothing even close. It was a weird situation all around, with lots of inconsistencies.
Thank you for your time.
Agreed. A review is supposed to be subjective. Have you guys ever read a movie review, or a restaurant review.... it isn't supposed to be a news piece, it's an opinion. It should tell us what the reviewer thinks of the game, not what the developer or the fanboys want us to believe about the game.
I didn't read the review before it was taken down, but I can only guess it was pretty harsh.... as it should have been. This game is turd. everything they got right is overshadowed by the piss poor performance and lackluster graphics. I could understand one or the other, but this game manages to look bad and run bad at the same time. It's an armature attempt at making a video game and it shows.
We didn't arrive at this decision because of the score or the community pressure. The community pressure we just a symptom of a flawed review. Honestly, to read it, it came off as a summary of game features that was generally positive, then had one negative thing (which was an error) and whipped out a mediocre score.
The new review could be scored higher or lower, who knows. That will be up to the reviewer, but we have to do a better job vetting to make sure that they arrive at their opinion without issues like this one had. The review's score was largely based on "unplayable lag," which was more of a customer support/hardware issue than something that should have been in a review. If someone experiences unplayable lag, they must do everything they can to figure out if it is "just them." To the degree that it impacted this article, the lag described seems to have been "just him" and we didn't do the due diligence necessary to confirm it.
Thus, it was retracted.
Brillian! You listened, evaluated, understood, and made the right decision.
Please, please please do the testing on my rig
it is usuall 70-100 FPS on max settings (8x FSAA from driver), and 20-40 in towns.... it's smooth as silk 
DB
Denial makes one look a lot dumber than he/she actually is.
now can you guys pull the Aion review the score for that game was way to high for how crappy the game is
Agreed. A review is supposed to be subjective. Have you guys ever read a movie review, or a restaurant review.... it isn't supposed to be a news piece, it's an opinion. It should tell us what the reviewer thinks of the game, not what the developer or the fanboys want us to believe about the game.
I didn't read the review before it was taken down, but I can only guess it was pretty harsh.... as it should have been. This game is turd. everything they got right is overshadowed by the piss poor performance and lackluster graphics. I could understand one or the other, but this game manages to look bad and run bad at the same time. It's an armature attempt at making a video game and it shows.
We didn't arrive at this decision because of the score or the community pressure. The community pressure we just a symptom of a flawed review. Honestly, to read it, it came off as a summary of game features that was generally positive, then had one negative thing (which was an error) and whipped out a mediocre score.
The new review could be scored higher or lower, who knows. That will be up to the reviewer, but we have to do a better job vetting to make sure that they arrive at their opinion without issues like this one had. The review's score was largely based on "unplayable lag," which was more of a customer support/hardware issue than something that should have been in a review. If someone experiences unplayable lag, they must do everything they can to figure out if it is "just them." To the degree that it impacted this article, the lag described seems to have been "just him" and we didn't do the due diligence necessary to confirm it.
Thus, it was retracted.
Like I said, I didn't read the review... but I gathered from the comments here that performance was an issue. While "unplayable" varies from person to person, I had the same experience with this game. I tried it out of all four of the machines here, two close to minimum specs and two well above them. I could make it playable by turning the graphics settings all the way down, but I could not find a reasonable compromise of making the game look good and run an acceptable frame-rate. Granted, this was in beta, but the performance issues persisted all the way through the until the end of beta. And we all know there is never a launch day miracle patch. Maybe it's better, maybe it's not. I understand that some people aren't reporting the same performance issues, but I have certainly seen plenty that do have them. IMO, this game is unplayable on many machines that are well above minimum specs. based on my own experience, I can say that I know for a fact the performance issues were not "just him".
What bothers me is the attitude, held exclusively by fanboys of whatever game just got a bad review, that a review isn't supposed to be subjective. Whenever a game gets a well deserved low score, like the Eurogamer Darkfall review, or just about any early review of vanguard, people come out crying about the reviewer just posting his opinion of the game... that is what a review is supposed to be. It's funny that the thing people get most up in arms about are critiques of a game's performance, which is generally pretty easy to verify.
My question, have YOU played it? What kind of performance did you get? I think this issue could best be put to rest by having the re-review done by one of the senior staff members of the site. I'd be interested in reading it myself. This is a game i was very excited about during development, until I I got a chance to play it and found... you guessed it, unplayable lag.
You could not be more wrong. Please check your facts before you're posting walls of nonsense.
The game is very playable, and improved a lot since release. Playing from EU, no issues, and frame rates are excellent.
You think it's rare? Then please explain why this game is #1 currently in mmorpg.com's user ratings list.
DB
Denial makes one look a lot dumber than he/she actually is.
Exactly, you didn't. You, and some others who've commented here, just didn't read the review or the commetns. Instead you've made generalizations about something you don't know and cried fanboy, when you're the one being ignorant and talking out of the wrong hole.
This.
Nothing can put me off really, but ignorant loudmouthing is probably the worst, and this guy just had a HUGE dose of it... geez..
DB
Denial makes one look a lot dumber than he/she actually is.
Ive long cancled my account. I tried to give it a second chance when it went live and I couldnt do it.
It's horrible and you have been playing since closed beta? Are you a masochist or something?
Personally I'm loving the game. The only thing that bugs me is the fact that they do major server updates during the USA office times (I can kind of understand that though) and that means you can't play for the whole day if you happen to live in Europe.
Other than that, it's great. I'm playing from Finland and I have not experienced any lag (Other than the apocalypse party madness when the Open Beta ended) and I can run the game on very high on my oldish E4400, 2Gbits of DDR2 (800MHz) and 9800GTX + (1Gbit model) . I'd say that's pretty damn well for any new game. And I'm not a "fanboy" eather. Yes, I pre-ordered the game because I thought it was great. Finally something that's as original, fun and addicting as Neocron was.
I completely agree.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Hooray! This is great news and has definitely renewed my trust in mmorpg.com! Thanks for reaffirming the value of this website!
At the risk of giving a hint... You're operating very close to my brainwave with this post. Please, adjust your dial
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
If anyone wants to buy the game for me I'll write up a review ^^
Make games you want to play.
http://www.youtube.com/user/RavikAztar
Well, then take this as a lesson learned when you post something without knowing what the hell you're talking about. Let me educate you.
The review wasn't harsh, it was just short of glowing. It was an 8.something review, based on what the guy said.
He actually LIKED the graphics, said they were high quality and evocative of the setting.
The only bad thing he said about the game was that it ran like crap on his computer....and his computer was below the minimum system requirements for the game. 2gigs of RAM on Vista 64 isn't a good set up for anything made in the past few years, his issues has nothing to do with Fallen Earth.
So, he gave a game he said was great a 6.9 because it wouldn't run on his below-minimum-specs computer.
The problems with the review had nothing to do with not agreeing with him. It had to do with his score contradicting his own evaluation of the game, because he made a mistake and ran it on a shit computer.
EDIT: Ah. I see the MMORPG.com staff has already tried and failed to do what I'm doing here. Feel free to disregard- if you won't listen to them, no reason to expect you'd listen to me.
Agreed. A review is supposed to be subjective. Have you guys ever read a movie review, or a restaurant review.... it isn't supposed to be a news piece, it's an opinion. It should tell us what the reviewer thinks of the game, not what the developer or the fanboys want us to believe about the game.
I didn't read the review before it was taken down, but I can only guess it was pretty harsh.... as it should have been. This game is turd. everything they got right is overshadowed by the piss poor performance and lackluster graphics. I could understand one or the other, but this game manages to look bad and run bad at the same time. It's an armature attempt at making a video game and it shows.
We didn't arrive at this decision because of the score or the community pressure. The community pressure we just a symptom of a flawed review. Honestly, to read it, it came off as a summary of game features that was generally positive, then had one negative thing (which was an error) and whipped out a mediocre score.
The new review could be scored higher or lower, who knows. That will be up to the reviewer, but we have to do a better job vetting to make sure that they arrive at their opinion without issues like this one had. The review's score was largely based on "unplayable lag," which was more of a customer support/hardware issue than something that should have been in a review. If someone experiences unplayable lag, they must do everything they can to figure out if it is "just them." To the degree that it impacted this article, the lag described seems to have been "just him" and we didn't do the due diligence necessary to confirm it.
Thus, it was retracted.
Like I said, I didn't read the review... but I gathered from the comments here that performance was an issue. While "unplayable" varies from person to person, I had the same experience with this game. I tried it out of all four of the machines here, two close to minimum specs and two well above them. I could make it playable by turning the graphics settings all the way down, but I could not find a reasonable compromise of making the game look good and run an acceptable frame-rate. Granted, this was in beta, but the performance issues persisted all the way through the until the end of beta. And we all know there is never a launch day miracle patch. Maybe it's better, maybe it's not. I understand that some people aren't reporting the same performance issues, but I have certainly seen plenty that do have them. IMO, this game is unplayable on many machines that are well above minimum specs. based on my own experience, I can say that I know for a fact the performance issues were not "just him".
What bothers me is the attitude, held exclusively by fanboys of whatever game just got a bad review, that a review isn't supposed to be subjective. Whenever a game gets a well deserved low score, like the Eurogamer Darkfall review, or just about any early review of vanguard, people come out crying about the reviewer just posting his opinion of the game... that is what a review is supposed to be. It's funny that the thing people get most up in arms about are critiques of a game's performance, which is generally pretty easy to verify.
My question, have YOU played it? What kind of performance did you get? I think this issue could best be put to rest by having the re-review done by one of the senior staff members of the site. I'd be interested in reading it myself. This is a game i was very excited about during development, until I I got a chance to play it and found... you guessed it, unplayable lag.
You could not be more wrong. Please check your facts before you're posting walls of nonsense.
The game is very playable, and improved a lot since release. Playing from EU, no issues, and frame rates are excellent.
You think it's rare? Then please explain why this game is #1 currently in mmorpg.com's user ratings list.
DB
Ha, yeah, I noticed that when I looking at the game list earlier (I always sort it by user rating), and FE being the #1 on the site kind of caught me off guard for a second.
I think that speaks for itself
.
you know why this is though... for Americans, 12 years of school grading tells us 90-100 is great, 80-90 is good, 70-80 is ok, and anything lower is bad. so we automatically react to scores for anything else the same way. if you want a system where the entire range is useful, drop the stars completely and just go with Definitely Recommended, Highly Recommended, Recommended, Recommended with Reservations, etc.... (as you are more or less suggesting with a 1-5 scale).
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. A subjective review is useless, because the only person it works for is the writer.
A review is -supposed- to be an objective look at the plusses and minuses, what went wrong and what was done right.
There is -room- in a review for the writer's opinion, absolutely, but the main focus of it should never be opinion.
Dana,
As a long time reader of the reviews here (going back 5 or 6 yrs or so), I am pleased to hear of the review of current rating standards. Being a person who has done both movie and table top rpg reviews, I know it is an extremely difficult thing to do. I will say that the hardest part of being a columnist/review online is dealing with the backlash, both warranted and unwarranted. I applaud you and the rest of the reviewers for how you handle it, though I do believe that the reviewer of Fallen Earth should not be allowed to review games again. Lying in a review (not an error, but a lie) is highly unethical, as is going back and modifying the review to hide the lie.
That's NOT a performance issue. If you run a game on a system that floats somewhere between the minimum and reccomended specs, then you get "Hopefully it runs smooth on the lowest graphics settings". That's just how game specs are written up. If you want a game to run smooth AND look nice, then ignore the minimum specs- recommended specs are your effective minimum.
Jeez, you know what? I shouldn't even have to be telling you this. If you don't know, you shouldn't be mouthing off here.
(much less writing reviews.
)
Dana, can we now please delete your TOP 10 non WoW MMOs article and put in a better list?
Have to agree here. This a positive step for the site in addressing and acknowledging inconsistencies in one of this sites reviews. But the same needs to be done for the Aion review to further address inconsistencies of reviews on this site lately.
Jon, why no response or comment on the strong arguments brought forth about the inconsistencies in the Aion review? It has been consistently pointed out that the score and tone of the review for Aion do not mesh. Couple this with the score being the highest reviewed MMO on this site ever and we have evidence that there is no uniformity in the review process.
As I've claimed in the Aion thread, along with well-defined criteria for writing a review, the scoring of a review must take into account previous review scores from this site for there to be any long-term relevance to all the reviews on this site.
If you're going to slam us, please check your facts.
Aion was not the highest ever review on the site. It was tied for 4th. However, consistency has been a large issue generally I will grant that. Too many years, too many standards, too many editors and only one scoring system.
And, Champions got 7.5, not 8.
I applaud your acknowledgment of the flaws in your current review system and your effort to revamp your review criteria and standards.
That said, I will quibble with your claims that Aion was only the 4th highest review on the site. Technically, you are correct because when you take into account re-reviews and reviews of expansions, then your claim is accurate.
However, the claims that myself and others were making were in reference to "first-time" reviews, i.e. the first review of a game after it was originally released. When this is taken into account, our statements are accurate ... it is 0.2 points higher than the next two highest original reviews (for Eve and Lotro).
FYI ... when you sort reviews in your review section by clicking on the Scores heading it doesn't seem to work quite right. It seems to rank more recent scores (from mid-2008 through 2009) in chronologically descending order but then the rest of the older reviews are lumped into several chronological mini-groups thereafter.
Actually I'd like to see a bit more structured summary information in all the reviews. Like is it skill or class based, what races are available, setting, payment model, crafting available, housing available, mounts available, etc. Basically a snapshot of info at the beginning or on the side of the review that lets you know if it's even a game you might be interested in.
As far as actual reviews go - honestly just let us know if you had fun - do we really need a rating? It's all subjective anyway.