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
I don't have to have read this specific review to know two things... First, reviews are subjective in nature. And second, this game runs like shit for a lot of people. Why do I have read this guys review to comment on those two FACTS?
Having a review by someone who barely has min specs to run vista (2 gig common I know that wont run crap!) is setting up the company reviewed for epicfail! Not fair to the company producing the game... not fair to anyone.... don't you people employ people that are supost to be gammers? My POS system would run rings around his rig and its a piece of crap. I wouldn't jusdge any game on my system and be called fair.. his machine I call that biased and was setting up Icarus for epicfail before he even turned the machine on Tisk Tisk
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.
(much less writing reviews. )
I tried the game on four machines that are above minimum, two that are above recommended. Don't act like I am the only person who ever said this game runs like shit. It has to be, by far, the number one complaint about the game.
I enjoy this site very much, feeds my addiction while at work. I think many people miss the big picture. Is it fair to write a review on a game after playing it for 2 weeks? Does someone write a book review after reading 4 chapters? If they did, they would probably be out of a job.
These kinds of "reviews" have affected consumers. Case in point for me was Warhammer, without even having to go into detail about it.
Your "reviews" should be called "First Impressions" or "2 Week review." Only when your "reviewer" has experienced the MMO from beginning to end game activities, then I do believe it can be called an "Official review."
"Wow, this game got high ratings on MMORPG and several forums agreeing. (2 weeks later). "This game suxorz."
Ok, since when is any review of anything not the opinion, or at least skewed by, the writer who wrote it? I have had wonderful dining experiences at restaurants with bad reviews, and I have played some really fun games that got less than a lack luster review.
The survey process by the members here, which have a view point of their own, can be skewed. We just take it with a "grain of salt" and consider the source. Some sources which consistently write reviews we disagree with means we just stop reading them after awhile.
A review, is after all, just one mans (or womans) opinion.
Originally posted by Dana The truth is, no review will ever be liked by everyone in our community. Supporters of a game always want a higher score and detractors want a lower one. We are not out to make everyone happy, we can only trust our writers and provide you with our honest assessment. However, sometimes, things slip through that make virtually no one happy. Unfortunately, this was one of those times and so we've removed the review and assigned a writer to give the game a fresh shake.
The major problem here was not that people were unhappy with the review as in if they agreed or disagreed with the reviewer's opinion, but that the number rating assigned to the review did not coincide with the review itself. If one sees a '6.9' they presume the contents of the review will reveal how they came up with the mediocre rating. The review itself for this game was greatly positive, almost shining (I'm not sure how much anything can 'shine' in a post-apocalyptic setting). It would (and should) be the same effect if another game was given a rating of 8.9, yet the review gives the impression that "eh, it's ok". It makes the number rating system here pointless and arbitrary.
STANDARDS. We need them here.
I play Fallen Earth, and I would've been much more accepting of this "score", even a more negative score, IF the reviewer could justify how they came to that conclusion. The number rating is typically the first thing your readers will see here. I'm pretty sure not everyone has the time to read every review for every game that comes out, so most will base their judgements of the game off that simple number rating. Reading this review makes me wonder how many other games I may have misjudged b/c I just looked at the rating before passing them off. This is why your readers are upset. Not because the reviewer's overall opinion of the game disagreed with theirs, but that your reviewer was leading us one way and then slapped on a number that didn't correlate with what he was saying.
Don't tell us that everything in a game is horrible, but overall it's good; likewise, don't tell us that a game is 'meh' when everything else you're writing about it says it's great.
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
I don't have to have read this specific review to know two things... First, reviews are subjective in nature. And second, this game runs like shit for a lot of people. Why do I have read this guys review to comment on those two FACTS?
If you read the review.. which you didn't, then you'd know that the game wasn't touted as running like "shit" for the reviewer. Secondly, if you had read the review, you would understand that an overly positive review ending in a strangely negative score doesn't add up. Also, if you you had any sense at all you'd know that this whole thread is dedicated to a review that was retracted for a specific reason, by not reading the review you have no bearing on what that reason was, and furthermore shouldn't really chime in when you can't comment on the original situation in the first place.
Lastly, I commend MMORPG for their efforts. The game is highly recommended on this site, and its clear the playerbase just wants an honest review and I applaud MMORPG for giving it another shot
I think weighting the overall score into a 50/50 split for both a technical side and the reviewer's opinion will help give a much more accurate score. The technical side could be given specific criteria that the game will have to meet and the reviewer's opinion can be open, but should have specific items that should be addressed.
Somehow I feel even less respect for you guys now. I guess you can never win on the internet.
Community was justified in their rage, reviewer's machine did not meet minimum specs and much of the score was based on the games performance. Wasn't fair and should be addressed.
Now, if they'd only do something about that ridiculous Aion review.
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.
Would you guys PLEASE STHU about the Aion review. Friggin IGN and Gameplanet and...hell nearly every damn reviewer on gamerankings and others gave it high marks so get the hell off of it already. The score is not that far from what others reviewed the game.
Ok, since when is any review of anything not the opinion, or at least skewed by, the writer who wrote it? I have had wonderful dining experiences at restaurants with bad reviews, and I have played some really fun games that got less than a lack luster review. The survey process by the members here, which have a view point of their own, can be skewed. We just take it with a "grain of salt" and consider the source. Some sources which consistently write reviews we disagree with means we just stop reading them after awhile. A review, is after all, just one mans (or womans) opinion.
I'm amazed at the number of people who don't seem to grasp the concept of an official (note that word) review. It's a little different than a biased article written by your everyday, average Joe. This author (as well as any other staff member) represents the entire site, and as such, has much more influence on the user-base.
Yes, the writer has every right to give his/her opinion, but that should only attest to a very small portion of the article, if at all. The meat of any noteworthy review is going to be the unbiased, objective look at the game and it's features.
People don't come to review site to read about one person's "opinion", they come to read about the strengths and weaknesses of the game in question. An opinion has little weight in a professional review.
Never liked mmorpg.com's reviews myself or any of their features, the news is well behind and things like the podcast arn't even running anymore. However people are always gonna whine about reviews cause this is where all the fanbois will come. I thought the score was abit high myself from playing it the graphics and animations were horrible and the combat was just unplayable and the UI was nast ad the world was too barren... not even player housing in the game to make up for it.
Was a horrible game tbh.
Well I am a fan of the game myself and I do not mind a low score as it is just an opinion and I did believe the review was spot on. However the grade it got did not reflect the review. So either the grade was to low or the review to positive. So I do find it shamefull that the review got take down as it was pretty good, just hoped the way he graded the game would have become a bit more transparent.
Also to the folks saying the fans where complaining. Rightly so. If a review does something wrong people should complain about it (do even not believe it where just fans of the game). I would not mind if the next reviewer give a good review, but is negative and gives a low score. A mistake was made however, whatever it was the reviewer, editor or MMORPG.com policies regarding grading of the MMO's. They learned (and are still learning hopefully) and the site will get better for it.
Would again like to add though that I did like the orginal review and hope that one will get back online!
People don't come to review site to read about one person's "opinion", they come to read about the strengths and weaknesses of the game in question. An opinion has little weight in a professional review.
I disagree. If I wanted to have a sum up of it's features I would read the main site. I read a review for the opinion of the writer about the features. It is imposible to write a objective review, because what person A find a strength in the game (take the zoned PvP) is weakness for person B (A fan of full PvP).
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).
You know, that makes perfect sense and something I've never thought about. Getting rid of any numeric ranking may be the best way to go - as that is purely the most subjective part of the review. That alone would solve a lot of problems. If the site used such a ranking system, I imagine if the original review was slapped with a "Recommended" we wouldn't be having this conversation (especially considering most level headed fallen earth fans know the game isn't for everyone).
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).
You know, that makes perfect sense and something I've never thought about. Getting rid of any numeric ranking may be the best way to go - as that is purely the most subjective part of the review. That alone would solve a lot of problems. If the site used such a ranking system, I imagine if the original review was slapped with a "Recommended" we wouldn't be having this conversation (especially considering most level headed fallen earth fans know the game isn't for everyone).
I think Recommended with Reservations would even have fitted the review (and hell that is the advice I would give to anyone for this game even though I love it myself :P)
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).
You know, that makes perfect sense and something I've never thought about. Getting rid of any numeric ranking may be the best way to go - as that is purely the most subjective part of the review. That alone would solve a lot of problems. If the site used such a ranking system, I imagine if the original review was slapped with a "Recommended" we wouldn't be having this conversation (especially considering most level headed fallen earth fans know the game isn't for everyone).
It has nothing to do with the "I disliked the game or I recommend the game" scenario.
So many people posting that have no idea what they are posting about,the guy that made the review was below the spec required to run the game and his only complaint was the lag,which was hardly surprising since he was running the game on Vista with only 2gb RAM,he then tried to cover this by saying he did have more than 2gb RAM but was found out that he lied.
Anyway well done to MMORPG.com for pulling the review,a very good move indeed,hell even if the next review for the game still only get's a 6.9 at least it will be a fair 6.9.
Very nice that MMORPG.com manned up,like I said in previous post's regarding this everyone in life make's mistake's,it is how we go about admitting and sorting the mistake's that matter the most.
If someone had came up to me in 1980 when I was on my Atari 2600 and said we will be playing games with thousands of people at the same time.I guess my response would have been,"but I only have 2 joysticks"
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
I don't have to have read this specific review to know two things... First, reviews are subjective in nature. And second, this game runs like shit for a lot of people. Why do I have read this guys review to comment on those two FACTS?
Simply because the guys review of the game said the game was good, the review was in my opinion very positive against Fallen Earth...
So you who have not read the review stated that you believed the reviewed was in the line of this, quoting you.
"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."
You see you assume that the review was negative, pretty harsh, towards FE when in fact it was not. It was not even close to that, the only thing the reviewer really did not like was the lag, when the reviewer ran the game on a computer under the recommendations for the game. All in all it was a positive review, the score did not match the written text.
Do you still think you have all the knowledge needed about this?
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
I don't have to have read this specific review to know two things... First, reviews are subjective in nature. And second, this game runs like shit for a lot of people. Why do I have read this guys review to comment on those two FACTS?
If you read the review.. which you didn't, then you'd know that the game wasn't touted as running like "shit" for the reviewer. Secondly, if you had read the review, you would understand that an overly positive review ending in a strangely negative score doesn't add up. Also, if you you had any sense at all you'd know that this whole thread is dedicated to a review that was retracted for a specific reason, by not reading the review you have no bearing on what that reason was, and furthermore shouldn't really chime in when you can't comment on the original situation in the first place.
Lastly, I commend MMORPG for their efforts. The game is highly recommended on this site, and its clear the playerbase just wants an honest review and I applaud MMORPG for giving it another shot
I haven't wasted a single word defending either the review in question or the reviewer. My comments were on the nature of reviews in general, and the performance of this game. Since when does unplayable lag not equal shitty performance? You are just arguing semantics because you don't want to discuss the pertinent facts.
You are just a fallen earth fanboy (evidence in your forum signature) trying to silence the critics of this game by telling them they have no right to comment on it. Hey, I like video games too... I have been playing the same one for a year, but I don't feel the need to fanboy for it. I don't have to go around arguing with other people over their opinion of the game, or disputing their reported performance issues. I don't have the time or inclination to try and "disprove" other people's perceptions.
Good luck to the next reviewer, hope it pleases the community.
To be honest I would rather they don't.
It would not matter if they'll give it a score of 5 or 8. Or even the same. The only thing that can be done is to get set conditions for reviewing a game so every reviewer stands on the same foundation.
But for Fallen Earth in my opinion that train left the station.
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
I don't have to have read this specific review to know two things... First, reviews are subjective in nature. And second, this game runs like shit for a lot of people. Why do I have read this guys review to comment on those two FACTS?
If you read the review.. which you didn't, then you'd know that the game wasn't touted as running like "shit" for the reviewer. Secondly, if you had read the review, you would understand that an overly positive review ending in a strangely negative score doesn't add up. Also, if you you had any sense at all you'd know that this whole thread is dedicated to a review that was retracted for a specific reason, by not reading the review you have no bearing on what that reason was, and furthermore shouldn't really chime in when you can't comment on the original situation in the first place.
Lastly, I commend MMORPG for their efforts. The game is highly recommended on this site, and its clear the playerbase just wants an honest review and I applaud MMORPG for giving it another shot
I haven't wasted a single word defending either the review in question or the reviewer. My comments were on the nature of reviews in general, and the performance of this game. Since when does unplayable lag not equal shitty performance? You are just arguing semantics because you don't want to discuss the pertinent facts.
You are just a fallen earth fanboy (evidence in your forum signature) trying to silence the critics of this game by telling them they have no right to comment on it. Hey, I like video games too... I have been playing the same one for a year, but I don't feel the need to fanboy for it. I don't have to go around arguing with other people over their opinion of the game, or disputing their reported performance issues. I don't have the time or inclination to try and "disprove" other people's perceptions.
Like has been said alot in this thread if you care to read it,when the reviewer is reviewing a game that his system cannot run,not the game's fault but his,most if not all player's check the game's requirements before shelling out the money,his post on the lag should not be in the review as it was his shitty pc causing the lag not the game.
If someone had came up to me in 1980 when I was on my Atari 2600 and said we will be playing games with thousands of people at the same time.I guess my response would have been,"but I only have 2 joysticks"
Actually the review wasnt harsh but the score was. The review was also poorly writen leeding me to wonder who is proofreading the submissions on this site.
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.
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
I don't have to have read this specific review to know two things... First, reviews are subjective in nature. And second, this game runs like shit for a lot of people. Why do I have read this guys review to comment on those two FACTS?
-----Zero Punctuation Eve Online Review-----
Having a review by someone who barely has min specs to run vista (2 gig common I know that wont run crap!) is setting up the company reviewed for epicfail! Not fair to the company producing the game... not fair to anyone.... don't you people employ people that are supost to be gammers? My POS system would run rings around his rig and its a piece of crap. I wouldn't jusdge any game on my system and be called fair.. his machine I call that biased and was setting up Icarus for epicfail before he even turned the machine on Tisk Tisk
"I may be crazy but I'm not stupid or retarted!"
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.
)
I tried the game on four machines that are above minimum, two that are above recommended. Don't act like I am the only person who ever said this game runs like shit. It has to be, by far, the number one complaint about the game.
-----Zero Punctuation Eve Online Review-----
Good luck to the next reviewer, hope it pleases the community.
Nicely handled MMORPG.com .....
It is good to see that you guys did the "RIGHT" thing.
~Hairysun
http://www.straightdope.com/
Lol 9 pages already...
Dana and staff:
I enjoy this site very much, feeds my addiction while at work. I think many people miss the big picture. Is it fair to write a review on a game after playing it for 2 weeks? Does someone write a book review after reading 4 chapters? If they did, they would probably be out of a job.
These kinds of "reviews" have affected consumers. Case in point for me was Warhammer, without even having to go into detail about it.
Your "reviews" should be called "First Impressions" or "2 Week review." Only when your "reviewer" has experienced the MMO from beginning to end game activities, then I do believe it can be called an "Official review."
"Wow, this game got high ratings on MMORPG and several forums agreeing. (2 weeks later). "This game suxorz."
Ok, since when is any review of anything not the opinion, or at least skewed by, the writer who wrote it? I have had wonderful dining experiences at restaurants with bad reviews, and I have played some really fun games that got less than a lack luster review.
The survey process by the members here, which have a view point of their own, can be skewed. We just take it with a "grain of salt" and consider the source. Some sources which consistently write reviews we disagree with means we just stop reading them after awhile.
A review, is after all, just one mans (or womans) opinion.
The major problem here was not that people were unhappy with the review as in if they agreed or disagreed with the reviewer's opinion, but that the number rating assigned to the review did not coincide with the review itself. If one sees a '6.9' they presume the contents of the review will reveal how they came up with the mediocre rating. The review itself for this game was greatly positive, almost shining (I'm not sure how much anything can 'shine' in a post-apocalyptic setting). It would (and should) be the same effect if another game was given a rating of 8.9, yet the review gives the impression that "eh, it's ok". It makes the number rating system here pointless and arbitrary.
STANDARDS. We need them here.
I play Fallen Earth, and I would've been much more accepting of this "score", even a more negative score, IF the reviewer could justify how they came to that conclusion. The number rating is typically the first thing your readers will see here. I'm pretty sure not everyone has the time to read every review for every game that comes out, so most will base their judgements of the game off that simple number rating. Reading this review makes me wonder how many other games I may have misjudged b/c I just looked at the rating before passing them off. This is why your readers are upset. Not because the reviewer's overall opinion of the game disagreed with theirs, but that your reviewer was leading us one way and then slapped on a number that didn't correlate with what he was saying.
Don't tell us that everything in a game is horrible, but overall it's good; likewise, don't tell us that a game is 'meh' when everything else you're writing about it says it's great.
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
I don't have to have read this specific review to know two things... First, reviews are subjective in nature. And second, this game runs like shit for a lot of people. Why do I have read this guys review to comment on those two FACTS?
If you read the review.. which you didn't, then you'd know that the game wasn't touted as running like "shit" for the reviewer. Secondly, if you had read the review, you would understand that an overly positive review ending in a strangely negative score doesn't add up. Also, if you you had any sense at all you'd know that this whole thread is dedicated to a review that was retracted for a specific reason, by not reading the review you have no bearing on what that reason was, and furthermore shouldn't really chime in when you can't comment on the original situation in the first place.
Lastly, I commend MMORPG for their efforts. The game is highly recommended on this site, and its clear the playerbase just wants an honest review and I applaud MMORPG for giving it another shot
I think weighting the overall score into a 50/50 split for both a technical side and the reviewer's opinion will help give a much more accurate score. The technical side could be given specific criteria that the game will have to meet and the reviewer's opinion can be open, but should have specific items that should be addressed.
Community was justified in their rage, reviewer's machine did not meet minimum specs and much of the score was based on the games performance. Wasn't fair and should be addressed.
Now, if they'd only do something about that ridiculous Aion review.
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.
Would you guys PLEASE STHU about the Aion review. Friggin IGN and Gameplanet and...hell nearly every damn reviewer on gamerankings and others gave it high marks so get the hell off of it already. The score is not that far from what others reviewed the game.
I'm amazed at the number of people who don't seem to grasp the concept of an official (note that word) review. It's a little different than a biased article written by your everyday, average Joe. This author (as well as any other staff member) represents the entire site, and as such, has much more influence on the user-base.
Yes, the writer has every right to give his/her opinion, but that should only attest to a very small portion of the article, if at all. The meat of any noteworthy review is going to be the unbiased, objective look at the game and it's features.
People don't come to review site to read about one person's "opinion", they come to read about the strengths and weaknesses of the game in question. An opinion has little weight in a professional review.
Well I am a fan of the game myself and I do not mind a low score as it is just an opinion and I did believe the review was spot on. However the grade it got did not reflect the review. So either the grade was to low or the review to positive. So I do find it shamefull that the review got take down as it was pretty good, just hoped the way he graded the game would have become a bit more transparent.
Also to the folks saying the fans where complaining. Rightly so. If a review does something wrong people should complain about it (do even not believe it where just fans of the game). I would not mind if the next reviewer give a good review, but is negative and gives a low score. A mistake was made however, whatever it was the reviewer, editor or MMORPG.com policies regarding grading of the MMO's. They learned (and are still learning hopefully) and the site will get better for it.
Would again like to add though that I did like the orginal review and hope that one will get back online!
I disagree. If I wanted to have a sum up of it's features I would read the main site. I read a review for the opinion of the writer about the features. It is imposible to write a objective review, because what person A find a strength in the game (take the zoned PvP) is weakness for person B (A fan of full PvP).
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).
You know, that makes perfect sense and something I've never thought about. Getting rid of any numeric ranking may be the best way to go - as that is purely the most subjective part of the review. That alone would solve a lot of problems. If the site used such a ranking system, I imagine if the original review was slapped with a "Recommended" we wouldn't be having this conversation (especially considering most level headed fallen earth fans know the game isn't for everyone).
The next reviewer doesnt have to please the community but he/she must be respected by them ie: have the proper computer to handle
the type of game he/she is reviewing.
The following statement is false
The previous statement is true
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).
You know, that makes perfect sense and something I've never thought about. Getting rid of any numeric ranking may be the best way to go - as that is purely the most subjective part of the review. That alone would solve a lot of problems. If the site used such a ranking system, I imagine if the original review was slapped with a "Recommended" we wouldn't be having this conversation (especially considering most level headed fallen earth fans know the game isn't for everyone).
I think Recommended with Reservations would even have fitted the review (and hell that is the advice I would give to anyone for this game even though I love it myself :P)
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).
You know, that makes perfect sense and something I've never thought about. Getting rid of any numeric ranking may be the best way to go - as that is purely the most subjective part of the review. That alone would solve a lot of problems. If the site used such a ranking system, I imagine if the original review was slapped with a "Recommended" we wouldn't be having this conversation (especially considering most level headed fallen earth fans know the game isn't for everyone).
It has nothing to do with the "I disliked the game or I recommend the game" scenario.
So many people posting that have no idea what they are posting about,the guy that made the review was below the spec required to run the game and his only complaint was the lag,which was hardly surprising since he was running the game on Vista with only 2gb RAM,he then tried to cover this by saying he did have more than 2gb RAM but was found out that he lied.
Anyway well done to MMORPG.com for pulling the review,a very good move indeed,hell even if the next review for the game still only get's a 6.9 at least it will be a fair 6.9.
Very nice that MMORPG.com manned up,like I said in previous post's regarding this everyone in life make's mistake's,it is how we go about admitting and sorting the mistake's that matter the most.
If someone had came up to me in 1980 when I was on my Atari 2600 and said we will be playing games with thousands of people at the same time.I guess my response would have been,"but I only have 2 joysticks"
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/235780/page/8
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
I don't have to have read this specific review to know two things... First, reviews are subjective in nature. And second, this game runs like shit for a lot of people. Why do I have read this guys review to comment on those two FACTS?
Simply because the guys review of the game said the game was good, the review was in my opinion very positive against Fallen Earth...
So you who have not read the review stated that you believed the reviewed was in the line of this, quoting you.
"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."
You see you assume that the review was negative, pretty harsh, towards FE when in fact it was not. It was not even close to that, the only thing the reviewer really did not like was the lag, when the reviewer ran the game on a computer under the recommendations for the game. All in all it was a positive review, the score did not match the written text.
Do you still think you have all the knowledge needed about this?
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
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
I don't have to have read this specific review to know two things... First, reviews are subjective in nature. And second, this game runs like shit for a lot of people. Why do I have read this guys review to comment on those two FACTS?
If you read the review.. which you didn't, then you'd know that the game wasn't touted as running like "shit" for the reviewer. Secondly, if you had read the review, you would understand that an overly positive review ending in a strangely negative score doesn't add up. Also, if you you had any sense at all you'd know that this whole thread is dedicated to a review that was retracted for a specific reason, by not reading the review you have no bearing on what that reason was, and furthermore shouldn't really chime in when you can't comment on the original situation in the first place.
Lastly, I commend MMORPG for their efforts. The game is highly recommended on this site, and its clear the playerbase just wants an honest review and I applaud MMORPG for giving it another shot
I haven't wasted a single word defending either the review in question or the reviewer. My comments were on the nature of reviews in general, and the performance of this game. Since when does unplayable lag not equal shitty performance? You are just arguing semantics because you don't want to discuss the pertinent facts.
You are just a fallen earth fanboy (evidence in your forum signature) trying to silence the critics of this game by telling them they have no right to comment on it. Hey, I like video games too... I have been playing the same one for a year, but I don't feel the need to fanboy for it. I don't have to go around arguing with other people over their opinion of the game, or disputing their reported performance issues. I don't have the time or inclination to try and "disprove" other people's perceptions.
-----Zero Punctuation Eve Online Review-----
To be honest I would rather they don't.
It would not matter if they'll give it a score of 5 or 8. Or even the same. The only thing that can be done is to get set conditions for reviewing a game so every reviewer stands on the same foundation.
But for Fallen Earth in my opinion that train left the station.
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
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
I don't have to have read this specific review to know two things... First, reviews are subjective in nature. And second, this game runs like shit for a lot of people. Why do I have read this guys review to comment on those two FACTS?
If you read the review.. which you didn't, then you'd know that the game wasn't touted as running like "shit" for the reviewer. Secondly, if you had read the review, you would understand that an overly positive review ending in a strangely negative score doesn't add up. Also, if you you had any sense at all you'd know that this whole thread is dedicated to a review that was retracted for a specific reason, by not reading the review you have no bearing on what that reason was, and furthermore shouldn't really chime in when you can't comment on the original situation in the first place.
Lastly, I commend MMORPG for their efforts. The game is highly recommended on this site, and its clear the playerbase just wants an honest review and I applaud MMORPG for giving it another shot
I haven't wasted a single word defending either the review in question or the reviewer. My comments were on the nature of reviews in general, and the performance of this game. Since when does unplayable lag not equal shitty performance? You are just arguing semantics because you don't want to discuss the pertinent facts.
You are just a fallen earth fanboy (evidence in your forum signature) trying to silence the critics of this game by telling them they have no right to comment on it. Hey, I like video games too... I have been playing the same one for a year, but I don't feel the need to fanboy for it. I don't have to go around arguing with other people over their opinion of the game, or disputing their reported performance issues. I don't have the time or inclination to try and "disprove" other people's perceptions.
Like has been said alot in this thread if you care to read it,when the reviewer is reviewing a game that his system cannot run,not the game's fault but his,most if not all player's check the game's requirements before shelling out the money,his post on the lag should not be in the review as it was his shitty pc causing the lag not the game.
If someone had came up to me in 1980 when I was on my Atari 2600 and said we will be playing games with thousands of people at the same time.I guess my response would have been,"but I only have 2 joysticks"
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/235780/page/8
Actually the review wasnt harsh but the score was. The review was also poorly writen leeding me to wonder who is proofreading the submissions on this site.
Fallen Earth sucks.
I thought the review was a tab bit modest myself.
You know the review was positive towards the game right?
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"