I have had multiple yearly subs to PC Gamer mag in the past.
As the game does suffer from minor lag I can tell you this:
I am a focused crafter, I have crafted all my gear, weapons, medicine, tools, vehicles....yet I can hold my own in combat, use my armor, ect. The combat is refreshing, and surprisingly accurate with projectiles. While occassional server lag screws up some shots, it hasent been as much of a problem to me as this PC Gamer reviewer.
For example I just did my first large instanced group dungeon, on my 8 year old Alienware I was getting 40+FPS the entire time, with no lag spikes or interuptions.
Fallen Earth has brought back exploration and skilled combat.
I will never buy another issue of PC Gamer again after their onslaught on terribad MMORPG reviews.
That score is utter rubbish, and it was enough me to abandon that mag forever. DB
I've ignored anything PC Gamer has to say since they gave Anarchy Online the "Best MMORPG of the Year" award back in 2001--the year it was disasterously released. Still the worst release of a MMORPG in the history of the genre. The PC Gamer reviewers have not been playing with a full deck since 2001.
I've played FE and I agree with the score, its a bland looking game, needs more color to be used insted of brown, brown and grey and oh look more brown!, that gets quite boring after a short time playing it, yes its unique in a way, but with the lack luster combat, bad controls and such, I can't blame them for giving it a 55%. I tried a trial and I kept lagging out every so much that I gave up. Not to mention all the bugs that should have been fixed in beta that still linger in the game probally still today. Either way the fact there is such lag issues a month after launch is just not acceptable at all not one bit.
so what u saying u gave the game a 1 hour try and u think u a expert on it. go crawl back to wow or something plz.
overall with how pc gamer rates the game i would give it a 80% of 100. it has alot of potentional and like any mmo it is evolving. on the pc gamer reveiw of it i automaticaly thru that out when they compared it to a normal nonmmo pc game. that makes the review in my eyes lose all crediablity of the game. it means they lost the point of what they where reveiwing. also u realy cant compare fe to any other mmo on market right now since there there no other one set in similar gener as it thats out right now.closest would be darkfail aka darkfall and everyone knows its not similar but in a small amount of ways so i didnt bother using any comparsions.
on a whole most will like fe. its not a full sandbox its more of a semi sandbox cause besides the main story arcs u do what u want u dont have to do anything u dont realy want.FE is a game u have to play a month to see if u like u cant play it just for a few hours and cry then go back to your casual mmo. its not a full niche mmo either its a game that is growing. i would say fe will probaly be like eve keep slowly growing but never be a big hit but would grow slowly keeping people more than most mmos do.
OP if i was u i would give FE a try u might like it. its a game u either like it or u hate it. ive listed most of the good and neg points so u should be able to make a good decesion. me im currently not playing atm cause im playing citiesxl
This is more of a reply to your poll, complaining about low budget MMO's being compared to big budget MMO's.
Simply put, if your small budget game costs the consumer the same amount of money as a big budget game, then it should be compared to those games.
The box is 50 bucks. the sub is $14.99. Nuff said.
u didnt read the review very carefuly do u. they used a comparison to a nonmmo game as part of a reveiw anyone knows thats a no no so to speak. and using price to say it be compared is a null arguement. 99% of all games now days price is 49.99 no matter the publisher so could u get off your high horse and give a valid point instead of random garble plz. anyone knows u never compare a whole indy budget game to a big budget game like wow. u can compare points of play but never as a whole.
I don't have a PCmag subscription, but if you read my earlier post, just above the one you address, you'll find I did get the Fallout comparison. And I addressed it there.
it just seems to me u read what u want and dont read enough to make a good enough decison. me i look at it this way when i buy a game. its 49.99 x 15$ a month (usd) times xxx number of hours. think i played about how much i play and that makes it a good price to pay makes it overall cheaper than watching tv if u get preium cable channels now days.
Dude. I have a Fallout avatar. You think that I don't WANT to like the only serious post apoc MMO ever made?
You said earlier that the game shouldn't be compared to a single player video game of the same genre. And now you turn around and compare its value to TV? The Fallout comparison is a fair one; FE is a game quite clearly made by fans of Fallout that wanted to make a Fallout-like MMO but didn't have a ton of dough to put into it.
give some valid points to your arguemnt then maybe it can be considered but as a player of many diffent types of mmos and regular pc games without any real reasons i dont see any point in what u are saying.
The review(the text you posted) gave them for me, as have many of the reviews I've read. The low budget shows, but the overall concept is a good one and it will likely catch on as it gets more accessible(cheaper); as a result, it will probably improve. Those were my impressions when I played it in beta. But as it sits, it's not yet enjoyable enough for me to pay $15 a month to play it, let alone pay $50 for the box.
and also dont forget that my whole post was to show the OP that the way PC mag reveiwed the game was wrong. its one of the reasons i stoped bying pc mag years ago.
You're right for the wrong reasons.
In all fairness, the reviewer was kind in noting what the game could POTENTIALLY be. An objective reviewer would simply review it for what it IS. And what it is is a game that's a bit clunky and frustrating to play but with good advancement and crafting systems. Clunkiness can be fixed, but a reviewer should never assume that it will be.
This is more of a reply to your poll, complaining about low budget MMO's being compared to big budget MMO's.
Simply put, if your small budget game costs the consumer the same amount of money as a big budget game, then it should be compared to those games.
The box is 50 bucks. the sub is $14.99. Nuff said.
You're right, and honestly, the game hangs just fine with the big budget games. I think its better then a great deal of bigger budget games from more "solid" developers. The only difference is, they had tons more advertising, whereas FE doesn't have much advertising at all. So many times people get drawn into all the hype of those big budgeters, and very rarely they perform. FE outperforms some of those other titles, hands down.
As I eluded to in an earlier post, it kicked CO's butt all over Millenium City. And I bet, same time next year, it'll have more subs than CO.
This is more of a reply to your poll, complaining about low budget MMO's being compared to big budget MMO's.
Simply put, if your small budget game costs the consumer the same amount of money as a big budget game, then it should be compared to those games.
The box is 50 bucks. the sub is $14.99. Nuff said.
You're right, and honestly, the game hangs just fine with the big budget games. I think its better then a great deal of bigger budget games from more "solid" developers. The only difference is, they had tons more advertising, whereas FE doesn't have much advertising at all. So many times people get drawn into all the hype of those big budgeters, and very rarely they perform. FE outperforms some of those other titles, hands down.
As I eluded to in an earlier post, it kicked CO's butt all over Millenium City. And I bet, same time next year, it'll have more subs than CO.
CO wasn't even better than COX and that games ancient.
Combat doesn't seem clunky to me, the only lag I get is in towns with a lot of people and its gotten better actually. I run with sliders maxed textures maxed with x4 aa and x 16 AF with post effects off because it takes out color of the game and actually makes things vanish farther out in the draw distance.
My specs are e8400 ati 4850 4 gigs of ram and a 80 gig raptor and im running win7 build 7100.
Even on the weekends when I play i don't get lag in the wilderness, so im not sure what lag this guy is getting while in combat. And all the PvP videos I see look to be pretty smooth as well. I havent really done any PvP yet so I cant really comment on that aspect.
I can run AoC at almost maxed video settings, I had to put this game on low just to play through the tutorial.
Did it seem like it could be a really fun game?
Yes.
Does it need work?
More than you know.
Playing: World Of Warcraft Resting From: Nothing Retired: EQ2, CoH, Tabula Rasa, SWG, Warhammer, AoC Waiting For: SWTOR, APB Love(d): Tabula Rasa, SWG, World Of Warcraft, Age of Conan
There is a big difference between instanced AoC and full blown open world. But that argument aside, I've have a ton of issues running AoC on my machine yet this game runs flawlessly barring the occasional server hickup. To be back on topic though, who cares what some reviewer at some magazine thinks, the reviewer showed there ignorance and lost all credibility in my book as soon as they compared it to a single player game.
There is a big difference between instanced AoC and full blown open world. But that argument aside, I've have a ton of issues running AoC on my machine yet this game runs flawlessly barring the occasional server hickup. To be back on topic though, who cares what some reviewer at some magazine thinks, the reviewer showed there ignorance and lost all credibility in my book as soon as they compared it to a single player game.
That score is utter rubbish, and it was enough me to abandon that mag forever. DB
I've ignored anything PC Gamer has to say since they gave Anarchy Online the "Best MMORPG of the Year" award back in 2001--the year it was disasterously released. Still the worst release of a MMORPG in the history of the genre. The PC Gamer reviewers have not been playing with a full deck since 2001.
LMAO,yes of course there were so many polished released MMO's back then?AO is not my cup of tea,but it's not that bad for 2001,not bad at all.
As for FE,you may not like it but i would have a VERY hard time rating any aspect of the game above 6/10 so i can see a 55% as quite possible.Every single aspect of the game needed to be done with more depth/quality.Even the Phys X engine needed to be utilized a lot more.There is soooooooo little to do in the game,it cannot remove the boredom part from the lacklustre design,idk what they could possibly do to make it a top notch game,but it needs a lot of work.
I compare FE to what EVE was on release,but actually a bit better.However for the vision of EVE and what was delivered that was a piss poor effort like a 3/10,witch is why FE deserves a bit better around the 5-6/10 area.You can't take any genre or design and go half way or a third of the way,you have to be willing to go all out and give the players what they would EXPECT to see from that type of game.
Icarus actually has the type of game that has very little competition,they missed the boat here on what could have potentially been a HUGE money maker,i mean i am not a apoc fan,but if this game had more quality,i would have easily supported it.Icarus got greedy to get it out the door,they over rated their product,too bad man,they could have made it big.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I agreed with the score and review. They summed up by saying it was overstretched and that it could be impressive in the future. In the same issue theyve rated Aion 60%, so whoever it was claimed they reviewed mass appeal games highly, you were wrong. They gave CO 76% a few issues back too.
I agreed with the score and review. They summed up by saying it was overstretched and that it could be impressive in the future. In the same issue theyve rated Aion 60%, so whoever it was claimed they reviewed mass appeal games highly, you were wrong. They gave CO 76% a few issues back too.
Even on the worst standards those percentages are way off. CO doesn't really have a shot in hell as being even a remotely as engrossing game as even AION, much less FE. CO is extremely shallow, albeit the game was fun, it could have masqueraded as a single player game and save itself the heartache of the sub loss. I honestly would not be surprised if FE has a higher subscriber base then CO right now, and just about every other review I've seen so far can look past the shiny, shallow casing of these lackluster studios and see there is a real pearl in Icarus.
I'm not saying CO is a bad game, but by no stretch of the imagination could it hold a candle to either of the games it "beat" according to PC Gamer.
I would just love to know if this 'professional' game review was done on a system that met the 'minimum' requirements or if they shuffled in on a POS like the last guy that gave FE a bad review because of 'lag'. Just about every review I have seen on FE that is negative has been based on their inability to play the game smoothly due to a lack of system capabilities on the users own end. And this review, sounds like one of the same. Seriously, are they trying these games out on a 5 year old business build HP that's loaded down with IT spyware and expecting miracles?
It's PC gamer. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the guy probably has a beast system.
Yeah I agree. There is no lack of horsepower in PC Gamers PC's. I find their reviews as accurate as any out there. You see very few 90 plus game scores from these folks.
no one should care what anyone thinks cause the only opinion that counts is yours.
^^ THIS ^^
It's the point I always try to make when people start arguing about if reviewers and their reviews are 'right'. It's right if you agree with it and wrong if you don't, because it's just another opinion of another person... and the only opinion that really matters is your own.
------------------------- "Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P.Lovecraft, "From Beyond"
I agreed with the score and review. They summed up by saying it was overstretched and that it could be impressive in the future. In the same issue theyve rated Aion 60%, so whoever it was claimed they reviewed mass appeal games highly, you were wrong. They gave CO 76% a few issues back too.
Even on the worst standards those percentages are way off. CO doesn't really have a shot in hell as being even a remotely as engrossing game as even AION, much less FE. CO is extremely shallow, albeit the game was fun, it could have masqueraded as a single player game and save itself the heartache of the sub loss. I honestly would not be surprised if FE has a higher subscriber base then CO right now, and just about every other review I've seen so far can look past the shiny, shallow casing of these lackluster studios and see there is a real pearl in Icarus.
I'm not saying CO is a bad game, but by no stretch of the imagination could it hold a candle to either of the games it "beat" according to PC Gamer.
aion is 10x more shallow than CO and FE was just boring
I agreed with the score and review. They summed up by saying it was overstretched and that it could be impressive in the future. In the same issue theyve rated Aion 60%, so whoever it was claimed they reviewed mass appeal games highly, you were wrong. They gave CO 76% a few issues back too.
Even on the worst standards those percentages are way off. CO doesn't really have a shot in hell as being even a remotely as engrossing game as even AION, much less FE. CO is extremely shallow, albeit the game was fun, it could have masqueraded as a single player game and save itself the heartache of the sub loss. I honestly would not be surprised if FE has a higher subscriber base then CO right now, and just about every other review I've seen so far can look past the shiny, shallow casing of these lackluster studios and see there is a real pearl in Icarus.
I'm not saying CO is a bad game, but by no stretch of the imagination could it hold a candle to either of the games it "beat" according to PC Gamer.
aion is 10x more shallow than CO and FE was just boring
Thanks for your opinions, as shallow as you think AION or FE might be, they'll keep subscriptions 10 fold over "buy our lifetime sub before we nerf everything" at Cryptic. I like the studio, and the game was fun for approximately a month, but in the end, anyone that can't see that CO is very shallow in the content and gameplay department is a VERY casual player.
It seems right to me .I didn't care for F.E. as was.And there is alot defending this game whch is good for its staying power.But this review is right on with most of the reviews on this game.Most sites have given this game arround a 6 .With a few giving it a higher score.But I played this for about a month and just didn't think it was very good.Maybe its my play style or w/e but It is to me a rather bland title.
55% is an F in most school grading systems, so they gave FE an F and not an E for effort. Who really cares what some scared for thier job in a crappy economy reviewer thinks.
What i have found in most sandboxes are discarded toys and cat poop.
I can run AoC at almost maxed video settings, I had to put this game on low just to play through the tutorial.
You have issues with your comp then, bottom line.
I have never had any problems running through the tutorial on medium/low settings, performance is tight from start to finish, and I guarantee I have a worse system than you:
AMD Sempron 2.0Ghz Single Core
Vista Ultimate 64
2GB RAM
Radeon 3850 Video
Even with this ancient, garbage computer (running Vista with only 2GB of RAM as well...) I can play through the tutorial @ a solid 35-50fps minimum. I can't even get past character creation in AoC with the same computer, I get 5-10 fps max @ low settings. Which is expected because my computer is sooooo old and out of date.
Something is wrong on your end bud, it's not the game.
Comments
I have had multiple yearly subs to PC Gamer mag in the past.
As the game does suffer from minor lag I can tell you this:
I am a focused crafter, I have crafted all my gear, weapons, medicine, tools, vehicles....yet I can hold my own in combat, use my armor, ect. The combat is refreshing, and surprisingly accurate with projectiles. While occassional server lag screws up some shots, it hasent been as much of a problem to me as this PC Gamer reviewer.
For example I just did my first large instanced group dungeon, on my 8 year old Alienware I was getting 40+FPS the entire time, with no lag spikes or interuptions.
Fallen Earth has brought back exploration and skilled combat.
I will never buy another issue of PC Gamer again after their onslaught on terribad MMORPG reviews.
I play all ghame
Exactly
I play all ghame
I've ignored anything PC Gamer has to say since they gave Anarchy Online the "Best MMORPG of the Year" award back in 2001--the year it was disasterously released. Still the worst release of a MMORPG in the history of the genre. The PC Gamer reviewers have not been playing with a full deck since 2001.
so what u saying u gave the game a 1 hour try and u think u a expert on it. go crawl back to wow or something plz.
overall with how pc gamer rates the game i would give it a 80% of 100. it has alot of potentional and like any mmo it is evolving. on the pc gamer reveiw of it i automaticaly thru that out when they compared it to a normal nonmmo pc game. that makes the review in my eyes lose all crediablity of the game. it means they lost the point of what they where reveiwing. also u realy cant compare fe to any other mmo on market right now since there there no other one set in similar gener as it thats out right now.closest would be darkfail aka darkfall and everyone knows its not similar but in a small amount of ways so i didnt bother using any comparsions.
on a whole most will like fe. its not a full sandbox its more of a semi sandbox cause besides the main story arcs u do what u want u dont have to do anything u dont realy want.FE is a game u have to play a month to see if u like u cant play it just for a few hours and cry then go back to your casual mmo. its not a full niche mmo either its a game that is growing. i would say fe will probaly be like eve keep slowly growing but never be a big hit but would grow slowly keeping people more than most mmos do.
OP if i was u i would give FE a try u might like it. its a game u either like it or u hate it. ive listed most of the good and neg points so u should be able to make a good decesion. me im currently not playing atm cause im playing citiesxl
This is more of a reply to your poll, complaining about low budget MMO's being compared to big budget MMO's.
Simply put, if your small budget game costs the consumer the same amount of money as a big budget game, then it should be compared to those games.
The box is 50 bucks. the sub is $14.99. Nuff said.
u didnt read the review very carefuly do u. they used a comparison to a nonmmo game as part of a reveiw anyone knows thats a no no so to speak. and using price to say it be compared is a null arguement. 99% of all games now days price is 49.99 no matter the publisher so could u get off your high horse and give a valid point instead of random garble plz. anyone knows u never compare a whole indy budget game to a big budget game like wow. u can compare points of play but never as a whole.
I don't have a PCmag subscription, but if you read my earlier post, just above the one you address, you'll find I did get the Fallout comparison. And I addressed it there.
it just seems to me u read what u want and dont read enough to make a good enough decison. me i look at it this way when i buy a game. its 49.99 x 15$ a month (usd) times xxx number of hours. think i played about how much i play and that makes it a good price to pay makes it overall cheaper than watching tv if u get preium cable channels now days.
Dude. I have a Fallout avatar. You think that I don't WANT to like the only serious post apoc MMO ever made?
You said earlier that the game shouldn't be compared to a single player video game of the same genre. And now you turn around and compare its value to TV? The Fallout comparison is a fair one; FE is a game quite clearly made by fans of Fallout that wanted to make a Fallout-like MMO but didn't have a ton of dough to put into it.
give some valid points to your arguemnt then maybe it can be considered but as a player of many diffent types of mmos and regular pc games without any real reasons i dont see any point in what u are saying.
The review(the text you posted) gave them for me, as have many of the reviews I've read. The low budget shows, but the overall concept is a good one and it will likely catch on as it gets more accessible(cheaper); as a result, it will probably improve. Those were my impressions when I played it in beta. But as it sits, it's not yet enjoyable enough for me to pay $15 a month to play it, let alone pay $50 for the box.
and also dont forget that my whole post was to show the OP that the way PC mag reveiwed the game was wrong. its one of the reasons i stoped bying pc mag years ago.
You're right for the wrong reasons.
In all fairness, the reviewer was kind in noting what the game could POTENTIALLY be. An objective reviewer would simply review it for what it IS. And what it is is a game that's a bit clunky and frustrating to play but with good advancement and crafting systems. Clunkiness can be fixed, but a reviewer should never assume that it will be.
This is more of a reply to your poll, complaining about low budget MMO's being compared to big budget MMO's.
Simply put, if your small budget game costs the consumer the same amount of money as a big budget game, then it should be compared to those games.
The box is 50 bucks. the sub is $14.99. Nuff said.
You're right, and honestly, the game hangs just fine with the big budget games. I think its better then a great deal of bigger budget games from more "solid" developers. The only difference is, they had tons more advertising, whereas FE doesn't have much advertising at all. So many times people get drawn into all the hype of those big budgeters, and very rarely they perform. FE outperforms some of those other titles, hands down.
As I eluded to in an earlier post, it kicked CO's butt all over Millenium City. And I bet, same time next year, it'll have more subs than CO.
This is more of a reply to your poll, complaining about low budget MMO's being compared to big budget MMO's.
Simply put, if your small budget game costs the consumer the same amount of money as a big budget game, then it should be compared to those games.
The box is 50 bucks. the sub is $14.99. Nuff said.
You're right, and honestly, the game hangs just fine with the big budget games. I think its better then a great deal of bigger budget games from more "solid" developers. The only difference is, they had tons more advertising, whereas FE doesn't have much advertising at all. So many times people get drawn into all the hype of those big budgeters, and very rarely they perform. FE outperforms some of those other titles, hands down.
As I eluded to in an earlier post, it kicked CO's butt all over Millenium City. And I bet, same time next year, it'll have more subs than CO.
CO wasn't even better than COX and that games ancient.
Combat doesn't seem clunky to me, the only lag I get is in towns with a lot of people and its gotten better actually. I run with sliders maxed textures maxed with x4 aa and x 16 AF with post effects off because it takes out color of the game and actually makes things vanish farther out in the draw distance.
My specs are e8400 ati 4850 4 gigs of ram and a 80 gig raptor and im running win7 build 7100.
Even on the weekends when I play i don't get lag in the wilderness, so im not sure what lag this guy is getting while in combat. And all the PvP videos I see look to be pretty smooth as well. I havent really done any PvP yet so I cant really comment on that aspect.
I can run AoC at almost maxed video settings, I had to put this game on low just to play through the tutorial.
Did it seem like it could be a really fun game?
Yes.
Does it need work?
More than you know.
Playing: World Of Warcraft
Resting From: Nothing
Retired: EQ2, CoH, Tabula Rasa, SWG, Warhammer, AoC
Waiting For: SWTOR, APB
Love(d): Tabula Rasa, SWG, World Of Warcraft, Age of Conan
There is a big difference between instanced AoC and full blown open world. But that argument aside, I've have a ton of issues running AoC on my machine yet this game runs flawlessly barring the occasional server hickup. To be back on topic though, who cares what some reviewer at some magazine thinks, the reviewer showed there ignorance and lost all credibility in my book as soon as they compared it to a single player game.
Playing Fallen Earth.
i totally agree with u
no one should care what anyone thinks cause the only opinion that counts is yours.
I've ignored anything PC Gamer has to say since they gave Anarchy Online the "Best MMORPG of the Year" award back in 2001--the year it was disasterously released. Still the worst release of a MMORPG in the history of the genre. The PC Gamer reviewers have not been playing with a full deck since 2001.
LMAO,yes of course there were so many polished released MMO's back then?AO is not my cup of tea,but it's not that bad for 2001,not bad at all.
As for FE,you may not like it but i would have a VERY hard time rating any aspect of the game above 6/10 so i can see a 55% as quite possible.Every single aspect of the game needed to be done with more depth/quality.Even the Phys X engine needed to be utilized a lot more.There is soooooooo little to do in the game,it cannot remove the boredom part from the lacklustre design,idk what they could possibly do to make it a top notch game,but it needs a lot of work.
I compare FE to what EVE was on release,but actually a bit better.However for the vision of EVE and what was delivered that was a piss poor effort like a 3/10,witch is why FE deserves a bit better around the 5-6/10 area.You can't take any genre or design and go half way or a third of the way,you have to be willing to go all out and give the players what they would EXPECT to see from that type of game.
Icarus actually has the type of game that has very little competition,they missed the boat here on what could have potentially been a HUGE money maker,i mean i am not a apoc fan,but if this game had more quality,i would have easily supported it.Icarus got greedy to get it out the door,they over rated their product,too bad man,they could have made it big.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I agreed with the score and review. They summed up by saying it was overstretched and that it could be impressive in the future. In the same issue theyve rated Aion 60%, so whoever it was claimed they reviewed mass appeal games highly, you were wrong. They gave CO 76% a few issues back too.
Even on the worst standards those percentages are way off. CO doesn't really have a shot in hell as being even a remotely as engrossing game as even AION, much less FE. CO is extremely shallow, albeit the game was fun, it could have masqueraded as a single player game and save itself the heartache of the sub loss. I honestly would not be surprised if FE has a higher subscriber base then CO right now, and just about every other review I've seen so far can look past the shiny, shallow casing of these lackluster studios and see there is a real pearl in Icarus.
I'm not saying CO is a bad game, but by no stretch of the imagination could it hold a candle to either of the games it "beat" according to PC Gamer.
It's PC gamer. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the guy probably has a beast system.
Yeah I agree. There is no lack of horsepower in PC Gamers PC's. I find their reviews as accurate as any out there. You see very few 90 plus game scores from these folks.
^^ THIS ^^
It's the point I always try to make when people start arguing about if reviewers and their reviews are 'right'. It's right if you agree with it and wrong if you don't, because it's just another opinion of another person... and the only opinion that really matters is your own.
-------------------------
"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P.Lovecraft, "From Beyond"
Member Since March 2004
Even on the worst standards those percentages are way off. CO doesn't really have a shot in hell as being even a remotely as engrossing game as even AION, much less FE. CO is extremely shallow, albeit the game was fun, it could have masqueraded as a single player game and save itself the heartache of the sub loss. I honestly would not be surprised if FE has a higher subscriber base then CO right now, and just about every other review I've seen so far can look past the shiny, shallow casing of these lackluster studios and see there is a real pearl in Icarus.
I'm not saying CO is a bad game, but by no stretch of the imagination could it hold a candle to either of the games it "beat" according to PC Gamer.
aion is 10x more shallow than CO and FE was just boring
Even on the worst standards those percentages are way off. CO doesn't really have a shot in hell as being even a remotely as engrossing game as even AION, much less FE. CO is extremely shallow, albeit the game was fun, it could have masqueraded as a single player game and save itself the heartache of the sub loss. I honestly would not be surprised if FE has a higher subscriber base then CO right now, and just about every other review I've seen so far can look past the shiny, shallow casing of these lackluster studios and see there is a real pearl in Icarus.
I'm not saying CO is a bad game, but by no stretch of the imagination could it hold a candle to either of the games it "beat" according to PC Gamer.
aion is 10x more shallow than CO and FE was just boring
Thanks for your opinions, as shallow as you think AION or FE might be, they'll keep subscriptions 10 fold over "buy our lifetime sub before we nerf everything" at Cryptic. I like the studio, and the game was fun for approximately a month, but in the end, anyone that can't see that CO is very shallow in the content and gameplay department is a VERY casual player.
It seems right to me .I didn't care for F.E. as was.And there is alot defending this game whch is good for its staying power.But this review is right on with most of the reviews on this game.Most sites have given this game arround a 6 .With a few giving it a higher score.But I played this for about a month and just didn't think it was very good.Maybe its my play style or w/e but It is to me a rather bland title.
55% is slightly above average
55% is an F in most school grading systems, so they gave FE an F and not an E for effort. Who really cares what some scared for thier job in a crappy economy reviewer thinks.
What i have found in most sandboxes are discarded toys and cat poop.
You have issues with your comp then, bottom line.
I have never had any problems running through the tutorial on medium/low settings, performance is tight from start to finish, and I guarantee I have a worse system than you:
AMD Sempron 2.0Ghz Single Core
Vista Ultimate 64
2GB RAM
Radeon 3850 Video
Even with this ancient, garbage computer (running Vista with only 2GB of RAM as well...) I can play through the tutorial @ a solid 35-50fps minimum. I can't even get past character creation in AoC with the same computer, I get 5-10 fps max @ low settings. Which is expected because my computer is sooooo old and out of date.
Something is wrong on your end bud, it's not the game.
I think the the game looks great I run it on high with all the bells and whistles on.
And my system is not top of the line by any means.
E7500 Core 2 Duo 293 GHz
XFX GTS 250 1 GB gddr3
4 GB DDR 3 Ram
Win 7
Using a magazine to tell a review is pointless, make up your review. with an MMO wait a bit and research it via youtube or check out the forums
IN THE FACE!