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.
Fallen Earth seems like a 55% right now with extremely good potential to be an 80-90% in six or seven months. I found their assessment of the game to be rather accurate.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Fallen Earth seems like a 55% right now with extremely good potential to be an 80-90% in six or seven months. I found their assessment of the game to be rather accurate.
Makes me wonder if you've even played past S1, because their assessment is far from accurate in my eyes, however opinions do vary so I'll chalk it up to differing opinions and leave it at that.
S1 is basically just a giant extension of the tutorial itself designed to get you into the game and used to it systems and mechanics. I often wonder how many players/attempted players actually realize this...
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
Are you seriously suggesting that random forum word of mouth and youtube videos are better ways to judge the quality of video games than professionally written reviews?
Forum word of mouth is often (always) biased, which can skew a persons impression one way or the other without them ever getting a clear picture of how good or bad a game is.
Youtube videos, in the case of review videos anyway, are mostly produced by teenage kiddies who want to whore attention on the internet and need an easy access medium that allows them to "go public" with there creations.
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
Are you seriously suggesting that random forum word of mouth and youtube videos are better ways to judge the quality of video games than professionally written reviews?
Forum word of mouth is often (always) biased, which can skew a persons impression one way or the other without them ever getting a clear picture of how good or bad a game is.
Youtube videos, in the case of review videos anyway, are mostly produced by teenage kiddies who want to whore attention on the internet and need an easy access medium that allows them to "go public" with there creations.
I disagree completely with your statement.
I would hope that reviews are unbiased and impartial, letting games stand on their own merits, but that doesn't seem to be the case with many professional reviews, much less reader reviews.
Fallen Earth isn't like CO, where you can play through the game in 2 weeks. Its not a game that you can pick up and play without going through some sort of tutorial or asking a question here or there. It doesn't hold your hand, and it doesn't tell you what to expect. That kind of game appeals to some players, and to others, they just don't get it. Instead of trying to understand it though, or make their way through the game like Euphoryk suggests, they make rash assumptions and generalizations, and think they know enough about the game in such a sense as to write a competent review when in actuality they've experienced only the basics.
In turn, they don't give as much of an impersonal review. Instead, and in this sense, they make comparisons to what they've played before and not what they are currently playing trying to use other games as a guide for their shoddy work ethic.
In those aspects, I can't complain about the score so much. I understand that if you tell a person to grill a steak on a charcoal grill when all they've ever used before is a george foreman grill, you're bound to end up with some burned meat. Just because they know how something works, doesn't mean they "get it".
I was quite disappointed with the review myself, especially when I looked at a chart they had near the beginning of that same issue saying that both Aion and FE were disappointments, and in the same section they plugged their new Warcraft Magazine as a must have. Although the review itself wasn't entirely unfair, I can tell what they're looking for in an MMO (Warcraft).
One thing that has really made me lose my faith in "professional" reviewers is how they all gave the PC version of CoD: Modern Warfare 2 perfect scores despite the fact that it pretty much amounts to a bad console port (with no dedicated servers, console, and many more features missing). That's another argument, but I mentioned this to show how bad the professional reviewers have become. PC Gamer hasn't reviewed Modern Warfare 2 yet, so I'll withhold judgment on them in particular, but I already promised myself that if they give in to the hype and don't take into account the numerous issues plaguing the PC version of that game, then I'm cancelling my subscription, and I've been subscribed to PC Gamer since the mid-1990's.
Meh, I haven't picked up an issue of PC Gamer in years, so their review doesn't mean that much to me. I tend to follow IGN anyways (mainly because of Jessica Chobot )
I fail to see the problems the reviewer has. Combat doesn't feel clunky to me at all. I rather like the combat, and have had almost no problems with lag in combat -- and my main is a pistoleer/melee type.
If they support WoW, that is all I need to know to ignore their reviews.
_____________________________ Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
"Overstretched on launch. Fallen Earth is broken in too many places. Wait a while and the ambitious world could become impressive." 55% "The only thing you can't craft is better combat" It is all about comparing to a would be Fallout MMO. Whats with that, can't they take a game and review it for what it is instead of comparing the game to another of another genre? "Combat is real time and, bucking the MMO trend, relies largely on mouse ability rather than stat calculations. It's a refreshing decision, but a clunky game engine renders it frustrating, particularly during server lag. Ranged combat is acceptable, if stilted, but melee battles are weak. Group combat is also hamstrung by this issue, despite a helpful and friendly community." I am interested to see if F.E players agree about the combat mechanics, I like the look of the game but with others on my plate at the moment I do intend to check out F.E. next year at somepoint. PS. PC Gamer magazine US pg 81 Holiday edition. Don't get me wrong I see a really good community for the game it is just as coming from someone who loves to craft and also the real time combat element, is what the review says semi true for the game in combat terms?
Weird, last years, games that recieve below 60% I find enjoyable, and games above 90% I find to be an utter crap.
They don't rate the quality of the game.
They rate the appeal to mass market. If a game will appeal to mass market (their readers/customers) they give it high. They might mention negative things, but they still rate it over 90%.
If a game will not appeal to mass market and try to attract a niche market, they will give it 50-60%. They are not really reviews, they are just predictions how well did they do in the general public.
They have nothing to do with movie critics, these usually do that the other way around.
I have to agree with this post. I personally do enjoy the game and they were right about the combat. I don't have any issues running it whatsoever on my gaming rig (see sig.... I shouldn't have an issue playing ANY game on it) and was able to play it (albeit roughly) on my laptop (dual core 2ghz, 4 gigs gaming ram, fast hdd, oc'ed onboard gfx card).
- Case: Thermaltake Kandalf Black Chassis - CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition 3.2GHz (OC'd 4.2GHz on Water Cooling) - Memory: Mushkin 8Gb (4x 2Gb) DDR3 1600Mhz - HDD: Dual Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB 7200 RPM - GFX: (2) XFX Radeon HD 5870 in CrossFire - New upgrade!
"I like wow, I like aion and I like AoC all for different reasons.....the later cause i get to see boobs, but still its a reason!!" - Sawlstone
That magazine has changed so much and switched editors so many times in the last few years, I wouldn't really take stock in anything they say. I just ended my subscription of 15 years because most of the articles they have in there nowadays are utter rubbish.
Similar sort of story in the UK with our version of PC Gamer. However, the staff there are such overt Blizzard (and Valve) fanboys, that most of their non WOW MMO reviews are embarrassing to read through sheer lack of professionalism. Their old editor left to join Blizz ffs. I still remember a review of one MMO and one of the WOW expansions in the same mag - the WOW expansion was lauded for "innovative" features that anyone who had played MMOs for any amount of time would know originated in other areas - the other MMO damned for stealing features from other MMOs. As I said - a pretty embarrassing read usually.
As I always say, give one-thousand reviewers a peace of paper and a pen each and you will get one-thousand answers. The only review that does count is your own, you don't need anybody else to tell you what you like or don't like. After all the freedom of choice is in your hands.
Fallen Earth seems like a 55% right now with extremely good potential to be an 80-90% in six or seven months. I found their assessment of the game to be rather accurate.
Makes me wonder if you've even played past S1, because their assessment is far from accurate in my eyes, however opinions do vary so I'll chalk it up to differing opinions and leave it at that.
S1 is basically just a giant extension of the tutorial itself designed to get you into the game and used to it systems and mechanics. I often wonder how many players/attempted players actually realize this...
If I didn't play past S1, and the game becomes something dramatically different beyond that, then maybe 45 days, instead of 30, would have been enough time for me to reach that part that would justify subscribing.
I like the concept of the game and several of its features. I like the graphics of the game and I find combat entertaining. However, the skill system and crafting didn't seem too intuitive to me. At the end of a month, I felt like I had just been doing quests like in every other MMO except in a different setting. I'll be anxiously watching two things - to see if the game offers better aid in getting me into aspects OTHER than wandering around killing stuff or if a decent amount of guides pop up on the net that help me achieve that end.
Do you feel the problem is that the people who have left were people who never made it past S1? If so, then maybe that's something to bring up to Icarus - that the game is a great game, but new players aren't getting a chance to find that out due to time, game design or some other factor.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Comments
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.
True
Fallen Earth seems like a 55% right now with extremely good potential to be an 80-90% in six or seven months. I found their assessment of the game to be rather accurate.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Makes me wonder if you've even played past S1, because their assessment is far from accurate in my eyes, however opinions do vary so I'll chalk it up to differing opinions and leave it at that.
S1 is basically just a giant extension of the tutorial itself designed to get you into the game and used to it systems and mechanics. I often wonder how many players/attempted players actually realize this...
Are you seriously suggesting that random forum word of mouth and youtube videos are better ways to judge the quality of video games than professionally written reviews?
Forum word of mouth is often (always) biased, which can skew a persons impression one way or the other without them ever getting a clear picture of how good or bad a game is.
Youtube videos, in the case of review videos anyway, are mostly produced by teenage kiddies who want to whore attention on the internet and need an easy access medium that allows them to "go public" with there creations.
I disagree completely with your statement.
Are you seriously suggesting that random forum word of mouth and youtube videos are better ways to judge the quality of video games than professionally written reviews?
Forum word of mouth is often (always) biased, which can skew a persons impression one way or the other without them ever getting a clear picture of how good or bad a game is.
Youtube videos, in the case of review videos anyway, are mostly produced by teenage kiddies who want to whore attention on the internet and need an easy access medium that allows them to "go public" with there creations.
I disagree completely with your statement.
I would hope that reviews are unbiased and impartial, letting games stand on their own merits, but that doesn't seem to be the case with many professional reviews, much less reader reviews.
Fallen Earth isn't like CO, where you can play through the game in 2 weeks. Its not a game that you can pick up and play without going through some sort of tutorial or asking a question here or there. It doesn't hold your hand, and it doesn't tell you what to expect. That kind of game appeals to some players, and to others, they just don't get it. Instead of trying to understand it though, or make their way through the game like Euphoryk suggests, they make rash assumptions and generalizations, and think they know enough about the game in such a sense as to write a competent review when in actuality they've experienced only the basics.
In turn, they don't give as much of an impersonal review. Instead, and in this sense, they make comparisons to what they've played before and not what they are currently playing trying to use other games as a guide for their shoddy work ethic.
In those aspects, I can't complain about the score so much. I understand that if you tell a person to grill a steak on a charcoal grill when all they've ever used before is a george foreman grill, you're bound to end up with some burned meat. Just because they know how something works, doesn't mean they "get it".
I was quite disappointed with the review myself, especially when I looked at a chart they had near the beginning of that same issue saying that both Aion and FE were disappointments, and in the same section they plugged their new Warcraft Magazine as a must have. Although the review itself wasn't entirely unfair, I can tell what they're looking for in an MMO (Warcraft).
One thing that has really made me lose my faith in "professional" reviewers is how they all gave the PC version of CoD: Modern Warfare 2 perfect scores despite the fact that it pretty much amounts to a bad console port (with no dedicated servers, console, and many more features missing). That's another argument, but I mentioned this to show how bad the professional reviewers have become. PC Gamer hasn't reviewed Modern Warfare 2 yet, so I'll withhold judgment on them in particular, but I already promised myself that if they give in to the hype and don't take into account the numerous issues plaguing the PC version of that game, then I'm cancelling my subscription, and I've been subscribed to PC Gamer since the mid-1990's.
Meh, I haven't picked up an issue of PC Gamer in years, so their review doesn't mean that much to me. I tend to follow IGN anyways (mainly because of Jessica Chobot )
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
I fail to see the problems the reviewer has. Combat doesn't feel clunky to me at all. I rather like the combat, and have had almost no problems with lag in combat -- and my main is a pistoleer/melee type.
If they support WoW, that is all I need to know to ignore their reviews.
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
Weird, last years, games that recieve below 60% I find enjoyable, and games above 90% I find to be an utter crap.
They don't rate the quality of the game.
They rate the appeal to mass market. If a game will appeal to mass market (their readers/customers) they give it high. They might mention negative things, but they still rate it over 90%.
If a game will not appeal to mass market and try to attract a niche market, they will give it 50-60%. They are not really reviews, they are just predictions how well did they do in the general public.
They have nothing to do with movie critics, these usually do that the other way around.
I have to agree with this post. I personally do enjoy the game and they were right about the combat. I don't have any issues running it whatsoever on my gaming rig (see sig.... I shouldn't have an issue playing ANY game on it) and was able to play it (albeit roughly) on my laptop (dual core 2ghz, 4 gigs gaming ram, fast hdd, oc'ed onboard gfx card).
- Case: Thermaltake Kandalf Black Chassis
- CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition 3.2GHz (OC'd 4.2GHz on Water Cooling)
- Memory: Mushkin 8Gb (4x 2Gb) DDR3 1600Mhz
- HDD: Dual Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB 7200 RPM
- GFX: (2) XFX Radeon HD 5870 in CrossFire - New upgrade!
"I like wow, I like aion and I like AoC all for different reasons.....the later cause i get to see boobs, but still its a reason!!" - Sawlstone
That magazine has changed so much and switched editors so many times in the last few years, I wouldn't really take stock in anything they say. I just ended my subscription of 15 years because most of the articles they have in there nowadays are utter rubbish.
PC Gamer.... anyhow..
FoE Fist of the Empire
Similar sort of story in the UK with our version of PC Gamer. However, the staff there are such overt Blizzard (and Valve) fanboys, that most of their non WOW MMO reviews are embarrassing to read through sheer lack of professionalism. Their old editor left to join Blizz ffs. I still remember a review of one MMO and one of the WOW expansions in the same mag - the WOW expansion was lauded for "innovative" features that anyone who had played MMOs for any amount of time would know originated in other areas - the other MMO damned for stealing features from other MMOs. As I said - a pretty embarrassing read usually.
As I always say, give one-thousand reviewers a peace of paper and a pen each and you will get one-thousand answers. The only review that does count is your own, you don't need anybody else to tell you what you like or don't like. After all the freedom of choice is in your hands.
Makes me wonder if you've even played past S1, because their assessment is far from accurate in my eyes, however opinions do vary so I'll chalk it up to differing opinions and leave it at that.
S1 is basically just a giant extension of the tutorial itself designed to get you into the game and used to it systems and mechanics. I often wonder how many players/attempted players actually realize this...
If I didn't play past S1, and the game becomes something dramatically different beyond that, then maybe 45 days, instead of 30, would have been enough time for me to reach that part that would justify subscribing.
I like the concept of the game and several of its features. I like the graphics of the game and I find combat entertaining. However, the skill system and crafting didn't seem too intuitive to me. At the end of a month, I felt like I had just been doing quests like in every other MMO except in a different setting. I'll be anxiously watching two things - to see if the game offers better aid in getting me into aspects OTHER than wandering around killing stuff or if a decent amount of guides pop up on the net that help me achieve that end.
Do you feel the problem is that the people who have left were people who never made it past S1? If so, then maybe that's something to bring up to Icarus - that the game is a great game, but new players aren't getting a chance to find that out due to time, game design or some other factor.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?