I remember so many agree when eurogamer reviewed Darkfall while reviewer only played for few hours of gameplay majority here on mmorpg.com, still agree with eurogamer lol. But now its high profile game not made by indie developer and , most disagree with review lol. Hypocrits.
Don't make me necro your flip flopping love/hate Darkfall posts!
I would hate to invest time experiencing something i dont like to at some point get to something I might like. Theres a word for this, "work".
This is bologna! Global Agenda gets a "fair" review and the developers go cry about it. Honestly, it's a glorified FPS. 6 hours is way more than enough time to get the ins and outs of the game.
From my experience, the hours required to get a true understanding of the game differ. There have been some games I have played for over 20 hours, and found no difference between hours 4 through 20. There are others that I've dug into for 30 and still felt overwhelmed. For my part, I try to be clear when I haven't tested an area of the game. When I've only spent a few hours in a game, I tell that too (and that happens elsewhere, not for the reviews I do for MMORPG.com).
For everyone's part, remember that reviewers are often busy individuals who can't afford the time to get to max level, gear up, raid, and PvP in their assignment time. Independent reviewers - those that don't sit in the office and get paid hourly - also struggle with time versus reward; usually we are only paid a flat rate for the article itself, and not for the hours of research (aka playing) we put into it. Imagine spending 4 hours a day playing a game for a month to push as high as you can, another 4-6 hours writing the review, and getting paid $100 - that's $100 for over 120 hours of research.
I'm not defending the GameSpot reviewer by any means here; merely bringing up some points about what us reviewers go through.
GameSpot has never been a good source of information for any of the games I've played. They were always building lists that other people compiled, but the links didn't work, or the information wasn't relovent. I think in pulling this stunt it further prooves they are new on the block. There is nothing wrong with new. Some of the old sites like Wiki delete all your stuff. Some sites embed bad code or HUGE ad banners in their sites that slow down games. Some games buy the wiki's and delete or supress the content they don't want you to have. Knowing GameSpot is a dork, just makes them a dork. Not a bad dork.
Zam is bad! Zam is Alakzam that was Alakazm, that says it's Zam, owned by Alakazm, but when you click on a Zam link it takes you to an Alakazam website with links to Zam sites that have links to other Zam sites, that contain thread of Zam sites, that contain items with tabs, and when you click on the Zam tab THERE IS NOTHING THERE! 5 minutes later when you have died because you were assumed AFK from downloading a media advertisement on EVERY PAGE you notice your computer is moving slower because now you have a virus. Thank you Zam, or Alakazm, or whatever.
Yes - if you review any MMO in my opinion you need 30 hours minimum of gameplay wether the game sucks or not.
The thing is, Global Agenda isn't really an MMO... It's not an FPS either, since it's played from third-person perspective, they're only advertising it as such to sucker people into thinking it's the next PlanetSide. The game's basically a scam. You can get much more content and much more fun playing TF2, which is a lot cheaper and you won't ever have to pay a monthly fee for it.
I do believe the major gripe here is not really the 6 hours the reviewer played but that in the review he did not state that he only played 6 hours and in fact wrote the article in such a way to suggest a much longer play time.Had he saidf I played for 6 hours and couldn't bring myself to play anymore he probably would have people disagreeing with his opinion but at least he would of been honest.
From the comments I've read by people who read the review the reviewer comments on features of the game and content that only unlocks after 20-30 hours of play and wrote the article like he had engaged in such content.So really the problem have with the review is not that the reviewer did not lie the game and more that he lies in the article.
It should also be pointed out HiRez had nothing to do with responding to said review or it's pulling.The research into how long the guy actually played was done by players using the in game stat tracking available to everyone in game.It was the players who complained to Gamespot and pointed out the inaccuracies and evidence.
HiRez unlike Tasos and Aventurine had the good sense to just ignore one bad review and keep doing what they are doing.
I have a 31 robo, 18 medic, 20 recon, and 16 assault. Six hours is more than enough to get an accurate review of Global Agenda. IMHO Planetside was a much better game but they ruined it with the BFR's.
There are 4 classes each with 3 talent trees. Six map match types for pvp and pve involves killing everything with a boss at the end. There's a dome with some stores and trainers and everything is instanced. 50 levels but at 30 you unlock all skills and abilities. AvA or conquest is 10 man teams and u either attack or defend and wait 4 minutes between battles that sometimes no one on the other team even shows up for. It's fun to mess around with but there are far better FPS out there. Heck add a graphical chat room to run around in and press "m" for a server list in any FPS and you basically have global agenda. Well unless you play something that supports 64 player maps... heh.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
This is about professionalism. Even if opinion stands that 6 hours is an accurate time frame for that, he should still play the game most of the way through if not all the way at least one character class to get a feel for everything the game has to offer. There might be some incredibly redeeming factor later on. This is true for every game and it is just unprofessional otherwise. You can't review something you don't know inside and out. Maybe the outside is great, but the inside is lacking or vice-versa. You need to experience everything.
I can't respect a review that doesn't do AT LEAST this.
Unless they say it's a review of the first 6 hours or something.
I do believe the major gripe here is not really the 6 hours the reviewer played but that in the review he did not state that he only played 6 hours and in fact wrote the article in such a way to suggest a much longer play time.Had he saidf I played for 6 hours and couldn't bring myself to play anymore he probably would have people disagreeing with his opinion but at least he would of been honest.
From the comments I've read by people who read the review the reviewer comments on features of the game and content that only unlocks after 20-30 hours of play and wrote the article like he had engaged in such content.So really the problem have with the review is not that the reviewer did not lie the game and more that he lies in the article.
It should also be pointed out HiRez had nothing to do with responding to said review or it's pulling.The research into how long the guy actually played was done by players using the in game stat tracking available to everyone in game.It was the players who complained to Gamespot and pointed out the inaccuracies and evidence. HiRez unlike Tasos and Aventurine had the good sense to just ignore one bad review and keep doing what they are doing.
From my experience, the hours required to get a true understanding of the game differ. There have been some games I have played for over 20 hours, and found no difference between hours 4 through 20. There are others that I've dug into for 30 and still felt overwhelmed. For my part, I try to be clear when I haven't tested an area of the game. When I've only spent a few hours in a game, I tell that too (and that happens elsewhere, not for the reviews I do for MMORPG.com). For everyone's part, remember that reviewers are often busy individuals who can't afford the time to get to max level, gear up, raid, and PvP in their assignment time. Independent reviewers - those that don't sit in the office and get paid hourly - also struggle with time versus reward; usually we are only paid a flat rate for the article itself, and not for the hours of research (aka playing) we put into it. Imagine spending 4 hours a day playing a game for a month to push as high as you can, another 4-6 hours writing the review, and getting paid $100 - that's $100 for over 120 hours of research. I'm not defending the GameSpot reviewer by any means here; merely bringing up some points about what us reviewers go through.
Yeah, but I mean he was talking about content in the contecxt of him playing through it. I understand those points, but not playing content ythat you are factoring into your review should at least be mentioned. Or at LEAST they could be like fox and bend the truth. Like saying government spending is going up and showing a graph that goes from 1970 to 2007 (I actually saw them do that a month ago. It was funny).
At least give me something so you're not lying (or at very best distorting what actually happened to make it seem like something else happened).
I hope the next review gives it just as bad of a score as the first one. "After playing more than six hours, this game still sucks" would be hilarious. Anyway I really hope they don't feel the need to give it a decent review just because people don't think you can accurately assess a game in six hours and made them take it down, and now they feel bad about it.
Regardless of this particular review I've never trusted any review in general by Gamespot. They seem to have a strong tendency to only give any "hard" reviews to small indie type companies, strangely even crap by the big companies seem to get a softer treatment...
Global Agenda + Hellgate London = closer to a more 'complete' game, imho. But would still be a watered down MMO or FPS. Again, the hybrid MMO-FPS game probably needs a few more tweeks. There isn't a system out there that makes the transition from one to the other feel at all 'natural'/native or intuitive, tbh.
GameSpot lost credibility a long time ago as far as game reviewing goes (at least for me anyways!). Yes, I did saw the lame review of Global Agenda by Gamespot too.
The problem with Gamespot and other game review sites is they treat MMO"s like any other game. A MMO launches, gets a medicore review, 2 years later that same review sits there although the game evolved. That's my issue, these sites rarely reflect the current state of the game. They seem to treat MMO's like any other game where the only patches are bug fixes and not these large content patches which can completely change the game, making their review worthless. Some sites do re-reviews but they are not as common as they should be. If youre a game site doing game reviews either don't bother with MMO's or commit to revisiting the game and creating a new review for the games current state. MMO's should not be shoehorned into their traditional game review mold.
All MMO reviews should have some common data accompanied with it, like time spent in game, level achieved (if levels exist) and because MMO's are social games did they join a player guild and/or time spent grouping with other players. The bottom line, MMO's require a different approach then evaluating the latest console FPS.
What I find Ironic is Gamestop spent even less time with STO, and no one cried foul at that very skewed review.
This sword here at my side dont act the way it should Keeps calling me its master, but I feel like its slave Hauling me faster and faster to an early, early grave And it howls! it howls like hell!
If Global Agenda is being reviewed as anything other than a lackluster TF2 MMOFPS, honestly, do you really need any more than 6 hours to know what the game is about?
I agree, I don't need mind numbing hours to tell if something is trash or not. Kind of like when meeting someone, first impressions are formed in the first 8 seconds not 30 hours.
First impressions are rarely accurate though.
You have NEVER changed your mind about someone after judging them in the first 8 seconds, which must come pretty much 100% from superficial appearences alone?
Harsh.
I tend to give games, like people, time to show me who they really are. It rarely takes 30 hours, true, but I have known people for years only to then discover they wernt what I thought they were.
Originally posted by Kravis The problem with Gamespot and other game review sites is they treat MMO"s like any other game. A MMO launches, gets a medicore review, 2 years later that same review sits there although the game evolved. That's my issue, these sites rarely reflect the current state of the game. They seem to treat MMO's like any other game where the only patches are bug fixes and not these large content patches which can completely change the game, making their review worthless. Some sites do re-reviews but they are not as common as they should be. If youre a game site doing game reviews either don't bother with MMO's or commit to revisiting the game and creating a new review for the games current state. MMO's should not be shoehorned into their traditional game review mold.All MMO reviews should have some common data accompanied with it, like time spent in game, level achieved (if levels exist) and because MMO's are social games did they join a player guild and/or time spent grouping with other players. The bottom line, MMO's require a different approach then evaluating the latest console FPS.
You just described this site also. There should be indicator how old is review or make a new review each year and compare to previous one. This would show how game is progression. A would rather play slight worst game that is progressing (game with future) rather than good game that stays in same place.
Comments
Don't make me necro your flip flopping love/hate Darkfall posts!
I would hate to invest time experiencing something i dont like to at some point get to something I might like. Theres a word for this, "work".
This is bologna! Global Agenda gets a "fair" review and the developers go cry about it. Honestly, it's a glorified FPS. 6 hours is way more than enough time to get the ins and outs of the game.
That's my opinion, anyway..
From my experience, the hours required to get a true understanding of the game differ. There have been some games I have played for over 20 hours, and found no difference between hours 4 through 20. There are others that I've dug into for 30 and still felt overwhelmed. For my part, I try to be clear when I haven't tested an area of the game. When I've only spent a few hours in a game, I tell that too (and that happens elsewhere, not for the reviews I do for MMORPG.com).
For everyone's part, remember that reviewers are often busy individuals who can't afford the time to get to max level, gear up, raid, and PvP in their assignment time. Independent reviewers - those that don't sit in the office and get paid hourly - also struggle with time versus reward; usually we are only paid a flat rate for the article itself, and not for the hours of research (aka playing) we put into it. Imagine spending 4 hours a day playing a game for a month to push as high as you can, another 4-6 hours writing the review, and getting paid $100 - that's $100 for over 120 hours of research.
I'm not defending the GameSpot reviewer by any means here; merely bringing up some points about what us reviewers go through.
GameSpot has never been a good source of information for any of the games I've played. They were always building lists that other people compiled, but the links didn't work, or the information wasn't relovent. I think in pulling this stunt it further prooves they are new on the block. There is nothing wrong with new. Some of the old sites like Wiki delete all your stuff. Some sites embed bad code or HUGE ad banners in their sites that slow down games. Some games buy the wiki's and delete or supress the content they don't want you to have. Knowing GameSpot is a dork, just makes them a dork. Not a bad dork.
Zam is bad! Zam is Alakzam that was Alakazm, that says it's Zam, owned by Alakazm, but when you click on a Zam link it takes you to an Alakazam website with links to Zam sites that have links to other Zam sites, that contain thread of Zam sites, that contain items with tabs, and when you click on the Zam tab THERE IS NOTHING THERE! 5 minutes later when you have died because you were assumed AFK from downloading a media advertisement on EVERY PAGE you notice your computer is moving slower because now you have a virus. Thank you Zam, or Alakazm, or whatever.
Yes - if you review any MMO in my opinion you need 30 hours minimum of gameplay wether the game sucks or not.
The thing is, Global Agenda isn't really an MMO... It's not an FPS either, since it's played from third-person perspective, they're only advertising it as such to sucker people into thinking it's the next PlanetSide. The game's basically a scam. You can get much more content and much more fun playing TF2, which is a lot cheaper and you won't ever have to pay a monthly fee for it.
I do believe the major gripe here is not really the 6 hours the reviewer played but that in the review he did not state that he only played 6 hours and in fact wrote the article in such a way to suggest a much longer play time.Had he saidf I played for 6 hours and couldn't bring myself to play anymore he probably would have people disagreeing with his opinion but at least he would of been honest.
From the comments I've read by people who read the review the reviewer comments on features of the game and content that only unlocks after 20-30 hours of play and wrote the article like he had engaged in such content.So really the problem have with the review is not that the reviewer did not lie the game and more that he lies in the article.
It should also be pointed out HiRez had nothing to do with responding to said review or it's pulling.The research into how long the guy actually played was done by players using the in game stat tracking available to everyone in game.It was the players who complained to Gamespot and pointed out the inaccuracies and evidence.
HiRez unlike Tasos and Aventurine had the good sense to just ignore one bad review and keep doing what they are doing.
I have a 31 robo, 18 medic, 20 recon, and 16 assault. Six hours is more than enough to get an accurate review of Global Agenda. IMHO Planetside was a much better game but they ruined it with the BFR's.
There are 4 classes each with 3 talent trees. Six map match types for pvp and pve involves killing everything with a boss at the end. There's a dome with some stores and trainers and everything is instanced. 50 levels but at 30 you unlock all skills and abilities. AvA or conquest is 10 man teams and u either attack or defend and wait 4 minutes between battles that sometimes no one on the other team even shows up for. It's fun to mess around with but there are far better FPS out there. Heck add a graphical chat room to run around in and press "m" for a server list in any FPS and you basically have global agenda. Well unless you play something that supports 64 player maps... heh.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/This is about professionalism. Even if opinion stands that 6 hours is an accurate time frame for that, he should still play the game most of the way through if not all the way at least one character class to get a feel for everything the game has to offer. There might be some incredibly redeeming factor later on. This is true for every game and it is just unprofessional otherwise. You can't review something you don't know inside and out. Maybe the outside is great, but the inside is lacking or vice-versa. You need to experience everything.
I can't respect a review that doesn't do AT LEAST this.
Unless they say it's a review of the first 6 hours or something.
At least Tasos was funny.
I half wish that Hi-Rez did comment on it.
Yeah, but I mean he was talking about content in the contecxt of him playing through it. I understand those points, but not playing content ythat you are factoring into your review should at least be mentioned. Or at LEAST they could be like fox and bend the truth. Like saying government spending is going up and showing a graph that goes from 1970 to 2007 (I actually saw them do that a month ago. It was funny).
At least give me something so you're not lying (or at very best distorting what actually happened to make it seem like something else happened).
Wait...there is people that still reads Gamespot Reviews????LOLOLOLOL
I hope the next review gives it just as bad of a score as the first one. "After playing more than six hours, this game still sucks" would be hilarious. Anyway I really hope they don't feel the need to give it a decent review just because people don't think you can accurately assess a game in six hours and made them take it down, and now they feel bad about it.
If it looks like sh!t, and feels like sh!t
it doesn't take very long to work out that it is actually sh!t
even when it's sh!t coated with sugar, the 1st bite soon tells you what it really is.
Regardless of this particular review I've never trusted any review in general by Gamespot. They seem to have a strong tendency to only give any "hard" reviews to small indie type companies, strangely even crap by the big companies seem to get a softer treatment...
Global Agenda + Hellgate London = closer to a more 'complete' game, imho. But would still be a watered down MMO or FPS. Again, the hybrid MMO-FPS game probably needs a few more tweeks. There isn't a system out there that makes the transition from one to the other feel at all 'natural'/native or intuitive, tbh.
GameSpot lost credibility a long time ago as far as game reviewing goes (at least for me anyways!). Yes, I did saw the lame review of Global Agenda by Gamespot too.
The problem with Gamespot and other game review sites is they treat MMO"s like any other game. A MMO launches, gets a medicore review, 2 years later that same review sits there although the game evolved. That's my issue, these sites rarely reflect the current state of the game. They seem to treat MMO's like any other game where the only patches are bug fixes and not these large content patches which can completely change the game, making their review worthless. Some sites do re-reviews but they are not as common as they should be. If youre a game site doing game reviews either don't bother with MMO's or commit to revisiting the game and creating a new review for the games current state. MMO's should not be shoehorned into their traditional game review mold.
All MMO reviews should have some common data accompanied with it, like time spent in game, level achieved (if levels exist) and because MMO's are social games did they join a player guild and/or time spent grouping with other players. The bottom line, MMO's require a different approach then evaluating the latest console FPS.
What I find Ironic is Gamestop spent even less time with STO, and no one cried foul at that very skewed review.
This sword here at my side dont act the way it should
Keeps calling me its master, but I feel like its slave
Hauling me faster and faster to an early, early grave
And it howls! it howls like hell!
I agree, I don't need mind numbing hours to tell if something is trash or not. Kind of like when meeting someone, first impressions are formed in the first 8 seconds not 30 hours.
First impressions are rarely accurate though.
You have NEVER changed your mind about someone after judging them in the first 8 seconds, which must come pretty much 100% from superficial appearences alone?
Harsh.
I tend to give games, like people, time to show me who they really are. It rarely takes 30 hours, true, but I have known people for years only to then discover they wernt what I thought they were.
Thats just me though.