Originally posted by TheVF Originally posted by Kanoth Man people like to latch on to a word dont they? Perhaps "shifty" seems too harsh to some of you. I was struggling with what word to put there. I in no way meant to sound like I was calling PC Zone underhanded or "evil".
www.dictionary.com
Maybe you should use this the next time you write a post then.
Yup, used that site when I was called a liar on these boards.
Originally posted by Kanoth Originally posted by TheVF Originally posted by Kanoth Man people like to latch on to a word dont they? Perhaps "shifty" seems too harsh to some of you. I was struggling with what word to put there. I in no way meant to sound like I was calling PC Zone underhanded or "evil".
www.dictionary.com
Maybe you should use this the next time you write a post then.
Yup, used that site when I was called a liar on these boards.
I in no way meant to sound like I was calling you a liar or someone who gives information that is false. I was struggling with a what word to put there. So when I wrote "liar" that was my way of saying "nice guy".
Originally posted by Fadeus Originally posted by TheVF No one wants to respond to this? Anyone? Anyone? What about the person from RedBedlam who accused PC Zone of the "shifty" art of reviewing a commerically sold product? Why bother, they aren't even established and credible. I would beleive RedBadlam over this person in a heartbeat. Her email address isn't even from the company she claims to be from. If they wish to establish themselves to Craig and the staff here or via a post somehow then I will consider the post but until they are credible it isn't worth debating.
Well if so then the person who posted sure knows a lot about suzy wallace(who is hot by the way.sorry had to say that)
uzibat has been the forum name she has used for at least 4 years on other forums and she is indeed the reviews editor of pc zone .Also she is based in kent in the uk.
So seems to me the posters is either the real suzy wallace(most likely) or knows quite a bit about her.
On a side note i agree that it be good for pc zone and other reviewers to establish themselves here with the admin(ie via an email) as i am happy to see gaming magazines editors taking an intrest in our forums .
Reading that "review" made me 'laugh out loud' it's obvious they never got their character past the most basic level in RV, so quite how they can review an MMO without experiencing the game is beyond me.
Looks to me like a WoW player having their 1st go at a sandbox game and not liking it "cause it's too difficult", but who was it? Ahh PC Zone! Nuff said complete n00b mag for gamers that like their hands held.
Originally posted by TheVF Originally posted by Kanoth Originally posted by TheVF Originally posted by Kanoth Man people like to latch on to a word dont they? Perhaps "shifty" seems too harsh to some of you. I was struggling with what word to put there. I in no way meant to sound like I was calling PC Zone underhanded or "evil".
www.dictionary.com
Maybe you should use this the next time you write a post then.
Yup, used that site when I was called a liar on these boards.
I in no way meant to sound like I was calling you a liar or someone who gives information that is false. I was struggling with a what word to put there. So when I wrote "liar" that was my way of saying "nice guy".
Got a live one here.
Liar's definition is no where near "nice guy". Shifty however is close to sneaky. If you think Liar and Shifty are equal as far as their intended severity... Maybe if they called me a Jive Turkey, or maybe storyteller.
Originally posted by Bennjim Reading that "review" made me 'laugh out loud' it's obvious they never got their character past the most basic level in RV, so quite how they can review an MMO without experiencing the game is beyond me.
Looks to me like a WoW player having their 1st go at a sandbox game and not liking it "cause it's too difficult", but who was it? Ahh PC Zone! Nuff said complete n00b mag for gamers that like their hands held.
Benny.........................................
So if tomorrow pcgamer (their rival) thru some miracle gives RV a rating of 95% would it be right for those that played RV and found it appualing to call it a noob magazine as i never seen it been any better then pc zone imho?
Maybe rather then just bash each magazine that does not give gold stars to your favourite game ,you can tell us before hand which magazine you think is worthy in your opinon.
Not come here and bash and praise each magazine that bends to your way.
I been playing mmorpg since 1997 and honestly i don't see myself giving it a better review then what was given.
Originally posted by Kanoth Originally posted by TheVF Originally posted by Kanoth Originally posted by TheVF Originally posted by Kanoth Man people like to latch on to a word dont they? Perhaps "shifty" seems too harsh to some of you. I was struggling with what word to put there. I in no way meant to sound like I was calling PC Zone underhanded or "evil".
www.dictionary.com
Maybe you should use this the next time you write a post then.
Yup, used that site when I was called a liar on these boards.
I in no way meant to sound like I was calling you a liar or someone who gives information that is false. I was struggling with a what word to put there. So when I wrote "liar" that was my way of saying "nice guy".
Got a live one here.
Liar's definition is no where near "nice guy". Shifty however is close to sneaky. Sneaky If you think Liar and Shifty are equal as far as their intended severity... Maybe if they called me a Jive Turkey.
Why don't you just get back to me when you find out if your company issued an account to PC Zone for a review or not?
Hi folks. Been busy but Kanoth asked me to stop by. 8)
Having served on the editorial teams of both PC Magazine and PCGW (the UK's CGW) I do have some idea of how these things can happen. The reviewer was commissioned to do a review and was given a deadline by his editor. Our communications director set up an account for the reviewer but explained that he did not have the tools to fully set up the account in order to ensure that the reviewer received some sesterces. The deadline loomed and the reviewer reviewed the game without any sesterces.
All of that is by the by because, frankly, the review was dreadfully inaccurate. I mean if you're going to do a rush job it's probably best not to give it an outlandish score like 8%. If I was rushed and was trying to cover up for the fact that I hadn't actually bothered to play the game (the account was barely used and had only been active for around one week), I'd have given it something like 30-40%. It might have gone unnoticed. The 8% score should have leapt off the page at the editor. I'm absolutely astounded that the editor didn't take the reviewer aside and have that very conversation.
We do have better things to do than argue with editorial teams that can't handle their freelancers so we're really not stressing about it too much right now to be honest. If the views expressed by this reviewer were valid then we'd know about it. As it is, I see the account key sales, I see the VERM sales and I see the number of refunds and support queries. None of which seem to substantiate the content of that review.
We have brought this to the attention of the editor and we will continue to ask questions of Future and why we received this treatment. I'm pretty sure that things would have been very different had we been one of the magazine's regular advertisers. If this had happened when I was an editor, I would be pretty ashamed and happily suggest a re-review at the very least. So far the editorial team at Zone seems to be more inclined to listen to a freelancer that appears to have not done his job.
Would any of you consider a few hours of gameplay during less than one week sufficient to review a completely open-ended player-driven sandbox virtual world? As I say, I also used to review online games in major print magazines for a living and I certainly wouldn't. The standards at Zone must be slipping.
Any Future employees reading this would probably find it better to respond through their editor rather than these forums. I'll chase it up with the edit team myself next week. For now we have bigger priorities - namely the RV community. So if you'll excuse me I should be getting back to work. Otherwise some more lazy freelancers might end up giving us another ludicrous review. ;-)
Hi folks. Been busy but Kanoth asked me to stop by. 8)
Having served on the editorial teams of both PC Magazine and PCGW (the UK's CGW) I do have some idea of how these things can happen. The reviewer was commissioned to do a review and was given a deadline by his editor. Our communications director set up an account for the reviewer but explained that he did not have the tools to fully set up the account in order to ensure that the reviewer received some sesterces. The deadline loomed and the reviewer reviewed the game without any sesterces.
All of that is by the by because, frankly, the review was dreadfully inaccurate. I mean if you're going to do a rush job it's probably best not to give it an outlandish score like 8%. If I was rushed and was trying to cover up for the fact that I hadn't actually bothered to play the game (the account was barely used and had only been active for around one week), I'd have given it something like 30-40%. It might have gone unnoticed. The 8% score should have leapt off the page at the editor. I'm absolutely astounded that the editor didn't take the reviewer aside and have that very conversation.
We do have better things to do than argue with editorial teams that can't handle their freelancers so we're really not stressing about it too much right now to be honest. If the views expressed by this reviewer were valid then we'd know about it. As it is, I see the account key sales, I see the VERM sales and I see the number of refunds and support queries. None of which seem to substantiate the content of that review.
We have brought this to the attention of the editor and we will continue to ask questions of Future and why we received this treatment. I'm pretty sure that things would have been very different had we been one of the magazine's regular advertisers. If this had happened when I was an editor, I would be pretty ashamed and happily suggest a re-review at the very least. So far the editorial team at Zone seems to be more inclined to listen to a freelancer that appears to have not done his job.
Would any of you consider a few hours of gameplay during less than one week sufficient to review a completely open-ended player-driven sandbox virtual world? As I say, I also used to review online games in major print magazines for a living and I certainly wouldn't. The standards at Zone must be slipping.
Any Future employees reading this would probably find it better to respond through their editor rather than these forums. I'll chase it up with the edit team myself next week. For now we have bigger priorities - namely the RV community. So if you'll excuse me I should be getting back to work. Otherwise some more lazy freelancers might end up giving us another ludicrous review. ;-)
-KFR
Don't worry, I'm not a Future employee, so I'll respond as much as I want.
Originally posted by TheVF I in no way meant to sound like I was calling you a liar or someone who gives information that is false. I was struggling with a what word to put there. So when I wrote "liar" that was my way of saying "nice guy".
I should have used that thesaurus when I said RB lied. I couldnt find a a better way to say, "misrepresented the truth on several occasions".
Considering that the vast majority of the userbase for this game would agree with the review, I wonder if the RedBedlam staff consider their opinions to be "ludicrous" as well.
The staff of this company has already proven themselves to be grossly misinformed and rude in this thread, in any event, so I'm not certain how trustworthy anything they say is at this point. I would very much like to hear PC Zone's side on the matter of the reviewer having sesterces or not.
Originally posted by TheVF Considering that the vast majority of the userbase for this game would agree with the review, I wonder if the RedBedlam staff consider their opinions to be "ludicrous" as well.
The staff of this company has already proven themselves to be grossly misinformed and rude in this thread, in any event, so I'm not certain how trustworthy anything they say is at this point. I would very much like to hear PC Zone's side on the matter of the reviewer having sesterces or not.
Ok, junior...you need to put the crackpipe down. The vast majority of the userbase of this game is happly playing it...not comming on here and trying to make shortbus points by bareing their ass on this fourm.
The only person being rude on this thread is you(and now, me, since it seems apperent this is how you wish to be spoken to).
If you ever read the RV fourms, you would know how much time KFR and company spend telling the community what is up and listening to them and explaining why things are the way they are, and then you wouldnt be making such assinine comments.
As for your earlier comments, your opinion not being worth a damn because you are a noob is exactly what I was implying, and you havent done anything to change my mind
2)pc zone did indeed get issued an account which ofc was meant for reviewing!
3)pc zone acted professionally if actually obtaining a reviewer account which they could have still reviewed without one
Rest is purely subjective.We can argue how good the review is till our fingers bleed.
TBH i always said i would never give a mmorpg below something like 30% myself for just actually loading up.Even DnL will not get less then 30% and imho this game is about same.
To get a more accurate review of a mmorpg you actually need to spent imho no less then 20 hrs a week for 3 months .Reason been is mmorpg are very vast and you need to acknowledge the end game.No magazine will ever do that as it will tie down a reviewer for months(paid ofc!) and will need to see the "end game" which is most important in a mmorpg.
And there is ofc how experienced a mmorpg player is the reviewer.
Now here is a case note for example.
Back in jan 2005 ,pc gamer(pc zone's rival) did a short review on EQ2.Now it was a dodgy review because it mentioned some features in the game which actually did not exist!It got a score of low 70s while WoW got something like 90s(seperate reviewers though).
So it was taken up on the pc gamer forum by some EQ2 fans.And when the reviewer finally answered it was like putting a gun to his head
It came out that he
1)played only till level 7 or so.Which even on a snail pace in EQ2 is like under 6 hrs playtime.
2)Actually considered himself a veteran mmorpg player(read on and laugh) because he has played other mmorpg for years such as diablo 2(i kid you not he actually counted Diablo 2 as a mmorpg!) and WoW beta recently(wtf for not been blizzard biased considering the 2 games were in direct struggle initally).
So has the pc zone reviewer got the mmorpg experience behind him,has it played it for at least 1 game day i dunno and nor do grinreaper or anyone but pc zone reviewer know.
But i think he at least played it enough to get the basic idea of the game.I felt he hit it on the head when he talked about the barren world ,horrible combat and boredom.
You might argue he needs to play it for much more but then again that goes all true for every mmorpg.
There will never be a true mmorpg review ever.Even mmorpg.com that deals with mmorpg only reviewed WoW with the reviewer not even been mid level(inital review)!
As a gamer though i have to make my decision based on what i see in the first few weeks.If i find the game dismal i would rightfully assume that the game will always be like that(ofc always off chance it will get better).
But there is no way i would dedicate months to find the game in same state as i met it when i played it for months.Some players have the loyality to see a product to the end like DnL fans ,i and most gamers do not.
So a warning for all mmorpg companies if your game looks bad in the first 30-50 hrs of play you will suffer for it not only from reviews but from most players as no one but the real diehard fans will play 1000 hrs a game to say "ah it finally got better" or more likely that its as bad still.
Polish your games ,developers .I personally would no matter what rely more on a pc zone review then say the rants of someone like sempiternal who has been caught out lying repeatedly to gain support for the game(read his famous ign" review" for starters)
Ok, junior...you need to put the crackpipe down. The vast majority of the userbase of this game is happly playing it...not comming on here and trying to make shortbus points by bareing their ass on this fourm.
You have zero evidence to say the vast majority of users are happy.
Originally posted by hercules Polish your games ,developers .I personally would no matter what rely more on a pc zone review then say the rants of someone like sempiternal who has been caught out lying repeatedly to gain support for the game(read his famous ign" review" for starters)
hercules you are like 20 pounds of crap in a 10 pound bag. Give me a single quote, let alone "repeatedly," that was a lie and I will never post here again.
Before you start crying about semantics, lets get one thing clear, a "preview" is still a review.
The solid evidence that the reviewer did not play the game post release is that he did not mention the horrible lag that made the game UNPLAYABLE during the first couple of weeks of release.
And now we have confirmation from KFR at RB that he only played the game a few hours: obviously those hours were in beta too. Either that, or the reviewer has a bad habit of leaving out significant technical issues from his reviews - which is a highly dishonest way to review.
Now we see what really happened though. They guy played the game for only a few hours during beta. If anyone is to blame here it is the reviewer, Ed Zitron, for NOT reviewing.
Originally posted by sempiternal Originally posted by hercules Polish your games ,developers .I personally would no matter what rely more on a pc zone review then say the rants of someone like sempiternal who has been caught out lying repeatedly to gain support for the game(read his famous ign" review" for starters)
Give me a single quote, let alone "repeatedly," that was a lie and I will never post here again.
Originally posted by sempiternal Before you start crying about semantics, lets get one thing clear, a "preview" is still a review. The solid evidence that the reviewer did not play the game post release is that he did not mention the horrible lag that made the game UNPLAYABLE during the first couple of weeks of release. And now we have confirmation from KFR at RB that he only played the game a few hours: obviously those hours were in beta too. Either that, or the reviewer has a bad habit of leaving out significant technical issues from his reviews - which is a highly dishonest way to review. Now we see what really happened though. They guy played the game for only a few hours during beta. If anyone is to blame here it is the reviewer, Ed Zitron, for NOT reviewing.
A preview is NOT a review. The words don't mean the same thing, but in this case it isn't simply semantics either. The preview you posted is based on information from the developers, not on time spent in the game. I am not trying to attack you or say that you intended to be deceptive. I just want to point out that the positive things that preview says are not based on the authors actual experience.
The PCzone review you that have a problem with is based on the reviewers experience playing the game. I realize that RB's stance on this is that he didn't play very long... but I also know a lot of people didn't give the game much time for the same reasons as the reviewer in question... because they didn't enjoy the game and thought it was very poorly made.
I haven't read the review other than the quotes posted here, but I have heard all those same sentiments echoed by other players. The fact that he didn't play for very long doesn't necessarily discredit his review of the game. The things he has issues with are issues that could be discovered fairly quickly. Maybe he should have mentioned that he only played it for a short time, because he found it utterly unplayable... and gone in to his list of first impression com,plaints from there.
RB has confirmed that he was playing on an account they set up for him. It is clear he played after the game was launched and is not reviewing the beta.... but the "finished"; product they are charging people for.
No.. a preview is not a review... no one is going to agree with you on that. To imply that the two words mean the same thing is asinine. My 9 year old son could tell you the difference.
And it is clear that he played after the game went retail. They don't say the guy was in the beta. they say he was given an account to use for the review. I think if the time he played was prior to launch.. they would have mentioned that.... as hard as they are trying to discredit his opinion of the game.
Why argue with a guy who does not know the difference between a preview and review?
preview - To provide a preliminary sample or overview
review-
To consider retrospectively; look back on.
To look over, study, or examine again
Coming to think of it the IGN article is even barely a preview by definition since that author admitted he never even played the game to start with.So he had zero prelimnary sampling beyond screenshots and what was written on the website.But guess it can still technically be a preview so we leave it at that.
Keep insulting ,flaming and making weird statements,semiternal .I am sure you are winning RB loads of customers now(/sacrasm off).
Originally posted by sempiternal A preview is still a review, whether the auther plays the game or not. Many previews include gameplay. The only thing that is CLEAR is that either Ed Zitron FAILED to mention the largest problem with the game, the lag, or he DID NOT play after release.
Thats the forum for pc zone uk magazine if you somehow feel they did an injustice .I already have a post up on RV there so you can chip in and i am sure at least suzy or others will eventually see it more then here.
Well I just went and bought a copy of said magazine, what a waste of £6 but anyway. It's obvious the reviewer never got past the basics of the game and there are 2 statements in the review that clearly prove this - I'll leave you to work those out and then we'll know who's actually played the game and who hasn't.
What also cracked me up is they put in the same catagory as Roma Victor the game "Guild Wars" which gets 93% - do I need to say anymore about the publications complete lack of MMO game knowledge. As we all know that Guild Wars isn't an mmorpg but an instanced piece of........ But actually quite fun in a single player way.
So we can conclude that the reviewer likes nice solo-player instanced games like Guild Wars, how the flip is he/she going to understand a completely freeform, sandbox styyle game like RV? Simple answer they won't and obviously haven't.
Given KFR's response and lets face it he'll know exactly how long anyone has been in game and exactly what they were doing as he has the data - I would say KFR has got it right. This is a hatchet job if ever I've seen one, clearly the guy/girl never played the game to a level where they could effectively review the title. Instead it's a rush job for cash and I think the term reviewer at PC Zone would be more aptly termed assassin.
From my own perspective RV is not a finished game and has lots of issues it would get a 50% from me but with the potential to be a 90% in the following months. Perhaps RB should consider spending some advertising bucks with the magazine cause looking at the other reviews the companies that advertise have come out much better - what a disgrace!
Comments
Maybe you should use this the next time you write a post then.
Yup, used that site when I was called a liar on these boards.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/
That would have been more helpful.
"Rome wasn't coded in a day"
- Kanoth
Maybe you should use this the next time you write a post then.
Yup, used that site when I was called a liar on these boards.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/
That would have been more helpful.
I in no way meant to sound like I was calling you a liar or someone who gives information that is false. I was struggling with a what word to put there. So when I wrote "liar" that was my way of saying "nice guy".
Well if so then the person who posted sure knows a lot about suzy wallace(who is hot by the way.sorry had to say that)
uzibat has been the forum name she has used for at least 4 years on other forums and she is indeed the reviews editor of pc zone .Also she is based in kent in the uk.
So seems to me the posters is either the real suzy wallace(most likely) or knows quite a bit about her.
On a side note i agree that it be good for pc zone and other reviewers to establish themselves here with the admin(ie via an email) as i am happy to see gaming magazines editors taking an intrest in our forums .
Looks to me like a WoW player having their 1st go at a sandbox game and not liking it "cause it's too difficult", but who was it? Ahh PC Zone! Nuff said complete n00b mag for gamers that like their hands held.
Benny.........................................
Maybe you should use this the next time you write a post then.
Yup, used that site when I was called a liar on these boards.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/
That would have been more helpful.
I in no way meant to sound like I was calling you a liar or someone who gives information that is false. I was struggling with a what word to put there. So when I wrote "liar" that was my way of saying "nice guy".
Got a live one here.
Liar's definition is no where near "nice guy". Shifty however is close to sneaky. If you think Liar and Shifty are equal as far as their intended severity... Maybe if they called me a Jive Turkey, or maybe storyteller.
"Rome wasn't coded in a day"
- Kanoth
So if tomorrow pcgamer (their rival) thru some miracle gives RV a rating of 95% would it be right for those that played RV and found it appualing to call it a noob magazine as i never seen it been any better then pc zone imho?
Maybe rather then just bash each magazine that does not give gold stars to your favourite game ,you can tell us before hand which magazine you think is worthy in your opinon.
Not come here and bash and praise each magazine that bends to your way.
I been playing mmorpg since 1997 and honestly i don't see myself giving it a better review then what was given.
Maybe you should use this the next time you write a post then.
Yup, used that site when I was called a liar on these boards.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/
That would have been more helpful.
I in no way meant to sound like I was calling you a liar or someone who gives information that is false. I was struggling with a what word to put there. So when I wrote "liar" that was my way of saying "nice guy".
Got a live one here.
Liar's definition is no where near "nice guy". Shifty however is close to sneaky. Sneaky If you think Liar and Shifty are equal as far as their intended severity... Maybe if they called me a Jive Turkey.
Why don't you just get back to me when you find out if your company issued an account to PC Zone for a review or not?
"Rome wasn't coded in a day"
- Kanoth
"Rome wasn't coded in a day"
- Kanoth
Hi folks. Been busy but Kanoth asked me to stop by. 8)
Having served on the editorial teams of both PC Magazine and PCGW (the UK's CGW) I do have some idea of how these things can happen. The reviewer was commissioned to do a review and was given a deadline by his editor. Our communications director set up an account for the reviewer but explained that he did not have the tools to fully set up the account in order to ensure that the reviewer received some sesterces. The deadline loomed and the reviewer reviewed the game without any sesterces.
All of that is by the by because, frankly, the review was dreadfully inaccurate. I mean if you're going to do a rush job it's probably best not to give it an outlandish score like 8%. If I was rushed and was trying to cover up for the fact that I hadn't actually bothered to play the game (the account was barely used and had only been active for around one week), I'd have given it something like 30-40%. It might have gone unnoticed. The 8% score should have leapt off the page at the editor. I'm absolutely astounded that the editor didn't take the reviewer aside and have that very conversation.
We do have better things to do than argue with editorial teams that can't handle their freelancers so we're really not stressing about it too much right now to be honest. If the views expressed by this reviewer were valid then we'd know about it. As it is, I see the account key sales, I see the VERM sales and I see the number of refunds and support queries. None of which seem to substantiate the content of that review.
We have brought this to the attention of the editor and we will continue to ask questions of Future and why we received this treatment. I'm pretty sure that things would have been very different had we been one of the magazine's regular advertisers. If this had happened when I was an editor, I would be pretty ashamed and happily suggest a re-review at the very least. So far the editorial team at Zone seems to be more inclined to listen to a freelancer that appears to have not done his job.
Would any of you consider a few hours of gameplay during less than one week sufficient to review a completely open-ended player-driven sandbox virtual world? As I say, I also used to review online games in major print magazines for a living and I certainly wouldn't. The standards at Zone must be slipping.
Any Future employees reading this would probably find it better to respond through their editor rather than these forums. I'll chase it up with the edit team myself next week. For now we have bigger priorities - namely the RV community. So if you'll excuse me I should be getting back to work. Otherwise some more lazy freelancers might end up giving us another ludicrous review. ;-)
-KFR
I should have used that thesaurus when I said RB lied. I couldnt find a a better way to say, "misrepresented the truth on several occasions".
-----Zero Punctuation Eve Online Review-----
The staff of this company has already proven themselves to be grossly misinformed and rude in this thread, in any event, so I'm not certain how trustworthy anything they say is at this point. I would very much like to hear PC Zone's side on the matter of the reviewer having sesterces or not.
Ok, junior...you need to put the crackpipe down. The vast majority of the userbase of this game is happly playing it...not comming on here and trying to make shortbus points by bareing their ass on this fourm.
The only person being rude on this thread is you(and now, me, since it seems apperent this is how you wish to be spoken to).
If you ever read the RV fourms, you would know how much time KFR and company spend telling the community what is up and listening to them and explaining why things are the way they are, and then you wouldnt be making such assinine comments.
As for your earlier comments, your opinion not being worth a damn because you are a noob is exactly what I was implying, and you havent done anything to change my mind
Did you ever even play this game?
well here is what we seems to have established
1)that was indeed suzy wallace of pc zone uk.
2)pc zone did indeed get issued an account which ofc was meant for reviewing!
3)pc zone acted professionally if actually obtaining a reviewer account which they could have still reviewed without one
Rest is purely subjective.We can argue how good the review is till our fingers bleed.
TBH i always said i would never give a mmorpg below something like 30% myself for just actually loading up.Even DnL will not get less then 30% and imho this game is about same.
To get a more accurate review of a mmorpg you actually need to spent imho no less then 20 hrs a week for 3 months .Reason been is mmorpg are very vast and you need to acknowledge the end game.No magazine will ever do that as it will tie down a reviewer for months(paid ofc!) and will need to see the "end game" which is most important in a mmorpg.
And there is ofc how experienced a mmorpg player is the reviewer.
Now here is a case note for example.
Back in jan 2005 ,pc gamer(pc zone's rival) did a short review on EQ2.Now it was a dodgy review because it mentioned some features in the game which actually did not exist!It got a score of low 70s while WoW got something like 90s(seperate reviewers though).
So it was taken up on the pc gamer forum by some EQ2 fans.And when the reviewer finally answered it was like putting a gun to his head
It came out that he
1)played only till level 7 or so.Which even on a snail pace in EQ2 is like under 6 hrs playtime.
2)Actually considered himself a veteran mmorpg player(read on and laugh) because he has played other mmorpg for years such as diablo 2(i kid you not he actually counted Diablo 2 as a mmorpg!) and WoW beta recently(wtf for not been blizzard biased considering the 2 games were in direct struggle initally).
So has the pc zone reviewer got the mmorpg experience behind him,has it played it for at least 1 game day i dunno and nor do grinreaper or anyone but pc zone reviewer know.
But i think he at least played it enough to get the basic idea of the game.I felt he hit it on the head when he talked about the barren world ,horrible combat and boredom.
You might argue he needs to play it for much more but then again that goes all true for every mmorpg.
There will never be a true mmorpg review ever.Even mmorpg.com that deals with mmorpg only reviewed WoW with the reviewer not even been mid level(inital review)!
As a gamer though i have to make my decision based on what i see in the first few weeks.If i find the game dismal i would rightfully assume that the game will always be like that(ofc always off chance it will get better).
But there is no way i would dedicate months to find the game in same state as i met it when i played it for months.Some players have the loyality to see a product to the end like DnL fans ,i and most gamers do not.
So a warning for all mmorpg companies if your game looks bad in the first 30-50 hrs of play you will suffer for it not only from reviews but from most players as no one but the real diehard fans will play 1000 hrs a game to say "ah it finally got better" or more likely that its as bad still.
Polish your games ,developers .I personally would no matter what rely more on a pc zone review then say the rants of someone like sempiternal who has been caught out lying repeatedly to gain support for the game(read his famous ign" review" for starters)
Ok, junior...you need to put the crackpipe down. The vast majority of the userbase of this game is happly playing it...not comming on here and trying to make shortbus points by bareing their ass on this fourm.
You have zero evidence to say the vast majority of users are happy.
hercules you are like 20 pounds of crap in a 10 pound bag. Give me a single quote, let alone "repeatedly," that was a lie and I will never post here again.
Before you start crying about semantics, lets get one thing clear, a "preview" is still a review.
The solid evidence that the reviewer did not play the game post release is that he did not mention the horrible lag that made the game UNPLAYABLE during the first couple of weeks of release.
And now we have confirmation from KFR at RB that he only played the game a few hours: obviously those hours were in beta too. Either that, or the reviewer has a bad habit of leaving out significant technical issues from his reviews - which is a highly dishonest way to review.
Now we see what really happened though. They guy played the game for only a few hours during beta. If anyone is to blame here it is the reviewer, Ed Zitron, for NOT reviewing.
Give me a single quote, let alone "repeatedly," that was a lie and I will never post here again.
*prays Hercules finds a quote.
I sleep with a pillow under my gun.
A preview is NOT a review. The words don't mean the same thing, but in this case it isn't simply semantics either. The preview you posted is based on information from the developers, not on time spent in the game. I am not trying to attack you or say that you intended to be deceptive. I just want to point out that the positive things that preview says are not based on the authors actual experience.
The PCzone review you that have a problem with is based on the reviewers experience playing the game. I realize that RB's stance on this is that he didn't play very long... but I also know a lot of people didn't give the game much time for the same reasons as the reviewer in question... because they didn't enjoy the game and thought it was very poorly made.
I haven't read the review other than the quotes posted here, but I have heard all those same sentiments echoed by other players. The fact that he didn't play for very long doesn't necessarily discredit his review of the game. The things he has issues with are issues that could be discovered fairly quickly. Maybe he should have mentioned that he only played it for a short time, because he found it utterly unplayable... and gone in to his list of first impression com,plaints from there.
RB has confirmed that he was playing on an account they set up for him. It is clear he played after the game was launched and is not reviewing the beta.... but the "finished"; product they are charging people for.
-----Zero Punctuation Eve Online Review-----
A preview is still a review, whether the auther plays the game or not.
Many previews include gameplay.
The only thing that is CLEAR is that either Ed Zitron FAILED to mention the largest problem with the game, the lag, or he DID NOT play after release.
No.. a preview is not a review... no one is going to agree with you on that. To imply that the two words mean the same thing is asinine. My 9 year old son could tell you the difference.
And it is clear that he played after the game went retail. They don't say the guy was in the beta. they say he was given an account to use for the review. I think if the time he played was prior to launch.. they would have mentioned that.... as hard as they are trying to discredit his opinion of the game.
-----Zero Punctuation Eve Online Review-----
Why argue with a guy who does not know the difference between a preview and review?
preview - To provide a preliminary sample or overview
review-
Coming to think of it the IGN article is even barely a preview by definition since that author admitted he never even played the game to start with.So he had zero prelimnary sampling beyond screenshots and what was written on the website.But guess it can still technically be a preview so we leave it at that.
Keep insulting ,flaming and making weird statements,semiternal .I am sure you are winning RB loads of customers now(/sacrasm off).
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=17
Thats the forum for pc zone uk magazine if you somehow feel they did an injustice .I already have a post up on RV there so you can chip in and i am sure at least suzy or others will eventually see it more then here.
Well I just went and bought a copy of said magazine, what a waste of £6 but anyway. It's obvious the reviewer never got past the basics of the game and there are 2 statements in the review that clearly prove this - I'll leave you to work those out and then we'll know who's actually played the game and who hasn't.
What also cracked me up is they put in the same catagory as Roma Victor the game "Guild Wars" which gets 93% - do I need to say anymore about the publications complete lack of MMO game knowledge. As we all know that Guild Wars isn't an mmorpg but an instanced piece of........ But actually quite fun in a single player way.
So we can conclude that the reviewer likes nice solo-player instanced games like Guild Wars, how the flip is he/she going to understand a completely freeform, sandbox styyle game like RV? Simple answer they won't and obviously haven't.
Given KFR's response and lets face it he'll know exactly how long anyone has been in game and exactly what they were doing as he has the data - I would say KFR has got it right. This is a hatchet job if ever I've seen one, clearly the guy/girl never played the game to a level where they could effectively review the title. Instead it's a rush job for cash and I think the term reviewer at PC Zone would be more aptly termed assassin.
From my own perspective RV is not a finished game and has lots of issues it would get a 50% from me but with the potential to be a 90% in the following months. Perhaps RB should consider spending some advertising bucks with the magazine cause looking at the other reviews the companies that advertise have come out much better - what a disgrace!