The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
1. "WoW sucks because it now gives you the ability to purchase max level chartacters."
2. "WoW is awesome now because you can purchase a max level character."
This is what the press does.
If they were being objective, they would simply say:
"WoW now provides you the ability to purchase max rank characters."
Uhm.. both of the top statements provided you with the information from your 3rd statements. On top of that, both of those statements provided you with the additional information of the reviewers opinion of it - providing which is his job.
If you think about, the statement can be rephrased as:
1. "WoW now provides you the ability to purchase max rank characters and this sucks."
and
2. "WoW now provides you the ability to purchase max rank characters and this is awesome."
In effect, what you're asking for is that the person who's job it is provide you with his opinion, instead provides you ONLY with the same facts you can gleam from reading the back of the product's box. Every single review would be identical then - "Elder Scrolls online features 10 different races!".
No. The point of the review isn't to express the writer's opinion. The point of the review is to sway YOUR opinion as the potential buyer. If you knew anything about Communication and Rhetoric, you would understand this.
It's one thing to say a game has features x, y, and z. Like you say, the box can tell you that.
It's another thing to say if the game has features x, y, and z, and if they actually work the way they're supposed to, and what, if any, are the reasons behind interesting or curious design choices quoted directly from the horse's mouth. Boxes don't tell you that.
It's something entirely different if you say the game has features x, y, and z, and then to say if you like or dislike each feature, and then say why. That isn't news. That isn't press. That's an argument - it's rhetoric. Arguments have to have counterarguments. Without the counterargument or some sort of an apologist viewpoint (a defense) then what you have is propaganda - advertisement - promotional agenda.
I don't care why these people like or dislike features or games. I don't even care if they DO or DO NOT like the game. All I want to know is what the features are and if the features are working or if they are not working. And if they can give some sort of objective explanation thereof without going into personal feelings like, "It's not working because I prefer the way this other game does it, because it's better." which is again, more subjective advertisement and is frankly, amateur - then okay. But... they simply don't do this.
I personally believe a review is to both express your opinion and then sway the reader(s) into making their final decision.
Your personal feelings on the matter have nothing to do with what people actually need to know. The reviewer's personal feelings also have nothing to do with what people actually need to know.
If you want entertainment - find a blog or a weekly column. Opinions do well there because those sorts of outlets are designed for discussing theory. That format has no place in an actual news outlet.
Its an impression, not a review. He went though and played the game and described what he saw. Talked about what he liked and disliked. He is going to do an impression on the pvp soon. He may hive an overall review at some point, but that will probably be after the game releases. No where does it say in reviews that you have to do half of the stuff you are talking about though. Most critiques are editorials after all.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Originally posted by sunblabe stick with lotro, bro. it for ur own good. what the press does is purely the matter of fact about the game. nothing more or less
You can't be serious. Please tell me you don't hear/read what the press have to say and go, "Okay, that's the way it is, then." and go on about your life. Please tell me there was sarcasm in there.
What a review is, is a critical observation and evaluation of a persons' work. The word "critical" here means that the person doing the review first has to know what to look for and to be able to communicate where the break-down occurs. In essence, they have to know what they are talking about. This is purely based on trained knowledge of the craft - not how it makes them feel. They have to first have an objective understanding and base point of reference to what the work was trying to achieve. They then evaluate the work on how well the work achieved the goal based on an un-biased understanding of mechanical definitions. This is why it is important to understand the value of an authority.
When people listen to stories about the war, they tend to accept what a soldier says over a politician. Why? Because he has actual working knoweldge of the craft, and is therefore automatically, without question, recognized as a better representative of authority of the situation, rather than a politician and his opinion theories.
Game reviewers are not trained in the knowledge of the craft, and are thusly not qualified to administer a critical review of games by any stretch of the imagination. This is why they rely on their opinions - it's all they have, because they have no working knowledge of the actual craft. They use their ability to write and persuasion, rhetoric, to have you agree with their opinion. If you agree, you will likely revisit the site - which means more money. If you disagree, you probably won't. Either way, they are also being paid to keep you coming back - because they are ENTERTAINMENT.
A review is not an opinion. An opinion that claims to be a review is still just an opinion. I use the word "review" in former contexts because that is what they are known by. I'm sorry if you can't understand this.
Regardless of how critical the reviews might be, the fact remains that Zenimax has an NDA in place that prevents discussions. The press are allowed to post reviews about their experience in the game, but since they had to start from the beginning, those reviews will all be focused on the starting area experience, and the systems that you can access early on.
I'm sure we all remember Age of Conan? Probably one of the absolute best and most fun MMORPG's ever to hit the market, until you got to level 20 and left the starting area of Tortage. Then all the voice acting went away, all the clever quests disappeared, and you were left with a pale husk of grinding your way through generic levels of content, on an engine which performed badly when outside the short-draw-distance confines of the starting areas.
Will TESO be like that? Or will it get better as you hit the later content? Past history with dozens of MMO's suggests the odds of it getting better are pretty slim, and the fact that they keep the NDA in place lends credence to that conclusion.
If they really have faith in the quality of their game, they would lift the NDA entirely and let the long-time beta testers tell us about the later content (or lack thereof). The fact that they don't, makes me think they're following the same old trend of making a highly polished newbie zone to draw people into buying it at launch, and then hoping they can finish the rest of the game before everyone gets out of those areas and gets bored.
Why does your list of questions not include, "Are you overly disappointed in the game?"
Edit: NM. I can't believe I missed the sarcasm.
The notion that reviews can not express opinions or else they should not be called reviews is laughable. You do realize that critiquing a piece of art requires a perspective which requires an opinion, right?
I am so tired of the Gaming press slamming a game before the Beta is over. ESO should not have dropped the NDA. It could kill a game like this especially with a subscription model.
The problem with the Press is most of them are no more qualified than I am. I have been gaming longer than most of the MMORPG staff have been alive.
Originally posted by jpnz Apparently you can critically evaluate a creative work. /facepalm
You aren't evaluating the whole work, per say. You're evaluating the execution of skills involved with the work. You can absolutely critically evaluate creative work when you break it down to it's execution of fundamental skills. This is why a lot of fine art like Picasso, which is arguably nonsensical and aesthetically ugly, are prized, priceless art possessions.
Exactly my point: All of them giving the same forecast based on absolutely nothing but opinions of a half-made game. It's already affected YOU. Instead of actually trying to get into Beta, playing it, and experiencing it... you're already waiting for it to fail.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Why does the agenda have to be hidden? If something stinks and a lot of people tell me it stinks, then I'm a lot less likely to pay full price for it. In this instance, and from all the reviews I've read, I don't think I'll be paying full box price and $15 a month for this game. Every video I've watched and every review I've read has convinced me that this stinker will be F2P in the future. I can wait that long easily.
Man, if it's a stinker to you... why would you play it even at F2P?
Honestly, I think that's the real thing I hate about F2P: it brings in people who don't even want to be there. Everything else (p2w, paygates, whatever) is a matter of implementation that can be resolved. But playing with people who obviously think it's a turd, but are just as obviously willing to ride that turd if it's free...
The funny thing is that gaming press has given favourable reviews to some very rough games over the years. Many reviewers were singing the praises of SWTOR before it released, to give a recent example. ESO is no worse than SWTOR (in fact, i'd say that it is better in many ways), but it is getting brutalized so far. It's certainly an interesting turn of events, at least.
As I know there are only three reasons to make a review. You have been paid. You cannot hold your excitement about something. Or you have a hidden agenda. There is no altruistic reviews. “sway the reader(s) into making their final decision” - isn’t it contradictory? If you “sway the readers”, it will not be ever “their own” decision! Don’t you know that?
It seems only appropriate in this context to ask you: Have you been paid for your post? Do you have a hidden agenda? Are you overexcited about this game?
Why does your list of questions not include, "Are you overly disappointed in the game?"
Edit: NM. I can't believe I missed the sarcasm.
The notion that reviews can not express opinions or else they should not be called reviews is laughable. You do realize that critiquing a piece of art requires a perspective which requires an opinion, right?
It requires the perspective of a trained, informed unbiased opinion. In art, you never hear a major art critic praise a piece as being good because they like it. They praise it because it is technically created by a master of his/her craft - whether it is aesthetically pleasing to the mass's eye or not. You will also find that they appreciate MORE the craftsmanship than the actual piece. This is because they are trained and informed on how it was made and what makes it special. We're talking about two different kinds of opinions here.
Game reviewers are not trained or informed of the goings-on of game development or the craft. How in the world would they know what to be objective about and what not to be objective about?
I'd just like to harp on what another poster said.
Game reviewers are almost *always* overly-lenient and too nice when it comes to new games. Try to understand that there are very few reviewers who test MMORPG's correctly.
When I say what's underlined, I want to make this point very clear: I personally consider correctly reviewing a game in this genre requires at least 60 hours of time-played to formulate an accurate, adequate opinion.
Most of the reviews out there are based on less than 24 hours of play time. There is simply no possible way you can get your hands dirty in a play-test weekend, I'm sorry, it's not possible. Oh, you crafted a dozen items? Good for you. You got to level 15-20? Great! You did your first group-based dungeon? Congratulations! You successfully played through the very beginning of the game, which typically is the most polished, well-tested area of any MMORPG to be released. From this time, you make deductions about how the game will probably play for the rest of the game, how you assume the content will work, what you expect will develop over the next 100 hours.
This is a cardinal sin related specifically to *this* genre of gaming.
If you need an example, let's cite one of the most notorious cases of deception in history: Age of Conan. The starter area and tutorial area was polished, pristine, and very refined. Except the second you left what I'll refer to as Newb Island, the trainwreck of a game became apparent. Let's not even get into all the details, like the Field of the Dead audio CTD bug.
When I think of how many MMO's are inadequately reviewed like this, it's actually kind of sickening. Even the non-true MMORPG's, like Diablo 3 for example, are given great scores solely because of the name of the franchise. Does anyone remember how utterly ****ed FFXIV for the first month? How about GW2 and it's endless bugs? Another non-true MMO that comes to mind is SimCity; still ****ed to this day!
Now, with that said, you really, really have to worry when there are so many negative reviews in existence before the game even comes out. Honestly, this is typically the time when the brown-nosing and the endless praise runs HIGHEST! Whether it's a lack of adequate testing, the "new-game" hype, the shiny new polish, etc, these pre-release test phases are usually glistening with good news. But with the NDA upheld and all, there's an overwhelmingly negative reaction to the game. That says a LOT to me personally; it means that even with all the hype, the advertisement, the marketing, etc, there's still at least some consensus among the players that this game isn't going to be that great... and that is super, super rare in today's market.
I'll just say this. If you look at all of the professional review sites out there, they're singing the praises of the game, downplaying the criticisms, defending the title, etc. But when you dig a little deeper, it's the independent users and the random, previously unbeknownst gamers who are saying "Hey... not so fast. This game isn't good at all...."
Just something to consider.
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
As I know there are only three reasons to make a review. You have been paid. You cannot hold your excitement about something. Or you have a hidden agenda. There is no altruistic reviews. “sway the reader(s) into making their final decision” - isn’t it contradictory? If you “sway the readers”, it will not be ever “their own” decision! Don’t you know that?
It seems only appropriate in this context to ask you: Have you been paid for your post? Do you have a hidden agenda? Are you overexcited about this game?
Why does the agenda have to be hidden? If something stinks and a lot of people tell me it stinks, then I'm a lot less likely to pay full price for it. In this instance, and from all the reviews I've read, I don't think I'll be paying full box price and $15 a month for this game. Every video I've watched and every review I've read has convinced me that this stinker will be F2P in the future. I can wait that long easily.
Lots and lots of good games out there, no reason to jump on a turd and ride it to the toilet just cause everyone else is.
Exactly my point: All of them giving the same forecast based on absolutely nothing but opinions of a half-made game. It's already affected YOU. Instead of actually trying to get into Beta, playing it, and experiencing it... you're already waiting for it to fail.
This is my point exactly.
Yes.... a half made game weeks before it's release. No wonder it's catch so much bad press, lol.
Are you just trying to be argumentative? It's half-made in the sense that they played an old build.
God... why do I even bother trying to communicate with people like you? You don't listen. You aren't trying to communicate. You're just trying to improve your own image of an ego by picking apart every single little thing you can. And it doesn't accomplish... anything.
I'm not trying to argue with anyone. I'm just trying to talk with you - try to get on the same page, here.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
As I know there are only three reasons to make a review. You have been paid. You cannot hold your excitement about something. Or you have a hidden agenda. There is no altruistic reviews. “sway the reader(s) into making their final decision” - isn’t it contradictory? If you “sway the readers”, it will not be ever “their own” decision! Don’t you know that?
It seems only appropriate in this context to ask you: Have you been paid for your post? Do you have a hidden agenda? Are you overexcited about this game?
Why does your list of questions not include, "Are you overly disappointed in the game?"
Edit: NM. I can't believe I missed the sarcasm.
The notion that reviews can not express opinions or else they should not be called reviews is laughable. You do realize that critiquing a piece of art requires a perspective which requires an opinion, right?
It requires the perspective of a trained, informed unbiased opinion. In art, you never hear a major art critic praise a piece as being good because they like it. They praise it because it is technically created by a master of his/her craft - whether it is aesthetically pleasing to the mass's eye or not. You will also find that they appreciate MORE the craftsmanship than the actual piece. This is because they are trained and informed on how it was made and what makes it special. We're talking about two different kinds of opinions here.
Game reviewers are not trained or informed of the goings-on of game development or the craft. How in the world would they know what to be objective about and what not to be objective about?
No, it does not require someone to be unbiased. Reviews always have been and always will be tinted with bias. Craftsmanship is just one part of many parts that are reviewed in almost any artistic medium. What you are describing is not a review, but some kind of an analysis of their game code.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
wow on launch was better than eso is now, and I been playing wow since early betas, being european i played both korean/asian and na betas, and still was better experience than eso
saying bad press is killing the game, I would say press is too forgiving considering how much eso charges, no mmorpg charges full console price ( there REALLY WAS NO MMO that charged 60$, even worse in uk where its 50 pounds.. to normal 25-35, latest final fantasy was 15.. or 20$), + sub + cash shop
Bad press is killing the game because eso droped nda for press, so according to you zenimax should lie about everything and never drop nda until launch and trick people into buying the game...thats some good logic there
WoW was a unplayable train wreck at launch with queues in the thousands and latency that could only be measured by NASA.
As I know there are only three reasons to make a review. You have been paid. You cannot hold your excitement about something. Or you have a hidden agenda. There is no altruistic reviews. “sway the reader(s) into making their final decision” - isn’t it contradictory? If you “sway the readers”, it will not be ever “their own” decision! Don’t you know that?
It seems only appropriate in this context to ask you: Have you been paid for your post? Do you have a hidden agenda? Are you overexcited about this game?
Why does the agenda have to be hidden? If something stinks and a lot of people tell me it stinks, then I'm a lot less likely to pay full price for it. In this instance, and from all the reviews I've read, I don't think I'll be paying full box price and $15 a month for this game. Every video I've watched and every review I've read has convinced me that this stinker will be F2P in the future. I can wait that long easily.
Lots and lots of good games out there, no reason to jump on a turd and ride it to the toilet just cause everyone else is.
Exactly my point: All of them giving the same forecast based on absolutely nothing but opinions of a half-made game. It's already affected YOU. Instead of actually trying to get into Beta, playing it, and experiencing it... you're already waiting for it to fail.
This is my point exactly.
Yes.... a half made game weeks before it's release. No wonder it's catch so much bad press, lol.
Are you just trying to be argumentative? It's half-made in the sense that they played an old build.
God... why do I even bother trying to communicate with people like you? You don't listen. You aren't trying to communicate. You're just trying to improve your own image of an ego by picking apart every single little thing you can. And it doesn't accomplish... anything.
I'm not trying to argue with anyone. I'm just trying to talk with you - try to get on the same page, here.
The problem is that we've heard it before. AoC supposedly had us beta testing an early build that was running in debug mode, making it unstable and that at launch everything would be fixed! Come launch...nope, still broke. Same with plenty of others. I'm not saying I don't have hope for TESO but this isn't the first time we've heard the same old song and dance.
As I know there are only three reasons to make a review. You have been paid. You cannot hold your excitement about something. Or you have a hidden agenda. There is no altruistic reviews. “sway the reader(s) into making their final decision” - isn’t it contradictory? If you “sway the readers”, it will not be ever “their own” decision! Don’t you know that?
It seems only appropriate in this context to ask you: Have you been paid for your post? Do you have a hidden agenda? Are you overexcited about this game?
Why does the agenda have to be hidden? If something stinks and a lot of people tell me it stinks, then I'm a lot less likely to pay full price for it. In this instance, and from all the reviews I've read, I don't think I'll be paying full box price and $15 a month for this game. Every video I've watched and every review I've read has convinced me that this stinker will be F2P in the future. I can wait that long easily.
Man, if it's a stinker to you... why would you play it even at F2P?
Honestly, I think that's the real thing I hate about F2P: it brings in people who don't even want to be there. Everything else (p2w, paygates, whatever) is a matter of implementation that can be resolved. But playing with people who obviously think it's a turd, but are just as obviously willing to ride that turd if it's free...
I think you misread my intent. It's a turd if it costs full price plus a sub, but it doesn't look so bad that I wouldn't give it a shot if it was free, and then decide whether I want go behind the pay wall on my own. Every review I've read has said the same thing; this game isn't worth $60.00 plus $15.00 a month.
FFS, the game has a box price and a sub and they're STILL locking things behind a pay wall. That's un-fucking-acceptable. Either there's a pay wall and everything in game is obtainable through in-game means, or it's F2P and you lock things behind a pay wall. If they're already introducing pay walls, then I'll wait until it's F2P and then choose which pay walls I want to pay for.
Comments
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Its an impression, not a review. He went though and played the game and described what he saw. Talked about what he liked and disliked. He is going to do an impression on the pvp soon. He may hive an overall review at some point, but that will probably be after the game releases. No where does it say in reviews that you have to do half of the stuff you are talking about though. Most critiques are editorials after all.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
You can't be serious. Please tell me you don't hear/read what the press have to say and go, "Okay, that's the way it is, then."
and go on about your life. Please tell me there was sarcasm in there.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/review?s=t
"Review" does not even remotely imply "opinion."
What a review is, is a critical observation and evaluation of a persons' work. The word "critical" here means that the person doing the review first has to know what to look for and to be able to communicate where the break-down occurs. In essence, they have to know what they are talking about. This is purely based on trained knowledge of the craft - not how it makes them feel. They have to first have an objective understanding and base point of reference to what the work was trying to achieve. They then evaluate the work on how well the work achieved the goal based on an un-biased understanding of mechanical definitions. This is why it is important to understand the value of an authority.
When people listen to stories about the war, they tend to accept what a soldier says over a politician. Why? Because he has actual working knoweldge of the craft, and is therefore automatically, without question, recognized as a better representative of authority of the situation, rather than a politician and his opinion theories.
Game reviewers are not trained in the knowledge of the craft, and are thusly not qualified to administer a critical review of games by any stretch of the imagination. This is why they rely on their opinions - it's all they have, because they have no working knowledge of the actual craft. They use their ability to write and persuasion, rhetoric, to have you agree with their opinion. If you agree, you will likely revisit the site - which means more money. If you disagree, you probably won't. Either way, they are also being paid to keep you coming back - because they are ENTERTAINMENT.
A review is not an opinion. An opinion that claims to be a review is still just an opinion. I use the word "review" in former contexts because that is what they are known by. I'm sorry if you can't understand this.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Regardless of how critical the reviews might be, the fact remains that Zenimax has an NDA in place that prevents discussions. The press are allowed to post reviews about their experience in the game, but since they had to start from the beginning, those reviews will all be focused on the starting area experience, and the systems that you can access early on.
I'm sure we all remember Age of Conan? Probably one of the absolute best and most fun MMORPG's ever to hit the market, until you got to level 20 and left the starting area of Tortage. Then all the voice acting went away, all the clever quests disappeared, and you were left with a pale husk of grinding your way through generic levels of content, on an engine which performed badly when outside the short-draw-distance confines of the starting areas.
Will TESO be like that? Or will it get better as you hit the later content? Past history with dozens of MMO's suggests the odds of it getting better are pretty slim, and the fact that they keep the NDA in place lends credence to that conclusion.
If they really have faith in the quality of their game, they would lift the NDA entirely and let the long-time beta testers tell us about the later content (or lack thereof). The fact that they don't, makes me think they're following the same old trend of making a highly polished newbie zone to draw people into buying it at launch, and then hoping they can finish the rest of the game before everyone gets out of those areas and gets bored.
Prove me wrong, Zenimax.
Why does your list of questions not include, "Are you overly disappointed in the game?"
Edit: NM. I can't believe I missed the sarcasm.
The notion that reviews can not express opinions or else they should not be called reviews is laughable. You do realize that critiquing a piece of art requires a perspective which requires an opinion, right?
Agree short and clear .
You aren't evaluating the whole work, per say. You're evaluating the execution of skills involved with the work. You can absolutely critically evaluate creative work when you break it down to it's execution of fundamental skills. This is why a lot of fine art like Picasso, which is arguably nonsensical and aesthetically ugly, are prized, priceless art possessions.
Exactly my point: All of them giving the same forecast based on absolutely nothing but opinions of a half-made game. It's already affected YOU. Instead of actually trying to get into Beta, playing it, and experiencing it... you're already waiting for it to fail.
This is my point exactly.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Man, if it's a stinker to you... why would you play it even at F2P?
Honestly, I think that's the real thing I hate about F2P: it brings in people who don't even want to be there. Everything else (p2w, paygates, whatever) is a matter of implementation that can be resolved. But playing with people who obviously think it's a turd, but are just as obviously willing to ride that turd if it's free...
It requires the perspective of a trained, informed unbiased opinion. In art, you never hear a major art critic praise a piece as being good because they like it. They praise it because it is technically created by a master of his/her craft - whether it is aesthetically pleasing to the mass's eye or not. You will also find that they appreciate MORE the craftsmanship than the actual piece. This is because they are trained and informed on how it was made and what makes it special. We're talking about two different kinds of opinions here.
Game reviewers are not trained or informed of the goings-on of game development or the craft. How in the world would they know what to be objective about and what not to be objective about?
I'd just like to harp on what another poster said.
Game reviewers are almost *always* overly-lenient and too nice when it comes to new games. Try to understand that there are very few reviewers who test MMORPG's correctly.
When I say what's underlined, I want to make this point very clear: I personally consider correctly reviewing a game in this genre requires at least 60 hours of time-played to formulate an accurate, adequate opinion.
Most of the reviews out there are based on less than 24 hours of play time. There is simply no possible way you can get your hands dirty in a play-test weekend, I'm sorry, it's not possible. Oh, you crafted a dozen items? Good for you. You got to level 15-20? Great! You did your first group-based dungeon? Congratulations! You successfully played through the very beginning of the game, which typically is the most polished, well-tested area of any MMORPG to be released. From this time, you make deductions about how the game will probably play for the rest of the game, how you assume the content will work, what you expect will develop over the next 100 hours.
This is a cardinal sin related specifically to *this* genre of gaming.
If you need an example, let's cite one of the most notorious cases of deception in history: Age of Conan. The starter area and tutorial area was polished, pristine, and very refined. Except the second you left what I'll refer to as Newb Island, the trainwreck of a game became apparent. Let's not even get into all the details, like the Field of the Dead audio CTD bug.
When I think of how many MMO's are inadequately reviewed like this, it's actually kind of sickening. Even the non-true MMORPG's, like Diablo 3 for example, are given great scores solely because of the name of the franchise. Does anyone remember how utterly ****ed FFXIV for the first month? How about GW2 and it's endless bugs? Another non-true MMO that comes to mind is SimCity; still ****ed to this day!
Now, with that said, you really, really have to worry when there are so many negative reviews in existence before the game even comes out. Honestly, this is typically the time when the brown-nosing and the endless praise runs HIGHEST! Whether it's a lack of adequate testing, the "new-game" hype, the shiny new polish, etc, these pre-release test phases are usually glistening with good news. But with the NDA upheld and all, there's an overwhelmingly negative reaction to the game. That says a LOT to me personally; it means that even with all the hype, the advertisement, the marketing, etc, there's still at least some consensus among the players that this game isn't going to be that great... and that is super, super rare in today's market.
I'll just say this. If you look at all of the professional review sites out there, they're singing the praises of the game, downplaying the criticisms, defending the title, etc. But when you dig a little deeper, it's the independent users and the random, previously unbeknownst gamers who are saying "Hey... not so fast. This game isn't good at all...."
Just something to consider.
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
Are you just trying to be argumentative? It's half-made in the sense that they played an old build.
God... why do I even bother trying to communicate with people like you? You don't listen. You aren't trying to communicate. You're just trying to improve your own image of an ego by picking apart every single little thing you can. And it doesn't accomplish... anything.
I'm not trying to argue with anyone. I'm just trying to talk with you - try to get on the same page, here.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
No, it does not require someone to be unbiased. Reviews always have been and always will be tinted with bias. Craftsmanship is just one part of many parts that are reviewed in almost any artistic medium. What you are describing is not a review, but some kind of an analysis of their game code.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
stwor fellings...
i'm out.
WoW was a unplayable train wreck at launch with queues in the thousands and latency that could only be measured by NASA.
The problem is that we've heard it before. AoC supposedly had us beta testing an early build that was running in debug mode, making it unstable and that at launch everything would be fixed! Come launch...nope, still broke. Same with plenty of others. I'm not saying I don't have hope for TESO but this isn't the first time we've heard the same old song and dance.
I think you misread my intent. It's a turd if it costs full price plus a sub, but it doesn't look so bad that I wouldn't give it a shot if it was free, and then decide whether I want go behind the pay wall on my own. Every review I've read has said the same thing; this game isn't worth $60.00 plus $15.00 a month.
FFS, the game has a box price and a sub and they're STILL locking things behind a pay wall. That's un-fucking-acceptable. Either there's a pay wall and everything in game is obtainable through in-game means, or it's F2P and you lock things behind a pay wall. If they're already introducing pay walls, then I'll wait until it's F2P and then choose which pay walls I want to pay for.