So AA was subject to a double-standard that other titles reviewed weren't subject to? Got it..
So those comparing AA to other titles based on score would know that? Doesn't seem right to me!
You don't reinvent scoring rules for a single title when other scores were not subject to the same standards. This makes the score MEANINGLESS!
THe way I look at it is, games like Wildstar, TOR or basically any other themepark doesn't take as much time to review, the content is what's on review and the way it's designed. A game like AA will take longer to see what's in store as the main game is one of how the community develops. Two totally different types of criteria to score on.
That is a very good point, not sure you can compare reviews of MMORPG theme parks to more sand box style games, however it's debatable how much of a sandbox game AA really is for some folks.
Sure, it's got some interesting mechanics that make it stand out, but it's enough of a hybrid that comparisons will be inevitable.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
MMORPG.com please RE review this title and this time put some real revieweron it. Someone with experience in MMORPG's like SWG pre cu.
Its inaccetable to have a wannabe reviewer with that backgraound on bad MMORPG taste to runining the credability of your site.
This is the same reviewer who game Wildstar an 8.4.
Archeage's review was special in that the reviewer delayed the review so that he could experience more of the game and thus give a more full review.
Had the reviewer done the same for Wildstar, I imagine there's a good chance his review would have turned out markedly different (same goes for almost everyone. Tons of people LOVED Wildstar during their honeymoon period for it, but then after time went on.... WHOOSH)
Again, if you look at the "review in progress" articles the reviewer made, you can see the reviewer's words regarding the game get more and more negative as time goes on. I can only imagine the same would have been the case for Wildstar... possibly (probably!) even worse.
(note that not ALL MMOs decline that badly after the Honeymoon. Wildstar does because it has horrible end-game and no alt-progression for levelling alts, both of which are factors you wouldn't know if you don't play the game long enough, while AA does because it has so many new systems that other MMOs don't have that it takes a while to go through them all and takes a good chunk of time before most players realize that most of them "are not worth doing" for them like the review says, which again are factors you don't realize if you don't play the game long enough)
So AA was subject to a double-standard that other titles reviewed weren't subject to? Got it..
So those comparing AA to other titles based on score would know that? Doesn't seem right to me!
You don't reinvent scoring rules for a single title when other scores were not subject to the same standards. This makes the score MEANINGLESS!
Yes, it does make the score meaningless in a lot of ways. That's why most people should look at the words of the review, not the score. And honestly, that's what most people are doing, so I don't see the problem here. Some say "I would have given it a higher number" and some say "I would have given it a lower number" but you don't really see anyone here saying "AA is even worse than Wildstar!". Probably because everyone knows how bad Wildstar is, anyways, but yea.
Basically, even AA's biggest haters aren't going to be crazy enough to say Wildstar is better than AA despite getting a higher score, nor has any yet far as I can tell.
Many people on the internet webs searching for a MMORPG come here believing a site named "MMORPG.com" is like a "reference point" for the MMOPRG genre.
They open the game list and go by the ratings, they don't take time reading reviews....
Personally i experience the case that many in my guild are hesitant to follow me in Archage influenced by the negativity of this site and the inaccurate and wrong ratings, depsite that fact that whoever joined me reporting having the most fun since long time and that this MMO has the most features and you can do most things in any MMO he was playing before.
Herein lyis the reposnsiility of a reviewer. His writings have to be objective and have to be based on data. him "having fun" or not is not a valid category or even a valid sentence in a objective review.
he can write about personal feelings and bias at the end after he casted a objective verdict about the game.
Now it will cost me lots of unneeded effort because of these wrongly and inaccurate gameplay rating to convince my guild.
Many people on the internet webs searching for a MMORPG come here believing a site named "MMORPG.com" is like a "reference point" for the MMOPRG genre.
They open the game list and go by the ratings, they don't take time reading reviews....
Personally i experience the case that many in my guild are hesitant to follow me in Archage influenced by the negativity of this site and the inaccurate and wrong ratings, depsite that fact that whoever joined me reporting having the most fun since long time and that this MMO has the most features and you can do most things in any MMO he was playing before.
Herein lyis the reposnsiility of a reviewer. His writings have to be objective and have to be based on data. him "having fun" or not is not a valid category or even a valid sentence in a objective review.
he can write about personal feelings and bias at the end after he casted a objective verdict about the game.
Now it will cost me lots of unneeded effort because of these wrongly and inaccurate gameplay rating to convince my guild.
7+ is actually not a bad score, though. If anything, I imagine your guild probably read the words of the review, which are more negative than a 7+ score would indicate (IMHO, at least).
And having fun is the whole point of a game. If a reviewer isn't having fun with a game, it's their duty to say so and to review the game as such. Games are supposed to be fun. Reviews are supposed to tell people if a game is fun or not. If AA failed to be fun for the reviewer even after the reviewer took extra time to experience its features (and, although it wasn't mentioned that much in the review, the reviewer did experience the social features too. He mentions having a guild that he "loves very much" in the game), then it's the reviewer's duty to tell everyone, "Yea, I played the game for several months and tried out the game's features extensively and honestly, it just wasn't fun."
People, your guild included, don't want to start a game, dedicate lots of time into the game developing their character, and pay for the game only to find out that in the end, it just ends up not being that fun later on. It's a reviewer's job to say "Yea, I dedicated lots of time into this game, experienced it with the benefits a paid player would have had because I had the cash shop stuff gifted to me for free by Trion, and I still didn't find the game very fun later on" so that other people don't have to go through the same thing.
(of course, it's also the reviewer's job to point out WHY he didn't find the game fun, too. Which this reviewer did.)
Many people on the internet webs searching for a MMORPG come here believing a site named "MMORPG.com" is like a "reference point" for the MMOPRG genre.
They open the game list and go by the ratings, they don't take time reading reviews....
Personally i experience the case that many in my guild are hesitant to follow me in Archage influenced by the negativity of this site and the inaccurate and wrong ratings, depsite that fact that whoever joined me reporting having the most fun since long time and that this MMO has the most features and you can do most things in any MMO he was playing before.
Herein lyis the reposnsiility of a reviewer. His writings have to be objective and have to be based on data. him "having fun" or not is not a valid category or even a valid sentence in a objective review.
he can write about personal feelings and bias at the end after he casted a objective verdict about the game.
Now it will cost me lots of unneeded effort because of these wrongly and inaccurate gameplay rating to convince my guild.
7+ is actually not a bad score, though. If anything, I imagine your guild probably read the words of the review, which are more negative than a 7+ score would indicate (IMHO, at least).
And having fun is the whole point of a game. If a reviewer isn't having fun with a game, it's their duty to say so and to review the game as such. Games are supposed to be fun. Reviews are supposed to tell people if a game is fun or not. If AA failed to be fun for the reviewer even after the reviewer took extra time to experience its features (and, although it wasn't mentioned that much in the review, the reviewer did experience the social features too. He mentions having a guild that he "loves very much" in the game), then it's the reviewer's duty to tell everyone, "Yea, I played the game for several months and tried out the game's features extensively and honestly, it just wasn't fun."
People, your guild included, don't want to start a game, dedicate lots of time into the game developing their character, and pay for the game only to find out that in the end, it just ends up not being that fun later on. It's a reviewer's job to say "Yea, I dedicated lots of time into this game, experienced it with the benefits a paid player would have had because I had the cash shop stuff gifted to me for free by Trion, and I still didn't find the game very fun later on" so that other people don't have to go through the same thing.
(of course, it's also the reviewer's job to point out WHY he didn't find the game fun, too. Which this reviewer did.)
"Fun" is completely, blatantly and obviously subjective. Anyone basing their decision on what someone else thinks is "fun" is a fool. A profession reviewer should also know this, so having the entire review hinge on "fun" alone is also a horrible approach.
Heck as most of us have experienced by now is that due to the sheer number of options an MMOer has these days, it is rare for a group of friends to even enjoy the same game together anymore. This is primarily due to taste what what others find fun. Some find anything that isn't combat related boring (cough cough ... reviewer), some find exploring, gathering, decorating, collecting, etc fun.
The problem here is the reviewer presented a subjective opinion as a fact to those who may not know better. In my case, I find all those things he found boring, extremely engaging. The fact that everything has purpose and fits together, all pointing towards progression is "fun" for me.
So what's the point he asks? The point is that contrary to the current trend, MMO's take time, dedication and a lot of work to accomplish goals. Even though MMO's of late hand you end game gear for just logging on, that isn't what they were supposed to be. The point is to progress and AA gives ways to progress that other games have never offered in a single one stop package. It just seems to me that the reviewer prefers to progress using familiar methods and these familiar methods need to be consistantly fun. Sorry, that is what action/FPS games are for not MMO's. Progression isn't always fun but at least in AA, I have many ways to accomplish my goals unlike most MMO's these days which are far more limited.
And yes, I know that a review by definition is based on opinion. I am just not buying his opinion and how he got there.
Probably should have just given AA a 10/10. And instead of explaining why the reviewer gave it that review just list all the game features and show a bunch of scenery screenshots to show people how pretty the game is. And when questioned what he really thought of the game, the reviewer would simply point to some pretty pictures and list the game features again.
Comments
That is a very good point, not sure you can compare reviews of MMORPG theme parks to more sand box style games, however it's debatable how much of a sandbox game AA really is for some folks.
Sure, it's got some interesting mechanics that make it stand out, but it's enough of a hybrid that comparisons will be inevitable.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Many people on the internet webs searching for a MMORPG come here believing a site named "MMORPG.com" is like a "reference point" for the MMOPRG genre.
They open the game list and go by the ratings, they don't take time reading reviews....
Personally i experience the case that many in my guild are hesitant to follow me in Archage influenced by the negativity of this site and the inaccurate and wrong ratings, depsite that fact that whoever joined me reporting having the most fun since long time and that this MMO has the most features and you can do most things in any MMO he was playing before.
Herein lyis the reposnsiility of a reviewer. His writings have to be objective and have to be based on data. him "having fun" or not is not a valid category or even a valid sentence in a objective review.
he can write about personal feelings and bias at the end after he casted a objective verdict about the game.
Now it will cost me lots of unneeded effort because of these wrongly and inaccurate gameplay rating to convince my guild.
7+ is actually not a bad score, though. If anything, I imagine your guild probably read the words of the review, which are more negative than a 7+ score would indicate (IMHO, at least).
And having fun is the whole point of a game. If a reviewer isn't having fun with a game, it's their duty to say so and to review the game as such. Games are supposed to be fun. Reviews are supposed to tell people if a game is fun or not. If AA failed to be fun for the reviewer even after the reviewer took extra time to experience its features (and, although it wasn't mentioned that much in the review, the reviewer did experience the social features too. He mentions having a guild that he "loves very much" in the game), then it's the reviewer's duty to tell everyone, "Yea, I played the game for several months and tried out the game's features extensively and honestly, it just wasn't fun."
People, your guild included, don't want to start a game, dedicate lots of time into the game developing their character, and pay for the game only to find out that in the end, it just ends up not being that fun later on. It's a reviewer's job to say "Yea, I dedicated lots of time into this game, experienced it with the benefits a paid player would have had because I had the cash shop stuff gifted to me for free by Trion, and I still didn't find the game very fun later on" so that other people don't have to go through the same thing.
(of course, it's also the reviewer's job to point out WHY he didn't find the game fun, too. Which this reviewer did.)
"Fun" is completely, blatantly and obviously subjective. Anyone basing their decision on what someone else thinks is "fun" is a fool. A profession reviewer should also know this, so having the entire review hinge on "fun" alone is also a horrible approach.
Heck as most of us have experienced by now is that due to the sheer number of options an MMOer has these days, it is rare for a group of friends to even enjoy the same game together anymore. This is primarily due to taste what what others find fun. Some find anything that isn't combat related boring (cough cough ... reviewer), some find exploring, gathering, decorating, collecting, etc fun.
The problem here is the reviewer presented a subjective opinion as a fact to those who may not know better. In my case, I find all those things he found boring, extremely engaging. The fact that everything has purpose and fits together, all pointing towards progression is "fun" for me.
So what's the point he asks? The point is that contrary to the current trend, MMO's take time, dedication and a lot of work to accomplish goals. Even though MMO's of late hand you end game gear for just logging on, that isn't what they were supposed to be. The point is to progress and AA gives ways to progress that other games have never offered in a single one stop package. It just seems to me that the reviewer prefers to progress using familiar methods and these familiar methods need to be consistantly fun. Sorry, that is what action/FPS games are for not MMO's. Progression isn't always fun but at least in AA, I have many ways to accomplish my goals unlike most MMO's these days which are far more limited.
And yes, I know that a review by definition is based on opinion. I am just not buying his opinion and how he got there.
Probably should have just given AA a 10/10. And instead of explaining why the reviewer gave it that review just list all the game features and show a bunch of scenery screenshots to show people how pretty the game is. And when questioned what he really thought of the game, the reviewer would simply point to some pretty pictures and list the game features again.
Unbiased review.
Jim Sterling teaches us well.
S.C.I.F.I
<Sights, Clouded, In, False, Illusions>