Contact gamespot about their review

[raynes]

wow talk about nitpicking. Get over it, not all reviews will praise the game, its a fact of life.

Quick! Lets all start a petition to shut gamespot down for good cuz they gave our beloved ryzom a bad review!! 0_o

No one said anything about a petition to shutdown gamespot. As I said the issue isn't the fact that they gave it a negative review. The issue is that they gave it a negative review on false information. Any media that publishes information that is misleading or incorrect information should be confronted about it, and it should be corrected. If I read something in the regular newspaper or saw something on the news that wasn't correct, or was misleading I would (and have) contected them also.

[dc77066]

I read both reviews submitted and what I find obvious is that one reviewer really liked the game and the other didn't like it at all. Both were more or less accurate and representative of the game and colored the review according to their experience. The issues the negative reviewer found are real issues. Either you choose to deal with them or leave the box on the shelf. If you have patience and faith that Ryzom will turn into the game we all hope it will then we'll be in for an enjoyable time.

I love bad movies, ones that are criticially uninspired. Movies that get all the hype I usually find ruined and flat. They always show the best parts in the previews and if a movie really sucks, they show the "Making of..." the same week as its launch. The same goes for games... they show cut-scenes or movies that have nothing to do with gameplay... or come out with "walk-troughs" just so you don't miss the "ingenious" of the game. I read a huge review of SWG and downloaded it... Hated it! Saw the high score for "Eve" and downloaded it... Hated it! I stumbled upon a magazine ad for "Earth and Beyond" and downloaded it and played it for over a year. Loved it! Two thumbs up, a twirl and a snap! Now I play Ryzom. BTW, the critics didn't like "Twilight Zone", "Star Trek", "Farscape", "Firefly"... I used to watch TV before Reality set in... "CSI" almost brought it back for me until it turned into Baskin Robbins... wait I had a point!

Reviews tend to be more about the person reviewing. Remember when posts used to always start with "IMHO"... as an immediate disclaimer to the flame that followed? Its what you bring to the table that determines what you see or experience. Someone pointed out that people in Ryzom tend to refer to other games... this reflects that Ryzom tends to draw the MMORG enthusiasts. I used to hate it when people at work would start a sentence "Well, at my old job we used to do it like this..." My immediate reaction was "Well, you're not at your old job! If it was a good job, you'd had stayed!" Is that my unwillingness to explore new ideas or is it their inability to accept change?? Now that I'm unemployed, I can't wait to get a new job so that I can say "Well, at my old job..."

True, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... and no matter how much you dress it up you still can't light it up in the non-smoking section.

Ok, back to grinding boots...

[raynes]

Just to prove my point about the gamespot article being inaccurate, this is from their own site. It's a news article about the games launch:
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/sagaryzo ... 07756.html

[raul75]

Another one agrees with me. Too bad for Ryzom IGN and GAMESPOT are probably one of the most read sites by gamers.

[stygeon]

The next issue of PCGAMER is supposedly going to review SoR ... however they have in the past dropped those hints and then waited another month to do so.

As far as I know this will be one of the first PRINTED reviews of the game.

[janicki]

>The next issue of PCGAMER is supposedly going to review SoR ...

For what it's worth, I turned down the review in PC Gamer to do the GameSpot review because I wanted the additional word count to more fully describe the game, so the review posted on GameSpot could just as well have appeared in PC Gamer.

I'm happy to debate points. I obviously played the game extensively, which I think is apparent from the review, which contains a lot of substance.

On the reference to the earlier release date in Europe - I guarantee you that the point did not influence the rating at all (and of course, is true, since the game was in beta for many months in Europe and was originally scheduled for release in June, and was released weeks prior to the North American version, so hardware issues/lag and manual inaccuracies/missing features should have been addressed, in my opinion).

I'm glad you're enjoying the game more than I did - as I indicated in the review, there are some good ideas (like the Kitin raids and outpost sieges) that can potentially add a lot to the game, but I don't think that potential is currently being realized, and you have to understand that a review has to focus on the game plays right now - not be based upon its potential (although I highlighted that I thought things could improve).

> class stability as having 'major problems'. Personally I've found the stability of the Ryzom servers

the bug requiring you to reboot if you enter a vacant training room, the Linksys router problems, the Lag induced by various patches, the problems with ATI 9000 cards, the task scripting errors, the tasks asking you to find unobtainable materials - some of these problems have been fixed since the review was submitted, but this game definitely has technical issues that can really frustrate some players, especially new ones - the technical issue forum is rife with that sort of frustration.

> get the feeling that this was made based on late beta impressions

I never played the beta.

>If they want to give the game a bad review, then they could just stick to the content aspect. There is nothing to do in Ryzom other than grind out levels. That is a pretty big negative.

Exactly - and that was the main point of the review. As I stated in the review, that is Ryzom's "biggest problem".

>Both were more or less accurate and representative of the game and colored the review according to their experience. The issues the negative reviewer found are real issues

I think that's right. Of course people can come to different conclusions, and have different opinions, about what they like and don't like. All a reviewer can do is explain the basis for arriving at those conclusions, to try to let readers make a more informed decision on their own about whether or not they think they will like the game.

[ZonMezz]

Gamespot gave Anarchy Online a score of 7.6 at release.

Gamespot gave World War II online a score of 5.6. Note: this game was unplayable at release.

Gamespot gave Horizons 6.7.

They gave Shadowbane a 7.9 at release.

Just some fuel for the fire.

Zeke

[lyrah68]

Did you ever watch a movie review? UGH, most of the time, if a movie/game gets a GREAT review, I don't bother, and if it is shot down in flames...I try it.

WHY? because the critics are WIERD, they hardly EVER agree with me, and when they do it is so rare as to be concidered a FLUKE, or everyone and their CAT loves it. (I know saying is DOG, but dogs love anything and everything, and cats...are more particular.)

I think this game is heading in the RIGHT direction, and moving FASTER than ANY other game in the history of the web. SO...I am MORE than willing to pod ahead, make friends, get and give help, watch and wait. Things WILL be better, there will be improvements, bugs will be squashed, new bugs will pop up and be addressed. Sez La Vie as the French would say (pardon me if I miss spelled it, been about 16 years since my last class).

[janicki]

Gamespot gave Anarchy Online a score of 7.6 at release.
Gamespot gave World War II online a score of 5.6. Note: this game was unplayable at release.
Gamespot gave Horizons 6.7.
They gave Shadowbane a 7.9 at release.

You have to remember, that reviews are not necessarily done by the same reviewer, even at the same site. While editors try to ensure consistency when they can, reviews are still primarily the opinions of the individual reviewer.

While I reviewed Ryzom, I reviewed none of those other games. I gave the original release of UO a 4.9, to give you some perspective. Notwithstanding its flaws, I was a fan of SWG and gave it a 76% for PC Gamer.

Of the games you mentioned above, I definitely would have given lower ratings to Anarchy Online and WW2Online, which were buggy disasters when initially released. Same with Horizon. I'd rank Shadowbane higher than Ryzom, however - probably a low 7 upon initial release.

[lizzykos]

On the reference to the earlier release date in Europe - I guarantee you that the point did not influence the rating at all (and of course, is true, since the game was in beta for many months in Europe and was originally scheduled for release in June, and was released weeks prior to the North American version, so hardware issues/lag and manual inaccuracies/missing features should have been addressed, in my opinion).

Janicki, I respect your opinions and your right to base your review upon your experience, but I must point out that you are wrong about this. It was not released in Europe "weeks" before it was released in North America. It was only one week before.

Other than that, your review is well written and well thought out, even if I choose to disagree with it .