Contact gamespot about their review

[trosky]

Belgeron : The review is not fair, read all my post and tell me im wrong... try to argue...

You have the right not to love the game, dont play it. But remember it is first month and most mmorpg have huge issus at release.

The review was simply to early and he should have considered every aspect of the games...

[belgeron]

I guess to me, a review less than a month after release is nearly worthless for an MMO. This is especially true if the review has a strong focus on bugs in the game or features not yet added to the game. I wish more of the game sites and magazines would review these MMOs every 6 months or so to get a feel for what the game is like today. The only time most MMOs on most sites get a second review is if an expansion comes out, and typically that review is only on new features in the expansion, not on the entire game itself.

For example, when most people think of Anarchy Online, the first thing to come to mind is horrible launch. But guess what? That was over 3 years ago now, and the game has much more to offer now than it did then. It would be nice to get a review of the base game again now, mentioning whether it has a vibrant community, listing if it's buggy or not, etc. The same goes for other games that had a rough start - AC2, SWG, etc. Perhaps some of these games are dramatically improved (AC2) or perhaps they are nearly as buggy and unbalanced as when they first released (SWG). Is a game dying or thriving after it's been out for over 5 years (UO)? I don't want to join a declining game, but would be interested in trying something that's established. Ongoing reviews would be useful for sorting that sort of thing out.

Of course, PCGamer after lambasting AO at launch, made it their MMO game of the year and specifically pointed out all the improvements. As they did with World War II online, and others. I want to see a review at launch, and every 6 months, and I think PCGamer does a good job of keeping up with the development of MMO's.

Unlike so many others, I don't particularly want to pay for an unfinished game at this point when there are so many games out there to play. Sure, I'll come back if I hear it's worth it, but MMO's should not be given breaks for the condition of the game when they expect us to start paying for it.

-Celedon

[belgeron]

To be honest in order to compare City of Heroes and Ryzom you would need to take out all loot, all crafting, all harvesting, all weapons, all armor, pretty much all items, the fame system, the game weather, and change in the game environment, and change all mobs so they look and act the same. Then have nothing but missions where the NPC's tell you to go kill the various types of Yubos. The fact is that City of Heroes seems like such a great game because they took out every complex MMO system know to gaming.

Heck even the new badge system they introduced is nothing more that tedious job type work. Go here, go kill x many enemies, go see this. It's actually sad that the new better generation of MMO is considered better because it has less to it.

And you complain about dishonest reviews? City of Heroes taskforces worked, bugged but worked. They had instanced quests from day one, despite your assertion that the quests consisted of only Kill this. Granted you were just killin in the same building, many times over, but its not as your describe.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge defender of CoH due to the same lack of depth I see in this game. But the combat and fighting in CoH is infinitely more engaging than Ryzom. The character diversity much more infinite, and the fun factor much higher.

Granted, not a play for 2 years game like I want in an MMO, but a fast, fun, action game that deserves the high sales and high reviews it got. Comparing an original vision like City of Heroes, to this Horizons v2, I find laughable.

[cerest]

Oh it's like I have a crystal ball that I can see into the future and see that this thread is going to start into "this game is better/worse than this game, but when that game launched it was horrible/smooth, ya but the content sucked/kicked you-know-what". If this thread doesn't stop the game vs. game war it'll be closed.

Ok, that being said, Janicki is entitled to his review and opinion even if it sheds SoR in a bad light.

[trosky]

I agree with Cerest, but the thing is that the reviewer not only didnt like the game and say so, is doing miserable journalism and doesnt follow the unwritten law of fair evaluation.

Dont you believe he might be hurting the game (Gamespot is one of the most popular review site) by doing such a bad review.

[korin77]

One thing I have to agree on... the jumping and swiming around little bumps in the water. There are so many minor barriers that chars can get around in other games that they can't do here. AO is not the only one, you can do so in DAOC and EQ. In EQ and AO you could even levitate/fly.

[zzeii]

One thing I have to agree on... the jumping and swiming around little bumps in the water. There are so many minor barriers that chars can get around in other games that they can't do here. AO is not the only one, you can do so in DAOC and EQ. In EQ and AO you could even levitate/fly.

Yea, you could jump and fly in super mario brothers 3 as well...

[raynes]

Ok, that being said, Janicki is entitled to his review and opinion even if it sheds SoR in a bad light.

Actually he's not entitled to publish a review and opinion that contains misleading or false information. Which is what he did (even if it wasn't intentional). That is what this thread is about.

[Fred1l1]

Yea, you could jump and fly in super mario brothers 3 as well...

And hence that was the best game ever

[lucid120]

I agree with Cerest, but the thing is that the reviewer not only didnt like the game and say so, is doing miserable journalism and doesnt follow the unwritten law of fair evaluation.

Dont you believe he might be hurting the game (Gamespot is one of the most popular review site) by doing such a bad review.

It is a review, a critique. I don't understand how you can expect a game critic to be ANY different from any other type of critic in the entertainment industry, where they base their review on exactly how THEY felt about the game. It's not some robotic regurgitation of facts, otherwise it's not much of a review.

He has proven that he gave the game a fair shake and based his article on what he believed to be the truth. Whether you agree with him or not has absolutely nothing to do with journalistic value and everything to do with your own personal bias.

Basically, if you don't like reviews being semi-analytical pieces that are, by design, colored by the personal feelings of the author, I suggest you don't read reviews at all. Fact sheets are probably more your style.