Ryzom

"No, it's true, as you indicated yourself - the game was in beta for an extensive time in Europe - it was originally scheduled to be
released in June, and was released in Europe weeks before the North American version, so basic hardware problems and features referenced in the manual should have been fixed. In any event, I guarantee that this had no impact on the rating."

The game was not released weeks before the North American version. It was released one week (actually 4 days). As I pointed out by your very own news articles. The servers became live in Europe on September 16th. The North American Servers became live on the 20th. You say that has no bearing on your review, however you make it a point to say the game was released earlier in Europe so they should of had time to fix certain problems. You know as well as I do, that 4 days to a week is not acceptable time for fixing anything. Especially when you are just putting MMO servers live for the first time. The comment is misleading. After reading the way you expressed it, readers would walk away with the impression that Ryzom had a similar
setup as FFXI did. As you state they didn't fix things in the time period
between releases, the reader is going to get the impression that the game maker is not addressing problems when they should. The comment is misleading. It gives a false impression of the game and its start and it should be taken out.

I have to ask if that statement has no impact on the rating,then why is it in the review?


"You misunderstood the comments - I mentioned the fame/task system extensively in the review elsewhere. The second comment is addressing the fact that the "take all" quartering button is useless, since you don't need (and can't use) those items unless you're on a quest."

This is what you wrote concerning the task system:

"The developers plan to introduce a quest system, but right now you're limited to taking on simplistic tasks, such as killing a particular number of a type of creature or finding a specific resource, and these tasks offer only monetary rewards. Many of the tasks in the tutorial area can't actually be accomplished, since the items you're asked to locate aren't available, or the tasks themselves have broken or buggy scripting. There's actually a disincentive to teaming up with other players to take on tasks, since only the player who lands the killing blow gets credit, even if other team members have the same objective."

You state the following "but right now you're limited to taking on simplistic tasks, such as killing a particular number of a type of creature or finding a specific resource, and these tasks offer only monetary rewards".

That is simply incorrect. There are tasks to kill things and to find certain things. However there are also tasks to check out certain outposts which encourages exploration, tasks to make items, and tasks count animal populations. Furthermore it's simply incorrect to say that they only
offer monetary rewards. Many of them don't offer monetary rewards at all, they offer fame (an entire system you fail to mention). So players can work on their fame with various npc groups. This offers them the chance to sell/buy at better prices, offers them a chance to get respawn points they normally wouldn't get, and it opens up higher level missions.

One other area in which your review is incorrect is the following statement:


"Characters also have an extremely limited inventory capacity, so it's generally impossible to carry enough resources or crafted items to maintain a decent mercantile lifestyle."

Each character is limited to 300 items in their inventory. That is on par with most MMO's. However should you run out of inventory space you can buy what are called packers. They are animals that give you additional
storage space, essentially a mule. If you don't feel that 300 items isn't
enough space then please explain why that is.


I'm really not trying to say that you should give Ryzom thrilling ratings. If you played it and you don't think it's a good game in its present state, then you should review it as such. However if you are going to base that review on certain areas of the game then you should do so with correct information, not misleading information. As I have pointed out in numerous places your review gives incorrect information.

raynes wrote:Recently gamespot posted this review of Saga of Ryzom:
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/sagaryzom/review.html

If you read the article it's full of inaccuracies. The biggest one is the comment about the game being released earlier this year in Europe. If gamespot wants to give a game a bad review that is fine, but it's not ok to post incorrect facts. It's even worse to base a review on those incorrect facts. I have sent a letter off to them complaining of the review. If anyone else wishes to do the same, here is the link to the contact form.


http://www.gamespot.com/misc/help/help.html

Nothing in that review mainly that isnt true, get over it.

janicki wrote: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.

Reviews don't exist in a vacum. Magazines of course have major problems with consistancy. One persons 7 is not another persons. However, when I look at a review with a score, I pretty much treat all scores the same. If I dont' know anything at all about a game, I'll look at its score. If its below a 7, I probably wont' even look at it. A score of 5 to me is this game sucks, don't play it at any cost.

The thing about the launch in Europe when I read it the first time really made it seem like the game had been out "live" all this time and now its being released in the US and it "still" sucks.
Many games have delayed launches. Most nobtably SWG, which had a major delay, and when it launched, It still sucked. (I played SWG for a year and a half, I'm a bit of a fan of the game) I have to be honest, that SWG had some major issues at launch. I'd still give the game a 6-7 and that's probably where I'd put Ryzom too.

The review while pointing out real issues, seems overly negative. If Ryzom is a 5, then I'd pretty much rank a lot of other launches as a 5. One authors review is being compared to other authors reviews. Apples and Oranges, but most people see a 5 as a 5. Game sucks, move along. That may indeed be your opinion, but compared to what I think of as a very crappy genere in terms of quality, is harsh.

borguk wrote:Nothing in that review mainly that isnt true, get over it.

I've pointed out quite a few things that are untrue. One being the implication that the game was released in the US well after it was released in the US. The other that missions only give monitary rewards. Again if the thinks the game has negative points that is fine. But as a reviewer for a known gaming site, he should have his fact correct before he posts a review, good or bad.

Since others are already jumping on the release date issue, I'm going to bring up another point.

the bug requiring you to reboot if you enter a vacant training room

This is going to sound like a nit pick, and in a certain sense that would be correct, but you are the first person I have heard of who actually required a reboot in order to fix this bug (unless by reboot you mean restarting ryzom, in which case you really should be flogged for purposely useing misleading terminology). Don't get me wrong, it was an extremely irritating bug that I along with everyone else got hit with numerous times. However, transient bugs such as this really have no place in the a review. The bug was not there when the servers went live, it appeared a few weeks later, and as of 2 patches ago it's now gone.

So, do you suppose that GameSpot is going to go back and add '(update: as of X date this bug as been fixed)'.... yeah, I thought not.

Now, let me make a clarification here lest anyone take this the wrong way. Balance issues are more than legitimate to bring up in a review. Reason being that balance tends to take a lot longer to fix than bugs. Bugs however in many cases can crop up out of nowhere in one patch and be gone again in the next. Any MMO fan knows this, and as such, these types of mentions should be left out or have a caveat of 'at the time this review was written'.

Now janicki, I can't really fault you for giving Ryzom a low score, I think I might not have been quite so harsh, but you have identified many of the frustrations that I have personally observed as well, and that most of the community probably has too.

Raynes ... not to jump to Borguk's defense but you guys have the same post time.

I would think he didnt get your additional post.

I would hope I'm wrong but there seems to be a thread of the reviewer did not leave the newb lands ... I do hope I am wrong but it feels that it was based on that secular section of the game.

Yes the game has numerous bugs listed by other players and that is mentioned. One thing I did not see ... How did the reviewers play experience go in that area. While bugs are not uncommon in different systems running the exact same software it would have been nice to see what his experience was like.

I also have a problem with the designation "major problems" under stability.
Yet they have nothing except the linksys, old-ATI card problems and a couple of creature "rubber banding" incidents to back it up. Where's the horrible lag, server downtime and horrible instability we should be experiencing with a "major problems with stability" game?

This is the same designation ("major problems" under stability) given to Anarchy Online, and a lot of people (including myself) in game currently have the opinion that Ryzom's launch has been more stable than Daoc's.

One other thing:

"In many ways Ryzom seems like a throwback to the first generation of MMORPGs, since it seems to have more in common with the first Asheron's Call than, say, this year's City of Heroes."

Uhm... City of Heroes is boring after about a month. I still have my Asheron's Call account(that's 5 years). In addition, and few people know this, Asheron's Call's launch was seamless. Daoc's launch was pretty stable, but half the game was unfinished. AC never really runs out of stuff to do, and has been that way since launch.

In other words, the author obviously hasn't been playing mmporgs long enough to know that referring to Asheron's Call is actually a complement.

To sum it up: Ryzom could very well have been the most stable launch in the history of mmporg gaming. That gamespot critic obviously hates the game. (I'm obviously a fanboi doh!) That's fine, but the article is misleading, overly negative and therefore completely misrepresents the game.

Zeke

raynes wrote: "The North American Servers became live on the 20th. You .. The comment is misleading. After reading the way you expressed it, readers would walk away with the impression that Ryzom had a similar
setup as FFXI did.

Fair enough - that wasn't my intention. Also, the servers may have gone live on the 20th, but I certainly didn't see copies on shelves until long after that. But the important thing is that the substance of the statement is accurate - there are still missing features including some fundamental gameplay features mentioned in the manual (PvP, mounts, Kami hostility, siege battles) - that's all I was trying to highlight, as I decribed in further detail after that opening statement.

> You state the following "but right now you're limited to taking on simplistic tasks, such as killing a particular number of a type of creature or finding a specific resource, and these tasks offer only monetary rewards". That is simply incorrect. ... there are also tasks to check out certain outposts which encourages exploration, tasks to make items, and tasks count animal populations

It wasn't intended as an exhaustive list, which is why I used the words "such as".

>...it's simply incorrect to say that they only offer monetary reward

What I meant to highlight was that, unlike in other MMOs, you don't receive experience points for solving quests. There's no way to gain xp other than grinding.

>>"Characters also have an extremely limited inventory capacity, so it's generally impossible to carry enough resources or crafted items to maintain a decent mercantile lifestyle." Each character is limited to 300 items in their inventory. That is on par with most MMO's. However should you run out of inventory space you can buy what are called packers.

I strongly disagree with you on this point -- the economic system is a mess in Ryzom. Maybe it'll improve with the planned auction additions, but right now it's far harder than in any other MMO I've seen to lug around the resources (and crafted items) needed to make an ongoing living as a crafter. It's a major flaw, which I'm glad that the developers are trying to address, but I had to review the game based upon what's currently available.


"Desslock"

stygeon wrote: the game has numerous bugs listed by other players and that is mentioned. One thing I did not see ... How did the reviewers play experience go in that area While bugs are not uncommon in different systems running the exact same software it would have been nice to see what his experience was like.

The only bug, or error, I mentioned which I did not personally experience was the problem with early ATI cards, and I only mentioned it because it was a cause of frustration for the other person I was primarily playing the game with (I personally bought two copies of the game).

stygeon wrote: the reviewer did not leave the newb lands ... I do hope I am wrong

Yes, you are certainly wrong on that one. I think I have a pretty legitimate reputation for being thorough (such as my 400+ page strategy guide for Morrowind at GameSpot).

Every review contains inaccuracies, a reviewer wont play the game for weeks and weeks like us (except in the case of planetside where every reviewer became addicted).

There are mistakes and it looks like hes pulled alot from posts WE the player base have posted on the forums.

But basically alot of whats in there is true, its 75% there but its the 25% that isnt which is going to cause the problems.

Imagine Doom3 released with the only nme available being the fat zombie, the lights on and all the doors unlocked from the start to the end of the game.
Nice graphics but linear and repititive to the point that you would get bored.