Ryzom

Im really sick of seeing those kind of reviews. Reviews writen by someone who clearly havent played or havent played enough ( more then 15 hours ) to write. I hope devs are not reading those... its quite a turnoff.

Ive posted my opinion on their review in both forums (IGN and Gamespot both with screen name "FSNFMS"). I hope people will go read my comments before making their opinion based on such bad and poorly done reviews.

Both of those reviews are full of false fact about the game, pure disinformation. Perfect exemple of bad journalism.

I cant believe those guys are paid to write such piece of crap.

trosky wrote:Im really sick of seeing those kind of reviews. Reviews writen by someone who clearly havent played or havent played enough ( more then 15 hours ) to write. I hope devs are not reading those... its quite a turnoff.

Ive posted my opinion on their review in both forums (IGN and Gamespot both with screen name "FSNFMS"). I hope people will go read my comments before making their opinion based on such bad and poorly done reviews.

Both of those reviews are full of false fact about the game, pure disinformation. Perfect exemple of bad journalism.

I cant believe those guys are paid to write such piece of crap.

That's the problem they are usually paid TO write such crap. Makes you wonder what they also get on the side for giving bad reviews to games they most obviously haven't ever played. Something to think about.

Short but more realistic review :

http://www.gamers.com/index.html?run=re ... iew_id=355

I agree completly. One very important point I want to make. My problem with those reviews is NOT that they gave ryzom a bad rating. My problem is that both articles are written with incorrect facts. Lets take the gamespot review for example. The reviewer states "Ryzom was released earlier this year in Europe,
so it's surprising that the game is still missing so many promised features."

This is very misleading. The statement makes it sound as if the game was released in Europe months ago, and that like FFXI there was a long period where the game ran before it came to the US. That is not the case. Saga of Ryzom was released in the US on September 22, 2004. It was released in Europe one week earlier. The game has been out of Beta just over one month.

There are other areas where the reviewers opinions are based upon incorrect information. Among them he states that players have such a limited inventory it will effect their ability to sell things. A player has a limit of 300 items. If that is not enough a player can buy a animal to carry an additional amount. He also states that there isn't anything to do but improve player stats and that there is lots of loot that serves no purpose (he complains of the loot all feature being useless). The fact is that there is an entire fame system that deals with those very items. You could get a mission to go get some meat for a tribe. The meat is one of the "useless" items he complains of.

I have emailed a letter of complaint to gamespot concerning the incorrect facts in that review. I hope that other fans and the makers do the same.

Gamespot just closed my post about SoR, heres what they (Gamespot) had to say : "If you enjoy the game, more power to you my friend. But, reviews are meant to be opinions and ONLY opinions, and as such you are entitled to your own opinion as well......but you can leave your skewed and biased speculations about GameSpot at the door." from Jeremy Yerby
Senior Moderator, GameSpot. And he locked the post. So i started a new one for my answer

Im not the one skewd and biased, your reviewer is...

shazzy wrote:That's the problem they are usually paid TO write such crap. Makes you wonder what they also get on the side for giving bad reviews to games they most obviously haven't ever played. Something to think about.

Nothing. Trust me, reviewers don't get paid money to review bad games favorably or good games poorly. They get paid money to review games. Period. How do I know? Because I am one. I've never been pressured to give a game a certain score for any reason. I've been in contact with a publisher one day before I wrote the review for their game, and still given the game a poor score because the game was bad, even though the publisher and developers were very nice and friendly people. They are, really. But remember that the reviewer is there solely to make sure you, the customer, doesn't waste any of your money. We don't write reviews simply to bash or praise those hard-working developers and publishers. If I wanted to write only favorable words about games, I'd write ad copy.

Raynes has a good idea about writing a polite letter to Gamespot complaining about the mistakes in their Ryzom review. Here are a few hints to increase your chances of being heard instead of ignored: don't say the reviewer didn't really play the game or isn't a fan of the genre. I reviewed a game that I just didn't like. I explained the myriad reasons I didn't like the game and scored it low. Fans called me an amateur (not true), said I didn't like the genre and that they should get someone who did (again, not true; I'd played games in that genre most people never even heard of), and said I never gave the game a chance (once again, not true). It's hard to take someone seriously when they are making assumptions about you they pulled out of thin air and allowing those assumptions to influence their ideas. Those are called flights of alternate reality.

Don't call the reviewer or Gamespot names in your letter. You're trying to get your thoughts heard, and it's hard to pay attention to someone who's calling you names. (Do you like to listen to someone calling you an idiot?)

Keep your letter focused on the incorrect facts mentioned and how they might have influenced the opinion of the game, not the opinions themselves. There's no such thing as an incorrect opinion. Even with all the facts, it's still possible to dislike a game, even Ryzom.

Although I've almost given up on even mentioning this, making an effort at grammar and punctuation. Please. The more incomprehensible your letter is, the less seriously it's taken. People tend to be forgiving of mistakes because English isn't your first language, but using chat speak isn't the same thing.

They should base everything on facts rather than fiction or face the sack. Sure people are entitled to having an opinion but when they lie because they were to lazy to take a deeper insight into the game then that is a bad reviewer. Surely you can agree on that.
Maybe they don't get paid to make awful reviews about games but that is what they come across as doing to the outsider, when they write totaly inaccurate reviews.

Unregistered wrote:This is FANBOI at his best. The reviews are on the money. There are reviews of the CURRENT state of the game and not what will someday will be added to the game.
This game lacks of many things already explained on the reviews.

The article is inaccurate. Here is a news article from gamespots own site concerning the launch of the game:
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/sagaryzo ... 07756.html

Unregistered wrote:This is FANBOI at his best. The reviews are on the money. There are reviews of the CURRENT state of the game and not what will someday will be added to the game.
This game lacks of many things already explained on the reviews.

Trollboi at his worst.