Darkfall Dev Declines Eurogamer "Re-Review" Offer

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Darkfall Dev Declines Eurogamer "Re-Review" Offer

image

Aventurine has declined Eurogamer's offer of a "re-review" of Darkfall, which scored a highly controversial 2/10 in the original review, saying it would rather let the "fraud" stand than accept a few meaningless concessions.

The dust-up between Aventurine and Eurogamer began earlier this week when the site published Ed Zitron's remarkably harsh review of the MMOG Darkfall, which culminated in a horribly bad 2/10 score. But rather than meekly accepting the assessment, Aventurine fought back, accusing Zitron of fraud and/or incompetence - details of the back and forth can be read here.

Eurogamer eventually offered Aventurine a "do-over," with respected game journalist Kieron Gillen giving it a second look. But after some consideration, the Darkfall crew decided to pass, saying that as long as the original review isn't taken down - which Eurogamer has refused to do - a second review will do it no good.

"We don't need a re-review, we need a real review. We know for a fact that the original review is a fraud and yet Eurogamer stands by it," Aventurine developer Tasos Flambouras wrote in the Darkfall forum. "They should keep standing by it then or take it down based on the evidence we have offered them, the numerous factual errors and omissions, the feedback they're receiving on it, the reviewer's questionable track record, former similar accusations about him, and our word. These half baked measures to save face mean nothing while this assassination piece stands."

He said he spoke to Gillen after the offer was made and believes that while he's quite capable of doing a proper review of the game, he'd rather see Gillen do it for another publication instead of wasting his time and talent "mopping up" after Zitron. More to the point, Aventurine claims that having someone else review the game to see if he agrees with Ed is a wasted effort: "Ed is a fraud, there's nothing to agree with here as far as we're concerned," Flambouras wrote.

"If it's all the same to Eurogamer we'll just take it on the chin and stick with the original review. We don't need their concessions. If they can live with this, so can we," he continued. "2/10 from the likes of Ed Zitron is going to be a badge of honor for us. They can keep that fraud up as our memorial contribution to journalistic integrity and to independent games everywhere. At the very least they may think twice before they try doing this to someone else."

via: VE3D

Permalink

I was wonderring how long this would take.

Well, at least no side has made progress and the nonsense continues.
: )

I honestly have to stand by Aventurine on this one. I've never played Darkfall, but if Eurogamer is in fact refusing to take down the original review, then there really is no point in a second review.

Adventurine just doesn't want their 2/10 review to turn into a 3/10 review and make the game look even worse lol. The game is atrocious.

Im just curious is euro-gamer the only ones who reviewed this game? They sure make it sound that way, what did other people give it?

xmetatr0nx:
Im just curious is euro-gamer the only ones who reviewed this game? They sure make it sound that way, what did other people give it?

The only "official" review i can find is the Eurogamer one, so we might have to wait a while.

xmetatr0nx:
Im just curious is euro-gamer the only ones who reviewed this game? They sure make it sound that way, what did other people give it?

Think Eurogamer was the only ones to review the game thus far. Probably because you literally have to wait until a specific date and time to purchase the game and play it, and no one has mustered up the patience to go through their convoluted process to play the game.

Is it sad this actually makes me want to play the game for kicks?

Ghostwise:
Adventurine just doesn't want their 2/10 review to turn into a 3/10 review and make the game look even worse lol. The game is atrocious.

Well, in the original news article, it stated that the some total of time of activity over 1 account given to Eurogamer was 3 bloody minutes! The other was 2 hours 13 minutes....spread out over 13 sessions (approx average of 10 minutes each)!

Regardless of the game's quality, its pretty obvious the reviewer faked his review.

Doug:

Ghostwise:
Adventurine just doesn't want their 2/10 review to turn into a 3/10 review and make the game look even worse lol. The game is atrocious.

Well, in the original news article, it stated that the some total of time of activity over 1 account given to Eurogamer was 3 bloody minutes! The other was 2 hours 13 minutes....spread out over 13 sessions (approx average of 10 minutes each)!

Regardless of the game's quality, its pretty obvious the reviewer faked his review.

Interesting. That is pretty shitty, but I have to say that is probably all they could play due to server instability and the constant nosebleeds playing the game gives you. Have you played it? It is really bad and shows just how amatuer the developers really are that made the game. I mean....it's really bad.

Ghostwise:

Doug:

Ghostwise:
Adventurine just doesn't want their 2/10 review to turn into a 3/10 review and make the game look even worse lol. The game is atrocious.

Well, in the original news article, it stated that the some total of time of activity over 1 account given to Eurogamer was 3 bloody minutes! The other was 2 hours 13 minutes....spread out over 13 sessions (approx average of 10 minutes each)!

Regardless of the game's quality, its pretty obvious the reviewer faked his review.

Interesting. That is pretty shitty, but I have to say that is probably all they could play due to server instability and the constant nosebleeds playing the game gives you. Have you played it? It is really bad and shows just how amatuer the developers really are that made the game. I mean....it's really bad.

Nope, but then again, I'm not being payed to play and review it ;)

Hope the reviewer gets fired, but then again, Biased Journalism DOES sell more.

Maybe the game deserves a 2/10, I don't know. But I do know it deserves more effort and time put into a review than it got from Eurogamer. Assuming Adventurine is telling the truth, 2 hours or so is barely enough time to create a character in most MMORPG's.

Wouldukindly:
Is it sad this actually makes me want to play the game for kicks?

I have actually wanted to play it to see what it is like since I heard it come out. Was such a stealth launch.
The only problem here is actually managing to get a copy :S good luck on this if you decide to give it a go.

Ghostwise:

Doug:

Ghostwise:
Adventurine just doesn't want their 2/10 review to turn into a 3/10 review and make the game look even worse lol. The game is atrocious.

Well, in the original news article, it stated that the some total of time of activity over 1 account given to Eurogamer was 3 bloody minutes! The other was 2 hours 13 minutes....spread out over 13 sessions (approx average of 10 minutes each)!

Regardless of the game's quality, its pretty obvious the reviewer faked his review.

Interesting. That is pretty shitty, but I have to say that is probably all they could play due to server instability and the constant nosebleeds playing the game gives you. Have you played it? It is really bad and shows just how amatuer the developers really are that made the game. I mean....it's really bad.

No, its a lie from AV, they don't use 3rd party server stats so their claims are impossible to substantiate.

Or at least an untruth. It's possible their logging system is broken and they don't know it. Either way, you're right, no third party means that the claim is unverifiable and should be ignored.

Ghostwise:
Adventurine just doesn't want their 2/10 review to turn into a 3/10 review and make the game look even worse lol. The game is atrocious.

Yes they just want to stomp their a feet a bit more. Then they'll get tired an hopefully take a nap.

Bah, 2/10? On the one hand, I'm glad that Eurogamer are actually using the lower end of the scoring spectrum. On the other hand, I really wish they would stop using such arbitary scores!

It may be bad, but why not give it 1/10, or 3/10? Seems like the reviewer got so frustrated with it that he just picked a random number between 0 and 5.

Oh DarkFail, did you fall down to the Fail that you accused other MMOs of reeking of? How more Fail can you fail to be? Fail Fail Fail, is what DarkFail is, the Fail of Fail, that even Duke Nukem Forever would never have failed to be.

-cough- I guess we will just have to wait till other reviewers bring their opinions on the game out, and even better, wait for a western release (which will take some time and hopefully, an array of bug fixes), to see if DarkFail failed for real.

So, is there no way that the reviewer could, for example, have made a private account to prevent the game operators from identifying him as a reviewer? Consumer reviews tend to do stuff like that to prevent manufacturers from skewing the product (e.g. hand pick an especially well-made piece as happened to a hardware review site).

Andy_Panthro:
It may be bad, but why not give it 1/10, or 3/10?

1 or 0 (whichever is the lowest your scale allows) should probably remain reserved for "it just doesn't work at all", the game cannot be played or fundamental parts were not implemented (Big Rigs?).

KDR_11k:

1 or 0 (whichever is the lowest your scale allows) should probably remain reserved for "it just doesn't work at all", the game cannot be played or fundamental parts were not implemented (Big Rigs?).

I'm more interested in the mystery of the arbitrary scoring system itself, given that metacritic is so widely used these days despite every reviewer interpreting their review scale differently, and every website/publication having different scoring systems.

Does Eurogamer state what its scoring points actually mean? Does the reviewer add the score, or the editor? If there hadn't been a score, but just a scathing review, would the Darkfall developer be more or less angry?

Andy_Panthro:
I'm more interested in the mystery of the arbitrary scoring system itself, given that metacritic is so widely used these days despite every reviewer interpreting their review scale differently, and every website/publication having different scoring systems.

As long as roughly the same publications have reviewed the games the averages should be comparable as the different scale biases will be present in all of their scores.

Wouldukindly:
Is it sad this actually makes me want to play the game for kicks?

It might be sad, but I want to play it too now.

Sounds to me like they just know that a second review won't be positive either, and are trying to cover it up. Even if they aren't this is an extremely immature display of foot stomping and temper tantrums.

No game deserves a 2/10 (keep stuff like MHF outta this plz) specially a game of this scale which has consumed lots of time/effort. That aside, server logs have shown that the so-called reviewer has spent less than an hour (don't remember the exact time) playing this 'MMO'. Basically, an MMO requires much more time spent on to discover its different aspects. I'm talking about 3 digit numbers here, something like 150-200 hours. So, Eurogamer has officially entered my shitlist after this.

P.S: I really hate MMOs but I hate people who give themselves the right to ruin other people's hard work while they know shit about the subject, even more.

The main impression I got from playing Darkfall, is that it is really still in beta and an early on at that. It lacks almost any of the polish that can be seen in Everquest, World of Warcraft et al. At the moment if you buy and subscribe to the game now you are effectively subsidising the base development process and in return you are getting a very early look at it. Im assuming the team behind it are running short on money or they cant afford proper testing, hence the very early (limited) public release.

I have personally taken part in 2 mmo betas Lotro and D&D Online, while both were a bit rough around the edges they at least felt mostly finished, Darkfall feels about 6 months or so away from release.

Most of the points the reviewer made were true, the webiste is a bit cumbersome to use, the starting areas are sparse at best, the ui is perhaps the worst mmo interface I have ever seen, it feels a bit like a cross between Ultima 7 and System Shock 2 and not the best bits from either, combat can be very frustrating since its hard to tell when you are in range of your target and lastly I thought the whole open pvp was for me but after having tried it for a while, it isnt.

On the positive side the use of a Eve Online style skill system should be applauded. The pen and paper rpgs ive always enjoyed the most have been the ones where the term class wasnt used as such, eg World of Darkness and Shadowrun to name two. I also found the friendly fire system a nice touch, no more spellcasters/melee using aoe abilites without considering where their team mates are.

Small niche mmos are good for the genre as a whole as I think they will allow it to innovate and hopefully get away from the one game dominance we have at the moment.

Personally id give it a few months before trying it.

Elven_Star:
No game deserves a 2/10 (keep stuff like MHF outta this plz) specially a game of this scale which has consumed lots of time/effort. That aside, server logs have shown that the so-called reviewer has spent less than an hour (don't remember the exact time) playing this 'MMO'. Basically, an MMO requires much more time spent on to discover its different aspects. I'm talking about 3 digit numbers here, something like 150-200 hours. So, Eurogamer has officially entered my shitlist after this.

P.S: I really hate MMOs but I hate people who give themselves the right to ruin other people's hard work while they know shit about the subject, even more.

/facepalm

A game is something that is made to be "enjoyable", hence when it comes to reviews the aim generally is to say if the game is actually fun to play, which encompasses everything from graphics, to gameplay. What this then means, is that if a game is stinking load of crap, it should get a nice low score. Because if your game isn't enojoyable, regardless of what ever effort you've put in to it, it's still not enjoyable. Thus giving points for effort is akin to f*cking for virginity.

/sigh

Critical thinking, if only more people would do it.

leumas222:
The main impression I got from playing Darkfall, is that it is really still in beta and an early on at that.

I can't tell if you're saying the review is unfair based on this, but assuming this is true, don't you think it's up to reviewers to warn people that they are paying to be guinea pigs? I would want my money back if I had payed for something that turned out not to be complete.

The Mess:

Elven_Star:
No game deserves a 2/10 (keep stuff like MHF outta this plz) specially a game of this scale which has consumed lots of time/effort. That aside, server logs have shown that the so-called reviewer has spent less than an hour (don't remember the exact time) playing this 'MMO'. Basically, an MMO requires much more time spent on to discover its different aspects. I'm talking about 3 digit numbers here, something like 150-200 hours. So, Eurogamer has officially entered my shitlist after this.

P.S: I really hate MMOs but I hate people who give themselves the right to ruin other people's hard work while they know shit about the subject, even more.

/facepalm

A game is something that is made to be "enjoyable", hence when it comes to reviews the aim generally is to say if the game is actually fun to play, which encompasses everything from graphics, to gameplay. What this then means, is that if a game is stinking load of crap, it should get a nice low score. Because if your game isn't enojoyable, regardless of what ever effort you've put in to it, it's still not enjoyable. Thus giving points for effort is akin to f*cking for virginity.

/sigh

Critical thinking, if only more people would do it.

Funny how you take 1 sentence outta my long post and start talking shit about it. You got personality issues man. That's my opinion buddy, get over it. Besides, I don't write these comments for people like you who browse different sites/forums 24/7 only to offend other people; feel free to ignore my posts from now on. Having worked on different E-Sports portals as an editor, I'd never imagined a worse community would exist. Turns out I was wrong.

Lawl.

That's actually pretty mild...

And not at all unsurprisingly you didn't bother actually trying to even defend yourself, except with the ever laughable "but it's my opinion". Yes, it is, and is not exactly right either. Oh yeah, with such a "here's some points for trying!" for games, it seems to lead to eye-candy getting scores which are somewhat at odds with the gameplay.

Back on topic though, meh, until other scores hit, and given the uncertainity and doubt that's floating around over Aventurine's game time recording, Darkfall may actually deserve the 2/10. /shrug

The Mess:
Lawl.

That's actually pretty mild...

And not at all unsurprisingly you didn't bother actually trying to even defend yourself, except with the ever laughable "but it's my opinion". Yes, it is, and is not exactly right either. Oh yeah, with such a "here's some points for trying!" for games, it seems to lead to eye-candy getting scores which are somewhat at odds with the gameplay.

Back on topic though, meh, until other scores hit, and given the uncertainity and doubt that's floating around over Aventurine's game time recording, Darkfall may actually deserve the 2/10. /shrug

LOL.
ok ok, I get it now. You're just another arrogant kid who thinks he is God and he's the only one who has the right to express his opinion. There's no point in reasoning with you. peace.

Given the following facts:

-Tasos is known to embellish the truth in favor of his game on occasions.
-Pretty much everything about darkfail is broken and we have no reason to believe the tracking system is any different.
-They don't employ 3rd party tracking so so far it's the word of a bunch of confirmed liars("darkfail is 99% ready for release in Q1 2004, honest!" against the word of a group of respected reviewers known to not give everything a 7/10 under the guise of it having "future potential" even when it sucks because the publisher waved a wad of cash in their face.

I'd side with eurogamer here. They even offered another review by another reviewer but just because they won't make any critisism disapear, scientology style, they are suddenly frauds?

Elven_Star:
Basically, an MMO requires much more time spent on to discover its different aspects. I'm talking about 3 digit numbers here, something like 150-200 hours. So, Eurogamer has officially entered my shitlist after this.

Two points: Firstly, if something is still worthless after 20 hours, I'm happy for a reviewer to call time on it. I don't care if it paints the Mona fucking Lisa at twenty seven hours in, I'm not spending a fortnight of my spare time suffering for someone else's art.

Secondly, how much do you think a review should cost? Do you want to pay a reviewer for 200 hours of their time, PLUS the time it takes them to write a review...? That's six weeks plus we're talking there. That's 1/8th of a YEAR at 35 hours per week.

If you're a big site and a staff writer commands 30000 bucks a year, that's damn near four thousand dollars right there, plus all the benefits, medical, pensions, sick leave, holidays - you might as well double it. And, please, 30K is a TERRIBLE salary for anyone at the top of their game. (Although it's realistic, reviewers get paid shit).

Wanna hire someone in, instead? Prepare to pay them a pretty high hourly. Sure, reviewers usually get paid by the word, but if you're citing 200 hours before they can start writing you KNOW you're paying for that. Might as well make it 40 bucks an hour for that time, because your contractors don't get benefits, leave, or sick pay and they need to make ends meet, too.

Think those numbers are too high? Maybe, but anyone paying their staff less is treating them like shit. Yes, most jobs in gaming treat their employees like shit. Is that some magical formula for improving quality? No. It's not.

So try to be realistic before suggesting someone spend a year of their life reviewing six or seven fucking games.

I had a look at what's going on and I have to side with Euro-gamer. It looks like he should have gone more in depth, or he did and they didn't log it in their system, but it just looks like that they are using this as an excuse to cover the fact that their game is terrible. I say let the other reviewer give it a look, supervised, so it can be proved he gave it a full look over. Then they can't complain, saying it's a bad/biased/wrong review when it calls their game a pile of shit.

wild_quinine:

Elven_Star:
Basically, an MMO requires much more time spent on to discover its different aspects. I'm talking about 3 digit numbers here, something like 150-200 hours. So, Eurogamer has officially entered my shitlist after this.

Two points: Firstly, if something is still worthless after 20 hours, I'm happy for a reviewer to call time on it. I don't care if it paints the Mona fucking Lisa at twenty seven hours in, I'm not spending a fortnight of my spare time suffering for someone else's art.

Secondly, how much do you think a review should cost? Do you want to pay a reviewer for 200 hours of their time, PLUS the time it takes them to write a review...? That's six weeks plus we're talking there. That's 1/8th of a YEAR at 35 hours per week.

If you're a big site and a staff writer commands 30000 bucks a year, that's damn near four thousand dollars right there, plus all the benefits, medical, pensions, sick leave, holidays - you might as well double it. And, please, 30K is a TERRIBLE salary for anyone at the top of their game. (Although it's realistic, reviewers get paid shit).

Wanna hire someone in, instead? Prepare to pay them a pretty high hourly. Sure, reviewers usually get paid by the word, but if you're citing 200 hours before they can start writing you KNOW you're paying for that. Might as well make it 40 bucks an hour for that time, because your contractors don't get benefits, leave, or sick pay and they need to make ends meet, too.

Think those numbers are too high? Maybe, but anyone paying their staff less is treating them like shit. Yes, most jobs in gaming treat their employees like shit. Is that some magical formula for improving quality? No. It's not.

So try to be realistic before suggesting someone spend a year of their life reviewing six or seven fucking games.

First of all, Calm down. Don't know why all people want to fight somehow here. I have an opinion you have another. We discuss, we grow up. That's the way I see things, tell me if I'm wrong. Anyway, I agree on some points you made there. But I have some points of my own to make. Why do you think gaming sites such as Gamespot and IGN are so respected? Yes, because they actually spend that much time on games and they do pay their staff that much. So, when I read a review on one of those sites, I know I'm not reading garbage. In other words, I can trust that site. Now someone from Eurogamer pops out of nowhere and gives a huge game a 2/10 after spending a little while on the game so little that he has seen nothing of the game but the character creation system. I agree with you that not everyone can pay their employees as much as GS and IGN do, but that doesn't give them the right to publish crappy reviews based on nothing, does it?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here