Darkfall Dev Declines Eurogamer "Re-Review" Offer

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Elven_Star:

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.

I disagree.

1) They're well known. That does not equal 'respected'.
2) I doubt they pay all but a very few people that much.
3) Maybe they *do* put out a lot of garbage.
4) You probably shouldn't trust those sites. More than a few times they've bucked to pressure from advertisers. In other words, as often as not you're reading an opinion on the game which has been vetted by the people who published it.

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?

Eurogamer did not pop up out of nowhere. Eurogamer was one of the most respectable sites for reviews on the internet. They've been going downhill for about two years now - presumably caving to the same pressures as the big players.

If the Eurogamer review is based on two hours of character creation, then it's clearly a crock, and a scandal, and they deserve everything they get. It's been a while since I was impressed by them.

But it's possible that AV are lying, of course, or mistaken. Even more likely, Zitron played with a paid for account, in addition to the ones he was given for free. I would do that, if I were a reviewer, because I would want to play without GMs looking over my shoulder, and making every effort to improve the experience. A real review would be based on a player account, IMO. But all that's kind of besides the point. What I take issue with is the idea of a 200+ hour review.

As well as financials, there are a wealth of logistical reasons why no review should take 200 hours. Just one example: Unless you want to review the beta, or an empty pre-release server, a 200 hour review means the game review can't come out for a week or two after release. That's too long for a lot of houses - although most do release update reviews for MMOs a while down the line - which I consider to be a good compromise.

Further, a review should not NEED to take 200 hours. A review is there as a guide to purchase. Sure there may be many things that you might not even begin to experience till 140 hours, say. But if you don't know whether to recommend the game before you hit 140 hours, then I would suggest that you probably can't recommend the game. No game can be worth 140 hours of drudgery, end of story.

Reviewers are not trying to crystalise some accurate fact about the overall merit of the game when they review. There is no obscure truth that you will discover at the end of the game that makes it all worthwhile, or not. If it's not fun to play, from damn near the beginning, then it's probably not worth the money.

Too many people associate work, with worth. Too many people associate detail with value. There are plenty of detailed, nuanced pieces of absolute garbage that many men laboured months to produce. It sucks but there it is.

wild_quinine:
4) You probably shouldn't trust those sites. More than a few times they've bucked to pressure from advertisers. In other words, as often as not you're reading an opinion on the game which has been vetted by the people who published it.

Evidence?

What I take issue with is the idea of a 200+ hour review.

Yeah, you're right. Maybe I've gone a bit too much with that one. Something like 70-80 on an MMO would be more appropriate. I know GS reviewer spent 80 hours before posting his review about the game for example. And there was a whole group working on it so they could cover all aspects of the game such as parties, different classes, etc.

Elven_Star:

wild_quinine:
More than a few times they've bucked to pressure from advertisers.

Evidence?

Evidence, or Proof? If you want Evidence, look into the Jeff Gerstmann Kane and Lynch review scandal. If you want proof, try beating it out of Gerstmann or his former employers.

I admit, I can't tar IGN with the same brush, but the last time they gave less than 9/10 for anything the pyramids were new on the skyline of Giza, so it's kind of a moot point.

Something like 70-80 on an MMO would be more appropriate. I know GS reviewer spent 80 hours before posting his review about the game for example. And there was a whole group working on it so they could cover all aspects of the game such as parties, different classes, etc.

I don't think even that is necessary, although obviously I wouldn't mind if a reviewer had spent that! In an ideal world the reviewer would play longer sure, but he could let you know within a few hours if it was worth the effort. If it wasn't, why go on any further?

I stand by the notion that there is no kind of game that should take more than a few minutes to get good, let alone hours. Sure maybe a game starts out good, and becomes brilliant - Portal, for example - but no game that I have EVER played has started out terrible and ended brilliant, and it would take one stellar example to convince me that it could even be done.

wild_quinine:

I stand by the notion that there is no kind of game that should take more than a few minutes to get good, let alone hours. Sure maybe a game starts out good, and becomes brilliant - Portal, for example - but no game that I have EVER played has started out terrible and ended brilliant, and it would take one stellar example to convince me that it could even be done.

Take WoW as an example. Lots of good stuff don't show up before you hit lvl 70 or you get rides at lvl 30 which make the game less boring.

Call me a fanboy, but that review was a piece of shit, and it's blaringly obvious that the reviewer did not put in enough time to even cover the basics of the game, and really wasn't very good. It was also full of many false hoods as pointed out on the second page of the comments. But as for Aventurine's reaction, well not very professional imo. But mostly the denial of a re-review seemed to be a reaction to Eurogamers own denial of an offer to fly out a technician to confirm the legitimacy of the server logs (which Aventurine offered to do at there own expence). The real big deal is that at the current moment this is the only recognized review of darkfall and it is obviously based on misconceptions and lack of play time. Plus as it stands sites like meta-critic and gamerankings have only this review to go on, and a re-review will not replace the old one.

Basically Aventurine got fucked over and now there pissed off and bitching. Well it's interesting to follow atleast. And the game atm has a fairly stable user base which is more the enough to populate the server, and with the high demand for the game compared to it's availability, I do imagine they'll have an easy time filling a few more servers in the months to come.

Elven_Star:

Take WoW as an example. Lots of good stuff don't show up before you hit lvl 70 or you get rides at lvl 30 which make the game less boring.

Okay, I realise this is a subjective thing, but WoW was not *terrible* before level 70.

Maybe it's boring to level up six characters in a row to 70, but I LOVED WoW from 1-40ish, first time through.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.