Age of Conan

This depends on who is reviewing the game. A honest reviewer will play the game without bias and base all his game experiences on the moment.

But take this into consideration of MMO reviews. They are supposedly harder to get an accurate review on before release because they are not built for release yet. The game is not running where thousands or hundreds of players are out in force and other things not completed about the game. Also tweaking and optimizations are not in during most reviews who are honest and strait with what they have so far.

To be honest I wont take a review as being the accurate review before a game launches. I always wait for a month after a launch to get more accurate reviews. This is why WAR to me is not accurate yet with player and website reviews. Sure the game might be good now but within a couple months it can be the most redundant boring piece of crap ever made. With only RVR who will cling to that forever and still find it refreshing months later, we don't know yet.

Fact it this. AoC got unusually high scores for an incomplete broken game,  8.5 on GS  for a game that had:

A. Huge amount of content that was missing, even some that was promises on the box was not in the purchased game and still isn't. This is a sin against MMO players where content is king.

B. Items and skills in the game that are unbalanced and basically broken (useless) in functionality. (example: stats on armor and weapons) Again another huge sin against MMO players.

C. Game had unreasonable amount of OBVIOUS bugs. (balding in stealth for one example)  This goes for any game type.

D. Miscellaneous other things, forever install time, large HD footprint 30+ gig, armor and weapons repeated artwork constantly, etc. etc...

Even if the games battle engine was super fun, the facts above,  should knock the score down to average at best. Maybe a 6.0 to a 6.5 would be fair, but a 8.5, I don't think so. I have totally lost any trust in so called professional game reviewers at this point especially GS.  and yes I do believe some conspiracies are true, but that's another story.

It cracks me up that people expect honest game reviews from media outlets whose primary means of income are the advertising banners featuring the games being reviewed.

Well I guess this is my opinion...

I don't trust reviews... I really don't.  I almost never agree with any review I see..  games.. movies etc

The only way to give an "honest" review is if you can gain access to the material on your own.. and fund your own magazine or website.

To get those "inside" peaks is a perk.  If I crap on every product you make.. even if they are crap.. I won't get the perk.  So I can either be honest and have no access or I can lie so I can review the next product.

Magazines make money off advertising..

Websites more or less the same thing.

If any game company is advertising on a website or in a magazine its counter productive to piss them off.

This is why I don't really expect to see the truth in a review.

I know there are some independant sites for say.. computer hardware.. that seem to be fairly neutral or upfront about things.

I just don't think I've ever really seen one for games.

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by Azrile

I think it's more about insider access then it is about paid advertisments.

Look at the big 'fanboy' on this site.   He hung out with the devs, was bought dinner and drinks and generally has a personal relationship with the devs because of his status here.  I think every situation where a 'reporter' is given inside access, of course they are going to bias their public opinions because of that access and also because they want to keep that access.  There is nothing different in the gaming industry then there is with political reporting.  Do you think Bob Novac would be able to call Dick Cheney whenever he wanted if he ever actually criticized the administration?

 

Oops, I forgot to actually address what was said here:

The whole "insider access" thing. I think you're referring to one user in particular with this post, but I've heard this applied to journalists as well. The fact of the matter is that yes, we do know many of the devs in the industry. We have eaten and shared drinks with them, etc. That doesn't make us incapable of being objective and doing our jobs. Am I friends with some of the developers that I've met? Yes. Would that stop me from ripping into them professionally? No, and they understand that as much as I do.

Pleasure is one thing and business is another. Some company buying me a drink or flying me to a press event doesn't impress me. It's part of their operating costs. I don't feel flattered or like I've been given anything that's worth my professional integrity. 

I would rather be blacklisted by a company for telling the truth than lie to stay in someone's good graces. Besides, if I were to get blacklisted (which has never happened to me), I, as a reporter, and all of my journalistic colleagues would be in a very unique position to write about that fact, and the reason behind it. Nothing drives traffic like a scandal folks :) Stuff like that makes our professional day. :)

Thing is bro, there is a certain person that is obviously not objective in the mix here. It's so obvious, we joke around about it. If you guys can't see the bias, I don't know what to tell you.

P.S. could you tell said person to not access my personal information, such as other accounts that he so cleverly knew I had. Thanks

Originally posted by gryjin

the industry standard should require review updates on new MMOs imo. one at launch, one three months down the road, one at 6 months down the road..etc. but i can't remember ever seeing anything like that

I agree however , who really Cares 6 months after launch from what i see on mmorpg if you havent maxxed a char by 6 months and quit the games and started bashing them repeatedly for sucking on mmorpg and some of the other sites then you cant be part of the In crowd./sarcasm off.

i think that reviews are really not ever going to be able to compare  to mass population and besides wow i have yet to see another game appeal to mass population, one of my favorite games (Everquest) was appealing to a mass crowd yet folks trash it all the time just for simple fact s0ony owns it so how is anyone ever going to know unless all games have a free 30 day return policy , then i think the market would wake up and start finishing games before releasing them!

I just started trying aoc again but really having trouble getting into it, and warhammer doesnt appeal to me looks like it will be a awsome game for those who like that type of game though.

Originally posted by gryjin

after AOC i will not be buying another MMO until the three month mark....so i would actually disagree with your comment that no one wants to read a review after launch. i would now. probably not before, but i'm definately more cautious about MMOs in general now

AMEN! im on the Same bandwagon now adays gimme 6 months ill try your game if it isnt worth it i havent Wasted all that Collectors edition money:)

My view on this is that Game Reviewers are out of touch with their customers (the people that read their reviews with a view to purchasing a game)

If I ask a gamer what would an average game score (out of ten)?
The gamer would reply "5"

But for reviewers, they seem to think that "7.5" is average?

The problem then becomes - if a game gets a 9 - does that mean "almost perfect" or just "above average"?

And "10" should not be used unless cleared by the Pope. ;-)

OP, you are missing the point.  ALL of the review sites take revenue from the game publishers in the form of advertising dollars.  This is a quid-pro-quo system.  You give us good reviews, we keep paying for advertising on your site.  It is a win - win situation until you have writers that "tell the truth".  Then you have companies like EIDOS strong arm review sites to fire employees or remove the reviews off the site.  There is no real independent review site out there.  Without advertising money, they'd go under.