Darkfall Dev Declines Eurogamer "Re-Review" Offer

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
Darkfall Dev Declines Eurogamer "Re-Review" Offer


Darkfall [http://www.aventurine.gr/], 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 here [http://www.eurogamer.net/].

Eurogamer eventually offered Aventurine a "do-over," with respected game journalist Kieron Gillen [http://www.kierongillen.com/] 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 [http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=185733]. "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 [http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/46881/Aventurine-Declines-Eurogamer-Offer-For-Darkfall-Re-Review]


Permalink
 

Tech Team FTW!

New member
Apr 1, 2009
1,049
0
0
I was wonderring how long this would take.

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

Mr.Pandah

Pandah Extremist
Jul 20, 2008
3,967
0
0
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.
 

Sir Ollie

The Emperor's Finest
Jan 14, 2009
2,022
0
41
xmetatr0nx said:
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.
 

Doug

New member
Apr 23, 2008
5,205
0
0
Ghostwise said:
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

New member
Apr 23, 2008
5,205
0
0
Ghostwise said:
Doug said:
Ghostwise said:
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 ;)
 

Royas

New member
Apr 25, 2008
539
0
0
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.
 

Talendra

Hail, Ilpalazzo!
Jan 26, 2009
639
0
0
Wouldukindly said:
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.
 

boblobaw

New member
May 6, 2009
2
0
0
Ghostwise said:
Doug said:
Ghostwise said:
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.
 

shMerker

New member
Oct 24, 2007
263
0
0
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.
 

bue519

New member
Oct 3, 2007
913
0
0
Ghostwise said:
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.
 

Andy_Panthro

Man of Science
May 3, 2009
514
0
0
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.
 

cainx10a

New member
May 17, 2008
2,191
0
0
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.
 

KDR_11k

New member
Feb 10, 2009
1,013
0
0
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 said:
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?).