Darkfall Dev Declines Eurogamer "Re-Review" Offer

[Andy_Panthro]

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?

 

[KDR_11k]

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.

 

[MmmFiber]

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.

 

[Ilosia]

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.

 

[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.

 

[leumas222]

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.

 

[The Mess]

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.

 

[shMerker]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[Elven_Star]

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.

 

[Asehujiko]

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?

 

[wild_quinine]

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.

 

[Reaperman Wompa]

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.

 

[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?

 

[wild_quinine]

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.

 

[Elven_Star]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Elven_Star]

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.

 

[BoredKellon]

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.