mmorpg's review

[Delsus]

This is probably what hit a nerve. Anyway!! This has been a good saga, but time to move on.

Thats not worth banning over, if there site is designed properly he should have been able to deleate that part and give me a reply, wouldnt have minded that.

The only reason they would ban me is because they want to silence me for some suspicious reason.

[darkstarpoet1]

Thats not worth banning over, if there site is designed properly he should have been able to deleate that part and give me a reply, wouldnt have minded that.

The only reason they would ban me is because they want to silence me for some suspicious reason.

if you would have come on here and said something about about se along the lines like this you would have been banned here also or gotten a tos violation email. if a site is in place and you go in attack the site they are within their rights to stop your posting. by saying they better review again after the patch or you were 100% sure the only reason for the bad review was because other games paid them for it you not only attacked the reviewer, but the entire site.

i am not saying you were wrong about what you said so don't take me the wrong way, but had i been a mod there i would have banned you for the post also. i've been moderator on many forums over the years and most sites will either ban you or at the very least delete your post for making posts about the site itself.

if your reply had posted the changes that are being made in this upcoming patch as a rebuttal it would have been alot different than actually talking down the site.

[Delsus]

if you would have come on here and said something about about se along the lines like this you would have been banned here also or gotten a tos violation email. if a site is in place and you go in attack the site they are within their rights to stop your posting. by saying they better review again after the patch or you were 100% sure the only reason for the bad review was because other games paid them for it you not only attacked the reviewer, but the entire site.

i am not saying you were wrong about what you said so don't take me the wrong way, but had i been a mod there i would have banned you for the post also. i've been moderator on many forums over the years and most sites will either ban you or at the very least delete your post for making posts about the site itself.

if your reply had posted the changes that are being made in this upcoming patch as a rebuttal it would have been alot different than actually talking down the site.

the so called "community manager" wont even reply to my emails, that was 1 line of a post its easy to deleate, the rest of that post was relevent questions which should have been in the review. Alot of people would deleate the line, answer the questions and say "talking about the website in the manner you did will result in action being taken" then I say it again they could ban me.

Funny thing is they have never denied it

[Preypacer]

I wouldnt call this unconstructive, its why I got banned there relevent questions, or they want to silence me for 3 days:

"You should have been up to date on the information from SE like the entire playerbase and media and known it was coming out, you should have thought your integrity could be brought into question. Also when was the game under review? and how much did the revewer play for, because it doesnt seem like much. Also if there isnt a re-review after 1.18 or 1.19 at the latest, no matter what is said about it I will be 100% that your site only gives good reviews to games that give you more money."

I'm thinking it's the last line that landed you the ban. They really, really hate it when people accuse them of favoring the highest-paying advertisers and shunning the lowest or non-paying ones. It's one of those things that anyone can see a pattern of by simply hanging around the site long enough to see the patterns developing. Yet, there's always the plausible deniability of them saying "Nuh uh. There is no bias here. Now, say that again and we'll ban you".

They could have just removed that offending line, though, and left the rest of it alone. They do have "mod edits" there.

Your questions were perfectly appropriate and valid. Of course, they also could have opened an ugly can of worms for the site, at which time someone would have stepped in and done the "the opinions of the reviewers do not reflect that of mmorpg.com" routine. They've done that before, too.

Basically, when MMORPG can not, or does not want to defend or back up the article of one of its contributors, they immediately distance themself from it. Yet, in other cases, you'll see them full-on endorsing them, even defending them. Their stance is entirely determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on how a given situation reflects on them.

That site has damage control and dodging accountability down to a science.

[Delsus]

I'm thinking it's the last line that landed you the ban. They really, really hate it when people accuse them of favoring the highest-paying advertisers and shunning the lowest or non-paying ones. It's one of those things that anyone can see a pattern of by simply hanging around the site long enough to see the patterns developing. Yet, there's always the plausible deniability of them saying "Nuh uh. There is no bias here. Now, say that again and we'll ban you".

They could have just removed that offending line, though, and left the rest of it alone. They do have "mod edits" there.

Your questions were perfectly appropriate and valid. Of course, they also could have opened an ugly can of worms for the site, at which time someone would have stepped in and done the "the opinions of the reviewers do not reflect that of mmorpg.com" routine. They've done that before, too.

Basically, when MMORPG can not, or does not want to defend or back up the article of one of its contributors, they immediately distance themself from it. Yet, in other cases, you'll see them full-on endorsing them, even defending them. Their stance is entirely determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on how a given situation reflects on them.

That site has damage control and dodging accountability down to a science.

If the line was deleated, then a reply to my questions it would cause no problems, in hindsight maybe it was a little too far, to say that in public, but its done now, they are questions that need answering to see if they actually played the game, because there has been nothing about it, it looks like the reviewer played the opening cutscenes and copy/pasted complaints from a forum, useless review waste of reviewers time and brings mmorpg a bad name for no reason they are fools to post it and I hope thier website dies soon.

[Zkieve]

a bad review about a game in a terrible state.Whats the big deal.
Sure thins can turn around (hopefully) but going there to argue that gods exist and he is coming in 1.18 is plain absurd.
MMORPG.com have always been like that,im actually glad they said something bout ffxiv at all.

No matter how biased the reviewer opinion might be, or no matter how bad the timing might be.This crusade in defense of ffxiv is definitely popcorn material.

/ma "Stoneskin" <me>

[GhostInfinity]

a bad review about a game in a terrible state.Whats the big deal.
Sure thins can turn around (hopefully) but going there to argue that gods exist and he is coming in 1.18 is plain absurd.
MMORPG.com have always been like that,im actually glad they said something bout ffxiv at all.

No matter how biased the reviewer opinion might be, or no matter how bad the timing might be.This crusade in defense of ffxiv is definitely popcorn material.

/ma "Stoneskin" <me>

I was going to post pretty much the same thing, lol. Like it or not, FFXIV made its own bed and has to lie in it. I don't believe in this MMORPG.com conspiracy theory. Furthermore I can't see MMORPG doing any more damage to FFXIV than SE has already done thus far.

I think some of you should like at the bright side, had they reviewed it a couple of months after release it probably would have gotten a 2 or something. (if you're the type that's so hung up about a game's "score)

[Delsus]

I was going to post pretty much the same thing, lol. Like it or not, FFXIV made its own bed and has to lie in it. I don't believe in this MMORPG.com conspiracy theory. Furthermore I can't see MMORPG doing any more damage to FFXIV than SE has already done thus far.

I think some of you should like at the bright side, had they reviewed it a couple of months after release it probably would have gotten a 2 or something. (if you're the type that's so hung up about a game's "score)

We dont care about the score its the fact that it was released 4 days before 1.18 which is a major patch and the first of the game changing patches, in september would have been a more logical time to review it at least after 1.18, but not 4 days before a major patch

[GhostInfinity]

We dont care about the score its the fact that it was released 4 days before 1.18 which is a major patch and the first of the game changing patches, in september would have been a more logical time to review it at least after 1.18, but not 4 days before a major patch

If you don't care about the score they gave then why does it matter if it was written a few days before a patch. What would you say if they re-review it in a week and bump the score from a 5.1 to a 5.5 or something?

[Zkieve]

I think some of you should like at the bright side, had they reviewed it a couple of months after release it probably would have gotten a 2 or something. (if you're the type that's so hung up about a game's "score)

to be exact , the resume is pretty on the spot for when the review was written , in fact i seen a lot worst.There is a lot more wrong that does not get mentioned there.

5.1
Poor

Pros
Fun Class System
Great Soundtrack
Great Visuals


Cons
Awkward Combat
Clunky Interface
Feels Incomplete
Poor Quests
Uninteresting Plot