mmorpg's review

[Abriael]

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.

LOL. Please. Like the claim about a "poor plot" when the reviever quite evidently saw only the first cutscenes for each city and nothing more.

"oh this book has a poor plot"

"really?"

"YEah, I've read it up to page 5, and I tell you, it sucks!"

It's a rollercoaster of laughs to see the usual haters (that are seemingly insanely obsessed with this game, since they can't seem to be able to just move on with their life and continue to haunt the forums to spew some more venom day after day) bending over thrice to defend this farce of a review. Not that they even read it. The score is negative, so it MUST be defended at all costs!

"Hey, the graphics aren't that great"

"why?"

"The interface requires too many clicks to do simple things!"

"ah... ok".

[Zkieve]

LOL. Please. Like the claim about a "poor plot" when the reviever quite evidently saw only the first cutscenes for each city and nothing more.

"oh this book has a poor plot"

"really?"

"YEah, I've read it up to page 5, and I tell you, it sucks!"

It's a rollercoaster of laughs to see always the usual haters (that are seemingly insanely obsessed with this game, since they can't seem to be able to just move on with their life and continue to haunt the forums to spew some more venom) bending over thrice to defend this farce of a review. Not that they even read it. The score is negative, so it MUST be defended at all costs!

"Hey, the grahics aren't that great"

"why?"

"The interface requires too many clicks to do simple things!"

"ah... ok".

Seriously, if he did play the game long enough , that 5.1 would had been a 2.0.
The beef here i tough it was about when it was reviewed.

I can point you to lots of X10 times worst reviews right here in this forums that are all pretty much spot on,
from players who played all the way to 50, so that "he did not play long enough" is a double edged sword as an argument.
Im not going to lower myself to discuss about "haters" and "fanboys".old argument is old.

and for your INFO,
to me that score is a positive.

[Cendres]

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)

This is not what the outrage is about, IF this review had come out months ago it would have been a fair review people on the MMORPG.com site were even asking for one. BUT the site's administrators decided to hold off until the game was in better shape.

Then they publish a review before major changes are added when they said black on white they were not going to do this!! So what's the deal? Really what they should have done is do a first review when the game came out on PC and then do a revision once the payment started or the PS3 version launched.

We all know SE made a huge mistake, SE knows even the most die hard fanboy/girl knows it. That's not the issue. Also the fact that the review doesn't mention the changes that were made as small as they are doesn't really help out their case. It's almost like this review sat in the admin's email inbox for months and they just remembered to post it... lolol. That's what it seems like anyway.

[Sojiro]

I don't disagree with the score, nor do I deny they do make some very valid points about the current state of the game. I do question why they would not at least hold off putting up the review when a major patch is slated a mere 4 days away that does a complete overhaul of the battle system as well as a plethora of other things, and edit in changes it makes (or is 1.18 still a confirmed "rumour" :P ).

I doubt it would instantly turn the review to a 10, but after a few days some of the things written in the review will just be plain false, and I can see why people would question their integrity on that (although I don't follow MMORPG ever so I don't know about the conspiracy theories surrounding the site). If/when they re-review the game after a few more patches I look forward to seeing what they say again, but hopefully they can hold a review and edit in changes prior to a patch coming just days away.

[Abriael]

"talking down" is a big and wide area. Valid criticism can definitely be defined "talking down", and should definitely be allowed on any website or comment section.

In this case this article is the result of a whole chain of poor choices, from the publishing date to the fact that it shows only a few pictures from the very first hour of gameplay and creates suspicion about how much the reviewer actually played the game. Due to that even harsh criticism is entirely called for, and shouldn't surprise anyone.

If a site goes public with any kind of editorial content and doesn't want to be "talked down" when such content is in poor quality and taste (like in this case) they shouldn't have a forum or a comment section and they shouldn't encourage people to comment.

Truth is that many sites enjoy massively the traffic generated by contents and forums, but they are a little too insecure in their footing and content to be able to accept the flak that comes with it in stride.

[Jynx]

I was a forum moderator for the official forums of Ultima Online once upon a time. Logical debate is one thing, but it's another to make posts that contain wanton insults to anyone especially if it's to the site itself.

You can get your point across and even "Talk down" to the integrety of the web-page and whatnot itself as long as you watch your words and don't flat out insult people.

[Delsus]

I was a forum moderator for the official forums of Ultima Online once upon a time. Logical debate is one thing, but it's another to make posts that contain wanton insults to anyone especially if it's to the site itself.

You can get your point across and even "Talk down" to the integrety of the web-page and whatnot itself as long as you watch your words and don't flat out insult people.

I was only talking down the integrity of the site, nothing I said was aimed at anyone, just the site as a whole.

[Abriael]

I was only talking down the integrity of the site, nothing I said was aimed at anyone, just the site as a whole.

Well, no. I did see a few open insults on your side. Maybe it's a matter of language barrier (you don't seem a native english speaker to me), but if I were you I'd chose your wording a tad more carefully next time.

[Shipp]

Well, no. I did see a few open insults on your side. Maybe it's a matter of language barrier (you don't seem a native english speaker to me), but if I were you I'd chose your wording a tad more carefully next time.

I believe he already admitted several pages ago that he was intentionally trolling and calling people idiots, retards, etc.

[Jynx]

Indeed and that can be considered unconstructive conduct, as it doesn't really add to the conversation. Nor does it make the arguement any stronger.

You can point out suspicions all you want but when you start accusing people / places of things you have no proof other than the easy speculation that it might be true, your not helping your case.

As much as I may agree with what you say it's still ground for being moderated. saying things like "No matter what is said it's 100% that your website take money for reviews" is something you can't back up and doesn't add to your case in any way / shape/ form other than being hillarious.

Not trying to argue with you, just saying that they are able to moderate you on that kind of stuff.