mmorpg's review

[giftforce]

I'm afraid "hyperbole" doesn't mean what you think it means. Try again.

There is only fact and fiction.

The fact is: The review was not "chocked full of" nor was there any "blabbering". These are figures of speech which are not conducive to an argument for the reason that they are exaggerations of truth, and very spurious ones at that. Such phrases rely on value judgments to gain their meaning.

Please, I beg you, submit your answer in terms of Boolean logic. It is difficult to discuss an issue when it is masked by several cases of hyperbole and figures of speech.

[giftforce]

Are you annoyed as we all are yet?

[Picoman]

Are you annoyed as we all are yet?

I think I've said this before but... You are weird.

[Naqaj]

Don't forget the strawman! For some reason those are really popular around here.

[polyhedral]

I use to get all defensive over this game, then I realized I wasn't really having fun and pretty much quit playing.

Sometimes, the things we may hate to hear or read bother us because we deny the truth contained in it....

[Preypacer]

I use to get all defensive over this game, then I realized I wasn't really having fun and pretty much quit playing.

Sometimes, the things we may hate to hear or read bother us because we deny the truth contained in it....

First, there's a bit of untruth in the review as well. Again, referring to significant changes to a combat system that have been *confirmed* as being merely "rumored" is not "truthful". It's either irresponsibly ill-researched, or outright dishonest.

A number of elements of the review are, as has been stated, rather hyperbolic - exaggerated for effect. Hyperbole, by definition, is not an accurate representation of the truth.

And again.. no one is claiming the game isn't in bad shape. In fact, some of the complaints posted in that "review" things people have known about all along. Again, we *know* the game is in bad shape and needs a lot of improvement. SE knows the game is in bad shape and needs improvement. I don't think you're going to find very much disagreement on that.

But that's also not what people have issue with.

Once again, the entire issue has nothing to do with "negative things being said about the game", or the "score being too low" as some have tried to spin it. People really need to get over trying to assert those strawman arguments and start dealing with what people have been saying, instead of arguing against things they haven't.

The issue is with the timing of the review and how the reviewer conducted themselves in putting it together.

The two are not the same.

[Bubblesz]

Does it involve a rubber chicken?!!

[Black_Rose]

reviews are allways biased, why i simply don't read them.
before judging a game i atleast try it once.
a reviewer can point out obvious things like lack of content and such, but there are also things that don't appeal to everyone.

i quickly read thru it and checked the comments afterwards, and i noticed someone saying he would rate the game another point down for the lack of jump.....at that point it's obvious that it comes down to your personal taste in the end.

sadly way to few games these days offer a downloadable demo/trial, which why it's hard to get a good/bad first impression on a game without actually needing to buy/register it.
i think as soon SE's going to charge for FFXIV again the first thing they should do is offer a trial that either allows you to play 24 hours (logged in time) or for a specific amount of gained experience on your character.
this will gradually help new and old players that are thinking of coming back to see if the game has changed/improved from before without instantly paying for a monthly subscription again.

[Carmillia]

The timing of the review was bad. A review should be a few weeks after release to inform customers (irrespective of what anyone would say, like SE asked to hold on the reviews: a professional reviewer would have said f*** that, it's released, I'm reviewing it). Another good time for a review is AFTER a big patch that is announced to radically alter the gaming experience so that it is valid for a long enough time for people to being misleaded by the said review. In the case of FFXIV, I say that reviewing after patch 1.20 would have been a professional way of doing a FIRST review of the game so long after its release.

Second of all, the review itself is not well written (a lot of statements without arguments to defend those statements) as a good review should do. Also, it is obvious that the reviewer did not spend enough time ingame to experience most of the things has to offer. There was no words on: crafting system, gathering system, market wards system, transportation system, sidequests, notorious monster. The review in that sense is not accurate as it is not complete.

This review was clearly made by someone who created 3 accounts to check the 3 starter cities missions (just read it very carefully). Did one or two guildleves and called it a day! I don't even think the reviewer was high enough level to unlock the sidequests, which is at level 10 if I'm correct and takes like 15minutes to get... There was so many more things to be said in the review that it shows the lack of work and professionalism.

[Synthesis]

This one is still bein' discussed ? Mmorpg's review shows that the game is at bad state.
Game review is average everywhere 3-5/10, now new one review poped out after 10 months since release showing that the game is horrible. Nothing to be angry about, its review. You can write your owns on blogs, etc.

Let's just hope SE will try fix FFXIV's reputation to succeed with PS3 reviews. I will put it simply, PC reviews kicked game off the list.