Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

First Review?Follow

#1 Oct 06 2010 at 12:39 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Apologies if this has been mentioned already.

I've been bumming around Metacritic for the past couple of days checking to see when the first FFXIV reviews start rolling in. First one is up today: one from some website called Cheat Code Central.

He seems pretty accurate with his critique. Does a nice summation of the mess that is the registration system. Praise for the graphics and [most of] the music. Perhaps he could have gone into a bit more detail on the consequences of not having a search function for goods (he only notes that the game needs one, but doesn't really say why this is a massive issue).

I have to say, I'm a bit surprised by the score. For the large amount of time the reviewer spends (correctly) noting the games many flaws and idiosyncrasies, it still ends up with the equivalent of an 84/100. He appears, like me, to be banking on the game's future potential.

Personally, I don't think that future potential merits a good score. If the game does indeed meet that potential, then by all means, create an addendum to the review and change it accordingly. But to suggest that FFXIV in its current state, is worthy of a "B" grade seems...I dunno...to be a little disingenuous.

The user reviews on Metacritic tend to be much less forgiving, but I'm not sure how much stock potential players should place in them...far too many people eschew logical, balanced ratings in favor of giving out 0's or 10's.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#2 Oct 06 2010 at 12:50 PM Rating: Good
***
3,530 posts
Eske, Star Breaker wrote:
far too many people eschew logical, balanced ratings in favor of giving out 0's or 10's.


Oh gosh, I know! It always bothers me, for example, when someone will essentially say "this game was stupid and boring: 0/10" not taking into account the varigrated factors that need to be considered when writing a review.

On the other hand, I've run accross reviewers (like on IGN) who give a game that has good graphics, good music, and good voice-acting, but a 5-hour nonsense plot with uninteresting mechanics a 7.5/10, as though superficial qualities count for more than half of a game's, well, gameplay.
____________________________
"... he called to himself a wizard, named Gallery, hoping by this means to escape the paying of the fifteen hundred crowns..." (Machen 15)

"Thus opium is pleasing... on account of the agreeable delirium it produces." (Burke para.6)

"I could only read so much for this paper and the syphilis poem had to go."
#3 Oct 06 2010 at 12:58 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
*
54 posts
It's like a C/C+ at the moment... but considering it's an MMO. The fact that most people haven't actually gotten deeper into the game (Cap is 50). All you really have to go off is what is currently accessible based on level and potential, then write a review based off of that.

It's not FFXIII where it's a finished and done product. If the game didn't have immense potential I could easily see that score at F+/D.

Edited, Oct 6th 2010 2:59pm by sodux
#4 Oct 06 2010 at 1:50 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
39 posts
Quote:
It's like a C/C+ at the moment... but considering it's an MMO. The fact that most people haven't actually gotten deeper into the game (Cap is 50). All you really have to go off is what is currently accessible based on level and potential, then write a review based off of that.

It's not FFXIII where it's a finished and done product. If the game didn't have immense potential I could easily see that score at F+/D.


The reason so many of us are still playing and complaining loudly is that we know it could easily be an A+. Hopefully Square will announce that they actually intend on fixing some things (and when to expect said fixes) before October 22nd when CE players will decide if they want to continue to play or not.
#5 Oct 06 2010 at 2:15 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
KaneKitty wrote:
Eske, Star Breaker wrote:
far too many people eschew logical, balanced ratings in favor of giving out 0's or 10's.


Oh gosh, I know! It always bothers me, for example, when someone will essentially say "this game was stupid and boring: 0/10" not taking into account the varigrated factors that need to be considered when writing a review.

On the other hand, I've run accross reviewers (like on IGN) who give a game that has good graphics, good music, and good voice-acting, but a 5-hour nonsense plot with uninteresting mechanics a 7.5/10, as though superficial qualities count for more than half of a game's, well, gameplay.


I think it's a self-perpetuating problem. Someone goes to a site like Metacritic, and sees that the game that they kind of like has been getting slammed with a ton of 0's. They came in wanting to give the game a 7, but then they decide to give it a 10 just to offset all the low scores. Then someone else counteracts him by putting down another 0. And it just repeats from there.


On another note, I've always been a proponent of periodic re-reviews for MMORPG's. I wish reviewing sites would do this more often (they barely ever do it now). I don't just want to see a review of the latest expansion and what it adds...I want to see how it affects the overall picture, what the new climate of the game is like as a whole. How have the patches solved the old glaring faults? Is the game trending up or down? That kind of stuff.

If you know that you'll be doing a re-review of a game in a few months, then there's no reason to inflate a game's score based on its future potential. What if it never meets that potential? What if it exceeds it? The potential customer is left with 'naught but conjecture. If you do re-views, say, 1 at release, 1 after a month, the next after 6 more months, the next after another year, then the customer always has an accurate and up-to-date impression of the game.

Edited, Oct 6th 2010 4:18pm by Eske

Edited, Oct 6th 2010 4:21pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#6 Oct 06 2010 at 3:02 PM Rating: Good
***
2,535 posts
Eske, Star Breaker wrote:
I have to say, I'm a bit surprised by the score. For the large amount of time the reviewer spends (correctly) noting the games many flaws and idiosyncrasies, it still ends up with the equivalent of an 84/100. He appears, like me, to be banking on the game's future potential.


Remember though, it's still an RPG. The big joke about video game reviewers is that RPGs are scored on a four-point scale...
#7 Oct 06 2010 at 3:05 PM Rating: Excellent
**
697 posts
I do feel that now that we are in to 2 weeks (1 "official") of service, S-E needs to lay out a short or longterm plan on what's getting fixed, what's getting implemented, and what's getting cut.

For example: We plan on implementing chocobos and airships, as well as opening ishgard within the first 3 months of play. This will also introduce new storyline missions and levequests.

Or...

We will be doing a complete overhaul on the skill point system, making it less random and more determinant based on the results of your actions.


I'm not S-E, but they DO need to get their P.R. in order.


As for the review (the topic, lol) I can see how if you are assigned reviewing an MMO how you have to do that completely differently than any other type of game. You have to look at the core, the "Bones" of the game and decide. The graphics and music? Excellent. The core fighting mechanics, class system, and questing? Good, but needs some tweaking. The story? Entertaining, and unlike 95% of other MMO's, there's a REAL story. These "Bones" of the game are solid, now S-E just needs to refine them and the economy to a nice sheen to get a AAA MMO product.
____________________________
FFXI: Odin - Merylstryfe Summoner Woo Hoo!


#8 Oct 06 2010 at 4:03 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,825 posts
Not saying this ones bad, just adding another in-progress review to the picture.

http://www.zam.com/forum.html?game=268&mid=1286385742142746481&page=1#m128640250111062684
____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#9 Oct 06 2010 at 6:13 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
BastokFL wrote:
Eske, Star Breaker wrote:
I have to say, I'm a bit surprised by the score. For the large amount of time the reviewer spends (correctly) noting the games many flaws and idiosyncrasies, it still ends up with the equivalent of an 84/100. He appears, like me, to be banking on the game's future potential.


Remember though, it's still an RPG. The big joke about video game reviewers is that RPGs are scored on a four-point scale...


I don't get it; could someone please explain?
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#10 Oct 07 2010 at 9:44 AM Rating: Good
***
2,535 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
BastokFL wrote:
Eske, Star Breaker wrote:
I have to say, I'm a bit surprised by the score. For the large amount of time the reviewer spends (correctly) noting the games many flaws and idiosyncrasies, it still ends up with the equivalent of an 84/100. He appears, like me, to be banking on the game's future potential.


Remember though, it's still an RPG. The big joke about video game reviewers is that RPGs are scored on a four-point scale...


I don't get it; could someone please explain?


"Four-point scale" in this context means scoring them only using 7, 8, 9, or 10 out of 10.
#11 Oct 08 2010 at 8:40 PM Rating: Decent
10 posts
I hope to Buddha that this game gets better. I really want to want it..... I'm a little discouraged by gamespot's review, I have to admit.

If they put in an AH I might give it a try. Maybe I'll wait until I hear something really solid review wise.

This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 25 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (25)