Any game that relies on miracles patches isnt good to start off...
So no, even if they release 400 miracle patches the game will still suck at its core, because the problem is there, and the core of a game can't be changed without changing the game itself..
"It has potential" -Second most used phrase on existence "It sucks" -Most used phrase on existence
It's an important patch that will (ostensibly) fix and improve things that need fixing and improving. It's an important step in the right direction.
It's not a miracle patch.
I'm just going ahead and requoting that because this really should be read a few more times...XD
I would be the first to agree with that but I have to argue that - why are we cutting SE a break on this when evry other game out would be ripped to pieces if its fans "just wait until the patch improves things"?
... Who's cutting them slack?
Have you been following the reviews? The page after page after page, in thread after thread after thread where people are ripping into them? Have you not seen the myriad videos on YouTube of people ripping into them?
I've been very vocal and outspoken about the state of the game and their failure to release a complete, solid or even consistent game.
I guess anything short of wanting to see blood spilled (figuratively speaking) is "too forgiving" for some.
Shouldn't the game have launched with this patch? Shouldn't the game have been in this supposed better state when it launched?
Yes, it should have. But it didn't. That's why we are where we are now, SE's in "rescue mode" and not charging a sub fee.. Again, months old news. Time to catch up.
When has it become okay for a game company to launch a sub-standard product only to say "we will fix it later" and all the sudden its ok?
It hasn't become "okay". Your question is a complete strawman.
My statement is nothing more than what it says... a clarification that this upcoming patch is not a miracle patch, but a step in the right direction. Unless you care to point out to me where I say "oh come on guys... we should cut them some slack"? Or, point out where Cynthe says likewise?
Further, what choice do we have at this point but to give them time, or choose to say "forget it" and move on.
They know they fucked up. They've admitted they fucked up. They've been openly and repeatedly ripped to shreds for their fuck up. They've done what they need to do to get things on the right track. What more do you want? A public hanging? Death by firing squad?
Or is the state of the genre such that this is okay and we are lemmings running off the cliff, chasing the next big thing, willing to pay for anything in any state, with only a promise that it will get better.
Huh...?
What the hell are you going on about? I never said that. Cynthe never said that. So far as I can tell, no one - save for a very small handful of eternally optimistic folks are saying that. SE has pretty much universally been ripped a new one.
FFS... Someone said "it's a miracle patch". I said "It's an important patch. It's not a miracle patch".
That's it. That's all I said.
I, for one, demand better and thinks a game should be in a finished and acceptable state when its launched. I do not wait for games to be fixed (games with the issues like FFXIV - somethings are acceptable and understandable). That is not being on a high-horse, that is simply demanding a quality service for the transaction involved.
So does everyone else! Again... read the reviews, read the numerous forum threads, watch the videos, follow the discussions, read the blogs... SE has been well and often taken to task for this. Who exactly do you think you're arguing against here?
I do not care when the review should have ben posted, why its posted now, what patch is coming and how its supposedly going to make the game better. FFXIV launched poorly and the critical reception (across the board) has been luke-warm at best.
Great. You don't care. Others do. People with different points of view... on the internet... imagine that.
MMORPG.com's review is just another review of a game that had potential and failed to live up to it....and that part remains true no matter when the review was written.
Did you catch the part in my response to the review when I say that whatever the future holds for the game, it can only be reviewed based upon how it is right now? You did see that part right? Did you see where I said it's a harsh but fair review?
I do find it odd that they chose this particular time, only days before the first major update of SE's new direction with the game, to post the review. I also posited a couple different possibilities... such as doing it before the updates begin so they have a base score to compare against when they come back for the re-review.
Honestly... Some of you folks seriously need to lay down the pitchforks and relax. And while you're at it, stop reading things into people's posts that aren't there.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
yep i beta tested this game briefly and was shocked that yes they still managed to have a terrible UI, which considering how bad FFXI 's was that terribad. This game though is probably worse than FFXI which is almost amazing in and of itself botton line review is spot on , just walk away ......
While the review completely reflects my own experience with the title, it couldn't have come at a worse time. Next week will see the release of the 1.18 patch, with massive changes to several core systems of the game. I don't really expect the game to be "good" after that, but at least "significantly better than now".
It's a bit of a waste of the reviewers time to write a review that's only valid for a week.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I haven't logged in in quite some time, but this was exactly what I had to say. I beta'd, bought the CE and while I was disappointed, I still haven't given up hope on this game. Yeah, they rushed it out and it wasn't ready, but with the work they've put into it, it's come a long way. With 1.18, while I don't expect it to magically fix the game, it should certainly improve it A LOT. With all of the changes inc, I was a bit surprised to check the site today and finally see a review... Seriously? As a writer, why would you waste your time and write a review that's meaningless in such a short amount of time especially when the game has been out for so long now? Sure, they put a disclaimer at the beginning of the piece, but still, seriously?
Personally, I like the game. Hated beta, hated release, like it now. Plus, I'm excited for next weeks patch. Interface is fine now, I don't get current complaints. Steep learning curve though, and the game doesn't hold your hand.
Plus, what is with you guys re-reviewing games right before a major patch? I don't get it. Core mechanics are all changing in a couple days. One would think you guys would keep track of these.things.
Plus, what is with you guys re-reviewing games right before a major patch? I don't get it. Core mechanics are all changing in a couple days. One would think you guys would keep track of these.things.
Stating things are rumours, that have been posted on the official site, is another great example they don't.
I have to wonder how bad a game has to be to get below a 5.0. There have been many conversations about how scores are skewed so heavily to the top of the rating system, and yet a game that isn't even worth 14.99 to the reviewer is getting 5.1 which, if the rating system had any sense of all, would mean there is just a tad bit more right than the wrong with the game. I know that is not the case sense most games barely get below a 7 and are considered terrible but geeze... 5.1 for pretty graphics and music? This is not my opinion, this is just me reading the review and wondering how the score and the review don't reflect each other.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
I have to wonder how bad a game has to be to get below a 5.0. There have been many conversations about how scores are skewed so heavily to the top of the rating system, and yet a game that isn't even worth 14.99 to the reviewer is getting 5.1 which, if the rating system had any sense of all, would mean there is just a tad bit more right than the wrong with the game. I know that is not the case sense most games barely get below a 7 and are considered terrible but geeze... 5.1 for pretty graphics and music? This is not my opinion, this is just me reading the review and wondering how the score and the review don't reflect each other.
I'm glad you don't like the current system because they're changing it very soon. It's been the topic for much controversy over the years.
Also the phrase "rumor has it" is a common expression. Sure they could have said "According to the website" or "in the patch notes", etc.....but the reviewer chose the expression they did. it amazes me how someone takes one little comment, one little expression and then uses that choice to try and discredit and insult an entire review.
"Rumor has it that auto attack, and a serious overhaul of the combat system, is coming in the upcoming patch. I truly hope this proves accurate"
I think adding "I truly hope this proves accurate" sort of takes away from it being just a saying, and emphasizes the rumour part. It truly is accurate, if you look at the official site.
I have to wonder how bad a game has to be to get below a 5.0. There have been many conversations about how scores are skewed so heavily to the top of the rating system, and yet a game that isn't even worth 14.99 to the reviewer is getting 5.1 which, if the rating system had any sense of all, would mean there is just a tad bit more right than the wrong with the game. I know that is not the case sense most games barely get below a 7 and are considered terrible but geeze... 5.1 for pretty graphics and music? This is not my opinion, this is just me reading the review and wondering how the score and the review don't reflect each other.
I'm glad you don't like the current system because they're changing it very soon. It's been the topic for much controversy over the years.
True although the rumor of a change has been right along with it. I guess I will believe it when I see it.
Either way, I'd love to know how this computed to a 5.1 in the old system, specifically how the polish section even got a 4.0... i thought music and graphics was covered in another section.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
Plus, what is with you guys re-reviewing games right before a major patch? I don't get it. Core mechanics are all changing in a couple days. One would think you guys would keep track of these.things.
They reviewed STO right before a patch. Go over and see the comments after the patch. Do you really think this patch is going to be such an improvement the game will suddenly be fun? It doesn't matter if they review it before or after the patch, the game play isn't going to change that signficantly. If the flaws in the game are really that deep it's going to take more than a miracle patch to change that.
These reviews aren't really for the people playing, they are for the rest of us who might consider playing. The reviewer might catch some flack from fans who don't like what they hear or when it was reviewed, but they would be crucified by the masses if they let a review slide until after patch and then gave them a pass because it was "improved" compared to before.
If a game isn't up to speed I would really rather know that before I waste my time and money. I want to know what isn't working just as much as I would like to know what's good out there.
You are exactly correct. Had they given the game a good score on a review post-patch, it would be ripped to shreds, given the poor reception of the game to date.
A couple other points:
This review was probably weeks or months in development, then the writing, then the editing and the the posting. It did not happen over night. Most likely MMORPG.com had the review and wanted to be sure to get it up before the patch hit so the reviews is for the game that was actually reviewd. HAd they waited, the review would be innacurate and not about the game that was reviewed. Hence, the caveat at the start about upcoming patches. They are aware of the situation and are taking it into account but there is no need for someone's work to go to waste just because a patch is coming soon.
Also the phrase "rumor has it" is a common expression. Sure they could have said "According to the website" or "in the patch notes", etc.....but the reviewer chose the expression they did. it amazes me how someone takes one little comment, one little expression and then uses that choice to try and discredit and insult an entire review.
I do think the review was made some time ago, but it is a fair assessment of the game as it stands, sure there is the first of the game changing patch this week, it adds a bit of content and auto-attack. I do just wish for a ps3 re-review when that launch and then we will see.
I am keeping tabs of the game and some of the changes looks promising, the fact that the armory system is stll there (one weapon = one class) and supposed to stay there is iffy a bit. I will note that I wam waiting for the PS3 release and hoping there will be a new server to start fresh, that is one decision that SE took to overhaul almost the whole game and keeping the server open that I don't like. I don't want to play in a bloated economy where everything is overpriced by the lvl 50 crafters.
They need to reduce the time it takes to kill a MOB, and scrap the SHITTY market ward system for a REAL auction house. This would do wonders for making the game more fun.
But how many times have we seen something promised that is not delivered or even stuff in patch notes that a layer post says didn't make it.
It seems the reviewer hopes this stuff is in the patch but it cannot be confirmed or official until the patch drops and its there or not. Again, it wouldnt be my first choice or words but I get what the reviewer was wanting to say and its context is fine.
Thankfully the community manager recognized that my ban wasn't justified, so let's kick some misconceptions out of the way. Shall we?
-If a reviewer knows that there's a major patch incoming just a few days from the publishing of his review. Then he simply holds the review back. They waited 10 months to review this game, 4 days aren't going to kill anyone.
This is not because the game may be better or worse than what is described in the review, but simply because the game will become DIFFERENT from what is described. A major change in the combat system, the addition of a sizable amount of content and more makes for quite a big difference. No journalist with a shred of integrity would knowingly post a review that will become obsolete and potentially misleading four days after. It's that simple.
In the case the patch doesn't deliver? Great. They can just post the review as is four days later (biiig deal), and everyone wins.
-There are clear reasons to believe that this reviewer didn't even play the game enough to get a valid impresson of it. ALL the pictures included in the article clearly come from the very early game (maximum a couple hours in). Now, either she's extremely lazy in taking picture of a game (that I could justify on a console, but on PC? where taking pictures is EXTREMELY easy?), or she didn't play the game more than a few hours and went to cherry pick around forums to copy/paste some rants that she could reuse.
Now, she might have nailed some vaild complaints, but a review isn't just a list of complaints. A gaming journo's duty is to extensively play a game for himself and THEN list the pros and cons, not cherry pick on forums to save time.
-The reviewer doesn't even know how to *technically* write a review. Seriously, lumping up the *functionality* of the UI with the graphics and going as far as using it as an excuse to lower the aesthetics score? That's fairly chuckle-worthy.
-If the review was written weeks or even months ago, then even more reason to scrap it without publishing. You simply do NOT publish an old MMORPG reviews, chances are that it'll be outdated, and this one is.
-This review is full to the brim with hyperbole. Every single negative point is extremized and dramatized with tabloid-like emphasis. That's not how you write a review. That's how you write a rant on a random blog. It flies in the face of any concept of a fair assessment of a game's pro and cons, and it gives the reader a faked impression of the game. If someone is so poor at getting concepts across that he needs such a widespread use of hyperbole, then he shouldn't work as a gaming journalist, that's really all there's to it.
Ultimately, this is one of the poorest reviews i've read in a while, and it's sad to see some people bending over twice to defend it. Unfortunately if the internet has thaught me together, are new and extensive meanings for the definition of "devil's advocate":
They need to reduce the time it takes to kill a MOB, and scrap the SHITTY market ward system for a REAL auction house. This would do wonders for making the game more fun.
Too bad that the market wards system as it is now works pretty much exactly like an auction house, with more flexibility added as customers can also simply windows-shop (auction houses discourage impulse purchases, which are a very important part of any healthy economy) and see the 3D looks of the items they buy directly on a character.
I would agree that the wards as initially conceived were pretty poor, but at the moment they lack nothing than an auction house has. Demanding an "auction house" just beause it's named "auction house" is simply silly, and it would do nothing to "make the game more fun".
After reading a bunch of people rabbidly defending against this "unfair" review (that personally I find quite generous on the score side), I suddenly remembered another game that is defended before every single patch...
Anyone care to guess what MMO I'm thinking about? YES, IT'S Mortal Online!
I'm in utter disbelief that someone would say a review should wait MORE, for a patch.
I'm in utter disbelief that someone would say a review should wait MORE, for a patch.
if the review already waited for ten months (which demonstrates that they are in no hurry at all to review the review itself) and the patch is very sizable, it only takes a slight amount of logic to understand that it should be delayed.
I'm in utter disbelief that someone would think that releasing a review that has a very high chance to become irrelevant and misinformative after four days is in any way justifiable.
I read review, I waited some time for this how game improved since release. After reading the review I assumed the game is still bad as it was at release, too bad SE. Review after so all this time and review is exact the same as it was at release. I hoped this one will be good, I am giving hands off ffxiv game then. Need to look at something else. Ty for review, waited so long.
As reviewer said :
Two words: Look elsewhere. I simply will not recommend this title to anyone.
Review reminded how bad game is. I wonder why I had false hopes for this game. Time to move on.
I read review, I waited some time for this how game improved since release. After reading the review I assumed the game is still bad as it was at release, too bad SE. Review after so all this time and review is exact the same as it was at release. I hoped this one will be good, I am giving hands off ffxiv game then. Need to look at something else. Ty for review, waited so long.
As reviewer said :
Two words: Look elsewhere. I simply will not recommend this title to anyone.
Review reminded how bad game is. I wonder why I had false hopes for this game. Time to move on.
Just another piece of evidence of the detrimental effects of poor gaming journalism, of which this review is a clear example.
No. Gaming journalism is broken because people use strawman arguments like the one you cited in order to slap out poorly conceived editorials and fill their shift.
There's a big difference between being an automaton and writing a completely cold description of a game, and writing a solid review strongly based on fact, fairly assessing a game's pros and cons, while still adding one's personal opinion.
A review is not an opinion piece, it's a mix between fact and opinion.
This review is tainted not by opinion, but by the widespread use of hyperbole. Hyperbole has nothing to do with opinion.
Opinion comments on reality and complements it by explaining a subjective point of view. Hyperbole warps reality. There's a whole world of difference there.
No. Gaming journalism is broken because people use strawman arguments like the one you cited in order to slap out poorly conceived editorials and fill their shift.
There's a big difference between being an automaton and writing a completely cold description of a game, and writing a solid review strongly based on fact, fairly assessing a game's pros and cons, while still adding one's personal opinion.
A review is not an opinion piece, it's a mix between fact and opinion.
This review is tainted not by opinion, but by the widespread use of hyperbole. Hyperbole has nothing to do with opinion.
Opinion comments on reality and complements it by explaining a subjective point of view. Hyperbole warps reality. There's a whole world of difference there.
Quoting you from the official FFXIV forums about this review's post.
"A review is not an opinion piece. A rant is an opinion piece (and a poor one). A review needs to be solidly based on facts. Not on hyperbole. On facts."
You are basically contradicting yourself here. In this discussion on this site you are saying opinions in reviews are allowed... yet on the FFXIV forums you say that they can only be comprised of facts? How embarrassing.
It's not written by professionals either. I take no issue with the score, it isn't the score I would give it but it's in line with other reviews of the game in its current state. There is certainly plenty to be critical of, the company itself has admitted such and that is why much of it is changing.
The issue I take was how horribly it was written. There was literally no useful analysis of the game's systems contributed by this article, and the reviewer's knowledge of the game was that of someone who had played maybe to level 5-10 if even that. More than likely she played the game 2 days, the whole lead into the article "she has been spending a lot of time" is a total lie. If she truly had been playing this whole time surely she would have had something more substantial to say about the game.
On the most points, i agree with this Review. I started with the Pre-Launch Pack and i was full of so much hope in this Title. I played like 3 or 4 Days and i feeled allready pissed off, by creating my Account on the Website. It tooks like over an Hour, to fucking figure out, WTF 2 DO there... After sucsessfull registration, i still wasnt sure, i did all correct, specially about the final coasts.
Anyway, after logging in, everything doesnt fit and feels well. Questing becomes booring in less then 2 Hours or something, controlling sucks like Hell and Graphicperformance, even on Medium or Low, sucked.
Maybe Today there some Fixes made, im not sure. I feld in too deep depression about FFXIV, that i never followed anything, anymore.
Comments
Any game that relies on miracles patches isnt good to start off...
So no, even if they release 400 miracle patches the game will still suck at its core, because the problem is there, and the core of a game can't be changed without changing the game itself..
"It has potential"
-Second most used phrase on existence
"It sucks"
-Most used phrase on existence
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
yep i beta tested this game briefly and was shocked that yes they still managed to have a terrible UI, which considering how bad FFXI 's was that terribad. This game though is probably worse than FFXI which is almost amazing in and of itself botton line review is spot on , just walk away ......
I haven't logged in in quite some time, but this was exactly what I had to say. I beta'd, bought the CE and while I was disappointed, I still haven't given up hope on this game. Yeah, they rushed it out and it wasn't ready, but with the work they've put into it, it's come a long way. With 1.18, while I don't expect it to magically fix the game, it should certainly improve it A LOT. With all of the changes inc, I was a bit surprised to check the site today and finally see a review... Seriously? As a writer, why would you waste your time and write a review that's meaningless in such a short amount of time especially when the game has been out for so long now? Sure, they put a disclaimer at the beginning of the piece, but still, seriously?
"Rumor has it that auto attack, and a serious overhaul of the combat system, is coming in the upcoming patch."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGmUoY7Gqzc&feature=player_embedded
Cya credibility.
Stating things are rumours, that have been posted on the official site, is another great example they don't.
I have to wonder how bad a game has to be to get below a 5.0. There have been many conversations about how scores are skewed so heavily to the top of the rating system, and yet a game that isn't even worth 14.99 to the reviewer is getting 5.1 which, if the rating system had any sense of all, would mean there is just a tad bit more right than the wrong with the game. I know that is not the case sense most games barely get below a 7 and are considered terrible but geeze... 5.1 for pretty graphics and music? This is not my opinion, this is just me reading the review and wondering how the score and the review don't reflect each other.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
I'm glad you don't like the current system because they're changing it very soon.
It's been the topic for much controversy over the years.
He who keeps his cool best wins.
"Rumor has it that auto attack, and a serious overhaul of the combat system, is coming in the upcoming patch. I truly hope this proves accurate"
I think adding "I truly hope this proves accurate" sort of takes away from it being just a saying, and emphasizes the rumour part. It truly is accurate, if you look at the official site.
True although the rumor of a change has been right along with it. I guess I will believe it when I see it.
Either way, I'd love to know how this computed to a 5.1 in the old system, specifically how the polish section even got a 4.0... i thought music and graphics was covered in another section.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
I do think the review was made some time ago, but it is a fair assessment of the game as it stands, sure there is the first of the game changing patch this week, it adds a bit of content and auto-attack. I do just wish for a ps3 re-review when that launch and then we will see.
I am keeping tabs of the game and some of the changes looks promising, the fact that the armory system is stll there (one weapon = one class) and supposed to stay there is iffy a bit. I will note that I wam waiting for the PS3 release and hoping there will be a new server to start fresh, that is one decision that SE took to overhaul almost the whole game and keeping the server open that I don't like. I don't want to play in a bloated economy where everything is overpriced by the lvl 50 crafters.
They need to reduce the time it takes to kill a MOB, and scrap the SHITTY market ward system for a REAL auction house. This would do wonders for making the game more fun.
Thankfully the community manager recognized that my ban wasn't justified, so let's kick some misconceptions out of the way. Shall we?
-If a reviewer knows that there's a major patch incoming just a few days from the publishing of his review. Then he simply holds the review back. They waited 10 months to review this game, 4 days aren't going to kill anyone.
This is not because the game may be better or worse than what is described in the review, but simply because the game will become DIFFERENT from what is described. A major change in the combat system, the addition of a sizable amount of content and more makes for quite a big difference. No journalist with a shred of integrity would knowingly post a review that will become obsolete and potentially misleading four days after. It's that simple.
In the case the patch doesn't deliver? Great. They can just post the review as is four days later (biiig deal), and everyone wins.
-There are clear reasons to believe that this reviewer didn't even play the game enough to get a valid impresson of it. ALL the pictures included in the article clearly come from the very early game (maximum a couple hours in). Now, either she's extremely lazy in taking picture of a game (that I could justify on a console, but on PC? where taking pictures is EXTREMELY easy?), or she didn't play the game more than a few hours and went to cherry pick around forums to copy/paste some rants that she could reuse.
Now, she might have nailed some vaild complaints, but a review isn't just a list of complaints. A gaming journo's duty is to extensively play a game for himself and THEN list the pros and cons, not cherry pick on forums to save time.
-The reviewer doesn't even know how to *technically* write a review. Seriously, lumping up the *functionality* of the UI with the graphics and going as far as using it as an excuse to lower the aesthetics score? That's fairly chuckle-worthy.
-If the review was written weeks or even months ago, then even more reason to scrap it without publishing. You simply do NOT publish an old MMORPG reviews, chances are that it'll be outdated, and this one is.
-This review is full to the brim with hyperbole. Every single negative point is extremized and dramatized with tabloid-like emphasis. That's not how you write a review. That's how you write a rant on a random blog. It flies in the face of any concept of a fair assessment of a game's pro and cons, and it gives the reader a faked impression of the game. If someone is so poor at getting concepts across that he needs such a widespread use of hyperbole, then he shouldn't work as a gaming journalist, that's really all there's to it.
Ultimately, this is one of the poorest reviews i've read in a while, and it's sad to see some people bending over twice to defend it. Unfortunately if the internet has thaught me together, are new and extensive meanings for the definition of "devil's advocate":
Too bad that the market wards system as it is now works pretty much exactly like an auction house, with more flexibility added as customers can also simply windows-shop (auction houses discourage impulse purchases, which are a very important part of any healthy economy) and see the 3D looks of the items they buy directly on a character.
I would agree that the wards as initially conceived were pretty poor, but at the moment they lack nothing than an auction house has. Demanding an "auction house" just beause it's named "auction house" is simply silly, and it would do nothing to "make the game more fun".
After reading a bunch of people rabbidly defending against this "unfair" review (that personally I find quite generous on the score side), I suddenly remembered another game that is defended before every single patch...
Anyone care to guess what MMO I'm thinking about? YES, IT'S Mortal Online!
I'm in utter disbelief that someone would say a review should wait MORE, for a patch.
if the review already waited for ten months (which demonstrates that they are in no hurry at all to review the review itself) and the patch is very sizable, it only takes a slight amount of logic to understand that it should be delayed.
I'm in utter disbelief that someone would think that releasing a review that has a very high chance to become irrelevant and misinformative after four days is in any way justifiable.
I read review, I waited some time for this how game improved since release. After reading the review I assumed the game is still bad as it was at release, too bad SE. Review after so all this time and review is exact the same as it was at release. I hoped this one will be good, I am giving hands off ffxiv game then. Need to look at something else. Ty for review, waited so long.
As reviewer said :
Two words: Look elsewhere. I simply will not recommend this title to anyone.
Review reminded how bad game is. I wonder why I had false hopes for this game. Time to move on.
Just another piece of evidence of the detrimental effects of poor gaming journalism, of which this review is a clear example.
http://www.play-mag.co.uk/opinion/games-journalism-is-broken-mainly-because-its-not-all-written-by-automatons/
Here's a nice piece for you to read, Abriael.
Enjoy.
No. Gaming journalism is broken because people use strawman arguments like the one you cited in order to slap out poorly conceived editorials and fill their shift.
There's a big difference between being an automaton and writing a completely cold description of a game, and writing a solid review strongly based on fact, fairly assessing a game's pros and cons, while still adding one's personal opinion.
A review is not an opinion piece, it's a mix between fact and opinion.
This review is tainted not by opinion, but by the widespread use of hyperbole. Hyperbole has nothing to do with opinion.
Opinion comments on reality and complements it by explaining a subjective point of view. Hyperbole warps reality. There's a whole world of difference there.
Quoting you from the official FFXIV forums about this review's post.
"A review is not an opinion piece. A rant is an opinion piece (and a poor one). A review needs to be solidly based on facts. Not on hyperbole. On facts."
You are basically contradicting yourself here. In this discussion on this site you are saying opinions in reviews are allowed... yet on the FFXIV forums you say that they can only be comprised of facts? How embarrassing.
It's not written by professionals either. I take no issue with the score, it isn't the score I would give it but it's in line with other reviews of the game in its current state. There is certainly plenty to be critical of, the company itself has admitted such and that is why much of it is changing.
The issue I take was how horribly it was written. There was literally no useful analysis of the game's systems contributed by this article, and the reviewer's knowledge of the game was that of someone who had played maybe to level 5-10 if even that. More than likely she played the game 2 days, the whole lead into the article "she has been spending a lot of time" is a total lie. If she truly had been playing this whole time surely she would have had something more substantial to say about the game.
{mod edit}
http://xivpads.com/?1595680
http://guildwork.com/users/murugan
On the most points, i agree with this Review. I started with the Pre-Launch Pack and i was full of so much hope in this Title. I played like 3 or 4 Days and i feeled allready pissed off, by creating my Account on the Website. It tooks like over an Hour, to fucking figure out, WTF 2 DO there... After sucsessfull registration, i still wasnt sure, i did all correct, specially about the final coasts.
Anyway, after logging in, everything doesnt fit and feels well. Questing becomes booring in less then 2 Hours or something, controlling sucks like Hell and Graphicperformance, even on Medium or Low, sucked.
Maybe Today there some Fixes made, im not sure. I feld in too deep depression about FFXIV, that i never followed anything, anymore.
/cheers
The Tripods