MMORPG: SotA Review In Progress, Part 1

Well. At least that topic teached me a lot about what americans see (or don't see) as journalism.

 

He created something for public consumption. Whatever his opinions, I think he has an obligation to his readers to know what he's talking about.

SotA is in the unique state of being in active development AND playable 24/7. To make the game playable many system needed to be framed in with the most basic functionality. We've seen the process repeatedly - Create placeholder; Build framework on second pass; Add detail on another pass; Polish on a final pass.

The reviewer does a disservice to his readers when he omits this information. Everyone has a right to an opinion* but it's value is based on knowledge and experience. If a review said SotA sucked: many scenes were cloned, most NPCs are braindead and balance is whack without mentioning the iterative development process is it a fair review? Does it have any value? Is it a service or disservice to readers?


*Everyone has a right to be an a-hole too, but that's a different post.

 

I'd buy that game...

 

I have no Stockholm syndrome so i can understand his point. Why are you tebuting me for my review of his review anyway. You should be addressing the author about your concerns as i did not write it, i just agree with it.

 

I've removed several posts mercster and Earl, take it to PM, thanks.

 

First, I intentionally didn't write the review. I'm biased as all hell, so don't think there was any silliness behind the scenes there. =)

Just to defend a fellow writer a bit, reviews are by definition always opinion. You're right that [good] writers often try to account for their personal tastes and make sure the reader knows when something is subjective, verses being objective. The guy isn't wrong to objectively point out that the game isn't in fantastic shape, as you also noted. I don't feel that he really omitted anything, though. It's not his job to make excuses for the game's current state. His job is just to tell readers what he thinks of the game right now, and he made several very true points about some of the current deficiencies. There is absolutely nothing wrong with things not being 100%.

I think if there have been any PR mistakes in this project, one of the largest is being defensive about where the game is at any given point. This is a tiny team, building a massive game, and doing it in the open with all their dirty laundry hanging out. No one needs to make excuses, and probably shouldn't be. ESO had more people on NPCs, than there are working for Port. You don't expect SotA to have cutting edge everything. To be honest, if you did a similar review of Minecraft, you'd get similar deficiencies. Mojang owned their indie, though. Even after making $330 million, MC still has crap graphics and little content. Yet, you don't really hear people blasting them for it. I think in part, it's because they never made excuses for where they were, or tried to apologize for not meeting a crazy standard.

Starr has no hair, though. Bald people tend to make poor PR decisions, which is why they hired a guy with a lot of hair to face the community. At least, I'm pretty sure that was the thought that was behind the decision-making.

 

You said you applauded his review. I take issue with that because I see little value in an ill-informed opinion. People can be as critical as they want, but that criticism is worthless, possibly harmful when it is accompanied by ignorance of the topic.

Your implication that I'm a hostage is bombastic and completely uncalled for. You defend one person's opinion yet discount mine with backhanded ad hominem attack and without addressing any issue I raised.

To reiterate - How valuable is a publicly posted opinion when it is based on poor or missing information?

 

I am not here to argue with you. Stay on topic and quit making this personal

 

OK. Topic at hand. And I apologize for the ninja edit.
Let me add - Do you think this review was well-informed?

 

I think its accurate

 

Best honest review of SotA so far. You cannot expect everyone to be perfectly fair to the game. People have feelings and they come through from time to time... Nevertheless the overall of the review is correct and also reflects many reviews on steam - good and bad ones.

 

You already did

 

I thought it was already manipulated up to 7.8. Isn't that the standard modus operandi?

 

Yes, because apparently game, music, and theater reviews pass as journalism these days, which is the same problem that explains why we have to use the non-word 'flammable' on the back of trucks so people don't blow themselves up.

 

Berek deleted the last discussion of that Kind.
So i will keep it Brief: Wasn't actually a negative comment.

 

Just did that. Thanks for the reminder.

 

~The Future is Here in Gaming, But Are We~?'
I think he made a nice web site, but his video section tells a tale of not getting too many views...
I equate number of views to the number of viewers and the number of viewers, to how much it actually matters in the gaming world ...
With that said, the comments there on the site are less meaningful than those from our own forums members

I believe our game suffers as well as gains many things from being a MMO baby boomer game, who's average age is around (+ or -) 40 years old... "which brings all our references to UO and Ultima Prime".

~XBox Me~
Our interface is currently challenging and we all know it.


When our game can be played by one of these, then we're closer to the larger market of consumers.

~MineCraft Me~

When we've made it here, "we've made it!"

~We Can Become Everything to Everyone~!'
Our game I believe can be morphed into a much easier game, without loosing it's larger content or connection to our current game.

When we say that our interface is difficult or that it's just not needed, then we can see where the less high content user, could choose an easier pathway through it. "I do it" I enjoy a much more relaxed content while playing our game and I achieve that all the time. "Everyone does it" when we are out at our most favored low level areas just to pick up some common crafting goods and get back to crafting tables.

Our low level areas and our crafting could be reduced into a smaller interface and allow our game to then reach into these above mentioned markets and more simple controllers.
"You can't tell me that our more mundane game play couldn't be easily fit into one of the small devices"
It's possible and we need to do it because everything in large market share is moving that way...
~Time Lord~

 

Good thing you're not a developer then.

When I buy a video game, I expect to play a video game. Video games are supposed to have an engaging experience. How you interact is just as important (if not more so) as any other part of the game.

For crying out loud, I've played roguelikes that felt better, had better UI and had better conversations than SotA...

You also seem to be missing the point of combat; it's supposed to be FUN. "Functional" and "balanced", while very important, are not the only contributors to making the experience fun. It's subjective, sure, but that's why "look" and "feel" are important qualitatives.

If it doesn't look cool or if you don't feel any excitement from it, then your game is just boring. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how deep or introspective it is if it's boring.

That's the main counter-argument, isn't it? "he didn't get it" or "he didn't do enough research". I tell you what: if there's any mis-information, MAYBE that's because the game is terrible at conveying that information to the player. Mis-informed or not, that says a LOT about a game.

The only thing that makes a review good or bad is how biased or unbiased the author is; the rest is a direct reflection of the game's quality.

If the game doesn't improve on every aspect, you're about to see a LOT of mis-informed reviews in the coming future.

 

Here's something I can totally agree with you on.

The game is horrible at explaining how or why to do certain things. It's not the UI or the Graphics that do that though, it's more about how intuitive the mechanics are and the author of the review did hint at this in passing but didn't focus the review on it. If UI and Graphics was what people were after, they could've just looked at the screen shots and the videos and saved themselves some money, couldn't they?

Cute. Yes, the game needs to improve in a variety of ways before it will be a long term commercial success. But the review we're talking about didn't do a very good job of focusing on what actually needed to change or why it needed to change.

If you value reviews like that, then that's where we differ. I prefer more value and a sharper eye. That goes for positive reviews too, they're often just as poorly written and filled with distracting information and over done narratives. But what do I know, I'm obviously biased in favor of the game, which is why I'm playing so much of it and enjoying myself. I guess in my opinion the future is very bright because once the game is easier to digest, I believe the average gamer will be having as much fun as I am.

 

I agree with Ice Queen and I agree alot of what is said in the review.

I like this game and have very high hopes for it BUT there are problems....