Darkfall Online - Review @ Eurogamer
 

They don't like 2/10.
More information.

Seems this review provoked Aventurine to respond and Eurogamer to defend its review.

I've already contacted another one of our PC writers, Kieron Gillen, who has agreed to review Darkfall. Kieron is a vastly experienced, award-winning journalist and one of the founding editors of Rock, Paper, Shotgun. I'll publish his review as soon as it's ready, and we will see whether he agrees with Ed or not.

It's safe to say that we've learned some lessons from this episode, and they will be beneficial when it comes to future reviews. In the meantime, any and all discussion of the subject on the forums and comments threads is fine. Just as game developers have to deal with the response to their work, so too do we, and you've every right to criticise and debate it.

Could get interesting I suppose.

The interesting point is that even writers for a respected site like Eurogamer play a game for just a couple of hours. The reviewer claims he played Darkfall Online for a whopping 9 hours. How can you form a qualified opinion about an MMO in only 9 hours, including the time to make screenshots ?!

Haha, lovely how they owned the reviewer by auditing his accounts.

I don't know whether I like an MMO until I've reached max level and had a decent taste of endgame content, which takes anywhere from 2 to 6 months depending on the game.
For example, my rating of WAR progressively changed:
Playing for 1 week: 7/10 (not so responsive controls and skills compared to WoW and poor graphics/performance ratio, i.e. it doesn't look so bad but requires a hell of a computer for it)
After 1 month: 9/10 (got used to the level of responsivness to the point I don't even notice it and now it's WoW controls that feel weird, discovered new areas, got access to more varied skills and builds, T2 and T3 pvp is awesome)
And finally after 3 months 4/10 (reached max level, encountered T4 pvp class imbalance, horrid lag and fps in fortress and keep rvr). I quit the game at that point

But to be honest, 9 hours is all I need to know I do not like a MMO. A 2/10 rating -and his explanation confirms this- means he hated almost everything about the new player experience. And the latter primarily consists in graphics, interface, and controls.
So I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's because his initial impression was so bad that he couldn't play it for more than 9 hours, rather than because of laziness or journalistic dishonesty.

At the same time, back in 1996 I declared that Fallout 1 was one of the worst game I've ever played and quit after only 30 minutes of character creation, intro video, and killing rats in front of vault 13. When a couple years later a friend convinced me to be patient and cope with this initial boredom, it turned out to be one of my favorite games of all time.
This phenomenon does apply to MMOs too, but that usually means trying the game again in a few months after a few patches went live.

That said, I have the feeling, real "MMORPG reviews" are rare. Most articles boasting this title are actually mere "reviews of the first impression/new player experience".
Eurogamer re-reviews are noteworthy exception to this statement.

Well, this is what happend to Age Of Conan reviews on release which resulted in inflated scores based on polished gameplay in the early levels, so I don't think 9 hours is anywhere near adequate for a decent review of a MMO.

That's what I'm saying, a game like Age of Conan should have never gotten good scores just because the early levels were good.
It's unfair for MMO developers but I think a 9 hours review giving a bad score is valid, whereas a 9 hours review giving a good score isn't. For the latter, one needs at least 2 months.

…unless the 9 hours bad score review is justifying it with arguments that would require extensive play, such as depth/cohesion of the story, end game balance, amount of content, etc.

I can't agree with that logic.

You've been replying to my posts so fast… I was still proof reading and rewrote quite a bit ;-) I tried to explain my logic in my first reply to this thread.

What do you find flawed about it? When you try a new game and you end up not liking it, on average how much time elapsed when it happens?

Only in the sense that there might be redeeming qualities about the game that requries extended gameplay and I believe 9 hours is just way too little time to judge a MMO. Applied to WoW you would have missed out on practially all gameplay.

As reviewers should with any MMO, playtest it thoroughly regardless of initial impressions. I might toss the game out right away if it's crap, but I'm not the one getting paid to do the reviewing.

The reviewer was obviously not doing his job and the developers's retort makes for great fun. It's not just developers cutting corners in their work. :)

Totally agree.

ed: heh, fixed double quote

Here's the quote from the greek
Darkfall-mobs on "Create a monster named after Ed Zitron":

Yep, but if someone doesn't like core elements of WoW (graphics, art design, interface, and controls), chances are they won't be able to enjoy any gameplay that comes up no matter how good it is.

Assume every single mob in WoW has 10% chance every hit of instantly killing players no matter their level. There's nothing you can do about it and it's totally random. The millions of customers who are currently enjoying all its content probably wouldn't anymore just because of this fundamental combat mechanism flaw. Tanks and healers would be useless, and all characters would spend most of their time in ghost mode running back to their corpse. 9 hours would be more than enough to find out how annoying this is.

For instance, the author complains about mobs running around in circle and because mouse controls are inaccurate it actually turns out to be a very effective defense mechanism. So no matter how good later content is, this core issue will prevent him from enjoying it.

It is an honest and true review. Darkfall deserved that. Heck even those 2 points are one too many! I applause Eurogamer for the courage! They have often more stern reviews, which is a good thing. Way too much trash out there that deserves the whip.

While I think the score is probably indicative of what most people would find in this game, please go back and check the screen shots if you haven't.

You can see his avatar's name. Not only are there three different characters in play (substantiating Adventurine's story), but the names of two are completely idiotic. It says a LOT about his attitude towards the review and who he is as a "professional" person.

Darkfall is a game I'd stay well clear of, but getting the score right (in my book) does not change the fact that this review is complete and utter garbage, and that it reeks of a deliberate attempt at slander. Which is weird, because Darkfall doesn't really need help to dig its own grave, from what I see on various forums.

Ouch.

My take, if anyone is interested, is this:

I believe that 9 hours is enough to figure out that a game is utter rubbish. However, if you're going to give it the worst score your site has ever given, and you only played it for 9 hours, you're leaving yourself wide-open to attack. If you do something like that, there will be pushback, and you had better have your armor polished and sword sharpened to deal with it -- and for *that,* you need to play much more than that.

(However, if what they say about the logs is true and the reviewer only spent about two hours in the game, then yes, he's being unprofessional -- even if he's entirely right, he's not right for the right reasons.)

I have an account for Darkfall, but I don't play.

I knew what it was about before going in, so I wasn't taken by surprise.

Considering the size of the team and the complexity of making an MMO that actually works, I will first say that I was extremely impressed that it DID, in fact, work.

No technical issues to speak of, and though it most definitely isn't a sexy looking game - it looks decent and the environments are quite pretty. However, the character models and animations are abysmal, but ok, you can't have it all with a team that size.

I don't agree with some of the UI choices, but I do agree with others. I think the inventory system done UO style fits the game perfectly. This game is about your skill as a player - not your character. So, making the process of looting also be about your skill as a player makes sense to me, though I understand it might not to many others. Some people will consider it a "fight" with the UI - instead of realising why it's a deliberate design decision. The game is about fierce competition, and once you have someone dead - it's about who can loot most efficiently, or go for what's most valuable. I'm sure it'll be an endless cause for frustration for those who're too slow, but for "talented" looters - this is perfect. It actually makes the "thief" role possible, and you can come a long way simply by having nimble fingers - and looting whenever the opportunity arrives.

Beyond the competition aspect, it's refreshing that they moved away from the horrible "grid" system that's become so popular. You can have any amount of bags, so it's not a concern to sort your loot unless you're as ignorant as the reviewer in question. It's about weight - and they're being incredibly generous with how much you can carry, so that's hardly an issue. Most Gothic fans will appreciate near-infinite capacity without having to fiddle around with inventory restrictions.

Now, the interface-mode key is a decision I don't agree with, and I don't understand how it helps the game be what it wants to be. It doesn't really involve a player challenge as much as it's an annoyance - and as such it's needless. I remain undecided if this is an intentional thing - or they just didn't know how else to work interaction out. But it sucks, to be quite frank.

Anyway, I was very impressed with the gameplay and design vision of the developers. They certainly know what they want to do, and they have some pretty great ideas. I love how they enforce first person, except for the tight "over-the-shoulder" when doing melee. This means you can't "cheat" and get to see your enemies approaching. They also make excellent use of surround sound, and you'll need that to have a chance at being prepared. Sadly, the quality of the sound effects is even worse than the models and animations, and just might be bad enough to detract players who'd otherwise be interested.

I really love how they've removed the titles from PCs - so you have to actually spot a player to get any info about them. You can stealth "naturally" by using your environment and not making unnecessary sounds. This means you can actually get away from murderous players by being clever, and using your surroundings to your advantage. Pretty fantastic notion that should be standard for all games that cater to this kind of audience. It would never work in WoW, of course, but that's another kind of game entirely. Also, you don't magically know anything about opposing players (apart from their name) - so you'll never know for sure if someone is weak or strong - unless you get some inside information. Another wonderful aspect that helps control ganking, to an extent.

I think the review is a joke and the person reviewing is about as ignorant and uninsightful in terms of the history of gaming as they all are these days. The difference is that he's too "stupid" or "brave" to even attempt being objective about it. He wears his ignorance as a badge of honor - which is not a good sign. The typical gamespot-type would have been more objective and probably have given the game somewhere between 4 and 7 - with some polite attempts at being fair.

It's ok that you have no clue what you're reviewing and what the game is trying to do, but to be loud and obnoxious about it is pretty sad. Now, I know there are several people out there who're not aware of what the game is trying to do, and how it appeals objectively to a certain audience - but they're not obligated to know what they're talking about. I think a reviewer should, at least, have some understanding of how not every game is trying to cater to the mass market, and that not every "hindrance" to the player is a detriment to those who're into that kind of experience.

At the very least, they should have the common sense to understand that developers don't spend ~8 years pouring their hearts into something that's entirely shit. No one is THAT incompetent, and even if the game is horrible in most ways you'd want to be different - it probably has SOMETHING to appreciate, and the developers must have had SOME idea of what they were trying to do. That's what a competent reviewer would investigate to arrive at some kind of objective conclusion. The score is mostly irrelevant, but at least mention what the game is trying to do and explain in detail why it fails. But we have no good reviewers left - so why should I care. I don't need them anyway, and the casual market will go with the flow regardless of whatever history has gone before. They're 99% market driven anyway, so in 9 out of 10 cases - the bigger the budget, the larger the audience.

However, my own conclusion is that the game isn't finished in terms of content. They haven't implemented housing, prestige classes, overall skill cap, and things of that nature that I was looking forward to. Beyond that, the genre really isn't healthy for me, nor do I have the time to invest. But it's definitely one of the most interesting MMOs released in several years, and if I was in a different situation, I'd certainly play this before most others. But then, I never was a theme-park dude.

I agree Prime Junta. Though, how would playing more suddenly make you "right for the right reasons"? If the things that make you hate the game are present from the start and at every subsequent minute playing the game, what would playing more bring to his judgment? Only more frustration.
Here's my prediction of what his review would have been like had he played for 100 hours:
"After 2 hours playing I hate the game because core elements A are extremely annoying and frustrating"
"After 10 hours playing I discovered cool feature/content/gameplay B but because of problem A I couldn't enjoy it."
"After 50 hours I discovered cool element C but because of A I couldn't enjoy it."
"After 100 hours I discovered cool element D but because of A I couldn't enjoy it."
"Conclusion: there is much that in theory could be enjoyable about this game but because of core problem A you enjoy none of it hence 2/10".

From a customer point of view, I don't see how this 100 hour review is any more useful. It's either I agree that A would be a problem for me as well and therefore his review offers valid advice, or A wouldn't disturb me and I can disregard it.
If I had to rate his review, it's 10/10 if what annoys him would also annoy me. Or 1/10 if it wouldn't, and I'd simply look for someone else's review who's also not annoyed by core problem A. I never expect a single review to fit all kinds of gamers and tastes.

Sad part about this controversy is that, (almost) no one ever complains when a precipitous review gives a good score. You don't need to justify yourself to say a game is great, and you even become a big traffic site doing so: IGN, Gamespot, etc.

Most people also assume that "reviews" are "an honest and objective analysis of the value of a game". This sparks frustrations and expectations. But really most of them are just "one guy describing his personal experience playing a game based on his own tastes".

So when this guy rates it 2/10, it doesn't mean that Darkfall and the years of dev work are worth 2/10. It means that anyone who has the same tastes and expectations as the reviewer will hate the game.

Given his explanation (weird controls, annoying interface and inventory system, etc.) and unless it's factually wrong (e.g. a toggle option allows to auto loot, and disable the stop and right click to interact, etc.), his review is 100% accurate and valid at predicting the reception by similar gamers.

Just because someone else -due to his personal tastes and sensibilities- isn't bothered by these elements or is willing to cope with them, does it make the review any less valid?

Are you saying that objectivity is not vital in a review?

So, it is - in fact - a 100% subjective opinion and the reviewer shouldn't try to investigate how the game might appeal to a certain audience?

Have we really come that far from what reviews should be all about, I wonder.

For MMOs it's really important to play it for at least 20 hours before giving any review.
Age of Conan and WoW are perfect examples. Age of Conan has a great game rivaling many single player RPGs for the first 20 levels. The next 20 levels or so are ok, but after that it was like a totally different game (much worse and incomplete). WoW is not as pronounced but it's a similar situation (gameplay changes dramatically once you start reaching the higher levels, it's like playing 2 different games).

Objective reviews are more convenient: you don't need to read them critically. But we all know it's an ideal. Even when a review is mostly objective you still have to read it with caution: part of it might be terribly biased or factually false.

IMHO, a review has to be honest and factually true, that's the minimum. By "honest" I expect the reviewer to clearly state his bias and preferences. Once you know the bias, you know how you must read it and it's easy to extrapolate how you would feel about the game.

For example, assume a MMO with many fedex missions.
Objective review A will explain that "this game contains many almost identical fedex missions, players who usually enjoy this kind of missions will like this game, others will not".

Subjective review B will explain that "as a person who can not stand fedex missions, I found this game extremely boring and repetitive".

Is the second version necessarily inferior and less useful? This brings us to a fundamental question: What's the point of reviews?
- If it's giving an absolute judgment of value, then I agree subjectivity should be avoided at all costs.*
- But it's offering prospective buyers advice whether they will like the game or not and therefore whether they should buy it or not, then both reviews are equal to me. i.e. unless you're an idiot, you can easily revert the statement in B to "although he doesn't like this kind of quests, I do, therefore I will like this game, and his review has actually been very informative for me".

*Unless there's a set list of criteria which everyone agrees with and against which the game is assessed, a perfectly objective review does not provide an absolute judgment of value either.
The only "score" such a review could give is either "I was able to run the game on my computer" or "the game does not install/run properly".
Anything else requires an "if/then if/then" structure which prevents any single final scoring.

I'm not talking about perfectly objective reviews - because that's not possible.

I'm saying that people don't generally care about a purely subjective review from a stranger, because we have no basis from which to use this information. So he doesn't like the game, and evidently he understands VERY little about the history of gaming, and this genre in particular.

If that's the kind of review you find useful, I'm just going to have to disagree quite severely.

Why don't you take a look at the other Darkfall reviews that'll pop up, and you'll see how it's possible to be frank about the downsides of the game - whilst maintaining a semblance of objectivity. That's the kind of review people can use when they have little to go on, and not the random uninformed opinion of a person with no idea what he's reviewing.

Reviews are there to inform the uninformed - particularly those with no bias for or against a game already. You'll see a ton of players agree with this review, even without having played the game. They find it useful because it confirms their own opinion that they've based on little to no information. Those who're biased FOR the game, won't find it useful either - because they've already decided to support it.

The only people who really NEED a review - are those who're genuinely on the fence, and who're curious about what kind of game it really is. To have the opinion of someone who's totally ignorant of the genre and where it came from hand them this kind of totally blind review with utter bias is pretty damaging to the truth. If it turns out to be true that the reviewer hardly even played the game, well how is that going to benefit anyone who might have been interested if they heard some of the good things about it.

I'm not saying whether this particular review/reviewer is good or not.
I'm arguing that:
A. it's possible to write an honest and factually true low score review of a game after only a few hours if and only if:
1. the bad elements are present from the start,
2. they are factually true (for example: the reviewer didn't notice that an option in the control panel easily fixes it)
3. they remain unchanged throughout the game (for example: high level abilities don't dramatically improve the inaccurate controls encountered at low level),
4. they are fundamental issues which affect every other aspect of the game to the point where later good elements would unfortunately not make up for it and thus increase the initial score.

B. conversely and unfortunately for game developers, it's impossible to write a high score review after so little playtime, as you have described it perfectly with AoC.

Now if I had to judge the quality of this specific review, it'd have to pass the 4 tests I've described in A:
1. true
2. Since I've never played Darkfall, I can't tell. For the purpose of this discussion I'll assume true. If a Darkfall player proves otherwise then indeed it's a sorry excuse for a review.
3. That's where I'd have to agree with people who believe it's a bad review. But it's not totally impossible to determine in a few hours of play. Depending on the issue, asking veterans in game or looking at the list of features might be enough. For example, if the reviewer complains about distances and time spent running around, you don't need to play till the end to find out whether you get mounts at higher level.
4. Given the nature of the issues he complains about, I'd tend to say it's true.

Now I'll follow your advice and wait for other opinions. But if they confirm what has been said in this review, I'll have to admit this reviewer managed to write a valid review after only a few hours of play. A rare and unlikely feat indeed, but definitely doable in theory.

I think the comparison with books is relevant to illustrate what I'm trying to say. If the style is so unbearable from the start and doesn't change throughout the book that you can't even read/understand it no matter how interesting the story and characters might be, does the critic reviewing this book commit a professional crime if he doesn't read it to the last page? What would be the point/benefit of reading it to the end? Again, I'm assuming here writing style remains identical.

I think you misunderstand.

I haven't claimed it's impossible to write a factually true and honest review and give a low score - in a few hours.

I have no reason to doubt his honesty, and I have no reason to care how many hours he spent playing. It doesn't matter how many facts you bring up - because those facts in themselves don't make the game good or bad. It's how you present them and especially about whether you understand them and why the game is like that. Furthermore, if you can't present a single fact in a positive light - then maybe you're not being as honest and fair to the game as you can be. Even the worst games have some positive aspects.

The reason we have reviews in the first place is that facts in themselves aren't enough - because otherwise we'd have lists of them and nothing else. We need someone who understands gaming and who can look at a game from more than one angle.

I'm saying the review is all but useless, because the reviewer is totally ignorant of what the game is trying to do, and obviously he has little or no knowledge of the genre in itself. Beyond that, he's very obviously being purely subjective and he's biased in the extreme. Whether that's positive or negative bias is irrelevant, it's simply a problem when your bias is that evident and you blatantly ignore what kind of game it is, and fail utterly look beyond your own particular tastes.

I'm not trying to say that what he did isn't possible. I'm saying the reviewer is horrible and in my opinion should be fired on the spot, or at the very least reprimanded and handed games for review that don't require any kind of understanding of the history of gaming - like Tic Tac Toe. Though I'm sure he'd bitch about the UI all the same.

Indeed he openly expresses his disgust for this game. Does that necessarily make a bad review? Yes if you expect reviewers to refrain their true opinion and offer a moderate version instead.
His inability to present a single fact in a positive light could mean two things: either he's intellectually incapable or he really didn't like anything about the game. I agree with you, it's hard to believe, but it's possible.

If anything, the 2/10 score is surprising, from the text alone I would have expected him to give it a 0/10. In that regard, his review makes no sense because he doesn't explain what the 2 points were awarded for.

He seems to know MMOs in general: based on my own experience playing EVE and SWG, the things he said about these 2 games in this review are true. He obviously understands the concept of "sandbox pvp MMOs" and how we should expect different things from such games compared to LOTRO or WOW.

In this regard, I disagree that he "blatantly ignore[s] what kind of game it is" but agree that he "fail[s] utterly [to] look beyond [his] own particular tastes".
That's where we apparently differ: I don't mind when a reviewer clearly judges a game based on his own tastes, as long as he openly expresses them. Again I don't expect any reviewer to be able to write something that fits all types of gamers unless it's in the "if/then if/then" structure I've mentioned before, and which leads to no score.

Perhaps over the years I got used to the poor quality of (most) game reviews and instinctively lowered my expectations. If true, then indeed you're absolutely right. At the same time I believe my current expectations and the way I read and judge reviews is the right method to extract useful information from current reviews, and not be constantly frustrated by their poor quality.

I don't have any expectations, though.

I just haven't forgotten what I think a review should contain, and what I think is most useful to the potential readers.

But, obviously, if reviews like this are accepted these days - then I certainly have no reason to ever start expecting anything like what I'd prefer.

But, ok, we just want different things from a review - and that's fine.

I'd like to see reviews have the reviewers favourite & least favourite games listed at the bottom as standard so that one can get a context.

That might be a good idea - especially in this case. I'd LOVE to hear what kind of MMO he prefers, though I have a pretty strong suspicion.

Apparently he liked Everquest 1: "Not even old-school EverQuest - which was actually graphically superior- felt quite as stiflingly slow and ponderous in its levelling curve." and later "there's none of the charm of old-world EverQuest".

He doesn't really say whether he likes EVE but he respects CCP: "Its skill system is like a twisted version of EVE Online's, without the intricacy or CCP's talent".

While he doesn't say anything bad about EVE or SWG, he doesn't praise them as much as he does EQ1, WoW and WAR. He seems to prefer non sandbox games. If true, Eurogamer probably should have asked Jim Rossignol to review Darkfall, author of their EVE Online re-review http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/eve-online-re-review

To be honest, I doubt he ever played Everquest seriously, and I suspect those are words he just threw in to seem knowledgable. Why do I think this? Because if he ever really did play Everquest, he'd be able to appreciate, at least partially, some of the appeal of Darkfall.

He might still loathe it with all of his heart, but he'd have an understanding which would enable him to see the game for what it is, which is a throwback to certain hardcore aspects of the old days. Some might think this is taking a step back - but then again, others think the current trend represents steps back.

He simply doesn't strike me as someone who has ever played a sandbox MMO and enjoyed it.

Also, there's the detail that Everquest is SIGNIFICANTLY less visually appealing in every single way. Even the horrible character models and their animations are superior to what you find in Everquest. So, he's either got a serious case of nostalgia - or he doesn't know what he's talking about.

If you look at the world of Everquest and that of Darkfall - side by side - you'd have to be a stonefaced liar to claim Everquest looks better.

Yeah, that was good. Since there's no room for error there at all, and the numbers can easily be confirmed by the reviewer's ISP, that point can and should be made clear. If it's true, then how can Eurogamer stand behind its review?

If it's not, and the reviewer really did play the game as much as he claimed, then that's another story. But I'd like to know.

This is very interesting, I think. Reviewers should be able to trash something when they feel it's the right thing to do, but they also need to do their job in good faith. Right now, I'm siding with the MMO (just my gut feeling).

Aventurine refuse an additional review from Eurogamer.

Some quotes from an angry greek: