Age of Conan - Eurogamer Re-review

woges

SasqWatch
Original Sin Donor
Joined
October 26, 2006
Messages
2,080
Location
UK
Eurogamer lower their score to 6/10 for AoC.
And yet... Despite all of this, Age of Conan remains, somehow, a compelling game. Its world is undeniably beautiful, albeit somewhat small and restrictive compared to many of its rivals'. The combat system is still hugely entertaining - fast, visceral and immediate, in a way which no other MMOG has quite managed - and some of the classes, like the Herald of Xotli and the Demonologist, are genuinely innovative hybrids that are great fun to play and master. Moreover, Conan's lore is appealing - his world a fascinating one to explore.
More information.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
2,080
Location
UK
Ouch. Eurogamer tends to have more critical reviews, which I like. I guess AoC deserved that.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
555
Location
Germany
6/10 on Eurogamer means it's still a decent game.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
7,830
Oblivion got 10/10..

At any rate, the one thing I like about AoC is variety - it's different than the other MMOs. Other than that, it's mediocre (content, pvp, etc). Most MMOs are too similar to WoW, and if I ever stop playing WoW, the last thing I'm going to do is go play a game that's almost exactly the same.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,583
Location
Bergen
Alpha of Crap is exactly that - a piece of BS. That gaming magazines like Eurogamer or PC Games now lower their scores is an act of complete hypocrisy. What are we supposed to think of gaming sites that first tell people to go and buy a game and later on say: "Ups, we're sorry... the game is crap, but we couldn't say that as long as Funcom was paying us money for advertising the game." Did the game become worse since release? I seriously doubt that... the game was crap all along, but obviously Eurogamer and PC Games giving out scores according to how a game could be in a few months or years. Awsome! But hey where great visionary poets like Oli Welsh are at work everything is possible...
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
758
May I ask the question since many have often remarked that Eurogamer is a poor gaming website. What is wrong with Eurogamer? Does anybody know the back story behind their complete incompetence?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
720
Location
Denmark
I disagree. No site is perfect but I find Eurogamer one of the better ones. Their original review ends with "...We can, in some areas, see trouble ahead..." and "...In the next six to twelve months, Age of Conan will live or die on how successfully Funcom can address these issues. Right now, though, the game as it stands is a rough diamond...".

I see no problem re-visiting the game and deciding it has not evolved / improved as it should have. Everyone should know an early review of any MMO is limited in scope.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
That might be true, but that still doesn't justify awarding a grade that is dependant on improvement or conditional of improvement. No matter what kind of game it is and no matter what circumstances the game has been reviewed under, the game should always be reviewed in regard to what it actually is and not what it could be in the future.
It completely undermines their own credibility and misleads consumers into believing the game is better than it actually is.
People use reviews as a tool in a decision process of whether to buy the game or not, and Eurogamer mocks and undermines their own function. They're guilty of hype.

You can not principally re-review a game and give it a lesser score when the game has actually been improved. Something internally at Eurogamer is wrong then.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
720
Location
Denmark
I still see it differently. MMOs are always a shifting landscape and early reviews are always snapshots; on release, end-game content is of limited importance. A year (or whatever) later?

Look, I don't actually play AoC (or any MMO) -- for all I know they are completely wrong with both reviews. That said, I don't have a fundamental problem with a re-review that says the promised updates and high-level content have failed to materialise, so the game doesn't have as much to offer as we expected with our early review.

This article would do better to lose that score, though.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
I still see it differently. MMOs are always a shifting landscape and early reviews are always snapshots; on release, end-game content is of limited importance. A year (or whatever) later?

Well, in this case that is not true. Age of Conan received negative reviews and discussion almost entirely because of its poor end game content. Age of Conan got the initial score by Eurogamer under condition that the game improved, it didn't sufficiently, and now they lowered the score to accomodate something that never existed, which is absurd. They should have given it a low score to begin with and a higher score afterwards if Funcom actually had improved the end game content.
But MMOs are without doubt dynamic creations and they should continuously be revisited because of this. Eurogamer just didn't use an appropriate methodology. It is also too soon to revisit Hyboria.

In my opinion you shouldn't do early reviews for MMOs but early impressions instead. And you can't excuse reviews for being "early".

Look, I don't actually play AoC (or any MMO) -- for all I know they are completely wrong with both reviews. That said, I don't have a fundamental problem with a re-review that says the promised updates and high-level content have failed to materialise, so the game doesn't have as much to offer as we expected with our early review.

I guess we see this differently, yes. Expectations shouldn't belong in reviews but in previews.
I don't have a problem with re-reviewing a MMO and criticising it for not having delivered the promised updates that add further content (Though not with a lower score). Broken promises should have consequences. The problem is just that we are speaking about content that should have been in the game from launch, and therefore the game should have received the same treatment as singleplayer games that are released unfinished. You can't score a game 9/10 when it is released under condition or promise that the developers fix what is broken. This would open pandora's box because of the fluid definition of what is a finished game and when should the game be finished. You should review what you have.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
720
Location
Denmark
Back
Top Bottom