A week or so ago, a Eurogamer writer by the name of Ed Zitron reviewed the new MMO Darkfall Online. The boy Zitron wasn’t impressed, giving it a measly two out of ten. That was just the beginning.
Darkfall Online developer Aventurine – more specifically associate producer Tasos Flambouros – subsequently “called out” Eurogamer on the Darkfall messageboards, claiming that according to their server logs, Mr. Zitron had only played the game for around about two hours. Two hours is nowhere near enough time in which to get an accurate and fair opinion of an MMO, the developer claims – whilst Zitron argues that the server logs are wrong, and he spent more like nine hours of playing time with the game. Ed states that the game is a “torrid husk of an entertainment product” and really goes to town on it before levelling the final volley in the form of a terrible final score.
I’ve been in the same position as Ed – although obviously, I don’t work for a site with a fanbase as large as Eurogamer – and I totally see where he’s coming from. I’ve reviewed titles that are pretty much unplayable pieces of crap, given them a score that is representative of that fact and watched as over the next few days, I’m called all the names under the sun by a rabid fanbase that somehow manages to see past the game’s obvious flaws and who absolutely won’t hear anything negative said about their game of choice. Inboxes fill up, comment forms suddenly become incredibly popular and you’re taken out into the town square and strung up by the villagers – just for having an opinion. Your site is rubbish. Your mother, father, sister and dog will all be killed by frothy-mouthed Europeans who can’t string a sentence together without using ninety exclamation points, and you can’t do a thing about it, since these folks won’t even consider listening to reason. It sucks, but everyone’s entitled to an opinion.
Before I had even read the review, I had read stacks of forum posts saying that the game isn’t great – but I haven’t played it myself, so will reserve judgement entirely. It isn’t hard to believe that it’s not the next World of Warcraft though, it has to be said.
Ed reviews games and writes articles for a living, one would assume. If word got out that he only played a game that apparently requires hours upon hours of playing time to be able to provide a fair review for only two hours, his phone wouldn’t exactly be ringing off the hook with new employers wanting him to cover products for them, would it?
However, it all gets a bit silly after Eurogamer are made aware of the criticism. Tom Bramwell, head honcho at Eurogamer writes a post stating that they’re aware of the criticism being levied by Aventurine and that they stand fully behind the article, and Ed Zitron. But, they’ll re-review it if that’s what Aventurine want. I’m not quite sure why you’d offer to re-review a product if you stood behind the original review, but you can’t say that they aren’t being fair.
Aventurine absolutely and bizarrely DECLINE the re-review, going further into details about what Ed did whilst logged in to the game, and stating that they don’t want a re-review, they want a real review – which just makes no sense whatsoever. Aventurine keep saying that the review is a “fraud” which is not only grammatically incorrect – unless you’re saying that the review itself is trying to pass itself off as something else – but surely gives even more reason to have the game re-reviewed? They state that one reason for declining a re-review is that the score has already been picked up by Metacritic and Gamerankings, and “nothing can be done to reverse it.” If they had taken a second to actually email the boys at Metacritic’s games division, or indeed Gamerankings, they’d find that they’re fair and honest folks that would more than likely gladly help them out – but not everyone can be as thorough as they’d have wanted Ed Zitron to be, can they?
Maybe I’m biased towards the reviewer, but it seems to me that Eurogamer have done all they can to remedy the situation, and Aventurine have steadfastedly refused any offers of assistance from the EG crew, and are now just on a mission to tar Ed Zitron and Eurogamer’s good name. Award-winning journalist Kieron Gillen was lined up to pen the re-review for EG, but that wasn’t enough to sway Tasos and Aventurine. They “hope he will review Darkfall for another publication, but are not interested in another review via Eurogamer.” Again, that makes no sense in the slightest. Surely, if Kieron writes a review of a title, it’ll be more or less the same wherever it’s printed – especially after what’s gone on here?
I believe that Aventurine thought that they had started out with a relatively valid point. Even so, there are times when two hours is all it takes to review a game of ANY nature. You may want folks to play your game for eighty hours and become addicted to it – so they give it a glowing review – but anyone who’s been playing games for as long as most reviewers have, can see a digital stinker from a mile away. I’m not saying that I agree with Ed’s review – I haven’t played the game, as I mentioned – but I hardly see that he needed to spend the “hundereds” of hours of playing time that Tasos suggests he should in order to be able to pen a fair review.
With regards to Tasos’ comments about Ed’s chat logs, where he claims that Zitron asked other players what he had to do, and what the commands were in order to cast spells – well, that doesn’t make Ed look bad, in my opinion. Reviewers – more often than not – receive game code in non-retail format, meaning that manuals are not included. On occasion, you’ll get a photocopied sheet with the basics mapped out, or a PDF copy of the full manual itself, but it’s rare. Indeed, working out the sometimes confusing and fiddly control systems to the majority of games without having a guidebook becomes something of an art form when you’ve had to do it for the five hundredth time. If we’re to believe Aventurine and Tasos, this relatively experienced reviewer couldn’t work out how to play the game properly after TWO HOURS of playing time. For my money, that would indicate that the front-end of the game and any tutorial system that may or may not be included isn’t doing its job properly.
Aventurine appear to be a relatively small company that – probably – need this game to sell. Negative criticism from one of the bigger game sites around isn’t going to help that cause. Are they in the right for questioning the review, and being so incredibly public about it? Or are they just trying to get folks to part with their hard-earned money by any means possible?
What do you think? Should Aventurine have accepted the re-review? Was Zitron’s review really that bad? Have you played the game? What score would you have given it? Fire it up into the comments box.
As an addendum, I’d just like to add that when you have fans that would create the video below – they probably aren’t helping your argument. Zitron is a Care Bear? What? You won’t buy Eurogamer’s magazine and you’d never heard of them before? OK….
its tru DA GAME SUXXX
Heh that video is an inside joke, and quite funny, I guess you have to have played darkfall to get it. Or at least another mmo if you don't understand the word care bear..
I'm amazed these dorks think EG gives a flying toss about them. Or their crappy barely-a-beta MMO.
Seriously, if he thinks it is a 2/10 turd after two hours then it is likely the game is a turd. As with any other MMO you can tell if it is a piece of shit or not after that time easily. It might get less turdlike after 20 hours but the first few hours are what will drive players away in disgust.
Make the game less shitty.
ahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
That video is priceless.
I'm amazed that any of you people think that it's acceptable to review an MMO (something that requires a rather sizable investment of time) in about 2 hours. It's like a movie critic watching the first 10 minutes of the film then penning his review. How did this reviewer (Ed) form parties, engage in pvp, travel the world, play with his character build, DEVELOP ANY THOROUGH SENSE OF THE GAME aside from the fact that he didn't care for it?
Isn't that part of being a reviewer? Playing through content that you might not find particularly to your taste with the understanding that people outside of your view-point might enjoy the content? I can't stand Super Mario for example, but I understand the appeal, and I can see how SMG is a good game. It's a reviewers JOB to be arbitrary, to try and think in multiple perspectives aside from their own.
I haven't played the game myself, but I'm willing to give it a fair shake.
Fail on Eurogamer and their reviewer on all accounts. Extra fail to this article and defending shoddy journalism. It's bad enough that the gaming media is run by bloggers and enthusiasts, people with no real credibility or formal training.
Maybe I just expect a little more from my news and critiques. We all should, really.
Yeah, “fail to this article” doesn't make much in the way of sense, especially since I didn't say that all games could be reviewed in two hours. It is VERY possible to get the feel of a game in less than two hours, MMO or not. Again, that isn't to say that all games can be.
And you'll find that the gaming media is run by conglomerates and corporations, with fully paid staff. God forbid anyone else has an opinion, eh?
This YouTube video is quite phenomenal – after it I have lost any wish even to try this MMO
About the Eurogamer's score and 2 hours of gameplay- a reviewer better makes sure he/she knows the game through before giving it a sensational verdict. If the reviewer doesn't have time, so better he/she takes a safe route.
You're entitled to your. You seem to be hell-bent on claiming that all gaming journalists are “enthusiasts” – despite the fact that I know of at least ten who have degrees and qualifications and who write for non-gaming media also – and you are within your rights to do so based on your own knowledge of the situation.
If you still think that reviews are supposed to cover every possible section of a game, then think again. Maybe in the past, when games were four hours long, that would be the case. In the modern age of gaming, it isn't always possible to play a game for 30 hours to be able to render an opinion of it. And honestly – how many of those 30 hours would be spent grinding or doing some other repetitive task? If a reviewer thinks that two hours is all that's needed, then maybe THAT is the review in itself. If it doesn't want to make you play for longer than 2 hours, maybe 2/10 is a just score.
Sorry, but it appears that your reasoning is just plain flawed. Should a critic have to sit through an uncomfortable experience to grade it accordingly? Yes, IT'S THEIR JOB. Food critics taste unappetizing meals, movie experts watch wretched films. It's what they do, it comes with the territory. And in the case of an MMO, where the investment of time is fundamentally necessary to unlocking content by which you will grade the game further, it's critical. WOW would certainly suck as a mage it I judged it solely based on a 2 hours session of character creation and then using my wand to kill skeletons in Brill.
And if you seriously think that the gaming industry is this wonderful nirvana of creative and professional freedom, abounding with trained experts and articulate, intelligent personalities, then you need your head examined. So you can name off 10 that have degrees? Good for you. I can ramble of a much greater and seemingly limitless number of blogs and “professionals” with no journalistic backgrounds and/ or training. I think that you'll find the odds in my favor as far as this point of contention goes.
Anyway, as fun as this has been internet arguments aren't really my forte. Best of success to you in this industry – you'll need it. Cheers.
Wow, someone sure is tense!
A food critic would sample an unappetizing meal, but would they then need to do it over and over again for 30 hours to be able to say that it truly was unappetizing, and not just bad luck that first time? Zitron's points were quite simply that if he hated the game as much as he did, he wouldn't WANT to unlock the tons of awesome stuff that was around the corner, because the game engine itself would have ruined any benefits given by that injection of content.
I don't think the games industry is a wonderful nirvana or creative and professional freedom. I never suggested that it was. You, however, seem to be unable to accept that ANYONE who writes about games has any journalistic integrity, training or indeed, intelligence. I can ramble of more blogs and “professionals” with no training, since the ten people I mentioned were people that I actually personally know to have training. I can Google search and find a hundred blogs that are run by people who don't. Who cares? Unless you're seriously suggesting that the freedom of the Internet should be limited to those who are trained to put pen to paper? Ridiculous.
And thanks for the best wishes. I've been in “this industry” for ten years, so I'm doing well enough. Who'd have thought I'd get magazine articles printed for ten years, without ANY training? OH EM GEE!
The review by Ed Zitron wasn't just biased and an attack on Aventurine – it was flawed. Many of the the things he stated in his review were simply flat out wrong. He goes on and on about how difficult it is to do simple things but everything he says is not even remotely difficult. I have played the game without any problems at all and I do not claim it to be a 10/10 game but it is NOT 2/10.
And I very much so disagree with this article that 2 hours is enough. It is NOT. How can the person that wrote THIS article agree when they have not tried the game out themselves? You are blindly assuming that Ed is correct simply because you are a fellow “journalist”. You, like Ed, made a blind judgement on something without doing any sort of fact checking.
This isn't the first time Ed has been called out either. There are numerous independent companies in the past that have called him out for the same things Aventurine called him out for. But THEY HAVE PROOF! I don't care if Ed was telling the truth and played the game for 9 hours – still not enough time. It is an MMO and I don't care what you say you cannot possibly get an accurate sense of an MMOs depth without logging at least 20 hours.
Hey Retro, it seems the only one who is tense is you. TammeFaeForever never suggested that the industry was only made up of untrained enthusiasts, he merely suggested that the majority of gaming journalism is done my untrained enthusiasts. Sounds like this hit close to home for you otherwise why would you start listing off your resume.
You have the right to believe that a review can be done after 2 hours of play but for me that makes the review completely illegitimate. Why? Because I think, like TFF, that it is a critic's job to see what the game offers in its entirety. This is also why I don't read reviews from big sites like Eurogamer, because they don't feel it is a necessity to get the entire picture, but what ever the reviewer feels like is enough. I prefer my critics to wade through 60 hours of random dungeons in a Rogue like to tell me that the ending was a let down. You can't find the time? Then you don't have my traffic.
You are right no food critic would eat an unappetizing meal for 30 hours, I am also certain no food critic would eat an appetizing meal for 30 hours. However, a food critic would taste everything that is on the plate, even if they hate everything they tasted before then. Do you want to know why they would do this? To be able to give a fair review. The meat and potatoes might be awful but the sauce on the carrots was excellent.
A lot of fair points. I'm not particularly tense, since I have no affiliation with the game, Eurogamer, Ed Zitron or the review itself. That's more than can be said for some of the commenters here though.
TammeFaeForever repeatedly suggested that the industry was made up of untrained enthusiasts, I think you'll find. It didn't hit close home to me at all. I have training and I have paid work in the industry – as well as this site, which is my own project.
If you feel that a review written after two hours of playing time is “illegitimate” then fine. I would say that the majority of MMO titles can't be reviewed within two hours. However, if the reviewer – who is supposed to be giving a recommendation on purchasing the title or not – wouldn't play the game for more than two hours because he thinks that its a load of old rubbish, then why is that not enough? Surely he or she can fairly say “this game is rubbish, I wouldn't play it for more than 2 hours” without that being in some way unethical? I'm not saying that's what Zitron did, but it seems that everyone is expecting every reviewed title to be fully completed by anyone wishing to write a review of them – when that is neither practical, nor required in 90% of cases.
Where did I assume that Ed was correct, please? I said I'd never played the game – and I probably won't – so I can't pass judgement. For all I know, it could be the greatest MMO ever created.
I never said that 2 hours WAS enough to review Darkfall. I said that “there are times when two hours is all it takes to review a game of ANY nature.”
And I'm not blindly assuming that Ed is correct. I VERY CLEARLY state that I reserve judgement as I haven't played the game. I was posing the question to you guys, after presenting what I know – hence the questions at the end of the article.
A lot of fair points. I'm not particularly tense, since I have no affiliation with the game, Eurogamer, Ed Zitron or the review itself. That's more than can be said for some of the commenters here though.
TammeFaeForever repeatedly suggested that the industry was made up of untrained enthusiasts, I think you'll find. It didn't hit close home to me at all. I have training and I have paid work in the industry – as well as this site, which is my own project.
If you feel that a review written after two hours of playing time is “illegitimate” then fine. I would say that the majority of MMO titles can't be reviewed within two hours. However, if the reviewer – who is supposed to be giving a recommendation on purchasing the title or not – wouldn't play the game for more than two hours, then why is that not enough? Surely he or she can fairly say “this game is rubbish, I wouldn't play it for more than 2 hours” without that being in some way unethical? I'm not saying that's what Zitron did, but it seems that everyone is expecting every reviewed title to be fully completed by anyone wishing to write a review of them – when that is neither practical, nor required in 90% of cases.
You make no sense, Eurogamer fucked up, they should apologize to the developer and mostly to their own fans.
Awesome reasoning.
I realize this comment is a bit late, but I've just found this whole thing. This article seems a little one sided in some regards. Take the bit about forum posts. You bother to point out that you've found posts from people that think the game suck, but fail to mention at least that there as many posts from people who enjoyed it. Why present only half the evidence there?
That aside, the amount of mistakes about actual in game features in the 'review' is the main issue I see. I mean, Ed writes paragraphs of false crap about the game. You mention point that he wouldn't want to shoot himself in the foot, but I think that point is irrelevant. That benefit of the doubt you want to give him is negated by the glaring inconsistencies in the 'review'. They are there, he wrote them. He could have had preconceived notions about the game and was just looking for ammo to fuel his opinion without trying very hard. Or maybe he thought he'd get away with it since they're an indy company. I hope you can agree that a review is more than just an opinion; that opinion has to be based on facts about the product. So when this review is filled with so many false facts, why is it still published? As to Aventurine's decision to not want a second review. Stop for a second and actually consider their point of view. A second review is pointless when Eurogamer is still standing behind an article filled with false crap about the game.
Wow, personally, I have to agree with Ken in that you can review a game in 2 hours. Whether you should or not isn't the point and it's not what he's suggesting. Personally when I reviewed GW it was after about 4 hour's worth of playing. I created a character, jumped into the world and started playing. Whilst playing I was looking for glitches, loving the graphics and reading as many comments and chats in the chat bar as I could in order to get a feel for the community as I personally think that if a game is full of nobs, then that will also affect my review. Fortunately it wasn't, and it was a game that I spent many a happy hour playing.
Right now I'm playing UFC (missus is currently creating her own character) but, having played the demo for a few fights, spent about 40 minutes creating my character (yeah, I'm anal) etc, I believe that I can write a good review article. It does help that I have 18 year's worth of martial arts experience, including most of the arts that make up the game (I haven't tried wrestling), but I think that two hour's worth of playing this would be more than enough to say 'Yes this game rocks/sucks'.
TammyFae is right. If 2 hours was good enough for the review, then he should have been upfront about it and admitted the amount of time invested. People could gauge his credibility at the outset instead of assuming, like every other good reviewer, that he had actually spent time playing the game.
If he made the claim about its leveling system on 2 hours….well, that is indefensible.
I can't understand why you are defending it. Even when I was a kid, I knew writing a book report when I didn't read more than a couple pages was wrong. This is just basic journalism ethics here.
That's a hugely misaligned argument though, unfortunately. A book is sequential, meaning that you have to read to the end to find out what happens. A game – and certainly not this one – is generally not as rigid in form, and isn't being reviewed based on just the story anyway.
If you were reviewing a book where the pages gradually started to smell like someone had just farted, with that smell becoming worse every time you turned a page – I very much doubt you'd get to the end just so that you could review it ethically.
Wow, it’s actually funny to look at some of the responses here. I would have never thought that any kind of OPINION (apologies for the \caps lock\ moment) could be labeled as wrong or right.
As far as the Eurogamer review goes, that’s just another opinion. If any developer of any game can’t take criticism, then I’m not sure they should be doing what they do. People work to get the money to buy a game, and if it doesn’t satisfy them, of course they’re going to bash it down like a hammer on a piece of meat.
And I just noticed I am ridiculously late for commenting on this post. Sorry about that!