Hi Destructoid! Long time member, first time blogging. I recently read
Destructoid's Review of EVE Online and was so incredibly annoyed that I felt the need to write a rebuttal. I just want to emphasize that this
is not about the score but about the content of the review and it's lack of actual depth in the universe of EVE.
I get that EVE is a vast game and incredibly hard to get into. It's definitely not for everyone. But it's obvious to anyone who has put more than a few hours into EVE that this review is really shallow. If you could compare it to a console game review, it's as if the reviewer picked up a copy of Call of Duty: Black Ops, watched the intro movie and played part of the tutorial and called it quits. I get that tutorials are kind of dry in EVE but they are a necessary evil that the reviewer should have really completed before heading off into low-security or nullsec space. How do I know he did this?
Also, the extremely steep learning curve will destroy any sense of accomplishment you feel. At one point I was warping from point a to point b and was blasted out of the sky by a random person.
This just doesn't normally happen to tech 1 frigates or rookie ships in high security space as the other player would have lost his ship to concord, the game's non-player character security division. Many things in EVE are a risk/reward type of thing, yes you can attack player's in high sec but you will die (unless you are at war with their corporation or engaging in militia pvp, neither of these are applicable in this case), so you need to judge whether or not that target would be basically worth dying for. What I'm assuming the reviewer did was go into low-sec or nullsec, where concord doesn't exist and there he got destroyed. And loss is perfectly acceptable in EVE. You will die. But if the reviewer had completed the tutorials and the follow-up Sister's of EVE story arc he would have had a stockpile of frigates and several million isk (in-game currency) to fall back on. But Remedy, how would I know about the story arc? Well completing any of the main career tutorials sends you to it! And again if you hate tutorials than EVE isn't gonna be the game for you, but if you're going to review the game, put effort into actually what's in place to learn it.
Then the review proceeds to talk about the graphics and sounds of a 7 year old game like this was a 1998 gamepro review. Who knew Sushi X worked for Dtoid? Exploration? What's that? You wouldn't have learned about that feature in this review. Mining, trading, hauling, manufacturing, the nuances of pvp or pve combat... absolutely none of this was talked about. Instead you hear the completely factually incorrect statement that the "bigger ship wins." I guess knowing the score of the game put the reviewer to sleep is important, but isn't it also important to note that you can turn off the music and import your own playlist?
EVE is an incredibly difficult game to get into and many people won't enjoy it. But if you're going to do a review, something that readers take as a final judgment of a games quality, then do it justice. What the reviewer wrote barely scratched the surface of what this game offers. As a piece of writing, it not only does a disservice to the game and it's community, but to the Dtoid reader. The article did a terrible job of communicating EVE's features and would have been better served as a editorial piece instead of a review.
I know this is getting long so I want to thank anyone who reads this and any comments about how I may improve future blog posts are more than welcome!
i think, THAT IS, the message of his review, that's why he scored it that way.
i'm not really sure if i'm right on this, but i think it's okay if he scored the game that way. Okay, okay, let me explain first before you and your guys(if you have any) blow off the steam on me. Can't you see it? He can score it anyway he like, but surely, there are gonna be ALOT of other reviewers who might say otherwise...compensation man, compensation!
What happened to Call of Duty Black Ops? while MOST hailed it, what did Dtoid do? They said otherwise...compensation, you getting my idea yet?
Okay, go to metacritic. Look at their score, their score are based on the summary of alot of reviews that covered the title up, right? So, in a way, it's okay. It's okay that he said "forget it" because, and it's not really by chance, there are others who'll score that states otherwise. And I guess that's the lesson that you should look at here, no one really carries THE final say, it's just a point of view. Same to you, it's YOUR point of view that you see it unjust that the game is rated lower here, but remember that, it's only here, surely the other publication will say otherwise (am i so dang repetitive or what? :D). In the end, the game WILL get the score that it deserves.
So don't get all riled up just because ONE gaming site (especially the site you are on) did not do what you wanted them to do. Just go and stop thinking too hard on this, you can see that it's kinda spoiling your play now, am i right?...
And this is why I can't fault him for the score because EVE does do a terrible job at conveying these things. As I mentioned it warns you about low-sec but otherwise it just shoves you into this universe and says have fun. For many people it's information overload and CCP really needs to improve the beginning experience to make it new player friendly.
As for the point that it is the reviewer's review and his judgements his own perogative, that does not exempt him from criticism.
(...I wish people would stop presenting such vacant epistemologies.)
What I really like about the review, though, is the angle of pure-noob going against pure game. If there are things that you really should know, but nothing in game is pointing you to it (joining a corp, good battle tactic, good autopilot usage) then that's a failing of the game, through and through. Especially one that reportedly is about nurturing new players. In this light, ignoring things like the music and the basic feel of being in that newbie play mindset would have been a disservice.
I'll probably try EVE whenever I get around to getting a better computer. At anyrate, the world of it is really engaging. If that FPS entry into the universe pans out, I will most certainyl be all over that on consoles!
"(...I wish people would stop presenting such vacant epistemologies.)"
...okay, i'm sorry for that man.
It's not just you. Jim Sterling says something and a hundred people uphold it as a mantra. All of a sudden taste replaces critical ability and objectivity is synonymous with surrealist mysticism. Now reviews have grown to depict the reviewer rather than the game. And all this is validated by shoddy rhetoric.
you're right, they did become, looking like as if they're THE standards, as if THEY have the final say. But we all now they're not, and that's what i'm trying to say on my previous comment there(though now i looked back at it and...it does look like a "silly/crazy conspiracy" when i read it now, how embarrassing), it's just ONE point of view. This blog is one point of view, Destructoid's review there, is another point of view, yours is another point of view, heck, even mine(neutral) is another point of view. I don't know, it's just, everyone has their points...though yeah, i agree, they shouldn't have made that kind of review.
...i did another "vacant epistemology" there have i? crap, i'm so bad at explaining things clearly...or maybe my thoughts about this just sucked.
No it's the thing where the fact of one's subjectivity is used as a defense of one's point, as if the existence of a variety of points of view renders true all critique hedged from all positions. While I agree that availing of a diverse spread of opinions on a game is a wise and lucrative endeavour, allowing every position critical validity before-the-fact runs contrary to the principle of determining the vailidity of a critique through its merits.
In the comments to the EVE review, the reviewer defended his criticisms by pointing to his own experience as a legitimate basis, even in the face of some well-versed and even-minded detractors. Rather than conceding that his experience might not have granted him sufficient knowledge to properly assess the game, he asserted the self-evident validity of his review as indicative of his experience of the game, for better or worse. As it happens he made some good points, on top of which he layered some very bad ones, which doesn't make for a good review. It would be another thing altogether if he offered a perculiar take on the game under sound reasoning - upon when the diversity of points of view becomes a wonderful thing.
"In the comments to the EVE review, the reviewer defended his criticisms by pointing to his own experience as a legitimate basis, even in the face of some well-versed and even-minded detractors..."
ahhh, okay, now i get your point. I finally get your idea; You based your game on what you have experienced, it's honesty. But in this review, the flaw of that approach, is that not every experience is just like the experience of others. Times come where certain games just get dished-off because the reviewer, especially as a person not really interested in such type of games, simply did not like it...bias, if we could simply put it.
Bah!